|
The
recent talk of a possible GM-Nissan alliance has stirred a lot
of analysis, second guessing, and "what-iffing" by
anyone remotely close to, interested in, or amused by the
prospect. Much of the discussion centers around what Carlos
Goshn, chairman of Renault/Nissan, would do for/to GM that the
current CEO, Rick Wagner wouldn't/hasn't. One analyst,
positive on the potential, described Mr. Goshn's strengths as
"knowledgeable, brilliant, and ruthless". Another
analyst, a GM advocate and semi-insider, expressed concern
that Mr. Goshn's ruthlessness would be "counter to GM's
culture and could have a disastrous effect" on GM's
ability to work out of its present problems.
Though
in agreement that Goshn is "ruthless", these
opposite impressions of the benefit/risk of such a trait bring
to mind that maybe we don't all agree on what being ruthless
truly means. Does it mean moving swiftly to make the tough
decisions necessary to get the company back on track? Or, does
it mean running roughshod over any and everyone who gets in
his way while laying waste to the culture that bound people
together? Is the difference solely one of perception?
To
answer these questions, let's look at a hypothetical business
going through hard times. It's been around for a while, with a
number of long term employees who helped form the core of how
the company does business. This core is what I call the
"culture". It speaks to how the employees of the
company relate to its customers, its suppliers, and even to
each other. It's different from the business "model"
in the sense that the model is hopefully a purposeful
(strategic) description of what business the company is in,
what products it makes, and what markets it serves. The
culture just develops, usually cultivated by a founder/leader.
When the culture and the model mesh it is a beautiful thing to
behold.
Make
no mistake, both the model and the culture can be flawed, even
dysfunctional. In some cases, like GM's, the culture isn't
dysfunctional or flawed but is having a difficult time
accepting that the business model is no longer serving the
consumer's interests. When that happens, look out. People
start confusing how they do business with what business they
do; how they relate with how they operate.
To
successfully challenge, and fix, this dichotomy requires
focus, clarity, and commitment on the part of the leadership.
The current situation is no longer working properly and people
are scared. Their jobs are at stake. They want to help but are
often limited by their home-grown experience. The last thing
they want to hear is that what they're doing has to change.
But, moving quickly may be the only hope to save the company
from itself.
Leadership
needs to be open and honest during these times. It mustn't be
capricious but it can't back down either. The fate of the
company is at stake. Mostly, leadership needs to be committed
to a goal that overrides all obstacles, "ruthlessly"
staying the course, despite the inherent resistance they will
encounter. Carlos Goshn did that and saved Nissan.
Wagner
may be doing it as well. The perception by a lot of industry
analysts is that he's, a) taking too long and, b) not finding
solutions to the heart of the problem: overcoming the
perception that GM is no longer in touch with the consumer. In
short, he's not ruthless enough in pursuit of the goal to
bring GM back to its position of global dominance.
Most
alliances don't work, often because the organizational
differences overcome the operational synergies that exist. It
is important for both sides to come to a common understanding
and agreement of what is needed for the overall good of the
company, not just those who have a vested interest in
maintaining the status quo. Frankly, ruthless might mean being
committed and passionate about saving the company. Thought of
that way, ruthless sounds pretty good.
|
