General Motors CEO Dan Akerson is 64-years-old. While he’s got nothing on Bob Lutz, who is 81-years-young and still in the business, reports are indicating that Akerson’s retirement may happen within the next three years, based on his revised compensation according to GM’s annual proxy statement.
While GM’s PR team can’t speak for what Akerson will actually end up retiring or not, his compensation restructuring — which saw a 44% increase in 2012 from 2011 — was based on the that intention, according to Automotive News.
Who would replace him is completely left up to speculation. While us enthusiasts champion Mark Reuss, the numbers-driven success that Tim Lee is currently overseeing in China cannot be ignored.
Comments
Nothing personal, but I would like to see him step down from the board before that time. It’s time for a new chapter, and I would rather he not be allowed to hand pick his successor. The next CEO should not serve as chairman, either.
Well, he lasted longer than Witacre…
While I think Mark Reuss is one of the best car guys in the business, I think he’s fine where he is now. I’m pretty sure President usually has more influence on the cars that are produced than the CEO anyway. The CEO should be a top notch businessman, a counterpart to Reuss, such as Tim Lee.
The same Tim Lee who wants to import Chinese built cars into the United States? No thanks.
Glad to see him “go”. Then the speculative alternative to him, I’m not sure. We don’t need Chinese built GM cars in AMERICA either.
Love Mark but he is not the guy for the top yet. He has much more to do.
Also the one to take Dan’s place needs to be a good business man as much or more then a car guy. He needs to delegate to people like Mark to handle the building and development of the cars. The Chairman needs to worry about paying for the product and for dealing with the politics of running a company.
Like it or not we need finance guys as much as car guys. We just need finance guys that will trust those entrusted to bring the product.
Read Lutz Book Car Guys and Bean Counters and he will be the first to point out you need a good balance at the top and a good trust to delegate the needs to the people who know their area best. It is part of being a good leader.
Anyone would be better than this clown. You know why Toyota has been kicking GM’s ass for 20 years? In the Board Room, they talk about cars, not stock prices. That book “On a Clear day you can see GM” explains it all. Until this changes, GM will continue to lag behind Toyota until the next BK.
I survived Roger G Smith , the 1980 350 diesel , and the 200-4r trans !
*after thousands in repairs and a class-action suit*
Can`t we shop around for a Alan Mulally ?
Roger B Smith was as bad as it gets.
Mulally was the guy that kept Ford from going BK. When he went to Ford he immediately saw that they were under captialized (even in a good economy) so he sold off some stuff and borrowed some cheap money. GM and Chrysler were scratching their heads at that move, then a few years later they had to go BK.
To be honest the Book on a Clear Day You Can See GM is one of my favorites.
But much of what is in that book no longer applies with the recent house cleaning.
Like it or not Dan is a finance guy but GM needs a strong finance guy right now with the spending they need to do. But Dan also is smart enough to let people like Mark Ruess do their jobs and get cars approved that would have never made it in the past.
How did Mark get the Z/28 approved? Took Dan for a ride. Dan has shown trust in his automotive people and as long as he continues things will continue to improve.
Getting the right people in place and enabling them to do what they do best and trusting them is what a good CEO will do. They may hold the line now and then as even the auto minded people can get out of hand but it is a good working relationship that counts and makes a corporation work.
Again Read Lutz boon Car Guys and Bean Counters and get a more up to date picture of where GM is going. Delorean’s book was good for the past but is a poor look at the present.
He made GM Ake his whole tenure at GM.
@joe It seems that you’re antagonistic to Mr. Akerson’s work at GM. Could you elaborate on why that is?
Thank you Roger B Smith for this !
http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1987/Judge-OKs-$19-5-Million-Settlement-in-GM-Transmission-Case/id-e57b7a11881d11a716ad9963c4c90dfc
Akerson didn’t do a bad job but I think there might be someone who can do a better job
Seems we have another lower case Joe. Awesome. R.I.P. “joe.” I’ll rename myself now.
Anyhow, not going to waste too much time, but I hate to see Roger Smith vilified as he actually did a lot to save the company (Akerson is another matter)… Those ripping Smith need to research what it was like around GM BEFORE he took over, IMHO.
The real issue was the layers of GM were so messed up that it was difficult for GM to change even with the work of a CEO.
Too often they were so insulated from what was going on and many were only doing what they were told and not what they could do .
For example Lutz asked the guy in charge of the stampings why GM could not have tighter panel gaps. He said that they could do it but were not told to do it and were not allowed to make this choice themselves. Lutz told him to fix it and anything else he saw that needed fixed.
Lutz looked at the last Impala and said why did you not put chrome around the window frames to make the car look better. He even asked the guy does the car look better and richer with them. He said yes but he was not told to do it and it would cost more than he was to spend on the trim and was afraid he would be in trouble. Lutz said you can get in trouble for putting the chrome on but if the car sells better things will work out or he could leave it off and let sale fail and still be in trouble. What is the right move.
This is the kind of thinking Lutz brought in and Wagoner and Akerson Trusted people like Lutz to do. Today Mark Reuss and others are carrying this on. The Cruze was attacked for have too much content for the money. They demanded cut backs and Marks said not. Dan backed him up.
I think most would be hard pressed to point out anything Dan did wrong or has set GM back. He has managed the money well and let them grow as a company as they rebuild. He has delegated work to people who take charge of their responsibilities vs. just passing them off as they did in the past.
There still is a element of the GM past in parts of GM but they are getting weeded out as time goes on. Dan has been a good steward not to let them regress into the old ways. GM could have slipped right back to where they were but today they are still moving forward.
The repair of GM will take a full 10 years if all goes well with the economy and anyone who thought this was a 5 year or less fix really needs to learn how messed up GM was and how much needed and still needs repaired.
Dan may not be a charismatic kind of guy but I can find little fault so far. Are there things he may have done better.. .Yes but who can not say that of their own work.