Former GM Exec Bob Lutz Says Everyone Is Way Too Nice
6
Sponsored Links
The other day, The Washington Post interviewed former General Motors executive Bob Lutz, about effective management, company culture, and everything in-between.
Mr. Lutz, allow us to take a page out of your book, and be as frank and candid as we can muster.
According to the excerpt that The Washington Post published online, Lutz thinks that “Everybody is way too nice to everybody.” He went on to say, “I think we’re at the point where nobody is speaking clearly anymore. I call it risk-averse communication.”
We find it more than just a little interesting that this closely echoes something that current CEO Mary Barra had said prior, stating that her predecessors had been “too nice” in the face of the challenges of the past: too willing to accept mediocrity, and unwilling to rule with an iron fist when necessary.
On the note of Barra, Lutz said that it is too early to tell whether her influence as CEO has met expectations, but that “the early signs are outstanding.” He went on to state: “I would say her leadership style is quite similar to that of the recently retired Alan Mulally at Ford — quiet, somewhat low-key, persuasive and very effective. It’s the iron fist in a velvet glove sort of thing.”
We’re not sure about the velvet glove, but we have to raise a small semantic objection to what Lutz said next. “I can’t tell you how essential that is: a fear of consequences, of messing up, of letting the team down, of doing something unauthorized. That fear has to be there, otherwise the place is out of control. All of the consultants who say you’ve got to take fear away in a corporation don’t know what they’re talking about.”
That case can certainly be made, but we’re not so sure that “fear” is the appropriate term, and it stands in contrast with Lutz’s later assertion that ultimately, General Motors needs to be more participative. He goes on to attribute the blame for the ignition switch scandal almost entirely to lower-level members of the corporation.
We would argue, Mr. Lutz, that a fear of consequences is very likely what kept low-level engineers from reporting the ignition switch as a safety concern in the first place. Of course being “too nice” can breed complacency, but we would argue that there’s absolutely a place in every organization for not only political correctness, but also the sort of engaging, encouraging atmosphere that might prompt low-level employees to be forthcoming about safety concerns more immediately.
That “fear of the iron fist” that you’re calling for? That’s precisely what might keep General Motors from being more participative and internally transparent in the future. And let’s not mistake cruelty for sternness.
- Sweepstakes Of The Month: Win a 2023 Corvette Z06 Convertible. Details here.
Sponsored Links
I think the author here missed the point.
What Bob is really getting at and to be fair he could have worded it a little better is this.
I believe what he meant by not being so nice is more of the point that Management at GM should have been holding more people accountable. You need to give them freedom to work but you also need to make them accountable for their actions or more in this case inactions.
This is a damaged culture I have seen many places. At one major tire MFG I would see middle manager put off many decisions because they were afraid to make a choice. Damn it that is part of their job and you have to make these choices. Now if you get 95% right one mistake will not hurt you in most cases because you are productive. But too often these folks are not productive and one mistake would be getting 100% of it wrong.
Mary and other leaders at GM need to empower their people to do what they should do but they also should not look away if they fowl up the whole deal. People who are held accountable often make a lot of decisions and often wise choices with few mistakes because they know they have to use wisdom in their decisions.
Even at my place of work today many people are very unproductive as they know there is no cost for lack of production and because of it the company suffers. I can assure you that you would get much more productivity if they were held responsible.
Now do not confuse being held responsible to be disrespectful. You can set standards to be met and outline what would happen if these are not met before hand. Most standards can be reasonable but still be productive.
A good leader will make demands of their people and yet even with these demands and expectations still hold the respect of the people that work for them.
It is not much different than being a parent. You need to lead your kids and set standards and expectations on them for them to grow up in a positive way in education and even public decency. Sure you can let them do their own thing but when home work is not done and they are out doing what ever they want and not held accountable then don’t wonder why they end up with many issues as an adult.
I have one manager who made tough demands but I also knew she had my back if I needed it. It was almost like working for a parent. If I did wrong I was held accountable but if I needed help or backed up she was the first one in line. Because I did my job I was also rewarded with dinners and trips that many others did not see because they did not do their jobs.
All Bob was saying here is they need to be good leaders and set expectations and work to be respected while setting the standards.
Nice guys may be respected personally but often just do not get the job done. As with Children you need to be the parent not the buddy. The same can be said for a Boss and you have to be the boss not the buddy.
Thank you for the thoughtful response. This may not have come across, but I actually do understand (and even agree with) a lot of Bob Lutz’s intended message, hence the qualification of our objections as “semantic.” I maintain that “fear” is not the right word to have used; your use of the word “empower” is much nearer the mark.
I study Lutz a lot and understand him. So often he is asked on the fly what he things about something and he speaks from the heart.
He often may not always chose the correct phrase and too few try to understand or even ask what he means.
I enjoy his honesty but the media all too often are just out for a controversial sound bite and take advantage of his off the cuff comments.
We could use a few more people like him. I am thinking the head of Cadillac may be a similar thinker as he is not afraid to do what he thinks and speaks out. Also his track record is better than most in the industry.
Some people love to mistake Confidence for Arrogance since they have so little of their own. If one does not believe in what they are doing then how do you expect to lead others?
Patton was a good example of it While he brushed up a few people he also pulled those same people butts out of the fire. Just think where Ike would have been without George.
Fear of consequences… fear of failure, and an encouragement to participate are not mutually exclusive concepts, as is argued here.
This editorial also makes epic curbing to try and keep from criticism. “And let’s not mistake cruelty for sternness.” Isn’t that what Lutz called for with the ‘iron fist’ – the editorial is bad because it casts stones without throwing them in directions that could be nailed at any one train of thought.
Reading Lutz’s commentary, it’s quite clear that leading with an iron fist is not a substitute for cruelty. It means telling your team they have to work late – that they can’t take two weeks off a month before you ship to manufacturing just because their timeshare had an opening.
At Apple, which was, and still is, ruled with an iron fist, it is always encouraged for you to speak up. It’s always encouraged for you to innovate, and to point out problems. You just do it the way you’re supposed to in a company, to your leadership and within your team. You can lead with an iron fist, be stern, and get your team to participate with passion. That makes not just for good leaders, but for teams that like their jobs… because you’re breeding and instilling in them the same passion and sternness as they grow in the company.
“Some people love to mistake Confidence for Arrogance since they have so little of their own. If one does not believe in what they are doing then how do you expect to lead others?”
That about say’s it Scott.
Between Aarons point, and the comments disagreeing with Aaron’s article… Is one semantic word of glue, that holds both positions together in the middle… Respect.
A supervisor can be a tin horn dictator, and the employees laggards, but mutual respect, and possible consequences, start with the leader. I think both view points would agree with this.