- Joined
- Jun 10, 2021
- Threads
- 1
- Messages
- 1,073
- Reaction score
- 3,508
- Location
- United States
- Vehicle(s)
- Ford
- Your Bronco Model
- Wildtrak
Sponsored
Sponsored
- First Name
- Chris
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2020
- Threads
- 10
- Messages
- 724
- Reaction score
- 1,713
- Location
- Bossier City, LA
- Vehicle(s)
- 2021 Ford Bronco Black Diamond
- Your Bronco Model
- Black Diamond
Wait…no no no no. That’s not how this is supposed to go! Damnit Ric!
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2020
- Threads
- 112
- Messages
- 7,301
- Reaction score
- 25,622
- Location
- North Texas
- Vehicle(s)
- SUV
- Your Bronco Model
- Undecided
If Farley has not figured things out in 2+ years, the chances that he will have success are greatly diminished. Until he goes deep into the organization and finds stakeholders and champions to drive change, nothing will.
Here is a great follow-up article to the WSJ one, I agree with much of the author's premise, however, why should Ford's stock pop if Farley is canned, the deep rooted organizational problems still remain.
Ford: Strike 3 And Farley Could Be Out
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4580338-ford-strike-3-and-farley-could-be-out
(selected lines posted below)
Although that author may be correct, I do think it would be a dumb move for the board at Ford to remove Farley.
Farley is trying, but he hasn’t developed the allies he needs and the clock is ticking. So, it’s like this, to be honest, CEOs don’t matter much; they come and go, can often sway sort term on a stock price, but aren’t often as impactful as they’d like to believe they are.
The true measure of any company or organization with over 500 employees are the managers and supervisors in the middle; they make the hire decisions, gain or lose buy in, establish, or change culture, and can sabotage innovation, or platform it. The middle can make you or just as easily destroy you and you often never know who they are, who did what, nor look back and recognize how it all happened; things fall apart.
This is both the strength of Ford, but also it’s biggest threat. Farley has tried to root the status quo managers from the middle, but that’s a very “in the weeds” task. As the top leader, hardest thing to ever get out of anyone is the truth; unfiltered and unsullied.
Farley is slow to get the truth up to him. His lieutenants are likely playing all sides and are in fear and looking to survive (Engineers). The new tech kids are now everywhere and the legacy car builders are a dying breed. The path forward is more unclear than it has ever been in the auto industry.
Almost sounds like I’m against Farley, yeah? No, I support him. We’re just now actually starting to see his moves bare some fruit. The F1 recent decision sounds good, but is engine expertise really something that matters for much longer? Formula E may have been the smarter play, but I like F1, so, cool!
Ford needs to let him play things out, as there is no one with credibility in the pipeline and yes, things can actually get worse.
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2020
- Threads
- 112
- Messages
- 7,301
- Reaction score
- 25,622
- Location
- North Texas
- Vehicle(s)
- SUV
- Your Bronco Model
- Undecided
Bingo, you nailed it, that is what I was referring to when I said "Until he goes deep into the organization and finds stakeholders and champions to drive change, nothing will."
I've worked for several large corporations during my career, I've repeatedly seen senior management and CEO changes come and go, some successful, some not so much. I've repeatedly seen the quality and organizational campaigns of the year come and go, some successful, some not so much.
I worked in engineering project and functional management for much of my career. I've been the stakeholder and champion for many of those campaigns and ruffled my share of feathers to drive change. The key, senior management has to have the fortitude to accept and implement the report-outs or nothing ever changes.
Sponsored
Generally speaking and in a lot of cases, the Ford system protects the yes men/women.It doesn't reward or incentivise the competent free thinkers.
My opinion is based on serving my 30 yr.sentence at Ford Motor Company.
My opinion is based on serving my 30 yr.sentence at Ford Motor Company.
A Japanese company and a North American company decided to have a canoe race on the Mississippi River. Both teams practiced long and hard to reach their peak performance before the race.
On the big day, the Japanese won by a mile. The North Americans, very discouraged and depressed, decided to investigate the reason for the crushing defeat.
A management team made up of senior management was formed to investigate and recommend appropriate action. Their conclusion was the Japanese had 8 people rowing and 1 person steering, while the North American team had 8 people steering and 1 person rowing. So, North American management hired a consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second opinion.
They advised that too many people were steering the boat, while not enough people were rowing.
To prevent another loss to the Japanese, the rowing team’s management structure was totally reorganized to 4 steering supervisors, 3 area steering superintendents and 1 assistant superintendent steering manager. They also implemented a new performance system that would give the 1 person rowing the boat greater incentive to work harder.
It was called the"Rowing Team Quality First Program“, with meetings, dinners and free pens for the rower. There was discussion of getting new paddles, canoes and other equipment, extra vacation days for practices, and bonuses.
The next year the Japanese won by two miles. Humiliated, the North American management laid off the rower for poor performance, halted development of a new canoe, sold the paddles, and canceled all capital investments in new equipment. The money saved was distributed to the Senior Executives as bonuses and the next year’s racing team was outsourced to India.
On the big day, the Japanese won by a mile. The North Americans, very discouraged and depressed, decided to investigate the reason for the crushing defeat.
A management team made up of senior management was formed to investigate and recommend appropriate action. Their conclusion was the Japanese had 8 people rowing and 1 person steering, while the North American team had 8 people steering and 1 person rowing. So, North American management hired a consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second opinion.
They advised that too many people were steering the boat, while not enough people were rowing.
To prevent another loss to the Japanese, the rowing team’s management structure was totally reorganized to 4 steering supervisors, 3 area steering superintendents and 1 assistant superintendent steering manager. They also implemented a new performance system that would give the 1 person rowing the boat greater incentive to work harder.
It was called the"Rowing Team Quality First Program“, with meetings, dinners and free pens for the rower. There was discussion of getting new paddles, canoes and other equipment, extra vacation days for practices, and bonuses.
The next year the Japanese won by two miles. Humiliated, the North American management laid off the rower for poor performance, halted development of a new canoe, sold the paddles, and canceled all capital investments in new equipment. The money saved was distributed to the Senior Executives as bonuses and the next year’s racing team was outsourced to India.
Your last sentence says it all. Funny how something can be known, it works, but not many seem to want to actually do it although it's the secret ingredient to success.
If Ford were smart, they'd hire us as part of a much needed consultant team. Because consultants don't care about that middle power cabal, we could find ways to root them out and assess who can be part of the solutions for the future. All of them don't need to go, but they all need to get in line.
15 months and would have that entire company running totally different.
Sponsored
