Thread regarding Ford layoffs

Going only after the lowest costs is far from successful business strategy

"Capitalism allows leaders to find the lowest costs"

While I agree with this statement, let's not forget that 90% of the CEO and BoD of American public companies are NOT leaders. Most of them just blindly copy whatever the "trend" is, no matter if it fits their companies or not. Also, owners choose long term profits, while "leaders" choose short term profits that, in time, can destroy these companies.

The other point is defining "lowest costs" vs "best value". Since common wisdom states that "you get what you pay for", leaders should be very careful calculating the actual contributions of employees. After all, the "lowest costs" in the workforce should be zero, meaning no employees, but then there is no product/service to sell, and no company left. Regarding the LCCs, there are trade offs, like lacking experience or knowledge, delays, and a different culture (and yes, the last one is very important, and not in the DEI sense, more in the complete opposite sense). So all in all, not always the best value is in LCCs.

Bumping it up for visibility, because it’s sound thinking. Found at @1rgk+1thLyGgi.

by
| 736 views | | 8 replies (last ) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1tjG1eiv

8 replies (most recent on top)

@hcb+1tjG1eiv "CEOs have to follow what the owners demand. Shareholders today only care about near term returns."

Then Mazda, Toyota and some other public companies have shareholders that don't care about near term returns, while Ford shareholders are "different"? Is that your answer? LOL. Because those companies are not making the same mistakes Ford is doing, and the only difference in shareholders happens to be the special shares of the Ford family.

Shareholders are not the real owners of the company. A lot of shareholders are tenants, "renting" the stock options until they can dump them for a profit. A tenant doesn't care for the property long term, just that it doesn't fall on their heads while they are renting. Therefore, the shareholders should have limited rights, like tenants do. That would be particularly good for Ford, limiting the power of the Ford family.

Things have to go very bad before a bunch of shareholders band together and oust the CEO. In real life, is not the fear of being ousted by the shareholders, but the greed of the CEO and the C-suite, the cause of the short term solutions. We pay bonuses for short term performance, not for long term health of the company. Therefore, we get short term performance, even when is breaking the company apart.

Maybe is time to change the shareholder's philosophy implemented in the 80's, and come with a better, a more stable over time metric to evaluate the company performance and the bonuses.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @3oec+1tjG1eiv

te------t come on! Can I buy a vowel?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1uvb+1tjG1eiv

Ford stopped testing their own parts and relied on the supplier to tell them the truth. That happened long ago. Nasser the corporate te------t started that ball rolling and it continues today thanks to Billy and his poor choice of greedy underlings.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1qul+1tjG1eiv

We are allowed to be unhappy about this. But if you complain outwardly, you'll be called a communist. The ultra wealthy have truly convinced the classes beneath them that it's wrong to question or challenge the ultra wealthy.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ing+1tjG1eiv

"CEOs have to follow what the owners demand. Shareholders today only care about near term returns. They want a stock to pop this quarter and they will sell and move to the next company, they aren’t long term owners. If a CEO doesn’t maximize the stock today, they will get turfed."

their need for immediate gratification hollows out the company
oddly, their behavior mimics that of locusts or vampires
what happens when all the hosts are gone

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ooz+1tjG1eiv

Having been around a while, here are my two cents on the matter. When the economy is good you can be sloppy and still sell stuff and also, as a company - grow. Leaders who get the tap to move up are mostly in the right place at the right time, superficially prepared - but hey we need a body over there and oh my, the individual posses the gold card MBA. Yeah it's more complicated but that's the gist. The reasoning is that person SHOULD understand how to sharpen a pencil, optimize something and get in step with the program. Now when things go to h-ll and you need deep knowledge (because you've already planned how to fill the gaps of the good people you had to jettison to make the budget) and bold creative problem solvers need to step up. Guess what? Those people with battle tested attributes aren't around in any numbers. What you have is a large population of middle and senior management that is trained to keep their head down while they lead the under-experienced, and sorry Virginia there is no Santa Clause. It happens everywhere. So not to throw rocks at the whole B-School gig, but I don't think they study downsizing an organization, the value identifying key technical and manufacturing expertise of how to inspire talent in the face of doing more with less. That often requires rolling your sleeves up and pitching in yourself. Seeing when to fight to retain people while managing a payroll that competitors often see more value in snatching away that person than the home team does. So they leave and you start over, or give up. Yep, then when the big storm hits some teams do ok, others collapse. The organization is as strong as its most important weakest link. My advice to whoever cares, build your leadership out of depth in product knowledge, find compassionate people who actually care about the company and the people they lead.
Only then look for business acumen. Select those candidates who have all the pieces or go without.

I agree that superficially the CEO will execute the boards directives. But I have never been to a board meeting, and I have been to many, where the CEO just jots down notes and then goes back to the office to drop the hammer. Nope, there are debates, proposals, SWOT discussions and scenario analysis that all gets put on the table before the tough decisions are made. Sadly much of that is too confidential to cascade down the line, but it happens. If the leadership at any level fails to flag a bad call or plan on the front end, you may end up with a lot of gaps and unsolvable problems in implementing. So you change course and everybody thinks - wtf? If on the other hand management do their jobs well, although never pleasant, the storm can be weathered just fine.

As for cost control, you have to manage cost creep every day and quality every time you switch a supplier. Maybe the stuff is made off shore, maybe not. Failing to prove it has the same FFF including reliability is a dangerous game to play. Taking short cuts to make production is like rolling the dice.

Happy 4th everybody.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ijj+1tjG1eiv

@hcb+1tjG1eiv

If that is true, why is Farley still here?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @qaa+1tjG1eiv

CEOs have to follow what the owners demand. Shareholders today only care about near term returns. They want a stock to pop this quarter and they will sell and move to the next company, they aren’t long term owners. If a CEO doesn’t maximize the stock today, they will get turfed.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @hcb+1tjG1eiv

Post a reply

: