GM and Ford are somewhat propped up by their extensive international operations. Only in the US/Canada have they been relying on massive SUVs for market share. In Europe neither Ford nor Vauxhall/Opal have earned any sort of prestige, but they do sell a hell of a lot of cars that are fuel efficient.
Chrysler, OTOH, has had some success in the past 10 years in getting market penetration internationally, but nowhere near enough to offset the impacts of their failure in North America. And, unlike Ford/GM, they don't have a line of fuel efficient cars that they could adapt to sell in the US if need be.
Regarding chronic mismanagement, yes all three deserve blame, but in descending order it should be: GM, Chrysler, Ford.
GM was the biggest and perhaps best megacorporation at the end of the 1950s, but they fell wholesale for the Harvard Business School fad at the time, which was a strong emphasis on cost accounting as a means of continually improving profit after the market was saturated. This move did provide some benefit, in that they standardized parts usage across what had been completely separate auto divisions and did yield great economies of scale. But, they also essentially ejected engineers from the executive suite and promoted mostly accountants, with a few marketeers. They were thus totally unprepared to respond to the changing market in 1973, and worse, the accountants were so into groupthink that they just denied the realities staring them in the face. Unfortunately for them, the strength of their independent international divisions allowed them to coast until 1984, when truck sales started to kick in, and they never addressed their fundamental problems.
Chrysler had a similar problem in that Iaccoca was also an accountant by nature. His rescue of the company in the early 1980s was based entirely on cost savings -- every car was based on the out-of-date K-car platform and investment in research was almost eliminated. However, he was a very talented manager in terms of execution and thus Chrysler was able to carve a nitch with low-price, old-technology cars. His successor addressed that, and they started to really innovate in the early 1990s, but the booming 90s meant they got lazy and didn't address the critical quality problems, notably with their transmission, that destroyed their potential repeat business.
Ford, OTOH, really did try to reinvent themselves. Unlike GM and Chrysler, they responded to the 1970s crisis with real investment in engineering, leading the world in aerodynamics in the mid-1980s. They, too, though never learned to address the quality problems, especially in electronics. Probably because they relied so heavily on their European division for technology, and Europe doesn't value reliability to the same degree that the US and east Asia do. They did have a CEO who really pushed the environmental angle, showing great foresight, but he was dumped by a Board that was fixated on short-term profits.
Today GM should probably follow the Iaccoca model from the 1980s, and look to their European divisions for cheap, low-tech cars that they can sell at a profit in the U.S. Ford should probably also go back to their approach from the 1980s, relying on their European divisions for technology, only this time increase focus on quality and ergonomics, which are their weak points.
Posted by Anonny at October 27, 2008 05:14 PM"using funds not allocated for this purpose...."
Another week, more lawbreaking. SOP for Bushco. Lawbreaking is "Job One", ha-ha.
Posted by euzoius at October 27, 2008 08:03 PMM. Moore is such a nutcase .... it was only 20+ years ago he was calling attention to the Detroit op's of these greedy CEO's. Isn't it great the CEO's of these failures will be comfy in their old age?
Posted by wjbill at October 28, 2008 10:13 AM