When the world's largest automaker decided that it would execute the largest layoff in U.S. corporate history, the company's management laid claim to making a most grievous mistake. How any company treats its employees- from the night janitors to the board members- reflects on the quality of the company's products.
The application is universal. Consider the poor construction quality of Jaguars in the mid 1980s when Leyland management was at odds with its workforce. The mismanagement and employee discontent nearly ruined the marque. And to this day, Jaguar must still make heavy emphasis on reliability in its public relations.
Today, GM's products are in midst of a creative boom which makes the layoffs even more problematic for the company. Not since the 1960s has GM been as innovative and bold with its brands. This has been especially true for Cadillac. Gone are the days of ungainly boats that tried vainly to cheaply immitate Rolls-Royce looks while sporting tail fins. The current STS and CTS models are sharp of line, fast, responsive, and actual contenders against the European and Japanese competition.
That said, even Cadillac's quality of construction is still poor. The materials that GM continues to use in their cars look and feel the cheapest in the American car industry. From the plastics and the leather to the abudant parts and platform sharing, it is as though GM cars could not be made cheap enough. Or fast enough for that matter, as a quick light tug on door or window gasket will suffice to remove it altogether. With quality at the level that it is, it is no wonder why GM sites the Toyota as a serious threat.
However, cutting the work force will not help quality control. Restructuring assembly methods to allow for higher standards of contruction, buying better parts, and even copying the Japanese production model all all better answers to the problem. It is doubtful that the American workers who assemble Toyota Camrys are any more capable than the workers who make Chevy Impalas.
Furthermore, will the threat of impending redundancy make GM employees work more efficiently? Can management honesty expect an increase in productivity that will not strain the remaining workforce? What of the communities that have come to rely on GM? From the company's standpoint, at the very least, it is lousy public relations. Undoubte
dly, as this column is being written, noisy activists like Michael Moore are descending upon Detroit.
Cutting jobs may appease the uneasy shareholders temporarily, but it will only serve to harm the automotive giant in the long term. The GM board must come to the realization that eventhough a company by definition must make profits, its drive cannot be solely dollar centric.
The application is universal. Consider the poor construction quality of Jaguars in the mid 1980s when Leyland management was at odds with its workforce. The mismanagement and employee discontent nearly ruined the marque. And to this day, Jaguar must still make heavy emphasis on reliability in its public relations.
Today, GM's products are in midst of a creative boom which makes the layoffs even more problematic for the company. Not since the 1960s has GM been as innovative and bold with its brands. This has been especially true for Cadillac. Gone are the days of ungainly boats that tried vainly to cheaply immitate Rolls-Royce looks while sporting tail fins. The current STS and CTS models are sharp of line, fast, responsive, and actual contenders against the European and Japanese competition.
That said, even Cadillac's quality of construction is still poor. The materials that GM continues to use in their cars look and feel the cheapest in the American car industry. From the plastics and the leather to the abudant parts and platform sharing, it is as though GM cars could not be made cheap enough. Or fast enough for that matter, as a quick light tug on door or window gasket will suffice to remove it altogether. With quality at the level that it is, it is no wonder why GM sites the Toyota as a serious threat.
However, cutting the work force will not help quality control. Restructuring assembly methods to allow for higher standards of contruction, buying better parts, and even copying the Japanese production model all all better answers to the problem. It is doubtful that the American workers who assemble Toyota Camrys are any more capable than the workers who make Chevy Impalas.
Furthermore, will the threat of impending redundancy make GM employees work more efficiently? Can management honesty expect an increase in productivity that will not strain the remaining workforce? What of the communities that have come to rely on GM? From the company's standpoint, at the very least, it is lousy public relations. Undoubte
dly, as this column is being written, noisy activists like Michael Moore are descending upon Detroit.Cutting jobs may appease the uneasy shareholders temporarily, but it will only serve to harm the automotive giant in the long term. The GM board must come to the realization that eventhough a company by definition must make profits, its drive cannot be solely dollar centric.
No comments:
Post a Comment