Jump to content

WSJ Front Page Story on Hackett


Recommended Posts

Well today's Journal has a front page story with the title..."Ford Chief's First Task: Explaining His Vision. Byline..."Hired to fix the auto maker he has confused executives and investors".

 

Wow I can see how investors can be "confused"-but your own staff? And your well into your second year and your troops are confused???

 

But I know there are a lot of far more sophisticated individuals on this site so please read it and set me straight. I have to say, everything I ever read or heard about Mulally made me feel good as a stockholder and a "Ford guy". For sure I can't say the same thing about Mr Hackett.

 

And after reading Bryce Hoffman's book "American Icon", I know how relieved Bill Ford was when he hired Mulally- and Farley as well.

 

But this guy? As I've said before, I think Bill has been drinking too much Silicon Valley Kool Aid.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure why this is so difficult.

 

The goals are 8% margin, more utilities, trucks and active vehicles, less sedans, new modular consolidated platforms that are hybrid, phev and bev capable, autonomous vehicles and a transportation as a service cloud platform.

 

To do all that some things have to be killed or delayed.

 

I think analysts want to see more product specifics that Ford isn’t ready to share.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting Bob! Really great read and yes its all very upsetting and frustrating to be honest. I dont know what happened after Mulally retired. Its only been 4 years and the place is again lost in the woods. Mark Fields made some mistakes in delaying key products for the recession that never happened but this all cant be blamed on Fields.

 

I think Hackett is a likeable guy and hes brilliant but hes not quite the hands on CEO that Mulally was. As CEO Hackett divided up a lot of CEO duties to Farley, Hindrichs and Klevorn. Hackett also has a Chief or Staff? Is that necessary when you only have 8 direct reports?!?

 

If Mulally werent in his mid-seventies at this point Id be the first to say bring him back. But hes retired and left his legacy and mark on a high note.

 

Bill Ford has seen it all at this point. He knows what works and doesnt work so Im curious as to how far Bill will let the stock slide before the family wants another change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I know there are a lot of far more sophisticated individuals on this site so please read it and set me straight. I have to say, everything I ever read or heard about Mulally made me feel good as a stockholder and a "Ford guy". For sure I can't say the same thing about Mr Hackett.

 

Mr. Mulally and Mr. Hackett are both good businessmen. akirby explained the source of possible confusion among executives and investors. Sure, Ford can do a better job communicating its plans to industry analysts. But Hackett's plans to get Ford "fit again" (again as akirby mentioned above) are solid.

 

Also, there's a difference between Ford's health in 2006 when Mulally joined and 2017 when Hackett joined. 2006, Ford was about to die. 2017, Ford was very unhealthy but alive.

Edited by rperez817
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure why this is so difficult.

 

The goals are 8% margin, more utilities, trucks and active vehicles, less sedans, new modular consolidated platforms that are hybrid, phev and bev capable, autonomous vehicles and a transportation as a service cloud platform.

 

To do all that some things have to be killed or delayed.

 

I think analysts want to see more product specifics that Ford isn’t ready to share.

 

If there is any company that needs to go back private it is Ford. Family stays in control and the books are closed all to the few groups that have invested and have seats on the board.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there is any company that needs to go back private it is Ford. Family stays in control and the books are closed all to the few groups that have invested and have seats on the board.

 

Thanks jasonj80 sir, I agree. Becoming a privately held firm will help Ford with the long term plans that Hackett has in mind.

 

For similar reasons, I think going private would be a good idea for the other 2 U.S. domestic automakers, GM and Tesla.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I know about the next 5 years, I tend to agree with the plan. However, as I put in another post, their PR/Marketing department needs to go. It' been a nightmare for years and is causing so much confusion.

That has needed to go for a while, I wonder what is going on with the review anyway. Was a scare tactic to get better rates or a legitimate you suck and need to start selling us new ideas and push harder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The change in mood regarding Ford's global operations and Hackett's shock

that they delivered such poor and unexpected profit results tells me that

his funding assumptions and cost projections are now out the window.

 

Hackett's goal was to achieve 8% return across the whole company, that's not so easy

when you consider how poorly every Ford region outside the US operates.

 

Hackett and Bill Ford know what's needed to make Ford way more profitable, but they are

just not prepared to say it in public yet, so many of Ford's global sales are just not profitable

and to get the ship right will take way more funding than either of them has planned for...

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure why this is so difficult.

 

The goals are 8% margin, more utilities, trucks and active vehicles, less sedans, new modular consolidated platforms that are hybrid, phev and bev capable, autonomous vehicles and a transportation as a service cloud platform.

 

To do all that some things have to be killed or delayed.

 

I think analysts want to see more product specifics that Ford isn’t ready to share.

 

Did you read the article? Here's an excerpt:

 

 

 

...many longtime employees and managers have struggled to adjust to his approach, say current and former workers. Some executives have turned to Mr. Hackett's 28-year-old chief of staff for translations.

 

Many insiders...remain unclear about Ford's direction, saying Mr. Hackett has been too vague.

 

Inside the company, some executives have taken to asking Mr. Hackett's chief of staff, Clare Braun, to clarify his comments or diagrams following a meeting, say people familiar with the matter. Mr. Hackett says Ms. Braun understand how he operates and often attends meetings in his place when he is unavailable. She previously held the role of "visual sensemaker" at Ford Smart Mobility, an innovation unit... that Hackett ran for about a year before becoming CEO.

 

He called Ms. Braun a "reverse mentor because of her age," who keeps him in touch with "how someone who is still under 30 would be thinking."

 

If this reporting is accurate, there are red flags a flying. If the leader of the company cannot communicate effectively, then he's a poor leader. Leadership demands good communication.

 

His comments on his chief of staff are embarrassing and inappropriate.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Did you read the article? Here's an excerpt:

 

 

If this reporting is accurate, there are red flags a flying. If the leader of the company cannot communicate effectively, then he's a poor leader. Leadership demands good communication.

 

His comments on his chief of staff are embarrassing and inappropriate.

But he brought Football Jesus back to Michigan!
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Did you read the article? Here's an excerpt:

 

 

 

If this reporting is accurate, there are red flags a flying. If the leader of the company cannot communicate effectively, then he's a poor leader. Leadership demands good communication.

 

His comments on his chief of staff are embarrassing and inappropriate.

 

It would help if the original poster attached a link to the article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being a bad communicator and not having a plan are two different things. The question is whether the people executing the plan know what to do and if they do then the rest isn’t all that important right now.

 

He was always supposed to be a temporary hire to turn the company around after Fields messed it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think thats the crux of the problem, if Hackett needs an interpreter

so that Ford senior staff know what he means, then how on earth

can he hope to articulate a plain beyond a vision and spending

A whole lot of Fords money. He might be right but if the folks

that have to implement this dont understand the finer details

then Hackett is just making noise and a lot of the heavy lifting

will need to be done by those with actual knowledge and some

practical experience.

 

Coming into this, its clear that Hackett assumed a lot of things like

Current sales, Income and return would remain constant, at the first

change in fortunes, he went to ground and cancelled the stockholders

day.

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there is any company that needs to go back private it is Ford. Family stays in control and the books are closed all to the few groups that have invested and have seats on the board.

 

 

 

Forget about Ford going private as it'll never happen. With all the shares outstanding they couldn't afford to do it and even if the stock dropped back to $2 per share they'd be facing bigger problems.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being a bad communicator and not having a plan are two different things. The question is whether the people executing the plan know what to do and if they do then the rest isn’t all that important right now.

 

Again, did you read the article? How can "the people executing the plan" know what to do if they don't know what the hell he's talking about, much less know 'the plan'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, did you read the article? How can "the people executing the plan" know what to do if they don't know what the hell he's talking about, much less know 'the plan'?

Yes, I read it. He’s trying to get people to think differently and act differently and that’s confusing to long time employees. It’s disruptive. But that doesn’t mean it’s wrong or that it won’t be effective. That’s going to be important as the market shifts to new technologies. Having worked 30+ years in a 100+ yr old corporation that has faced and is facing the same transformation I understand exactly what he’s doing. And a lot of folks won’t get it or don’t want to get it. And those people will either learn or they’ll be working somewhere else.

 

Now a great CEO would be able to explain it in terms people can understand. So he’s not that great from that standpoint but what matters right now is product plans and execution, and I’m sure the people working those projects understand what they’re doing.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Citation?

It was reported at the time he was hired that they were looking for someone to turn the company around and get them back on track. A fixer. Not someone who would be leading the company for 5-10 years. At least that’s how I interpreted it at the time. It sounded like he was on a 2-3 year mission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just read the WSJ piece. Where some see doom and gloom, I see a guy (Hackett) trying his hardest to change Ford’s culture.

There’s a huge difference in management style between Fields and Hackett. Fields was a micro-manager. I understand he had over 20 people reporting directly to him (and how did that work out?). Hackett is just the opposite, he’s a delegator, only eight people report to him. Hackett has said this before, he wants to drive decisions-making down to the lower levels.

If you spend years having somebody constantly looking over your shoulder (Fields), it can be disconcerting when your new boss (Hackett) tells you “you know your job better than I do, so make your own decisions.” Having worked for both a micro-manager and delegator in my long career, I’d much rather work for a delegator.

Ford’s problems are not in management, they’re in China, South America and Europe. They recognize their problems in China, are looking to exit South America (if reports are accurate), and need to address their struggling European operations. “Brexit” has really hit them really hard, and until England finds a way to exit the European Union without pain (maybe impossible), Ford will continue to struggle there.

Meanwhile, back in the States, we worry that the new Bronco won’t have a solid front axle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the problem is North American product. Dumping slow selling low profit sedans and replacing them with CUV's is sound logic, along with the continued focus on light trucks. The problems are Europe, South America, and lack of traction in China as mackinaw pointed out. I think we will see a pull out of the South American market pretty soon, and I think leaving Europe is a distinct possibility, particularly if the right deal comes their way. China will require serious effort, but I think it is vitally important to Ford's future in the long run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He’s trying to get people to think differently and act differently and that’s confusing to long time employees. It’s disruptive. But that doesn’t mean it’s wrong or that it won’t be effective. That’s going to be important as the market shifts to new technologies.

 

Well said akirby sir. One example of market shift is mass adoption of autonomous vehicles and corresponding drop in traditional car/truck sales to consumers. Cox Automotive predicts this will happen within 5 years. Hackett has the vision and business knowledge to get Ford ready for this shift.

 

cox-mobility-study-2018-__-720x411-ml.jp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said akirby sir. One example of market shift is mass adoption of autonomous vehicles and corresponding drop in traditional car/truck sales to consumers. Cox Automotive predicts this will happen within 5 years. Hackett has the vision and business knowledge to get Ford ready for this shift.

 

[\quote]

 

I still think we are still at least 10 years out before AV are even ready for prime time, if not longer. Average age of cars is almost 12 years. Just using that as a metric, with car sales being the way they are we are looking at closer to 2030 then 2023.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...