Keyword: lazy b

My mother called it back in June.  Billy Ford wasn’t long for this world.  I grew up in the shadow of Detroit, and my family always had connections into the auto industry.  She knew the Ford family was restless, and that Billy was in trouble.

The board [family] forced him out.  In a way, that’s too bad, since he is a really nice guy, charming, bright, “from good stock” as they used to say.  But, clearly, it was long overdue.  His departure is kind of sad for the Ford family, yet nothing but good for the company.  It also says something about family leadership and the challenge of passing down a Fortune 500 company generation to generation.

Bill Ford was probably doomed from the start.  If you think about his challenge, it was simply too much to ask of anyone, let alone a nice guy like little Bill.  He grew up in this company.  He toddled around the offices for years, sat on the laps of key leaders, and cut whatever business teeth he had under the big blue oval logo.  Even if he had a great vision of how to overhaul the stodgy old company, it was simply too much to ask someone to shake up a culture that was generations old — generations of his family.

These last few years must have been a nightmare for Bill.  He must have been in countless meetings where he said emphatically “we have to change, we have to do things differently, we have to shake off these cobwebs!” [ed: At least let’s hope he did (see my post here)] Only to be greeted by layer upon layer of senior management that looked blankly at him, shook their heads marvelling at how little Billy had grown, pinched his cheek and said something like “but that’s not how Henry would’ve done it.”  He couldn’t fire some of these people, it would be like firing your uncle.  For the family to expect him to make “bold moves” was simply unrealistic.

Alan Mulally and Bill Ford

Now the Ford board has made a super choice: they have selected Alan Mulally, formerly of Boeing, as CEO.  I’m a huge Mulally fan, if only from my view outside the company.  But throughout his turn at the helm of Boeing’s Commercial Airplane group, he was a sharp, effective leader.  And since his promotion opportunities were limited at Boeing by a new top dog (see my post here), moving on makes great sense for him.

I first became familiar with Alan Mulally during the development of the 777 airplane.  This was a huge deal in these parts, as it was the chance for the “Lazy B” to shake its old cobwebs and really develop something new and different.  Leading up to the launch, Mulally had numerous opportunities to appear in the press, and he always managed to do it with aplomb and to show his leadership skills.  At the launch (covered as if it were the Second Coming around here), he outshined the rest of the Boeing leadership as the clear, thoughtful, and talented one of the bunch.  Then, the incessant airing of the “Making of…” video on the local PBS station allowed us an even closer look at what a solid leader Alan really is.  He had done it, turned around the supertanker, practically in its own boatlength.

Recently, Mulally spearheaded the “Dreamliner” project, an even more ambitious plane that is, if leading-edge sales are to be believed, eating Airbus’s lunch.  It was a bold move, at a time when Boeing clearly dominated the huge plane market with it’s 747, and a simple tweak to that plane could offer again the largest plane in the world, he bet on moderation.  According to friends I have on the 787 (as the Dreamliner is now called) team, and they tell of Mulally passionately arguing of the demise of the monster busses with wings, and the coming move to smaller, more fuel efficient, point-to-point aircraft.  And how right he was, as if he could see $4.00 gas from the dust of 9/11.  It has been a brilliant move, and the 787 is a bold and beautiful plane.  Now all they have to do is ship it (no small feat, I hear the carbon fiber parts aren’t fun to manufacture).

Mulally seems, therefore, perfectly suited to follow through on Ford’s “Bold Moves”.  He’s the kind of person who seeks out a vision, and can get a whole, huge corporation behind it.  To paraphrase an old Ford advertisement, maybe Mulally does “have a better idea”.  The family and shareholders are certainly betting on it

James McNerney took over as CEO of Boeing a little more than a year ago.  But you haven’t heard much about him for the last year.  That might lead you to think he’s not been busy.

But he’s been doing what any good deciple of Jack Welch would do when taking over a company — “deep dives”, taking a long hard look way down in the organization to see what he inheritted.  I’m sure it was an eye-opener.

Jim McNerney

Boeing has taken a lot of hits for a long time, not just in the recent ethics scandals.  In Seattle, Boeing has been ridiculed as the epitomy of bloated big business.  One nickname from the late 20th century was “the lazy B”.  Around here, you can pick out the Boeing employees just like the Microsoft ones.  They are stereotypical nerds all, differing largely only by the generation.

The tens of thousands of proud Boeing plane builders are local fixtures, and their relationship with company management has been rocky since the beginning.  Not aided by a argumentative union (see my post on that here), the ebb and flow of the company’s fortunes take the larger local economy with it.  This effect has been lessened, but by no means removed, by the additional of software and biotech to the local scene.

Boeing’s relationship wtih Seattle hit a big low, when the former CEO Phil Condit made the rather absurd move to take it’s headquarters to Chicago.  This choice was ridiculous because the company had essentially no business operations nearby (and was shuttering those it did have).

In an amazing show of hubris, Condit held a public contest to see which city would give the most largesse to Boeing for moving their headquarters there.  In an over-hyped press event, the company selected Chicago while on board a Boeing jet headed for…  may I have the envelope, please…  Chicago!  It was a ridiculous spectacle, it moved less than 0.1% of the employees there, and (rumor has it) was only done because Condit and his wife wanted better restaurants and night life.  The reasoning was to put them in the middle of their customers, within a short flight to them all.  But, in point of fact, their largest growth market for the company is the Pacific Rim, and Seattle is far closer to those customers.  Yet another reason why Condit is long gone.

All of this makes McNerney’s challenge even more important especially to those around here.  He needs to restore a sense of sanity in a company that seems to lost its way much like Enron, Worldcom, and the other famous debacles of the end of the last Century.

His biggest challenge may well be finding a a way to get this behemoth, famous for everything from commercial aircraft, huge government contracts, and questionable ethics, to focus on something…  anything.  The company appears to be involved in all manner of large military and aerospace projects and master of none.  As I have said repeatedly, focus on some vision, any vision, is important.  McNerney seems to agree.

With recent wins in the big plane arena, whether because Airbus is stepping on its own tail or not, McNerney has a great chance to celebrate some successes, and move toward the future.  Their new “Dreamliner”, the 787, looks to be a hit — just what the company needs right now.  If they can actually ship the thing (friends inside tell me this will be no small accomplishment) they stand to regain their crown as the world’s planemaker.

This gives Jim McNerney one great leg upon which to rebuild the company, and I wish him the best of luck.  Not only because my own selfish interests wish well for Seattle, or because Boeing is the strongest exporter fighting in our national balance of trade war.  Mostly I wish them well because the whole country needs to see a large company that clearly lost its way in the last century regain it in this new one.

Right to the head of my observations on the importance of symbols to an organization marches the International Association of Machinists, District 751.  I’m not sure I could ever find a more perfect symbol of union’s gone wild than this one.

IAM Website

The IAM is the union that represents the bulk of the line labor at Boeing’s aircraft assembly plants.  This union is a key reason why Boeing’s employment see-saws from year to year, and was probably a key cause of the infamous billboards that read: “will the last one who leaves Seattle please turn out the lights” in the 1970’s. This union is famous for its hardcore stances, and its strikes at the expense of everyone involved, including their members.

Their website is symbolism enough, with the top “Job Info” links on the page being about what to do if you’re the “victim” of a job action or being warned of a layoff.  No, not about job training, or even joining the union, but rather “how did the company screw you today?”  Yes, that’s pretty good symbolism in itself.

IAM Sculpture

However, I had heard about the monuments in front of District 751 headquarters in Seattle for some time.  I just had to check them out for myself.  What I found was amazing.  Yes, they have a sculpture garden in front of the headquarters (where are your union dues today?).  And yes, one of them is of people actually working on an airplane.  Even better, it’s a man and a woman working — probably a nod to Rosie the Riviter of WWII fame.  Homage to a proud heritage of building some of the most amazing and world-changing machines to be sure.

IAM Monument

But the union saves their biggest and most elaborate monument to show their true colors.  The main monument on the site, the one with the American, state, and union flagpoles, and the one at center stage, it the most stunning.  This monument is not an homage to the workers and the incredible machines they build.  No, it is an homage to the striker.

The picture is hard to see, so let me guide you through the panels.  At the center is a pair of large “751″ symbols, above is a winged logo of the IAM, and behind are the three aforementioned flagpoles.  This is all good.

Mounument Panel

No, it’s the four panels on either side that are the clearest symbols (although not the best of photographs here).  The panels depict strikers carrying picket signs and gathered around a burn barrel.  For example, the leftmost panel (shown) has people carrying signs that read: “COLA”, “Paid Holidays”, “Seniority”, and “Union Shop”.  The second panel’s striker’s sign says “Hold the line 89″.  It is the panel to the far right that has the group gathered around the burn barrel.

What does it say about this organization when the most important monument is dedicated not to the good things that they do, not to the hard work of their thousands of members, and not to a spirit of cooperation and working together, but rather to how defiant they can be?  It’s like an homage to a six-year-old’s temper tantrum in the grocery store.

What it really speaks to is the mind set of the leaders of the union.  Here is a group of people who truly believe their finest hours have been not wins, but rather impasses.  They get their strength not as a group of leaders but rather as a mob.  Their top priorities are not really the welfare of their members as people, but maintenace of their union as a group.

I have strong opinions about unions, and I will say a great deal more about them in the future.  But I’m not sure I’ll ever say it as clearly as the IAM says it themself with this astounding monument.