Mary Barra new CEO of GM!

[FenwickHockey65]

Just saying, Barra's already been in charge of product development for a while now.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by motorhead

I think one reason this happens has nothing to do with their abilities to perform the job, but more for the fact that women tend to take things more personal and have a harder time letting things roll off. They also tend to play favorites more. Studies shown that most employees including women would rather have a male boss because of this. I think if they could keep their hormones and personal feeling out of their work that there would be a lot more woman in power positions. I have no problem with anyone, no matter what they are, doing any job if they do it well and are respected.

That implies that men don't experience the effects of hormones & never let their personal feelings affect their jobs. Which is complete & utter BS. If you are too 'macho' then you probably won't be able to listen to, let alone accept the advice, from others. It also means you'll be ultra competitive. Competition is fine for business, but always having to have the biggest whatever just so the other guy doesn't is not necessarily the best business move (and I suspect that men may inherently have an inclination towards showing everyone that yes they do have 'the biggest' that women do not posses).

And nobody can keep their personal feelings out of their work. I'm not familiar with that study regarding women playing favourites more, but depending on the methodology used it could be completely meaningless. First off, how was it determined that they were in fact playing favourites anyway? Were they simply asked? Because all that tells you is that women are more likely to tell you, not that they're actually doing it more. Men could simply be lying to the researcher more often. Or, each group could also be responding in a way so that they conform to a set of expectations for their group with reality falling somewhere in the middle. That happens all the time in gender studies. Its also possible that men might be less aware that they're exhibiting any favouritism in the first place.

Assuming they managed to somehow cover all that, there is also a reverse of favouritism: punishing your rival. Did the researchers study that as well? And if so, were the results the same with women being more prone to it? Or were men more likely to keep potential competetion down? If so, how is that any better than playing favourites? And really ... is it any different? If you are hurting your enemies, aren't you by default helping your friends?

On top of all that, there is also the possibility of the researcher being a misogynist themselves, likely unwittingly. The study ends up being biased towards validating their beliefs in both the experimental design and the interpretation of the results. Experimenter bias happens all the time throughout science, and is much harder to get rid of when studying psychology or sociology.

I know you didn't conduct the study and probably don't have all of its scientific details memorized. But its just some things to consider when you read about studies like that.

[solo40oz]

There is one thing that bothers me a bit that was in the USA Today article:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/...-ceo/3950057/#!


Analyst Joe Spak at RBC Capital Markets said in a note to clients: "In the times we have met Ms. Barra, we came away impressed and believe she has a strong vision for GM...Her recent focus has been on streamlining GM and focusing on cost saving."

While not exactly matching Ford Motor CEO Alan Mulally's "One Ford," Barra nevertheless is working to slice in half then number of basic global platforms, or architectures, that GM uses to make its cars, as well as cutting the number of engines. Spak said, "Besides improved product, wringing out inefficiencies should help GM close the (profit) margin gap with Ford."

Streamlining and focus on cost saving is always a good thing to go after....but in my experience, sometimes the customer loses out when this cost cutting starts to occur. Which engines will be cut out of the line up? My guess is that it won't be the ones that go into the high production models....are the high horsepower cars doomed?

[LOWDOWN]

...which means she'll recognize the excellence that will continue, there, and then be able to concentrate her efforts on more "needy" issues.

She is fully on-side with "it's ALL about the Product". And so, clearly, is Reuss. That, alone, is a refreshing change, I feel, from current "14th Floor" attitudes.

Re: reducing the number of engines - you can reduce the number of unique displacements without reducing the variety of said remaining engines. For example, one 2.0L 4-cylinder, with different application-specific developments, leaves you with ONE engine that may replace two or three existing powerplants, from 1.6L to 2.5L (again, only one example, and not specific).

Just how many 4/6/8-cylinder BASIC engines do you need, comprised in how many variants, each? For world-wide consumption? Gas/diesel etc.?

Gas V8s, for the moment in North America, are basically down to two, from four (5.3 and 6.2 vs. 4.8/5.3/6.2/7.0 last year). Economies of Scale will benefit...

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by solo40oz

There is one thing that bothers me a bit that was in the USA Today article:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/...-ceo/3950057/#!


Analyst Joe Spak at RBC Capital Markets said in a note to clients: "In the times we have met Ms. Barra, we came away impressed and believe she has a strong vision for GM...Her recent focus has been on streamlining GM and focusing on cost saving."

While not exactly matching Ford Motor CEO Alan Mulally's "One Ford," Barra nevertheless is working to slice in half then number of basic global platforms, or architectures, that GM uses to make its cars, as well as cutting the number of engines. Spak said, "Besides improved product, wringing out inefficiencies should help GM close the (profit) margin gap with Ford."

Streamlining and focus on cost saving is always a good thing to go after....but in my experience, sometimes the customer loses out when this cost cutting starts to occur. Which engines will be cut out of the line up? My guess is that it won't be the ones that go into the high production models....are the high horsepower cars doomed?

I'm pretty sure that its more likely that they'll remove engines & platforms that overlap substantially. If something fills a unique role, its hard to argue that it should be removed. But when you have 2 engines of nearly the same size, power, and purpose but one is for Asia-Pacific and the other is for North America ... why not just use one?

[FenwickHockey65]

Why GM is still using the LLT in the Lambdas, I'll never know.

[motorhead]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

That implies that men don't experience the effects of hormones & never let their personal feelings affect their jobs. Which is complete & utter BS. If you are too 'macho' then you probably won't be able to listen to, let alone accept the advice, from others. It also means you'll be ultra competitive. Competition is fine for business, but always having to have the biggest whatever just so the other guy doesn't is not necessarily the best business move (and I suspect that men may inherently have an inclination towards showing everyone that yes they do have 'the biggest' that women do not posses).

And nobody can keep their personal feelings out of their work. I'm not familiar with that study regarding women playing favourites more, but depending on the methodology used it could be completely meaningless. First off, how was it determined that they were in fact playing favourites anyway? Were they simply asked? Because all that tells you is that women are more likely to tell you, not that they're actually doing it more. Men could simply be lying to the researcher more often. Or, each group could also be responding in a way so that they conform to a set of expectations for their group with reality falling somewhere in the middle. That happens all the time in gender studies. Its also possible that men might be less aware that they're exhibiting any favouritism in the first place.

Assuming they managed to somehow cover all that, there is also a reverse of favouritism: punishing your rival. Did the researchers study that as well? And if so, were the results the same with women being more prone to it? Or were men more likely to keep potential competetion down? If so, how is that any better than playing favourites? And really ... is it any different? If you are hurting your enemies, aren't you by default helping your friends?

On top of all that, there is also the possibility of the researcher being a misogynist themselves, likely unwittingly. The study ends up being biased towards validating their beliefs in both the experimental design and the interpretation of the results. Experimenter bias happens all the time throughout science, and is much harder to get rid of when studying psychology or sociology.

I know you didn't conduct the study and probably don't have all of its scientific details memorized. But its just some things to consider when you read about studies like that.

What I got out of if was that they went around to various types of industries and offices setting. They then polled employees both men and women to ask them if they preferred a female or male boss. They claimed that the results leaned toward a male boss and the funny thing was that the woman employees percentage of who would prefer male bosses was a little higher than the male employees. They also ask what the main reasons for leaning one way or the other were.

Like I said before, as for me it doesn't matter if they can do their job well and are respected by the people they are working with. I have a woman that runs my office and does a very good job doing so. I will say though, I just ask my wife they other day, who works in a large office setting, if she would prefer a male or female boss. She said a male hands down. Her reasons were about the same as the study I read. I never told her about the study before asking or influenced her in any way. I know In my business of doing HVACR. We work in a lot of office buildings, manufacturing facilities, nursing homes, banks and schools, and most of the ones that are run by females are a lot harder to deal with when it comes to getting anything done or trying to explain a problem. I can be very frustrating. I'm not entirely sure why that is.


I know this was long winded, but I wanted to add that I wish the new GM CEO well and hope that she keeps things moving in the right direction.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

Why GM is still using the LLT in the Lambdas, I'll never know.

uhhhhhhhhh, what? You are usually astute, this comment leaves me wondering. What other engine would GM put in these very large SUVs that would provide the same balance of performance and FE? Above the 3.6 are the V8s which would be joke of GM past to cram a 5.3 in there. And if you think a 2.0 Turbo or the 2.5 NA would even remotely work lets just say you wouldn't want to own one of those. Or are you suggesting we get the old GM and design an allllll new engine just for Lambda? The 3.6L is probably the best balance powertrain GM has. If you are worrying that the LFX is somehow worth GM's effort for no more HP or FE, then that's just wanting a newer version of the same thing that wouldn't drive sales in this segment. You have to spend your money wisely and if GM thought it could get more sales and even 1 more MPG by doing the work they would have in the last refresh.

As for Barra, her expertise is in knowing the entire business. She has been in manufacturing, procurement, HR and head of product development. No, she doesn't have Corevette or Camaro in her resume. I never looked at her as the product guru. That was Mark Reuss. Can she run the business? Apparently the board thinks she can. When I left 2 years ago it seemed that Reuss was being prepared for that job. But like his father before him, it seems President was the pinnacle of his career. But also unlike his father, Mark will have the opportunity to drive global product development, and it will be Mark that will actually drive all the platform consolidation now. Mary won't have the time for it. Keep in mind, Ford doesn't have a car guy in charge. He is an astute business man that knows how to drive a business to success. I believe, and just my opinion, Mary was chosen for this reason. She can drive a great global enterprise to success. That's her mission. And if she trusts the "car guys and gals", her "plant people", her "money people", she will do just that.

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by motorhead

I think one reason this happens has nothing to do with their abilities to perform the job, but more for the fact that women tend to take things more personal and have a harder time letting things roll off. They also tend to play favorites more. Studies shown that most employees including women would rather have a male boss because of this. I think if they could keep their hormones and personal feeling out of their work that there would be a lot more woman in power positions. I have no problem with anyone, no matter what they are, doing any job if they do it well and are respected.

As a sailor, I can confirm that there are definitely places women in general choose not to be, and the military, regrettably, is one of those male-dominated jobs. That being said, we see women make their way all the way up the chain of command. I don't see that in the private sector, and there are way more women working in those same businesses.

Like I said, I do agree that women pass up some opportunities by choice, just like men disproportionately choose not to be hair dressers and ballerinas. Unfortunately, that doesn't account for the massive gap in senior positions across the board. I wish it did, but we don't live as equally as we think we do.

[Realist]

She seems qualified for the position. I do believe woman in management are not always pressed as much, just look at sebilius the healthcare dummy. If she were a man she would be getting raked over the coals but no where near as bad because she is a woman. The new GM is far easier to be a CEO at, no debt and they probably still get tax credits or such to help out. I would really respect her and GM is they stepped to the plate and worked to pay the 10bill the taxpayers lost saving them, do it over time it can be done.