OrionWorks wrote:
A few tangential thoughts on the Lutz controversy.
I would caution us all from arriving at too many stead-fast opinions
as to the real motivations behind any individual without first
questioning them face-to-face.
I don't need to question the man. I can read his blog. I assume he
means what he says, and it seems clear to me that his beliefs explain
why GM is in such a mess. The other managers there must agree with
him, or they would fire him. Plus I have read a great deal about the
industry, such as the book "High and Mighty." Plus anyone can see
that GM is not serious about hybrid cars. The Prius has been sold for
10 years, and it took 5 or 10 years to develop. GM is ~20 years
behind, they have not sold a single hybrid car. Obviously they have
no interest in them! No corporation that wants to develop a product
sits on the sidelines doing nothing for 20 years.
We're all guilty of performing pop-psyche analysis on the
motivations of others and, subsequently, performing extrapolations
on that analysis as to how their underlying motivations are likely
affecting the machinations of multi-million/billion dollar
corporations for which they are in charge of running.
I do not think I engaged in pop-psyche analysis. Assertions that
"concept cars" are mainly intended as public-relations stunts can be
found in many books and articles about the auto industry. It is
common knowledge.
Anyone can see that GM is on the verge of extinction, and management
is at fault. Look at their stock price, and the fact that they have
offered a buy out to every single remaining employee. This is de
facto liquidation. You can see from the statements in Lutz's blog and
in the history described in "High and Mighty" how they got into this
pickle. It is no mystery, and not an unusual occurrence. IBM almost
self-destructed in the 1980s for reasons similar to GM: the managers
did not know much about the computer business and had no idea what
the customers wanted. This is described in many books, such as P.
Carroll, "Big Blues."
Large, dysfunctional, overconfident institutions often destroy
themselves. That is why only a handful of corporations are older than
a century, and why political parties that remain in power too long
become rife with corruption and incompetence. The reasons and
dynamics of destruction are described in the book "Parkinson's Law"
which is a 140-page gem.
Along the same lines, it is no mystery how and why organizations such
as the DoE, Nature and the APS got themselves out on a limb in
opposition to cold fusion. Every step of the process is well
documented. There is no chance they will change course as long as the
people who made the original mistakes and jumped to the wrong
conclusion remain in power.
History has many examples of large armies being defeated by small
ones, such as the American Revolution and the Vietnam war. These and
other examples are described in the book "March of Folly." It shows
how big institutions tend to make drastic errors that are apparent to
many people at the time, and yet they continue to make them until
they self destruct.
- Jed
