GM is in intense negotiations with bondholders, employees (via the union) and the government over its future.  At stake is nothing less than the future of America's largest auto company.  A company that saw revenue decline more than 40% in January after deciding in December to idle most of its manufacturing plants. 

The negotiations are focusing on whether GM can be competitive.  But, unfortunately, GM seems to be directing that discussion toward cost reductions (read article here).  As if all GM needs to do is somehow lower costs and it will be competitive with Toyota, which displaced GM atop the global auto industry as the world's largest in January.  What customers globally know is that the issue at GM isn't just about cost (which can pretty much be translated into "union contract busting.")  Customers want quality products that fit their needs, produced at high quality, with low service costs, and low cost of use (interpret – higher mileage.)  It's been 20  years since the yen/dollar valuation gave Japanese manufacturers lower cost of production – and yet year after year Toyota, Honda, Subaru and Suzuki keep growing share while U.S. manufacturers keep declining.

One of the more difficult to understand articles this week was the lauding of GM's vice-chairman Bob Lutz.  Mr. Lutz is more than 70  years old!  He might well have been a great executive 35 years ago (in 1974) when he was an up-and-coming executive.  But my how the world, and the auto industry, has changed since then.  I'll never forget watching him interviewed on television about the Tesla (the electric sports car) and seeing him laugh.  He literally dismissed Tesla as unimportant – not up to the standards of GM and it's industry leadership.  At the time my thought was "I think you'd be a lot smarter to listen to these new guys than be so smug and ignore them." Of course, in short order, Toyota's hybrid vehicles helped lead Toyota past GM, and the approach of Mr. Lutz was looking less and less viable.  Good bye, and good riddance, would be a better report for an executive who not only stayed around too long and didn't "save" GM, but ignored powerful competitors while trying to defend an outdated Success Formula.

It is time for GM, and the other domestic auto competitors, to move on.  The old Success Formula has failed.  It's not about just doing less well, with GM stock valued at $2.70 and the negotiation about converting bondholders to equity holders in order to get more government bailout money — the game is over.  What worked for GM in the 1950s, and most of the 1960s, doesn't work any more.  And the success of Toyota and Honda demonstrates that.  America doesn't need Bob Lutz (and his compadres) any more – may he enjoy his retirement (which is a lot more secure than the thousands of GM retirees that weren't executives).  If investors, employees and vendors of the American auto industry are to avoid even more downfall it is time to develop an entirely new game – with new leaders.

GM (and its brethren) need to quit villifying unions as the "boogeymen" causing all their problems.  Management signed those union agreements – and if they weren't viable management should have dealt with them.  The employees of GM - and all the citizens of Detroit, southeastern Michigan and northwester Ohio as well as the extended midwest – have a vested interest in the succes of this industry.  They will agree to leadership which helps them succeed.  Continue the old "company vs. union" battles will do no good.  Leadership needs to be focused on offering an approach to delivering products that will energize employees and ucstomers alike.

GM must define a new future.  Not one based upon a series of cost cuts – which will be matched by competitors.  GM needs to demonstrate it can change its view of R&D, product development, customer finance and distribution to meet current customer needs.  For GM to be viable, management must demonstrate it knows that tweaking the old model is insufficient.  It's time to develop an "entirely new car company" as Roger Smith said when he funded the launch of Saturn.  And America's banks, investors and auto buyers all know this. 

Increasingly at GM, Disrupting the old business model seems unlikely.  Current management is so Locked-in it continues searching for ways to Defend the old model, in spite of deteriorating results at the nadir of failure.  If America is to invest in this company, it deserves new management which is able to develop a new company that can truly compete.  It is time to demand new leaders who are not the "old guard", but instead leaders who are able to bring new products to market that are competitive by implementing White Space where these new products can be launched through new distribution.  For America to keep supporting GM the company needs to move beyond old arguments about labor costs, and get serious about changing its product line and distribution system as well as its legacy employment costs.  It's possible to turn around GM – but only if management will abandon its Defend & Extend Management practices and instead use Disruptions to open White Space for a better company to emerge.