"Henderson Never Fit In At GM Helm" is the Detroit Free Press headline.  Imagine that – the CEO of GM has been asked to leave.  Industry sales are down about 24%, and GM is down 32%.  Meanwhile, Mr. Henderson had proposed selling 4 divisions (Saab, Opel, Hummer and Saturn) – which were the most interesting divisions in the company – and none of those deals have closed.  In fact, 3 have fallen apart completely.  Only the Hummer sale to a Chinese firm is potentially going to happen.  In fact, it's hard to find anything good that's happened at GM since Mr. Henderson took over.  Including closing Pontiac.

When the government invested in GM this year the existing Chairman/CEO, Rick Waggoner, was forced to resign.  Imagine that, after puting several bilion in a company the investor's transition team replaced the CEO who got the company into bankruptcy, almost out of cash, with no plan for recovery.  Also, the Board, which had allowed GM to get into such a mess without even raising tough questions, was replaced.  All seems remarkably sensible given the sorry state of the company.

The goverment led transition team, which rocketed GM through bankruptcy, cleaned the ceiling, but then selected Mr. Waggoner's hand-picked successor (Mr. Henderson) to replace him.  The claim was they'd need 6 months to search for somebody new and didn't want to take the time.  And they put in a lifetime monopolist, Mr. Whiteacre of AT&T, as Chairman. And a 40+ year industry veteran was made head of marketing (Mr. Lutz.)  And a 40+ year company employee was kept as CFO.  And we're supposed to be surprised that things aren't going well? 

The Chairman and replacement CEO says of the company says "Whiteacre: GM On the Right Path," also in the Detroit Free Press.  But do you believe him?  What does he know about competing successfully against intense foreign led competitors who move fast?  The AT&T that trained him early in his career failed horribly, never succeeding in any market outside the U.S. and getting cleaned by offshore competitors in hardware and mobile telephony.  And as head of Southwestern Bell, all he did was rebuild the old "Bell system" of land-line companies – without effectively taking a leading position in any new telephony business.  Or any other business.  Broadband, mobile phones, digital television – can you think of any market where today's AT&T is a technology, product development, innovation or other market leader?  He may have bought up a bunch of the old spun out businesses, but those are on their last legs as people give up land lines and transition to a different sort of connected future.

What's surprising is that GM isn't doing worse.  But it's unlikely Mr. Whiteacre, or Mr. Henderson's replacement, will do much better.  Several candidates are from inside GM – all with the same Lock-ins that allowed Messrs. Waggoner, Henderson and Lutz to perform so abysmally – despite incredible pay packages for many years.  In "Selling GM's CEO Job to be Tough Task" (Detroit Free Press) headhunters claim that the industry is so complex they'll have a hard time finding someone talented who will work for the pay.  Balderdash.  That's only true because they are so Locked-in to traditional thinking about who should lead GM that they keep trying to recycle already overpaid CEOs who have done little for shareholders.  That's not what's needed at GM.

Give us a break.  Who would want an industry veteran in the job at all?  And why would a recruiter hunt for somebody with a lot of industrial-era Lock-ins.  GM's investors (that's the citizens of the USA and Canada,) employees and vendors need somebody who's ready to move beyond the old industry and company Success Formulas and do something very different.  Willing to develop entirely new scenarios of the future which alter the competitive playing field and then Disrupt the organization in order to start doing new things.  Before Tata Motors and China's Chery auto join the other companies ready to put GM into the grave.

It's amazing how "inside the box" the people who are leading GM, and advising the company, remain.  Why not try to recruit somebody from Tesla to take over?  The long-delayed electric Chevy Volt might well get to market faster – and in a more desirable form – if that were to happen.  Or how about an heir apparent at fast growing Cisco Systems?  Those people know how to pay attention to the market and move quickly to give customers what they need – profitably.  

Turning around GM requires leadership that will change the Success Formula.  Not try to Defend it, or Extend it with slowly evolving variations and minimal change.  The whole house needs to be cleaned.  The investor representatives who led the transition pulled up short of finishing their job.  Only by bringing in new managers who are willing to see a very different future, unbounded by the GM legacy, can GM's competitive position be changed – and if GM tries to keep competing the way it has Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Tata Motors, et. all will eat GM's dinner.  And only by Disrupting the old Lock-ins, using White Space teams to develop new solutions, can GM regain viability.