Not so sclerotic: the truth about General Motors

Karl Ludvigsen is irritated by ill-informed criticism of the troubled American auto giant — which was once a model of quick, responsive and decentralised decision-making

Outraged is too mild a word for the way I felt after reading a piece in the 12 November edition of the New York Times about General Motors. Focusing on the faults of this once-great company, its author said the following:

For all its financial troubles and shortcomings as an automaker, no aspect of GM has confounded its critics as much as its hidebound, command-and-control corporate culture. When GM collapsed last year and turned to the US government for an emergency bailout, itcentury-old way of conducting business was laid bare, with all its faults in plain sight. Decisions were made, if at all, at a glacial pace, bogged down by endless committees, reports and reviews that astonished members of President Barack Obama’s auto task force.

This accusation cannot go unanswered.