The GM Hearings – What They Were Really Saying
Apparently, No Sweat was glued to C-Span last week watching the Congressional hearings that had General Motors CEO Mary Barra in the hot seat. Here’s the email he sent me. He takes a cynical point of view; whether you agree with him or not, the three leadership lessons he shares in the last paragraph are worth thinking about.
Mikey,
Did you watch the flogging of GM CEO Mary Barra at the hands of the House and Senate committees? It was a kabuki dance featuring grandstanding politicians throwing wild haymakers at Ms. Barra as she bobbed, weaved and apologized while slipping punch after punch.
The alleged purpose of the hearings was to determine “what GM knew and when they knew it” regarding the poorly engineered ignition switch that led to 13 deaths and the recall of 2.6 million cars. What it was really about was legislators using the hearings to campaign by looking and talking tough while the GM CEO attempted to minimize damage and exploit the hearings as a crisis management forum.
I don’t mean to minimize the seriousness of the 13 deaths and many injuries. My point is that if Congress really wanted to understand why the problem occurred, how future problems can be prevented and what to do about compensating the families of the dead and injured, there are better ways to do it than by preening before the cameras.
As a boy, my father, Walter Kosinski cautioned me to “listen to what they’re saying, and what they’re really saying.”
This was his way to explain “active listening,” understanding the real message behind a person’s words, intonation and body language. So, following my dad’s advice and using my unrivaled transcription skills, I’ve captured some of the most significant sound bites from the hearing and provided my own interpretation of what Ms. Barra and the pols on the House and Senate committees were really saying. Here are the highlights.
What Ms. Barra was thinking as she gave her opening statement:
- “I can’t believe I had to spend the better part of a week preparing for these hearings when I could have been doing real work.”
- “Instead, I’m sitting hear reading a statement to a bunch of people who have never had real jobs, don’t understand my business and couldn’t get hired by me in a hundred years.”
→ Congressman’s response to Ms. Barra’s opening statement: “Harrumph, harrumph, harrumph.”
What Ms. Barra was thinking as she discussed the old GM “culture of cost containment” v. the new “culture of safety.”
- “Spinning this yarn about our shift from a ‘culture of cost containment’ to a ‘culture of safety’ isn’t easy. I hope they buy it.”
- “We’re in business to make a profit, so we’ll always be cost focused. We looked that the total cost of replacing that part and added to it the estimated lost sales the decision would cause, plus the cost of the settlements we were quietly negotiating. And then, we guesstimated the probability that Congress would get involved. And frankly, since the government owned a large chunk of the company, we bet that the bureaucrats would leave us alone.”
→ Senator (pointing a finger as Ms. Barra and looking tough): “Cluck, cluck cluck, bork, bork, bork.”
→ What the senator was thinking as she droned on and on: “My staff will be pleased I used the phrase ‘culture of cover up.’ It’s such a quotable quote; the media will love it. It should run in news reports tonight in my state and across the U.S. Clearly, I’m qualified to be Secretary of Commerce.”
What Ms. Barra was thinking as the senator clucked and borked:
- “I’m not going to let her unnerve me, I’m not going to let her bait me, I’m not going to get sucked into a debate. Serenity now! Serenity now!”
→ Congressman (Looking over the glasses perched on the end of his nose): “Fuzza, fuzza, fuzza, waka, waka, waka.”
→ Translation:” I hope they’re shooting this from my good side. This should make a great campaign video.”
→ Senator: “I find it hard to believe that with the senior positions you’ve held at GM, that you knew nothing about this problem until three months ago.”
How Ms. Barra should have replied:
- “Did I really get this question from a member of a dysfunctional institution that routinely votes on bills they don’t read?”
After watching hours of Ms. Barra’s testimony, I had three takeaways:
- First, the hearings reminded me of a quote by Wall Street Journal editorial page writer Holman W. Jenkins, who said, “Nothing of substance has to change if you have enough scapegoats.”
- Second, listen actively. Often, what’s said between the lines is what’s most important.
- Last of all, in any meeting where two sides are involved, if the sides don’t share a common purpose, the results will be political theater where little is accomplished.
Thanks for listening,
No Sweat