Depth report

　　

Mark Fields likes to say that Ford Motor Company must "step into the present with one foot and into the future with the other." Now he has completely lost his footing because he was relieved of his position as chief executive officer of Ford. He was chosen to replace him by Jim Hackett. Hackett served as the CEO of Steelcase, a midwestern office furniture company in the United States, whose revenue was only one-fifth of Ford's. Hackett became famous for reorganizing Steelcase, and then he briefly served as the head of the troubled University of Michigan sports program, and skillfully hired a star coach for the Wolverines football team at the University of Michigan.

    Therefore, Hackett is very famous in Michigan. But whether his talents are worthy of the confident statement made by Henry Ford in 1925 is another matter. Ford claimed at the time that his eponymous company was "large and ambitious," and "dare to try things that have not been tried and succeed."

    The first obstacle is working under Bill Ford, a member of the Ford family and chairman of Ford. Ford has rotated four helms in 16 years. In 2001, Jacques Nasser was dismissed. In 2006, Bill Ford stepped down as CEO and gave way to Alan Mulally, who proposed “a Ford "(One Ford) strategy.

    Fields has worked for Ford for 28 years and is well aware of Ford's strict hierarchy and often pays attention to the internal culture. He began serving as Ford's CEO in 2014, and his tenure lasted for three years, which is about the same length as the cycle of designing, manufacturing and selling a new car. He tried to operate efficiently and have a vision for new technologies, but ultimately confused shareholders and caused them to alienate his relationship.

    Hackett may do better, but I have an ominous hunch: The fundamental problem is not with Fields, but with Ford. I have this idea partly because the business models of American automakers are facing global and multifaceted challenges. Under such challenges, Bill Ford turned to a man from Grand Rapids, Michigan. But there is another reason that this task is extremely difficult and may be impossible to complete. This is even more difficult than the problems faced by the heads of many large companies. They know that growth in the industry is facing pressure from smaller competitors and new competitors. At the same time, they are also facing the destruction brought about by new technologies, which may change the way products and services are designed and provided, thereby marginalizing them.

    The three major automakers in Detroit—General Motors, Ford and Fiat Chrysler—are constantly being squeezed by Asian competitors in their home markets. Compared with 1970, Ford's market share in the United States has fallen by half, to 15%. The global market share is only half of this number. In March of this year, General Motors responded by withdrawing from Europe and selling its Opel and Vauxhall businesses to PSA Group.

    This would have been enough to solve the problem, but these automakers are also facing waves of destruction caused by new technologies, including electric cars produced by competitors such as Tesla, self-driving cars developed by Silicon Valley giants such as Alphabet, and On-demand ride-hailing services provided by companies such as Uber.

    In the profit pool of the automotive industry, manufacturers have always accounted for the majority in the past, and component suppliers and distributors have to rely on them. This distribution pattern is now threatened: suppliers of electronic equipment and software may take away most of the value, turning the three major manufacturers into outsourced assemblers.

    The management consulting firm Bain & Company envisions what it calls a company of the future—a company that faces upheaval. Bain Consulting claims that the leaders of these companies must ensure the smooth operation of the "No. 1 engine" of the traditional core business. At the same time, they must be able to come up with funds to invest in the "second engine" in the growth field.

    Fields made Ford's speech based on the present and the future, giving the impression that he had read the book but did not know how to use it in practice. From supporting Ford's lucrative F150 pickup truck to launching a model that competes with the Chevrolet Bolt (Chevrolet Bolt), an electric car produced by General Motors, he doesn't seem to have a clear direction.

    On Monday, Bill Ford aptly introduced Hackett, “He is not only a futurist, but also a very good operations executive”, and the new CEO promised to keep things simple. "If you have a clear view of the future, you can quickly implement it in accordance with that view."

    Ford clearly needs to make difficult choices-just as General Motors chose to withdraw from Europe and India. It is no longer feasible for a company to initiate a charge on all fronts at the same time. Paul Ingrassia of the Revs Institute in Florida said: “It is unrealistic to be a global player in all fields while trying to invest in the future.” Ingrassia has written many books about Detroit automakers. .

    However, Ford's organizational structure and leadership are still facing deeper doubts. In 2015, facing a similar predicament, Larry Page made Sundar Pichai the CEO of Google, and he took over “Engine 2” as Google’s parent company Alphabet. Chief executive officer. He believes that the burden on investors who are also operating executives and focused on future development is too heavy.

    Ford's personnel reorganization has caused Hackett and Bill Ford's responsibilities to overlap. They have to lead a team of 20 experienced executives, who were 1096 years old in 2016. In football terms, this team is like an extremely experienced alternate player who knows how to play.

Hackett has not yet faced all the challenges of Ford, but some of the work is too heavy for anyone to bear.