
Ford Motor Is Replacing Mark Fields as C.E.O - moritzplassnig
https://nytimes.com/2017/05/21/business/ford-motor-chief-executive.html
======
hkmurakami
>Mr. Hackett, 62, a longtime chief of the office furniture giant Steelcase and
a former Ford director, joined the company’s operational ranks last year as
head of its “smart mobility” operation, which includes driverless technology.

The self driving car aspect of his responsibilities seem pretty tangential to
his professional skillset, and not a reason for his ascension to CEO.

NYT probably has some data saying that any headline including "self dirivng
car" gets more eyeballs.

~~~
harryf
How about: "Ford hopes to push self-driving cars by replacing 56 year old CEO
with 62 year old CEO with a background in office furniture" ?

~~~
sillysaurus3
Why is age even relevant? Ageism isn't a fun thing to look forward to. If I
make it to 56 I hope it doesn't get branded onto my professional
accomplishments.

~~~
harryf
Oh I hear you - I'm closer to 56 than I'd like to be (mid forties). The point
is Ford apparently tries to send a signal to shareholders that they have a
clue about being a real player in self driving cars and this message is odd -
seems more about slowing the decline in _existing_ revenue than generating
new.

While there are 62 year olds who are quite comfortable with new technology and
new ways of working, required to transform and innovate, you and I both know
that _on average_ the older people get, the more they struggle with change and
learning new things.

~~~
sillysaurus3
On average, it may be true to say that certain minority groups may be more
violent or less intelligent. That doesn't mean it's ok to treat them as such.

It may seem like a glib comparison, and I hope it's substantive enough that it
doesn't start a flamewar. But if one person can come to see ageism as equally
valid as racism, then they can teach others, who will teach others, and
eventually it will no longer be a problem.

------
twblalock
To some extent, the outgoing CEO is taking the fall for a nationwide slump in
auto sales, which affects all auto companies.

I think this change is mainly window dressing: the outgoing CEO was committed
to self-driving car research, as is the new guy. The fundamentals of the
company are unlikely to change.

I suspect that the stock would go up in the short term if Ford started putting
more money into SUVs and crossovers, at the expense of the company's long-term
success. If Ford's investors believe that self-driving cars (or at least,
semi-autonomous cars) are the future, they should be willing to put up with a
low stock price over the next few years.

~~~
Fricken
GM's sales have gone up over the past few years, their share price has been
pretty steady, and they're long term strategy for electric, shared, and
autonomous is looking gangbusters. Ford not so much.

~~~
twblalock
GM's sales are down this year, as are Ford's.

The GM share price is not steady either -- it has dropped nearly 15% from its
value in March, and about 6% from it's value on January 1st.

------
fensterblick
I have been a Ford investor for several years. This is a big surprise for me.

Ford has said they expect to have a fully autonomous vehicles by 2021 (link:
[https://corporate.ford.com/innovation/autonomous-2021.html](https://corporate.ford.com/innovation/autonomous-2021.html)).
That always seemed too ambitious to me, but I welcome being proved wrong.

I invested in Ford partly because I think, unlike GM, they recognize an
existential threat to their business and are trying to take steps to avoid it.
It has been a horrible investment for me this far.

~~~
Judgmentality
> I invested in Ford partly because I think, unlike GM, they recognize an
> existential threat to their business and are trying to take steps to avoid
> it.

Why do you think GM is unaware of the changing tides? They are currently
selling the all-electric Bolt which is meant to compete directly with the
upcoming Tesla Model 3. And they are investing however many billions of
dollars into self-driving technology with their acquisition and support of
Cruise Automation.

~~~
fensterblick
I have much disdain for GM's corporate culture. It is a company culture that
knowingly allowed dangerous vehicles be sold for a decade until a Georgia
litigator connected the dots (source: [http://jalopnik.com/your-guide-to-the-
problem-gm-didnt-fix-u...](http://jalopnik.com/your-guide-to-the-problem-gm-
didnt-fix-until-13-people-1532115319) )

As for Cruise Automation, I am not convinced they have accomplished anything
groundbreaking relative to their competitors.

I can't speak much about the Bolt. A quick Google search shows a Bloomberg
story stating they will lose 8-9k per car sold. GM better hope it doesn't sell
well, if that is the case! (link:
[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-30/gm-s-
read...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-30/gm-s-ready-to-
lose-9-000-a-pop-and-chase-the-electric-car-boom))

~~~
thanksgiving
I'm sorry for the cheap shot but the Ford pinto is a much bigger (if unfair to
Ford - "A subsequent study concluded that the fire risks of the Ford Pinto
were no greater than its contemporaries."
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto)
) black mark.

I didn't even recall the GM incident without clicking the link even though it
was so recent.

------
dkrich
As a long time Ford shareholder, this article seems to be applying a cause and
effect that is at best speculative. It's important not to confuse share price
with company performance, because in the short term the two can have zero
correlation.

This move has to do with one thing and one thing only- share price. The Ford
family isn't satisfied with the image Fields was giving the company to
investors and wants to shake things up in the hopes of jump starting the
demand for its stock.

Despite the doom and gloom image portrayed in the article, Ford has actually
been wildly profitable for years and is far from struggling. In fact they are
coming off a series of the most profitable quarters in company history. This
move has little to nothing to do with autonomous car development or electric
for that matter, both of which Ford is already investing in heavily.

------
Eerie
Wait, is it self-driving car or self-driving executive?

~~~
m-j-fox
I hope I'm not the only one who thought this was an Onion headline. Like if AI
can run a Ford then AI can run Ford.

~~~
omarchowdhury
Executive function will be the last to be automated, when the machines see no
need to take any more orders from us.

------
edshiro
Anyone knows much about the new CEO, Jim Hackett? It seems like window
dressing to me as I don't see Ford suddenly becoming like Tesla anytime soon,
or ever.

Also looks like the outgoing CEO was the fall guy for the company's mediocre
sales. Replacing him with a guy who oversees self-driving cars is not going to
magically change the trend.

~~~
dkrich
Window dressing is exactly what they want. We live in a climate where share
price is based purely on branding and not on fundamentals. Elon Musk has
convinced the market that he's the second coming of Steve Jobs and the market
is buying into it hook line and sinker.

As a shareholder I think the Ford family wants to create an image that will
signal to the market Ford is very serious about autonomous and electric. I'd
be very surprised not to see some very publicized development of a new line of
cars in the next year or two.

------
sjg007
Apparently self driving cars are real.

------
LoSboccacc
how's that gonna work, a larger desk with a reclining hydraulic car lift?

------
iagooar
First I read the title as "Ford is replacing CEO with self-driving car"

Too bad this isn't true ;)

~~~
zachrose
I read it as "self-driving executive," which should be most car company CEOs.

------
grandalf
Warning: paywall

~~~
vkat
nyt gives you get 10 articles for free per month, although I decided to pay
$10 per month. Their quality of journalism is pretty good for what they
charge.

~~~
grandalf
I typically use those up on clickbait articles that I don't decide to read
after all, and then by the time one comes along that I would read I get the
paywall.

I'm disinclined to pay for the NYT because of its role in getting Trump
elected. By refusing to subject HRC to appropriate scrutiny and by amplifying
all of Trump's stunts and gaffes, the paper was useless as an authoritative
voice during a very important time in history.

If the quality were more consistent I'd happily use the google trick to get
the articles for free, but much of the content is seemingly meant to generate
clicks from issues that have already been covered extensively elsewhere.

~~~
thewhitetulip
I am sorry, what google trick?

~~~
grandalf
You can google the headline of a NYT article in an incognito window and when
the article comes up in the search results you can read it without a paywall
getting in the way.

