Was Calhoun really the problem? This company is one of those massive, glacial companies that have enormous inertia. Whatever changes in process led to all these disasters, it was something that started long before Calhoun's reign, I personally blame Jim McNerney.
One of the reasons we generally excuse extremely high levels of executive compensation is that when things go well, the executives take full credit for it. Does it not seem reasonable that they should also take full credit, in ways beyond words, when things do not go well? I'm very much opposed to the increasing trend of socializing costs and privatizing profits which I feel this is a sort of a spin on. 'Privatize success, socialize failure.'
Fair enough. But I think that former executives should also be looked at, too. Otherwise, the incentive becomes to trash the company for short term profits and GTFO before shit hits the fan.
