Quote:
Wat_Tyler wrote:
Quote:
MJG wrote:
Quote:
Wat_Tyler wrote:
Christopher was/is an example of the Peter Principle.
Nance really tried.
I don't know if that was the case with Christopher. I remember reading he saved Harlow Curtice's butt while at Buick. He did save Packard with the junior line. Perhaps just the wrong man for the job postwar.
Christopher was a manufacturing guy, not a business guy. Gilman got the Clipper to market and Christopher rode the pony off the cliff. He needed a bright new model for the 50th anniversary, and he needed some new technology, too. He failed to implement either.
So, who is really to blame? None other than Sir Alvan himself.
I don't think he is a good example of the Peter Principle. When I think of the PP, I think of a mechanic, who is a great mechanic promoted to maintenance supervisor but, a poor delegator and leader. He constantly does the work himself and doesn't know how to tell his old coworkers that overtime is out. Or an assistant controller promoted to full controller. This person is a great bookkeeper but, doesn't know how to challenge other disciplines in following internal financial controls.
Christopher was a successful leader and GM/President pre-war. He was the right man for the job - then. Bringing him in was purposeful and successful. Had he been hired in 1946 and performed the same postwar - I would totally agree with you. The fact he wanted to step down tells you he had awareness to the fact that he wasn't the right leader for that time. He should have marketed himself as a turnaround specialist.. probably to close to retirement. No doubt others should have realized that too (earlier).
I use to work for a plant manager who was nothing more than a hatchet man. He knew his limitations and would sniff out inefficiency and redundancy then move on. He traveled the US as a "plant manager" though he couldn't manage one to save his life.
Mike
This Post was from: https://packardinfo.com/xoops/html/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?post_id=243809