planetf1.com

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

Siao7 wrote:Italian media report that he is in an induced coma. I do wish him well, he did some brilliant management in his role in FIAT/Ferrari.

Somewhere else it was reported that he had a prostate issue as well, who knows really?

I disagree. His biggest decision was to peddle those tiny FUGLY little sardine can atrocities on this side of the pond using Jennifer Lopez's Chicken Legs in their marketing campaigns, and it's gone drastically wrong.
So much so that they are slated to cease all sales in the U.S. in the very near future.

Marchionne and di Montezemolo were at odds because di Montezemolo realized the importance of keeping Ferrari completely independent from the rest of the umbrella and maintain the prancing horse's exclusivity rather than follow what other manufacturers were doing to grow their footprint, when di Montezemolo had already helped transform Ferrari into the world's most power brand. While I wasn't a fan of how di Montezemolo ran the Scuderia in his final decade at the helm, he was light years better for the role than Marchionne.

Marchionne fired Marco Mattiacci almost 9 months after he was appointed TP by di Montezemolo and almost ruined the guy professionally. Then he appointed Maurizio Arrivabene who was is a Marlboro marketing guy and knows nothing about racing outside hanging out with the guys in red for a little over a decade. There's no way anyone can ever convince me the Scuderia is winning because of him and rather, they are doing well despite him and the improvements in their PU was in fact thanks to Mattiacci who began addressing the short comings of the PU immediately after realizing his guys got it wrong. That process was already well in the works, as were future chassis BEFORE Arrivabene was appointed as TP.

The man is so sharp he got himself arrested for littering via chucking his cigarette butt in public in a country where it's clearly prohibited.
Formerly being a high ranking individual at Phillip Morris, he had to know. Then again smokers are among the most selfish people I've ever encountered, and that includes my parents. So please realize, this is not meant to offend anyone, just stating my life experience on the matter.

As you can tell, I wouldn't rush out to call anything Marchionne has done "brilliant", outside work his way to the top, however he managed it,
but I also don't wish him ill and hope he pulls through.

Siao7 wrote:Good post Exediron, making some good points. The guy got results with FIAT and Chrysler, like him or not. Figures of $13 billion are mentioned as the deficit that he managed to wipe out. All down to his skills as a manager and deal maker. He also changed Ferrari's fortune as mentioned above. He was quite a force in Ferrari and didn't do bad since LdM left.

dizlexik wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

Siao7 wrote:Italian media report that he is in an induced coma. I do wish him well, he did some brilliant management in his role in FIAT/Ferrari.

Somewhere else it was reported that he had a prostate issue as well, who knows really?

I disagree. His biggest decision was to peddle those tiny FUGLY little sardine can atrocities on this side of the pond using Jennifer Lopez's Chicken Legs in their marketing campaigns, and it's gone drastically wrong.
So much so that they are slated to cease all sales in the U.S. in the very near future.

Marchionne and di Montezemolo were at odds because di Montezemolo realized the importance of keeping Ferrari completely independent from the rest of the umbrella and maintain the prancing horse's exclusivity rather than follow what other manufacturers were doing to grow their footprint, when di Montezemolo had already helped transform Ferrari into the world's most power brand. While I wasn't a fan of how di Montezemolo ran the Scuderia in his final decade at the helm, he was light years better for the role than Marchionne.

Marchionne fired Marco Mattiacci almost 9 months after he was appointed TP by di Montezemolo and almost ruined the guy professionally. Then he appointed Maurizio Arrivabene who was is a Marlboro marketing guy and knows nothing about racing outside hanging out with the guys in red for a little over a decade. There's no way anyone can ever convince me the Scuderia is winning because of him and rather, they are doing well despite him and the improvements in their PU was in fact thanks to Mattiacci who began addressing the short comings of the PU immediately after realizing his guys got it wrong. That process was already well in the works, as were future chassis BEFORE Arrivabene was appointed as TP.

The man is so sharp he got himself arrested for littering via chucking his cigarette butt in public in a country where it's clearly prohibited.
Formerly being a high ranking individual at Phillip Morris, he had to know. Then again smokers are among the most selfish people I've ever encountered, and that includes my parents. So please realize, this is not meant to offend anyone, just stating my life experience on the matter.

As you can tell, I wouldn't rush out to call anything Marchionne has done "brilliant", outside work his way to the top, however he managed it,
but I also don't wish him ill and hope he pulls through.

Uhh so much hate... He saved 2 automakers from almost certain collapse. He knew he wasn't nice, but he should be judged by what he achieved and he certainly saved a lot of jobs by saving Fiat and Chrysler.

dizlexik wrote:but he should be judged by what he achieved and he certainly saved a lot of jobs by saving Fiat and Chrysler.

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

dizlexik wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

Siao7 wrote:Italian media report that he is in an induced coma. I do wish him well, he did some brilliant management in his role in FIAT/Ferrari.

Somewhere else it was reported that he had a prostate issue as well, who knows really?

I disagree. His biggest decision was to peddle those tiny FUGLY little sardine can atrocities on this side of the pond using Jennifer Lopez's Chicken Legs in their marketing campaigns, and it's gone drastically wrong.
So much so that they are slated to cease all sales in the U.S. in the very near future.

Marchionne and di Montezemolo were at odds because di Montezemolo realized the importance of keeping Ferrari completely independent from the rest of the umbrella and maintain the prancing horse's exclusivity rather than follow what other manufacturers were doing to grow their footprint, when di Montezemolo had already helped transform Ferrari into the world's most power brand. While I wasn't a fan of how di Montezemolo ran the Scuderia in his final decade at the helm, he was light years better for the role than Marchionne.

Marchionne fired Marco Mattiacci almost 9 months after he was appointed TP by di Montezemolo and almost ruined the guy professionally. Then he appointed Maurizio Arrivabene who was is a Marlboro marketing guy and knows nothing about racing outside hanging out with the guys in red for a little over a decade. There's no way anyone can ever convince me the Scuderia is winning because of him and rather, they are doing well despite him and the improvements in their PU was in fact thanks to Mattiacci who began addressing the short comings of the PU immediately after realizing his guys got it wrong. That process was already well in the works, as were future chassis BEFORE Arrivabene was appointed as TP.

The man is so sharp he got himself arrested for littering via chucking his cigarette butt in public in a country where it's clearly prohibited.
Formerly being a high ranking individual at Phillip Morris, he had to know. Then again smokers are among the most selfish people I've ever encountered, and that includes my parents. So please realize, this is not meant to offend anyone, just stating my life experience on the matter.

As you can tell, I wouldn't rush out to call anything Marchionne has done "brilliant", outside work his way to the top, however he managed it,
but I also don't wish him ill and hope he pulls through.

Uhh so much hate... He saved 2 automakers from almost certain collapse. He knew he wasn't nice, but he should be judged by what he achieved and he certainly saved a lot of jobs by saving Fiat and Chrysler.

Can't call facts "Hate".

That's just how you interpret things.
The guy brought the Fiat line of vehicles to the States assuming he would be able to sell the American populous that downsizing to crappy sardine cans was the way to go, at a pretty hefty price mmind you, and outside a few thousand yuppie hipsters, sales were nothing like projected. So while he may have done well in certain areas, he didn't fair all that well in others, or all facets of his job.
And last I heard Chrysler is not doing so well so whatever he's done has served as a temporary patch for now, and the main reason the Chrysler umbrella is doing as well as it is, is mainly because of the Jeep and a couple of Dodge models. Chrysler only offers all of 2 models. Just saying.

So it's not hate so much as it's having a complete picture that tells me some of what people reiterate isn't exactly accurate or correct. Nothing more, nothing less.

Exediron wrote:

dizlexik wrote:but he should be judged by what he achieved and he certainly saved a lot of jobs by saving Fiat and Chrysler.

Not saying that's necessarily the case here, but I don't think one can say that saving/creating jobs is objectively positive. I don't know enough about his measures to save the company in detail, but it's entirely possible that he made drastic reductions in the quality of those jobs in the process of saving them.

Ennis wrote:There is always the "what" and the "how".

When someone achieves something great, people often make the mistake of thinking the "how" was either correct or necessary. Often this isn't the case.

Of course you need some semblance of ruthlessness in there, but there are plenty of examples of doing the "what" whilst primarily also being positive on the "how" side of things too.

paul_gmb wrote:Bernie - Total dictatorship but fair and honest . He could be a pain to others, but at least he got the job done. I think he treated F1 like a familly and did his best to keep the familly together.

Toto and Arrivabene - they seem like team players. They have their own goals and ambitions, but they empower people in the team. Probably only a few directors in this world understand that they're role is to provide everything needed so the brightest people in the team shine.

Christian Horner - quite annoying from time to time, but I think he is one of the managers in the paddock that has to deal with the most poles of power. I can remember some years ago, he had to deal with Webber, Vettel, Marko and Mateschitz at the same time. I would not want to be in that position.

Marchione - From what I saw, including Fiat and Ferrari, he seemed too intrusive. I doubt the Fiat and Chrysler "comeback"was actually a comeback, rather than a normal market recovery. But I may be wrong. This is why in another thread I mentioned that I don't like his management style. Nothing against him personally.

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

paul_gmb wrote:Bernie - Total dictatorship but fair and honest . He could be a pain to others, but at least he got the job done. I think he treated F1 like a familly and did his best to keep the familly together.

Toto and Arrivabene - they seem like team players. They have their own goals and ambitions, but they empower people in the team. Probably only a few directors in this world understand that they're role is to provide everything needed so the brightest people in the team shine.

Christian Horner - quite annoying from time to time, but I think he is one of the managers in the paddock that has to deal with the most poles of power. I can remember some years ago, he had to deal with Webber, Vettel, Marko and Mateschitz at the same time. I would not want to be in that position.

Marchione - From what I saw, including Fiat and Ferrari, he seemed too intrusive. I doubt the Fiat and Chrysler "comeback"was actually a comeback, rather than a normal market recovery. But I may be wrong. This is why in another thread I mentioned that I don't like his management style. Nothing against him personally.

Ecclestone "fair" and "honest"? That's meant to be a joke, right?

AravJ wrote:

Ennis wrote:There is always the "what" and the "how".

When someone achieves something great, people often make the mistake of thinking the "how" was either correct or necessary. Often this isn't the case.

Of course you need some semblance of ruthlessness in there, but there are plenty of examples of doing the "what" whilst primarily also being positive on the "how" side of things too.

I don't think it's a mistake. Ends justify means as long as it is ethical. There is rarely win win in the real world. Managers need to make tough calls and real ones will actually make the calls rather than shying away. Unless you have filled their shoes nobody has any idea on what they had to contend with.
Being positive while results are not there just makes things fake and does more harm than good as people lose trust. People will be positive when they get to keep the jobs and see growth, it's pointless to push the positive agenda if you got nothing to back it up with.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

paul_gmb wrote:Bernie - Total dictatorship but fair and honest . He could be a pain to others, but at least he got the job done. I think he treated F1 like a familly and did his best to keep the familly together.

Toto and Arrivabene - they seem like team players. They have their own goals and ambitions, but they empower people in the team. Probably only a few directors in this world understand that they're role is to provide everything needed so the brightest people in the team shine.

Christian Horner - quite annoying from time to time, but I think he is one of the managers in the paddock that has to deal with the most poles of power. I can remember some years ago, he had to deal with Webber, Vettel, Marko and Mateschitz at the same time. I would not want to be in that position.

Marchione - From what I saw, including Fiat and Ferrari, he seemed too intrusive. I doubt the Fiat and Chrysler "comeback"was actually a comeback, rather than a normal market recovery. But I may be wrong. This is why in another thread I mentioned that I don't like his management style. Nothing against him personally.

Ecclestone "fair" and "honest"? That's meant to be a joke, right?

As a manager from what I've heard that's about right. Ecclestone was always very good to his team around him.

Ennis wrote:

AravJ wrote:

Ennis wrote:There is always the "what" and the "how".

When someone achieves something great, people often make the mistake of thinking the "how" was either correct or necessary. Often this isn't the case.

Of course you need some semblance of ruthlessness in there, but there are plenty of examples of doing the "what" whilst primarily also being positive on the "how" side of things too.

I don't think it's a mistake. Ends justify means as long as it is ethical. There is rarely win win in the real world. Managers need to make tough calls and real ones will actually make the calls rather than shying away. Unless you have filled their shoes nobody has any idea on what they had to contend with.
Being positive while results are not there just makes things fake and does more harm than good as people lose trust. People will be positive when they get to keep the jobs and see growth, it's pointless to push the positive agenda if you got nothing to back it up with.

Simply not true. Being positive motivates people. You need to be real about it, but oddly enough being negative creates a negative atmosphere. Look at any huge multinational organization and you'll see companies who either have a positive culture or a bad culture.

On the 'mistake' I should rephrase -people make the mistake of assuming the "how" was correct or necessary. Sometimes it really is necessary, but there's this belief that every tough call required a certain type of decision making. Often there is more than one way out of a hole, there is more than one way to the top of a mountain, and you don't always need to be a dick on your way. People look at success and think that a certain style was needed - and sometimes it was, - but often you could have achieved the same result with a more positive "how".

And again - of course people would rather keep their jobs. Nobody is denying that a certain way of doing things is required in some decisions. Sometimes you need to cut 20% of your staff to save the other 80% of your staff, and continue is an employer for the decades to come. But give me a leader who looks at every other option for feasibility first over someone who completely removes the human element.

AravJ wrote:

Ennis wrote:

AravJ wrote:

Ennis wrote:There is always the "what" and the "how".

When someone achieves something great, people often make the mistake of thinking the "how" was either correct or necessary. Often this isn't the case.

Of course you need some semblance of ruthlessness in there, but there are plenty of examples of doing the "what" whilst primarily also being positive on the "how" side of things too.

I don't think it's a mistake. Ends justify means as long as it is ethical. There is rarely win win in the real world. Managers need to make tough calls and real ones will actually make the calls rather than shying away. Unless you have filled their shoes nobody has any idea on what they had to contend with.
Being positive while results are not there just makes things fake and does more harm than good as people lose trust. People will be positive when they get to keep the jobs and see growth, it's pointless to push the positive agenda if you got nothing to back it up with.

Simply not true. Being positive motivates people. You need to be real about it, but oddly enough being negative creates a negative atmosphere. Look at any huge multinational organization and you'll see companies who either have a positive culture or a bad culture.

On the 'mistake' I should rephrase -people make the mistake of assuming the "how" was correct or necessary. Sometimes it really is necessary, but there's this belief that every tough call required a certain type of decision making. Often there is more than one way out of a hole, there is more than one way to the top of a mountain, and you don't always need to be a dick on your way. People look at success and think that a certain style was needed - and sometimes it was, - but often you could have achieved the same result with a more positive "how".

And again - of course people would rather keep their jobs. Nobody is denying that a certain way of doing things is required in some decisions. Sometimes you need to cut 20% of your staff to save the other 80% of your staff, and continue is an employer for the decades to come. But give me a leader who looks at every other option for feasibility first over someone who completely removes the human element.

It's not about positive or negative. It's about being honest. Ferrari was toxic the car industry was going down. Just look at mclaren, they could have done with cold hard honesty for a few years that would have put them in a better position today. Zak himself said they played down Honda engine last year to motivate staff and look where it got them, need I say more than Freddos.Management is selected by a boards based on what changes are needed and how effective a person can be based on their style and given a mandate. In the ideal environment yes do brain storming, take years to make desicsion by committee, but time is not always on your side. It's situational managment, and yes a tough line is not always necessary, but their definitely there is a time and place where is is absolutely necessary.

Ennis wrote:

AravJ wrote:

Ennis wrote:

AravJ wrote:

Ennis wrote:There is always the "what" and the "how".

When someone achieves something great, people often make the mistake of thinking the "how" was either correct or necessary. Often this isn't the case.

Of course you need some semblance of ruthlessness in there, but there are plenty of examples of doing the "what" whilst primarily also being positive on the "how" side of things too.

I don't think it's a mistake. Ends justify means as long as it is ethical. There is rarely win win in the real world. Managers need to make tough calls and real ones will actually make the calls rather than shying away. Unless you have filled their shoes nobody has any idea on what they had to contend with.
Being positive while results are not there just makes things fake and does more harm than good as people lose trust. People will be positive when they get to keep the jobs and see growth, it's pointless to push the positive agenda if you got nothing to back it up with.

Simply not true. Being positive motivates people. You need to be real about it, but oddly enough being negative creates a negative atmosphere. Look at any huge multinational organization and you'll see companies who either have a positive culture or a bad culture.

On the 'mistake' I should rephrase -people make the mistake of assuming the "how" was correct or necessary. Sometimes it really is necessary, but there's this belief that every tough call required a certain type of decision making. Often there is more than one way out of a hole, there is more than one way to the top of a mountain, and you don't always need to be a dick on your way. People look at success and think that a certain style was needed - and sometimes it was, - but often you could have achieved the same result with a more positive "how".

And again - of course people would rather keep their jobs. Nobody is denying that a certain way of doing things is required in some decisions. Sometimes you need to cut 20% of your staff to save the other 80% of your staff, and continue is an employer for the decades to come. But give me a leader who looks at every other option for feasibility first over someone who completely removes the human element.

It's not about positive or negative. It's about being honest. Ferrari was toxic the car industry was going down. Just look at mclaren, they could have done with cold hard honesty for a few years that would have put them in a better position today. Zak himself said they played down Honda engine last year to motivate staff and look where it got them, need I say more than Freddos.Management is selected by a boards based on what changes are needed and how effective a person can be based on their style and given a mandate. In the ideal environment yes do brain storming, take years to make desicsion by committee, but time is not always on your side. It's situational managment, and yes a tough line is not always necessary, but their definitely there is a time and place where is is absolutely necessary.

Playing down something as if nothing is going wrong is the wrong thing to do. You can be both honest and positive. You also need to consider who you're speaking to. There's an expectation that execs will have thick enough skin to maintain their own positive, forward momentum regardless of how much they're getting shouted at. If you're an exec with managers, or engineers, or whatever - then being both honest and positive is often the best path forward. Be honest about failure, find solutions, find improvements, but at least try to convey a positive future and work on the path towards it.

Consistent seagull management doesn't help.

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

paul_gmb wrote:Bernie - Total dictatorship but fair and honest . He could be a pain to others, but at least he got the job done. I think he treated F1 like a familly and did his best to keep the familly together.

Toto and Arrivabene - they seem like team players. They have their own goals and ambitions, but they empower people in the team. Probably only a few directors in this world understand that they're role is to provide everything needed so the brightest people in the team shine.

Christian Horner - quite annoying from time to time, but I think he is one of the managers in the paddock that has to deal with the most poles of power. I can remember some years ago, he had to deal with Webber, Vettel, Marko and Mateschitz at the same time. I would not want to be in that position.

Marchione - From what I saw, including Fiat and Ferrari, he seemed too intrusive. I doubt the Fiat and Chrysler "comeback"was actually a comeback, rather than a normal market recovery. But I may be wrong. This is why in another thread I mentioned that I don't like his management style. Nothing against him personally.

Ecclestone "fair" and "honest"? That's meant to be a joke, right?

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

paul_gmb wrote:Bernie - Total dictatorship but fair and honest . He could be a pain to others, but at least he got the job done. I think he treated F1 like a familly and did his best to keep the familly together.

Toto and Arrivabene - they seem like team players. They have their own goals and ambitions, but they empower people in the team. Probably only a few directors in this world understand that they're role is to provide everything needed so the brightest people in the team shine.

Christian Horner - quite annoying from time to time, but I think he is one of the managers in the paddock that has to deal with the most poles of power. I can remember some years ago, he had to deal with Webber, Vettel, Marko and Mateschitz at the same time. I would not want to be in that position.

Marchione - From what I saw, including Fiat and Ferrari, he seemed too intrusive. I doubt the Fiat and Chrysler "comeback"was actually a comeback, rather than a normal market recovery. But I may be wrong. This is why in another thread I mentioned that I don't like his management style. Nothing against him personally.

Ecclestone "fair" and "honest"? That's meant to be a joke, right?

Buuuahahahahahaaahaaahaahaa!!… I thought the same thing!!!!!
Guess he's not aware of the "ANYTHING BUT FAIR" distribution model the fairest Mr. Ecclestone implemented that has seen to it that new teams who committed to the sport as well as some others struggle financially or collapse altogether. And that only AFTER he received his large cut up front!