Jack Welch

The mixed legacy of the late GE czar Jack Welch

Jack Welch in 2012

Jack Welch in 2012


From Robert Whitcomb’s “Digital Diary,’’ in GoLocal24.com

Jack Welch, a brilliant son of Salem, Mass., who never let anything get between him and a camera, has died at 84. He helped amplify the myth of the superman, imperialist CEO as he built up the vast conglomerate through acquisitions and divestitures (including of throngs of employees). His focus on “shareholder value’’ above all else, and enriching himself beyond all the dreams of avarice, was impressive, as was his charismatic showmanship. He made a lot of money for shareholders during his reign and they naturally loved him for it.=

But some of his big bets, especially in making GE more of a finance company than anything else, turned out very bad for the company in the long run, after he retired, in 2001. Indeed, more than a few of his decisions look in retrospect to have been dangerously unsustainable. But while he reigned, he reveled in a cult of personality, which gave him a monarchial lifestyle, including in retirement – paid for, of course, by his beloved shareholders, many of whom were unaware of his extreme compensation and privileges.

Some of the things he did were financially necessary, such as closing some not very profitable Rust Belt factories and moving the operations to cheap-labor countries. More problematic was that he cut funding for research and development in order to maximize short-term profits – bad for GE’s very long-term health and so bad for America. He also pushed back against public pressures to make the company clean up some of the horrific industrial pollution it caused.

“Neutron Jack” (so named because of his enthusiasm for firing people) could be amusingly hypocritical. For instance, in 2009, long after his retirement, he called “shareholder value” (above all else) a “dumb idea’’ and said that corporate executives’ “main constituencies are your employees, your customers and your product.’’ But during his 20-year reign at GE, its stock price took precedence above all else.

Still, I’ll miss his TV and other performances.=

A sentence in a New York Times editorial in 2001 summed up Welch’s work well:

“His legacy is not only a changed G.E., but a changed American corporate ethos, one that prizes nimbleness, speed and regeneration over older ideals like stability, loyalty and permanence.”

Jeff Spross, a writer for The Week, opined: “Focusing on shareholder value and stock market capitalization ultimately turns a company into an abstraction, its life sustained by financial flows that are less and less connected to the underlying fundamentals of the company — its workers, its resources, its infrastructure, the real needs it provides to the people it serves. When the good times end and the money dries up, what's left of the company may not be able to stand on its own.’’

Maybe, but in any case, now-Boston-based General Electric seems back on the road to long-term prosperity again.

Under new management, now-Boston-based GE is trying to recharge its finances.Photo by Raysonho @ Open Grid Scheduler / Grid Engine

Under new management, now-Boston-based GE is trying to recharge its finances.

Photo by Raysonho @ Open Grid Scheduler / Grid Engine

400px-General_Electric_logo.svg.png




Sam Pizzigati: Other than making mountains of money for themselves, what do America's CEOs make these days?

 

Via OtherWords.org

Jeff Immelt, the CEO of General Electric since 2001, is retiring. The 61-year-old will be making a well-compensated exit.

Fortune magazine estimates that Immelt will walk off with nearly $211 million, on top of his regular annual pay. Immelt’s annual pay hasn’t been too shabby either. He pulled down $21.3 million last year, after $37.25 million in 2014.

But Immelt’s millions don’t come close to matching the haul that his  immediate predecessor, Jack Welch, collected. Welch’s annual compensation topped $144 million in 2000. He stepped down the next year with a retirement package valued at $417 million.

What did Immelt and Welch actually do to merit their super-sized rewards? What did they add to a GE hall of fame that already included such breakthroughs as the first high-altitude jet engine (1949) and the first laser lights (1962)?

In simple truth, not much at all.

“We bring good things to life,” the GE ad slogan used to proudly pronounce. Not lately.

And not surprisingly either. Mature business enterprises, we’ve learned over recent decades, either make breakthroughs for consumers or grand fortunes for their top execs. They don’t do both.

Why not? Making breakthroughs, for starters, takes time. Enterprises have to invest in research, training, and nurturing high-performance teams.

Years can go by before any of these investments bear fruit. By that time, the executives who made the original investments might not even be around.

Grand fortunes, by contrast, can come quick. CEOs can downsize here, cut a merger there, then sit back and watch short-term quarterly earnings — and the value of their stock options — soar.

If those don’t do the trick, CEOs can always just slash worker pensions or R&D and put the resulting “savings” into dividends and “buybacks,” two slick corporate maneuvers that jack up company share prices and inflate executive paychecks.

On any CEO slickness scale, Jack Welch would have to rank right near the top. In 1981, his first year as the GE chief, Welch quickly realized he was never going to get fabulously rich making toasters and irons.

So Welch started selling off GE’s manufacturing assets. In his first two years, analyst Jeff Madrick notes, Welch “gutted or sold” businesses that employed 20 percent of GE’s workforce.

By 2000, Welch himself was making about 3,500 times the income of a typical American family.

By contrast, in 1975, Welch’s predecessor, Reginald Jones, took home merely 36 times that year’s typical American family.

As Welch’s successor, Jeffrey Immelt would give an apology of sorts in a 2009 address at West Point. Corporate America, he told the corps of cadets, had wrongfully “tilted toward the quicker profits of financial services” at the expense of manufacturing and R&D, leaving America’s poorest 25 percent “poorer than they were 25 years ago.”

“Rewards became perverted,” Immelt went on. “The richest people made the most mistakes with the least accountability.”

Unfortunately, and sadly, Immelt never took his own analysis to heart. As a rich CEO in his own right, he continued to make mistakes and suffer no particular consequences.

One example: After the Great Recession, Immelt froze the GE worker pension system and offered workers a riskier, less generous 401(k). Within five years, notes the Institute for Policy Studies, the GE pension deficit widened from $18 billion to $23 billion — even as Immelt’s personal GE retirement assets were nearly doubling to $92 million.

“If we want to slow — or better yet, reverse — accelerating income inequality,” the Harvard business historian Nancy Koehn noted a few years ago, “the most powerful lever we have to pull is that of outrageous executive compensation.”

How many more outrageously compensated executives will retire off into lush sunsets, the Jeff Immelt story virtually begs us to ask, before we start yanking that lever?

Sam Pizzigati, an Institute for Policy Studies associate fellow, co-edits Inequality.org. His latest book is The Rich Don’t Always Win.