Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Recently read The Man Who Broke Capitalism by David Gelles which is an excellent review of the Welch years, how he worked, and how he sent his minions out across the corporate world to wreak havoc. Wonderful read and really provides perspective on why modern corporate America is what it is.

Light Out by Gryta and Mann follow up by focusing on the Immelt years and how he tried to keep the ball rolling despite the hole that Jack left him in. Also an excellent read.

Sounds like Power Failure covers a lot of the same material as these two earlier books perhaps with some historical material.






As an engineer I always had just blamed nebulous “MBAs” as the reason we can’t have nice things, but the Gelles book makes a very strong case that it was Welch specifically that changed the rules of engagement to what they are now and follows the thread through his career showing the weaknesses he exploited, the benefit that he gained from it and how he spawned the modern cult of the Imperial CEO.

Many people have tried to run the same playbook with some success, but Welch had unique resources that let him continue the game far longer than anyone else.

As an aside, Gelles publisher made him add a hopeful last chapter on the social benefit corporate movement and the few corps that were able to resist welchism just so the book wouldn’t leave the reader feeling hopeless!


> Recently read The Man Who Broke Capitalism by David Gelles which is an excellent review of the Welch years, how he worked, and how he sent his minions out across the corporate world to wreak havoc.

The parts about Boeing in that book are... rough. Not rough as in "poorly-written" but rough as in "holy hell is that ever a brutal way to ruin a good company". Excellent book but lol it's not a feel-good read :)


Maybe a decade ago I read from critics concerned a shift to an aggressively globalized supply chain was certain to wreak havoc on Boeing’s quality control.

e.g. safety-critical nuts and bolts used to be produced down the street, now you get a few nuts from say Thailand and a few bolts from Malaysia… the critics complained it was certain to lead to problems.

Was that a part of what you read about in that book?


Not significantly no, it was much more focused on the McDonnell-Douglas reverse acquisition. To summarize: McDonnell-Douglas was failing and bought Boeing with Boeing’s own stock (technically Boeing bought McDonnell-Douglas with Boeing stock but in practice McDonnell management assumed control). MD’s executives were Jack Welch protégés and did the same thing to Boeing that happened to GE.

So, if MD was failing, who thought it would be a good idea to let the MD execs take over Boeing? Was the board asleep?

Corporate boards in practice have a long history of being controlled more by management, than the other way around.

The part that story always stays silent is that Boeing then-CEO was big fan of Welch-ism apparently and oversaw major changes that caused long-term issues

... while new people (albeit not execs) from McDonnell-Douglas were publishing internal memos about how MD has experience on why the actions taken by Boeing (not MD!) CEO will cause problems.


That’s too bad. Very interesting—thank you!



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: