(first posted 9/4/2013) In 1957, I was a sickly 12-year-old English schoolboy when I went with my parents on a pilgrimage to General Motors headquarters in Detroit. My father, Maurice Platt, was Chief Engineer and a Director of GM’s British subsidiary, Vauxhall Motors. His position required him to visit Detroit annually, where he would spend three weeks discussing designs for cars that he felt would appeal to people who weren’t Americans.
I don’t recall exactly why my mother and I were invited along on this particular trip, but I suspect that a polyp in my throat had something to do with it. There had been speculation, only revealed to me later, that I might be dying of throat cancer. The polyp turned out to be benign, but by the time it was removed I had enjoyed an insider’s view of GM. At long dinners where business was often discussed, no one imagined that a 12-year-old sitting in the corner might be listening attentively.
Our trip across the Atlantic was made aboard the Queen Mary–traveling first class, of course, as anything else would have been unthinkable for a GM executive. We dined at the captain’s table, and when we docked at a pier in New York City, a bright young man met us and hustled us through customs to a black Cadillac limo.
The influential status of GM in those days is hard to imagine now. It was far more important to the United States than Microsoft in the 1990s or Apple in the 2010s. GM executives referred to it always as The Corporation, as if there were no others of any significance. As its market share edged above 50%, my father told me that GM was worried that one of its two serious remaining rivals, American Motors, might go out of business. If GM acquired too much of the domestic market, it could be broken up in an antitrust action by the FTC. So here was a definition of success: wanting your competitors to survive, so that you wouldn’t be penalized as a monopoly.
However, where styling was concerned, ’57 Chryslers were inducing a shock-horror response among my father’s American colleagues. When I innocently remarked that there were a lot of those radically different cars with big tail fins, our hosts fell into a grim silence. “It’s just because so many of them are taxis,” my mother suggested brightly. “The yellow color makes them more noticeable.”
GM had thought that it owned the tail fin. Harley Earl had invented it, hadn’t he? Something like that. He had definitely pioneered the panoramic windshield. But now the upstart Mopars had taken tail fins to a whole new level, and–adding insult to injury–they lessened the wraparound of their windshields, as if “panoramic” was already an obsolete concept. No one had imagined that such a thing was possible.
My father, as an engineer, was annoyed that styling made such a difference, and was unimpressed by Chrysler’s engineering. He mentioned, darkly, that alcoholism was a serious problem among Chrysler executives. I don’t know how true that was, but if they really drank much more than the GM crew, they would have been unconscious for much of the time.
A typical GM business dinner would begin with an hour or two of sitting around a table, talking business and drinking hard liquor, before anyone opened a menu. The drinking would then continue throughout and after the meal. My father often said that if you didn’t knock back your share of scotch on the rocks, no one at GM would take you seriously. It was a macho thing in senior management, and indeed, this was why he preferred to travel on the Queen Mary. The ship took five days to cross the Atlantic, advancing the clocks by one hour every day. Thus he could arrive well-rested and more-or-less in sync with Eastern Standard Time, giving him a fighting chance to keep up with the executive drink-a-thons.
We stayed in New York for a week, then traveled to Detroit on an overnight train that had comfortable sleeping accommodations. After checking in at the Park Shelton Hotel the next day, we were chauffeured to GM’s executive garage. There we found about forty new Cadillacs, identical except for their paint colors, parked in two rows that faced each other. They constituted a glittering panorama of chrome.
“Mummy,” I said, “why are the cars all the same?”
This time she didn’t manage to come up with a diplomatic answer. There was no easy way explain to a 12-year-old that a GM executive would be committing career suicide if he drove anything other than a Cadillac.
We enjoyed a guided tour of the new GM Technical Center, which had been ceremonially opened the previous year by then-president Dwight Eisenhower, and looked as if it had been transplanted from Tomorrowland.
Regardless of the abrupt (but presumably temporary) styling embarrassment that had been inflicted by Chrysler, GM still saw itself as being synonymous with the future of transportation.
The Firebird II concept-car had been one of the first big projects to be completed at the Tech Center, and my father was allowed to drive it around the proving ground. He told me that the gas turbine introduced an unexpected latency when you tried to accelerate. You had to wait a second or two while the rotor spooled up, and he thought that this might be a problem if you were on a two-lane highway, planning to overtake a truck. By the time your car decided to follow through in the face of oncoming traffic, you might wish that you hadn’t committed yourself.
Of course, the Firebird II was nothing more than an engineering wet-dream, but in those days GM was not significantly inhibited by financial concerns or federal regulations, and all of its executives were genuinely obsessed with cars. They were uniformly male, and when we were invited to their homes, the women retreated discreetly to allow the men to talk shop. Years later, when I asked my father how GM wives coped with their orphan status, he thought it was a funny question. “They just had to put up with it,” he said with a shrug, as if I wasn’t making much sense to him. Like–what else were they going to do?
At the end of our time in Detroit we took a plane back to England. The De Havilland Comet had not yet overcome the stigma of crashes caused by metal fatigue in its early versions, so we flew on a prop plane–a Lockheed Constellation, I think. Four fold-down bunks were installed where overhead luggage bins would be located in an aircraft cabin today. I remember that we climbed little ladders up to our bunks while the other passengers did their best to sleep in their seats.
We were part of The Corporation. They were not.
Part 2: From Churchill Tanks To Body Rot
Charles Platt writes for Make magazine and is a former Senior Writer at Wired magazine. He is the author of “Make Electronics” (an introductory guide) and is gradually writing “The Encyclopedia of Electronic Components” (the first of three volumes are currently in print). He likes to explore the dirt roads of northern Arizona in a 4×4 Mitsubishi Montero Sport, and has been known to test the limits of his Mitsubishi Lancer Ralliart turbo on I-40 across the Mojave desert–but still harbors a nostalgic yearning for an Olds 442.
Interesting story.
As far as your return trip goes, as far as I know Lockheed Electras were not used on trans-Atlantic flights. They did not have the range, and they did not enter operational service until 1959, (according to Wiki.)
You were probably flying on a DC-7. Or maybe a Connie. 1957 was when the jets were just starting to take over from the piston engine planes. If you are sure the plane you were on had propellers then I am going to say those props were driven by piston engines.
Agree; It most have been a Connie, since he remembered it being a Lockheed. I’ve amended the text and picture.
The “other” long range plane of the day was the Boeing Stratocruiser, although that was more common flying the Pacific. My very earliest memory of flying (San Francisco to Kansas City) was on a (what I now know as a) Super Connie.
Thank you for the amendment. I am sure you had no shortage of comments from Connie lovers, which I am of course one of.
This is going to be a wonderful series, and I’m going to be looking forward to the rest of it. Having seen GM (Chevrolet motor division) from the dealership level, your experiences on the corporate are going to be an fascinating parallel.
Readers younger than 50 are going to be hard pressed to conceive of the possibility of a Federally mandated breakup of GM, and what a worry it was for those who made their livings from the corporation. It was certainly enough worry in the Paczolt household, that it could be a topic of conversation over the dinner table between dad, mom and aunt Ann – when it was rather a house rule that Hallman’s Chevrolet affairs were not proper dinner conversation. I’d get the daily scorecard of cars sold when dad came in the door (it was one of our little traditions), but once we sat down to eat work was not mentioned.
At the time the general feeling was that, if it happened, Chevrolet was going to become its own corporation, with the rest of GM remaining intact (back in the 60’s Chevrolet was over 50% of GM’s profit). The alternative was that either Oldsmobile or Buick would join Chevrolet to give the new competitor a more-rounded lineup, with Pontiac becoming the new Chevrolet in the remaining company.
As usual, government intervention over the fear of a company becoming too powerful was (thank ghod) slow and unnecessary. As I’ve just spent the morning reading today’s Wall Street Journal regarding Microsoft buying Nokia, the market does a very nice job of taking care of corporate hubris, thank you very much.
The government boys can just shut up and go away – as GM, Microsoft, Nokia, Apple, Research in Motion and many other companies have shown.
The gov did bring 4 anti-trust lawsuits against GM, it won one of them, but the breakup was deemed to cause to much upheaval since by then GM was starting to integrate more if its assembly across divisions with GMAD.
Rodger that my bro,
My Dad was company secretary of a 2 store GM outfit in rural New Zealand they sold Chevrolet & Vauxhall cars and Bedford trucks in large numbers.
My dad drove them new Ive owned and driven them used some were great some not so much, this will be fascinating,
I grew up riding in a 54 one of these it rusted before it was 5 years old and had been repainted before I was born in 58 factory grey Dad got it done emerald green metallic and sprayed it with old engine oil underneath on the hoist regularly, I would watch yes looking forward to the next installment.
Dude. Punctuation! Please? Makes you sound like an idiot.
Iva always thought that model Vauxhall was a nasty looking car.
On the other hand, I don’t miss the phone fees from ma-bell. Nor can I imagine having only one brand of gas to shop.
I remember reading about GM’s fears of a government breakup in Motor Trend in the early 70’s. MT’s scenario speculated that a “Chevrolet Car Company” IIRC would be spun off from GM should a breakup happen.
One of Petersen’s “Complete Chevrolet Books” in 1974 also alluded to the possibility and suggested that perhaps it was time for the marque to coast a little. Looking back at Vega and the poorly-built A and B-bodies…I think they were coasting enough by 1974!
Thanks for the unique perspective and the rather realistic trip back to the fifties, very enjoyable breakfast entertainment.
Looks like this is going to be real good. I’m tied up today…. Whoo Hoo! something to read tonight.
A fascinating look into GM’s upper layer. What a grand and exalted place GM must have been in the 1950s. And how lucky were those who got to be part of it.
Your account echos what I have read elsewhere – there was a feeling of innate superiority among GM management. It is hard to fault the management of that era, because they had, in fact, built the company into the largest of its kind in the world. I believe it was Babe Ruth who said “it ain’t braggin’ if you done it.”
Unfortunately, as the decades passed, the company’s abilities declined while the airs of superiority and entitlement did not.
The air of superiority.
Allow me to introduce myself. Wile E. Coyote, Super Genius.
It may be now known as ‘catastrophic success’. Once a company has achieved overwhelming superiority in its field, managing that success to stay on top becomes as hard (if not harder).
GM actually did quite well, considering the penny-pinching blunder after blunder that was committed over the decades, any one of which would have instantly wiped out any other company. It took them almost a half century to finally reach rock bottom when they had once been at the pinnacle of the US automotive industry (and maybe over all US businesses).
Breaking up GM in the late 1950s would have done wonders for the auto market and for consumers. It seems obvious that the oligopoly in the US auto market held back innovation and technological development. I remember my dad saying his friend the Dodge dealer use to complain that Chrysler would never do anything unless GM did it first. And GM by the mid-sixties had no desire or need to do anything new.
I’m enjoying this very much. Your observations confirm many other stories about high level business life during that time. Since it was before my time I struggle a bit to fully realize how corporate dynamics, behavior and lifestyle worked back then. I simply cannot imagine a multi-million dollar operation floating on scotch, tobacco and uniform male braggadoccio – but that does seem to be the case.
I am struck once again at how radical George Romney was during this era. As a Mormon, he didn’t live the corporate lifestyle, but still led Nash and AMC. Consequently his success was not welcomed by the Good Ole Boys. Romney was an old-fashioned guy with a new-fashioned taste that contradicted the Detroit hierarchy. It is amazing he succeeded as he did.
Pride goes before the Fall. GM’s pride was toxic to it’s long-term corporate success. I am aware that Henry Ford II and Chrysler’s Tex Colbert were cut from this same line of corporate thinking. Detroit was led by men honed by family duty, an awareness of personal sacrifice towards responsibilities, and a belief that men at the top of the corporate structure were entitled to a lifestyle beyond what others enjoyed.
As veterans from WWII, these men admired a central organizational business structure, comradery and fielty. It was an entirely different world from today. They assumed that their vices were everyman’s and that their desires were noble, even if occasionally inmoral. Fighting together in a world war, these men respected those who survived it as long as they were white, anglo-saxon, protestant, heterosexual and married.
A different age indeed!
Vanilla Dude,
I’m guessing you’re somewhere south of 50. And if my guess is correct, yes, you’re looking at what would be a completely alien world to your eyes. Probably the biggest difference in the respective cultures is that, back then, once you had a method that worked to get you the desired result; you had now discovered the ONE method that was both desirable and acceptable.
I often find social histories of the fifties rather amusing. It seems that, to be published, the author has to follow one of two narratives: A regimented, stultifying sameness that promised a good life as long as one was white, male, or, knew their place – or – A fertile breeding ground for the revolution that would come in the next decade and upset everything that was, for better or for worse.
Actually, it was both ways. Yeah, the proto-revolution was there, if you lived in New York City or Chicago. However, if you were coming from small to mid-town America, conformity WAS the name of the game. As a child, there were no slackers, goths, beatniks, etc. There were only two classes: Those who fit in, got along, were at least reasonably popular . . . . . and losers.
We acquired these standards from our parents, who obviously carried them into their work, which governed did their jobs, and ran their corporations. Freedom to be who you were? Of course, we had it. It was exactly the same as just about everybody’s else’s freedom to be who you were. And we were happy that way. OK, there were a few malcontents out there, but the less said about them the better.
I always enjoy watching Mad Men with people much younger than me. Yes, that’s how our adults lived back then. And life was good. And they enjoyed it because it worked. Just take all that mad screwing around with a little grain of salt – there’s a bit more of a sixties attitude creeping in there than what was real.
Then again, I didn’t live in New York City. Who knows what they got away with?
For sure, Syke, life in the 1950’s were good if you were a white, Anglo-Saxon male. You got all the breaks and all the good jobs. The 20% or so (in those days) who were not WASPs could be grouped into that “loser” category. They simply didn’t matter and if they caused trouble, well, lynchings were still going on.
White male privilege is now dying its last gasp and I can understand why they aren’t very happy about it.
More like 80% since Jews and Catholics, not to mention women, blacks and so forth were not allowed to rise in the ranks of industry either. Didn’t Iaocca note how strange it was for a Catholic with a funny name to be in management at Ford in the 50’s. I think that a lot of the problems of GM came from hiring from a narrow pool of talent. I think was a mark of how despearate AMC was to allow a Mormon to run the company.
Weren’t Shinoda and Duntov both employed by GM in the 50s?
DeLorean was Catholic too I believe, you contradict your own statement by using Iacocca as an example, which was so hampered by prejudice that he made it all the way to Vice Presidency of Ford, which shows if you’re pretty smart and talented you can rise above that bullshit, as other examples have shown,
OK, I’ll admit I never saw an anti-Catholic bias, because I was one. From a VERY religious family (you would have gone nuts with all the church attendance during Holy Week) of Byzantine (not Roman) Catholics. Jewish bias I saw – the wealthy side of town I lived in was almost half Jewish, and they were nowhere else in Johnstown. It was funny, they couldn’t get into the local country club (which was very high end), but were very prominent in the places where it wasn’t a private by-invitation-only organization.
Religious bias existed, but was easily overcome. Ethnic bias was a lot stronger, but once again could be overcome, with the possible exception of Jews in high status situation. Sexual bias could be overcome – to a point – with drive, determination, and it didn’t hurt to start your own firm. Racial bias? Fuhgeddaboudit!
Also, keep in mind that back then it wasn’t bias. It was normal.
White male privilege is now dying its last gasp and I can understand why they aren’t very happy about it.
If you never experienced it because it died out, you can’t get emotional over it. That comment is like claiming guys who never drove a Studebaker must be pretty bummed about it, right?
White male privilege isn’t a tangible object, it just was something happening back in those days. No one talked about giving a white male special privileges because of his gender or race. This “privilege” was created in order to make a claim of unfairness against those who were shut out due to gender or race. White guys discovered that the world they lived in was based strongly on their gender and race and that this gave them an unfair edge in daily life.
Having lived in other countries, I have experienced a whole lot of unfairness because of what I am. Being a WASPHM is only a benefit in some parts of the world, and works against you in many others.
Ce le vie!
The guys running GM and other corporations in the late fifties and early sixties were not WW2 vets. First off, they were too old, since one didn’t become an executive of any real stature until one hit fifty or more. These guys were born around the turn of the century or so; too old to be real soldiers. Some might have worked in offices for the military, but involved in the industry side of things, not fighting. But most would have stayed in their jobs, since GM and other industrial companies were of course vital military suppliers.
I’m thinking since Henry Ford II was pulled from WWII Service at 26 to run Ford, some assume that ‘all’ Big 3 Mgmt was his age group in 40s/50s. But, wasn’t until the late 60s/70s when Greatest Gen was ‘in charge’ of most of Corp America.
I’d add that the Whiz Kids were relatively young former Air Force officers who got into Ford at a relatively young age, and rose to relatively high ranking management positions into the 50s and 60s. They were fortunate to get that opportunity because Henry II had to turn around a moribund Ford Motor. One of them, Robert McNamara, became Ford president in 1960, for only a few months before he was tapped to be Secretary of Defense in JFK’s administration.
How many fought in WWI, ya think?
I would imagine that becoming a man while fighting a world war would be a similar experience for both types of World War vets. While I do recognize the 20 year gap difference between the world wars, I believe it could have been possible to have WWI vets heading some of Detroit’s auto corporations back then. Presidents Truman and Eisenhower were both WWI vets…
Maybe it would have been more accurate for me to identify these men’s commonalities as World War based. Men of these generations served as soldiers and this service molded many a corporate man into believing in Central Heirarchical management models. After all, that model saved us from Nazis, Fascists and the Japanese during the first half of the 20th Century.
They saw how it worked. So, that is how they did business as Detroit management types, right?
How many GM execs fought in WW1? Probably a few, but I don’t see it as relevant. Central hierarchical management models have been used effectively at least since the Roman Empire, which was a lot larger than GM. And they were used effectively in American businesses before WW1. And some are still using it.
I would argue that it was more the other way around: That the incredible organizational and operational challenges of the military during WW2 were to a considerable extent managed by the many seasoned business execs who served at high levels in the military. The Pentagon was not that different than GM HQ.
It also takes a big personality like you see in a successful movie producer or director. You see as many famous directors today as you did 50 years ago. But what ever happened to the Earls, Mitchells, DeLoreans and Iacoccas?
Marchionne and Ghosn are the closest today and sadly neither is American. There are too many options for great leaders in the US, I’m afraid. Home grown talent is thin because of a problem recruiting.
In some ways Germany benefits from its lack of industries, lack being a relative term. The best and brightest are attracted to automotive almost by default. As a result there is a tremendous amount of focus there.
“…These men respected those who survived it as long as they were white (check), anglo-saxon (half-check, Celtic but married to an anglo-saxon), protestant (half-check-see previous), heterosexual (as far as I know) and married (check).”
My father went to work for the Socony-Vacuum Oil Company (Mobil) in 1947 and quickly rose thru the marketing and sales ranks. But one day, probably after more than a few scotch on the rocks, a higher up told him “Martin, you could go far, but you won’t, because you’re a Catholic”.
Today, that’s actionable, but back in the early ’50s, merely a stated fact.
In spite of that he eventually rose to be “Marketing Manager, Process Products, The World) for Mobil International. I love that, “The World”. Spiffy.
And as Charles Platt recounts, the perks for working for a US Fortune 500 Top Ten company in the 50s, especially internationally, were considerable. We lived a good life.
I’ve got a question about the anti-Catholic bias. How did they know what Church you went to? Maybe you didn’t go to the same church as your boss, but you still might have gone to the protestant church on the other side of town.
I’ll admit that if you had an Italian, Spanish or maybe Polish or Irish last name it would be harder to hide, but with a name like “Martin” how could anyone know what Church you went to?
Extremely interesting article. Amazing the details you remember from when you were 12.
I really wish I could have been part of that society in those years. The descriptions of the things that went on are the stuff of fiction almost if you didn’t know that it actually happened. I would have loved to see that Technical Center in the Motorama years. Truly a Tomorrowland.
Looking forward to other insights an stories.
Interesting the reason he took the Queen Mary over a plane. Makes lot of sense but I never thought of it.
Plus the piston pwoered aircraft would hardly have been relaxing. You can still get deals on a one-way crossing on the Queen Mary 2 between Southampton and New York for a comparable price to one way airfare. I highly recommend it if you have the time. But keep in mind you gain an hour most nights going west, but you lose an hour most nights going east!
I was surprised to see that from Southhampton to New York can be as low as $1299 for a seven day drip on QM2.
You can get it for almost 1/2 that if you catch the right sale.
Personal sacrifice? I think not. The appearance of sacrifice maybe.
Excellent article Charles,I look forward to reading more.My favourite car was my 70 Vauxhall Cresta
Great read. Did your father have any say in the design of the 1957-1962 Vauxhall Cresta PA? That seems like a car that was very influenced by GM’s American offerings and very popular in the UK during and after that time. The first time I saw one was in the video for the Specials(UK Ska band) Ghost Town.
Stay tuned.
The EIP of 52 was a scaled down Chevy its successor the PA series more so as was the aussie FB/EK Holden anyone serious about selling cars followed Detroits lead good or bad.
The PA was highly sought after in my misspent youth the only ones in my price range were rust buckets.Great to see another Ska fan
Great story, and I hope there will be many more installments.
So is it still expected that GM executives will drive Cadillacs (probably CTS-Vs or XTSs), or is it acceptable to take a Buick or Chevy* home and put it through its paces, or (horrors!) even check out the competition? (I think Alan Mlulally at Ford has been known to do exactly that.)
*I assume a Corvette is also an executive-level car.
One of the most interesting read. Thanks for sharing your experience. I still remember the days when what’s good for GM is good for America. In the end, it took one decade, the ’80s to TKO the mighty General Motors.
I still believe what is good for GM IS good for America, its not like meanwhile everything else is the United States has been going swimmingly for the last 30-40 years, while that darn GM that decided to go off the rails, meanwhile a 17 year old kid was stabbed at a school today, oooooh hey! What are the Kartrashians doing today?
GM’s downfall and the US’s problems can be seen as going hand in hand…..
Bingo!!!!
Yes, of course, GM’s demise had nothing to do with the fact its executives were 99.9% WASP and couldn’t for one second understand what anyone would not buy one of their cars. Hell, they even bragged they hadn’t driven any of the competition. It’s classic Group Think.
Hubris, too.
I just drove a 1978 Cadillac Sedan DeVille over the Rocky Mountains. The reason for GM’s demise were easy to see in that car.
What does religion have to do with anything in the above posts?
Wow, you found a brand new 1978 Sedan de Ville with every single component in perfect shape and drove it across the Rockies, wow, have you converted your time machine to Mr. Fusion or are you still running plutonium?
Care to share as to why it was so bad?
Carmine, let’s just say that some cars handle twisty, windy, high altitude mountain roads better than others.
Twisty roads, and 70’s Cadillac forte!, Let me guess, your probably surprised it got less than 40mpg too?
Its also probably doesn’t make a good airplane or hovercraft.
I once owned a 73 Eldorado while i was living near Pigs Gorge BC aka Prince George.
Found that traversing through the Fraser Canyon wasn’t all that bad.
Once I passed a RCMP cruiser he flashed the red Gum for a moment I knew I was going too fast but he never turned around. I wouldn’t say that was designed to go on rail tracks only.
Then when I drove a Mercedes 80 w116 300sd, it was really a night & day difference. Is akin to Muhammed Ali ” Float like a butterfly and sting like a bee”
She handles the corner real well.
Very sweeping generalizations rarely begin to put the big picture properly in context. The crime rate has been dropping very strongly and steadily for several decades now. 30-40 years ago, that kid might well not have been allowed into the school he know got stabbed in. Some American companies have thrived during this whole period; other are long gone (Kodak). Simplistic answers are rarely adequate…it’s a pretty complex and ever-changing world out there, for better and/or for worse.
Anyway, the quote by GM President Charles Wilson has been perpetually mis-quoted, as well as misinterpreted (from wikipedia):
Wilson’s nomination sparked a controversy that erupted during his confirmation hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee, based on his large stockholdings in General Motors. Reluctant to sell the stock, valued at the time at more than $2.5 million, Wilson agreed to do so under committee pressure. During the hearings, when asked if he could make a decision as Secretary of Defense that would be adverse to the interests of General Motors, Wilson answered affirmatively. But he added that he could not conceive of such a situation “because for years I thought what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa”. This statement has been misquoted endlessly, in the inverted form of “What’s good for General Motors is good for the country” as an example of the self-centered attitude of executives. Although Wilson tried for years to correct the misquote, he was reported at the time of his retirement in 1957 to have accepted the popular impression.
Regardless of how one chooses to interpret his statement, he only agreed to sell his large chunk of GM stock under pressure. Frankly, that’s pretty outrageous; can you imagine that today? A Secretary of Defense owning a big chunk of stock in his former employer, who was/would be also a big government contractor anytime there was a war on?
Times have changed indeed. Of course we have our own new set of issues….
You ask if religion is ad rem with the discussion. Yes, but probably not worth dwelling upon. Even my father, who was told that he would never succeed at Mobil because he was a Catholic, took note, but continued doing the best job he could.
I grew up in a mixed family (Catholic/Presbyterian), but my sisters and I never thought anything about it although we were raised Catholics.
The ’50s were a time of change. My cousins in Illinois found us strange (we didn’t eat meat on Fridays) which was strange since my mother’s family raised registered Black Angus beef.
Some of my Illinois cousins married Catholics. My older sister married a protestant, as did her mother.
Oh, and I married a Baptist, although one that I call a “Bourbon Baptist”. Her father and I got crocked watching Alabama-Notre Dame games. She’s now a Presbyterian.
Life goes on.
“GM’s downfall and the US’s problems can be seen as going hand in hand…..”
At the very least there are many parallels.
GM’s downfall and the US’s problems can be seen as going hand in hand…
Auto production in the US is alive and well. It’s just no longer dominated by General Motors, because the competition was able to do better.
GM was not an innovator, and it eventually suffered the fate that belongs to all organizations that fail to adapt. Others have more than filled the gap with superior alternatives. Good for us.
Back in the fifties, an executive trying out a competitors’ car was virtually unheard of. You ran the division, you didn’t worry about the product. That was for the underlings – mostly engineers. Today is a whole ‘nother matter. I don’t doubt they drive pretty much everything their division makes, but I seriously question how often they drive the bottom of the line models.
Corvette’s back in those days were an odd lot. They brought in a desirable clientele (the sporting, ‘Hollywood’ types) but would have been considered unseemly for a 50-ish division head to be driving.
DeLoean was a shocker by GM standards of the day and he was anything but a radical. I figure it the was sideburns that did him in.
DeLorean was young, under 50 for a division honcho was rare. Similar to Lloyd Reuss who took over Buick in the early 70’s, I think he was like, 49-50? He was responsible for all the turbocharged T-type Buicks and he sort of side stepped some rules and stepped on some toes.
What happened then was one the of problems is that when you got high up at GM. You were guaranteed to move up the rung if you were mildly decent, or even barely, after a while, he was only head of Buick for a few years before moving a rung up the ladder.
So one person was never able to influence a division for a long time, exceptions to rules like that were gold cows like Bill Mitchell and Duntov, who was allowed to run the Corvette program for so long because other people trying to climb up the corporation thought it was a career dead ender, always perennially on the chopping block.
I think DeLorean was far too radical for any large corporation of the day. Having totally shaken up Chevrolet, he started applying the same disruptive techniques higher up the chain. Senior management didn’t mind lower management being forced to attend 6am meetings and meeting insane deadlines for total reorganization of their divisions, but senior management would naturally feel differently about broader, and higher, application of such techniques.
If you read “On a Clear Day, You Can See General Motors,” it’s all there.
Incidentlaly my father knew DeLorean and had high regard for him, but was astonished by his book. Not because of what it said–he seemed to agree with all of it. But DeLorean’s GM bonuses were spread over at least five years, with the remainder continuing after his departure from the company. This remainder could be withheld arbitrarily. My father felt sure that DeLorean would pay a very substantial financial penalty for biting the hand that had fed him.
One reason that my father’s book doesn’t really tell you a lot about The Corporation and Vauxhall is that he was afraid of jeopardizing those bonuses. On a British pay scale and pension, he was counting on them.
From what I recall about the gestation of DeLorean’s book, he had second thoughts because of those financial reasons you mention. Towards the end of the process, he stopped cooperating with his writer. After some delay, the writer and publisher elected to release the book anyway, without DeLorean’s approval, which is why the actual author is listed as someone other than DeLorean.
I give DeLorean credit for having some big ones. Before he left GM, he was making something like $750,000 a year in 1970. Even more as a VP later. That’s an incredible amount of money in 1970’s dollars.
Having a gorgeous model wife mixing in with all those 50-60 year old company hausfrau’s didn’t help. Trust me, I just saw that in action at my high school reunion. It’s amazing how an older woman can hate when a younger attractive (at least) woman walks into the room.
Funny you should say that, Syke. I attended my 30 year high school in June of this year. My wife is quite a bit younger than I am and is, well, stunningly gorgeous. She was the only non-Caucasian in the room, too. Not a single woman spoke to her…..
You said none of the older white women talked to your wife, she is younger, pretty and not white. So the question is: Did the boys lined up to talk to her? or they all just gave you that evil eyes.
I seriously doubt that many of the guys at that reunion talked to Canucklehead’s wife. They’d didn’t dare unless they were single (for the night or relationship-wise). Little matter of their wives being right there.
At my reunion, there was one out and out scene because a husband (not of my class) was staring at Maggie a bit too much for wifey’s (classmate – never said a word to either of us) tolerance.
You all should see my new 14 year old girlfriend, she is sooo hot…..now can we get back to cars? 🙂
When I was a teenager, I read in John DeLorean’s book about how all the GM exec’s drove Cadillac’s that were maintained daily by GM mechanics.
Even then I thought that had to be a big mistake. First, they never got an understanding of what the competition offered. Second, they never got to find out how their customers experienced the dealer relationship (sales and service). Third, they never got a picture of the true reliability of the cars they built.
I wonder if every 90 days, they had to go out and purchase a car, chosen at random, from a local dealer and actually drive and maintain it, GM might have become a much more competitive company.
I wish your dad knew something about paint and how to apply it to cars, Thanks for the big Vauxhalls Ive been a fan for many years but if they had been painted properly they would have lasted better.
A fascinating look through the eyes of a kid of 12.
Looking forward to part 2.
When I was 12 my Dad got a trip to GMH in OZ to preview the new soon to be released HQ Holden family were not invited.
I appreciate the comments on my text. Thanks.
Part 2 will go into more details about Vauxhalls. I owned quite a few of them, because it was so convenient to be able to go to the Chief Engineer (i.e. my father) when something went wrong … as it often did. When I had an L-type Vauxhall that reached the end of its life and had to be towed to a scrap yard, the yard owner wouldn’t accept it till he could see that everything was still in the engine compartment. But the cable release for the hood had broken, so we couldn’t open it. What to do? My father paused for a moment, then pried off the Vauxhall emblem on the front of the hood, reached through the hole, and tripped the lock. “I remember, the design was critized because that was possible,” he remarked. Of course he had not been the chief engineer for that car (it was too early) but he was part of the design process for all of them, postwar.
I discovered Curbside Classics by accident, and swapped emails with Paul, who expressed interest in my peculiar position as an observer of GM/Vauxhall when I was quite young. I was of course obsessed with cars (how can you not be, when your Dad brings home a different one from the factory every night?) so the trip to the US became deeply encoded into my young brain. Memory is treacherous, though, suggesting certainty where none exists, so I am quite willing to believe that I made some errors.
Vauxhall was in the habit of buying any car by a competitor that looked interesting. Thus my father brought home the first Citroen DS-19, for instance, and we went out and destroyed its air suspension on a British cart track. He even brought home the first-model Corvette. After testing cars from other sources, Vauxhall would strip them totally, looking for ideas.
If anyone here has questions about that period, I may be able to answer them … or maybe not…. but will try!
I’m grateful for your special point of view. Fine writing and illustration too. Anticipating part 2!
I was almost that age in about 1961, when Dad said his friend knew a stylist at Ford, who even knew what the ’64s would look like! I was awestruck.
Yes the cable broke on mine and you removed the badge it was on spring clips it had an internal release that was ‘something’ back then, I watched these cars as a car mad child teen etc Vauxhalls impressed but our neighbour across the street sold Hillmans my Dad wasnt enthusiastic when I bought a Humber 80 but it lasted being used for commuting on the highway better than the LIP Vauxhall Id previously tried.
Vauxhall should have tried its own cars on your goat track because Vauxhalls fell to pieces on gravel roads in NZ too lightly constructed and too softly sprung they were very popular but few remain.that story about the Citroen did the rounds but noone believed it the proof is in the wrecking yards.
I grew up in a similar childhood. But american. Be polite, answered when talken to. (less than five words.) never be cute or hold an actual discussion. Not listening too parents rules got you and mother sent to bed early. C’est trop a faux paux, you and mom got excellent tours of the local musum.
On the hosts sides a wife’s error was even worse. My mother’s first name was Mai, and the hostess told everyone she was an Asian slag. Mistake, mom was a round eyed southern belle. Never forgive, never forget.
Fascinating reading. But when did you write this? Just now, or some time ago? Fascinating images too.
Wrote it yesterday!
Great article Charles, thanks for sharing your insights and I look forward to the next installment
A window on a world long gone! I’m eagerly awaiting part two of the story.
This is a great read and I can’t wait for future installments. Being the kid of a GM exec I sure do remember a lot of what you wrote. I remember having nothing but GM cars, my dad always a Cadillac, no other car was ever considered, but he didn’t pay for them anyway, nice perk. Oh, BTW my dad is Roman Catholic, I never remember it being an issue
As a fan of GM and the American auto business as a whole, I’m looking forward to reading this series to see how the long arm of America affected those European brands under the GM halo.
Guess I’m a little late to the comment thread today…
Thank you so much for sharing this Charles. This is one of the most interesting pieces I’ve ever read at Curbside Classic. Not only is it an interesting piece of history, but it’s told from your unique perspective. I’m looking forward to the next Parts.
An excellent read, thank you for taking the time to put it in writing! I am looking forward to the next installment, hopefully soon!
A lot of similarities with one of the iconic (later Icahnic) companies I once worked for, Trans World Airlines. By the time I joined them (1986) it was like meeting a once beautiful movie star now aged and ill. But there were still a few long-time employees who remembered the good old days, when more than just the bottom line counted. TWA really strove to be the industry leader, damn the cost. As an example, in the building I worked in we had the vestiges of the first flight simulator, which was a camera mounted on a moving device that shot a scale model of an airport. I’ve always been fascinated with the design center. I once read an interview of Stan Kenton who had been invited there in the late fifties and according to him they changed the decor monthly in order to “stimulate” the creative thinking of the design staff. I do know that Harley Earl kept track of the cars the design team drove (I used to have a photo but I can’t find it) and he began to realize when VWs, Karmann-Ghias and a lot of British sports cars began showing up in the late 50s that it was time to downsize but management was into bigger things, literally. It was an era of nearly unbridled optimism and looking forward that no longer exists. I say this without irony even though each of our vehicles (2002 Thunderbird, 2007 Mini Cooper, 1999 Honda 1100 Shadow Aero and 2004 PT Cruiser) are retro designs. (Also each of these vehicles incorporates a wing or wings in their emblems. Coincidence?)
Can you imagine the designers in 1958 deciding to take cues from a car made decades earlier, as they have with the T-bird, Camaro and Challenger? Nope, it was jet airplanes, rocket ships and the promise of space travel.
Yep, martinis, expense accounts, cigarettes (and stewardesses in the airline biz). That was the stuff corporate dreams were made of.
I heard similar things about Pan Am towards the end.
At the very end, when PanAmerican was swirling around and about to go down the drain, Carl Icahn made a play to purchase it. Many believe it was just a ploy to raise the value of TWA. An FAA guy I knew swore it was for real based on the amount of detail TWA put into the proposal, but the best fake is one executed to the nth degree as if it’s for real so who knows. I was personally summoned into our office in STL and told to prepare for a trip to JFK that evening to begin inspecting PAA aircraft. If anything, PanAm was in even worse shape than TWA at that point. Eventually Delta bought some routes and assets and brought along a minimum of employees and the rest simply disappeared. For (in my opinion) an excellent portrait of PanAm in particular and the post-war airline industry in general read Skygods: The Fall of Pan Am by Robert Gandt.
A postscript: A few years later we picked up a contract to do pilot training for a new cargo carrier called Atlas Air. They would only hire pilots who had a type rating in the 747 so not surprisingly there were a lot of ex-PanAm pilots. I recall a lunch with two guys in my class that had been in the same PanAmerican class in 1966. I wish I had recorded or transcribed that conversation, a firsthand account of what it was like to work for the best airline in the golden years of the airline business.
We were an Eastern family, but Pan Am was really big down here in Miami. The Pan Am Flight Academy training center was down here by the airport, it still exists as separate company. There are still Pan Am buildings around the airport, but all the names and logos are gone, except for the training buildings.
Be cautious about over-extrapolating from the world of the GM executives Mr. Platt observed. They and top managers of other big corporations were a tiny fraction of American society.
Anyone born after around 1950 can hardly comprehend the changes in American culture wrought by the 60’s and 70’s, including the abandonment of many things that should have been kept.
You should catch the memories of those of us who were the long haired radicals who were trying to make those changes happen.
As Paul says sweeping generalization cannot explain what has happened to GM but this from Charles is probably as close as it gets…
“…in those days GM was not significantly inhibited by financial concerns or federal regulations, and all of its executives were genuinely obsessed with cars.”
If you liked cars and were a “best and brightest” type, going to work for GM or Ford was a dream come true. What wasn’t to like except for maybe living in Detroit.
Around 1970 new competitors and government action put pressure on the bottom line. The Big 3 dream job suddenly became more of a normal 9-5. Aerospace and electronics began to compete with GM for top talent. Creatives types had new options in California for education and a career in car design.
Tech took off and offered yet another route for the engineering minded and creative folks, including the benefit of being able to live on the west coast. It wasn’t just about the weather, it was also about the more accepting attitudes in LA, SF and Seattle. These places were a better fit with where America and the rest of the world was headed. Young, smart people knew this.
I think the unappealing aspect of having to live in Michigan is often overlooked and as proof you need look no further than the entertainment industry. Arguably just as old as auto. Top employer in LA in 1925, top employer today. 20th Century Fox, Warner Bros., Paramount, Columbia and Universal are all still here (!) and doing quite well. That’s really amazing.
Somehow entertainment was able to survive aerospace, tech and even cable. It’s sad to think that if Henry Ford had just headed west things might have been different. I really do have high hopes for Tesla, they go to show what can happen when the B&B still want to work for a car company.
I throughly enjoyed your article Charles and look forward to the next installment.
Good point. When one has options, then stuff like weather, more tolerating attitudes, ocean, California blondes, etc etc, came into play on one’s decision where to root.
Wonderful. Looking forward to all future installments.
In a recent CC blog – Automotive History: The Curious F-Head Engine – we had a little discussion about GMs difficulty coming up with a high quality four cylinder engine. John H and Johannes Dutch pointed out that GM had plenty of good four cylinders, they were just in the UK and Europe. Did you father ever comment on this? I think that GMs “not invented here” mindset probably cost them a lot as they could have brought in all kinds of great ideas and great engineering but if was not coming from Detroit they just weren’t interested. Maybe you have some examples. Hope so.
Good question !
I remember reading a CC-blog about why GM didn’t just rebadge the Opel Ascona in the seventies and called it a day. A well-engineered, well-built and attractive compact car with fuel-efficient 4 cylinder engines.
Vauxhall Victors were sold as Pontiacs in Canada,they stopped selling them in the early 70s.Did a few make it across the border?It was a better car than the Vega,there were many Vauxhalls and Opels that could have done the Vega’s job better having been sold successfully in Europe and elsewhere.
Vauxhalls were sold in the U.S. for about five years in the late ’50s/early ’60s; 1958 to 1962 or thereabouts. As in Canada, they were sold by Pontiac dealers. My impression is that they never really sold all that well, and once the brief “import boom” that had peaked in 1959 had passed (with the introduction of domestic compacts in 1960, and the U.S. economy coming out of the recession by 1962), they apparently weren’t selling in large enough numbers to justify keeping them around. The Victor was the main Vauxhall model in the U.S. The “full-size” Vauxhalls may have also been available in North America in the beginning, but if they were, they were likely sold in very small numbers and dropped early on.
In Canada, as in the U.S., Vauxhalls were sold by Pontiac dealers, but were never badged as Pontiacs. Vauxhalls sold much better in Canada than in the U.S., and lasted a lot longer. In addition to the Victor, the smaller Viva was also sold in Canada starting around the 1964 model year. The apparent explanation for Vauxhall’s greater popularity in Canada is 1) the Canadian market has always been a bit more heavily slanted towards smaller/economical cars than the U.S. market; 2) cultural preference and favorable import treatment for British products in Canada in those days; and 3) due to a combination of reason #2 and Pontiac sharing a dealer network in Canada with Buick, Opels were not sold in Canada in this era (in the U.S., Opels were sold by Buick dealers, and Opel survived the end of the import boom while Vauxhall did not).
Vauxhalls were sufficiently popular in Canada that Chevrolet dealers demanded their own versions. Their badge-engineered version of the Victor was the Envoy (badged as just the “Envoy”), introduced around 1960. The later Envoy Epic was a badge-engineered Viva. At the end of the 1970 model year, due to the impending introduction of the Vega, Chevrolet stopped selling Vauxhall products in Canada and the Envoys were dropped.
Pontiac also stopped selling its existing Vauxhall lineup in Canada after the 1970 model year, but Canadian Pontiac dealers sold the Vauxhall Firenza in 1971-72, badged as just a Firenza (not as a Vauxhall or a Pontiac, just a “Firenza”). The Firenza was dropped after 1972 and replaced by the Pontiac Astre, a badge-engineered Vega which would eventually find its way to the U.S. in 1975.
This was a great read. I look forward to future installments.
This is a great new series for CC. Thank you, Charles, for sharing your experiences. I am definitely looking forward to the next article!
Corporate Break-Up…
In the early ’80’s, I worked for an audio-visual production company who’s biggest customer was Johnson & Johnson. J&J had such a large market-share in the “health & beauty aids” (HBA) department that the only promotional materials we could make were things entitled “Mr. Druggist, how you can sell more health & beauty aids.” or “HBA your most profitable department” with the goal of increasing the size of the HBA market. J&J was deathly afraid that if their market share grew any more the Government would step-in and split them up.
I doubt they worry about that any more.
“I give DeLorean credit for having some big ones. Before he left GM, he was making something like $750,000 a year in 1970. Even more as a VP later. That’s an incredible amount of money in 1970′s dollars”
Even 40 yrs later at today’s standard is still insanely lots.
As to Vancouver bc’s house price now, 3/4 mil will only buy u an entry level standalone house.
A decent house went for 20k then in Van. A cadillac was probably 4k or so.
Sure times have changed.
There was quite a lot of non-WASP animosity at GM and in Detroit at the time. Henry Ford I was a well-known anti-Semite, and there was a widespread suspicion of foreigners at the time. When I enrolled at GMI in the very early 1970s, I was one of only a few people ever of Hispanic descent to attend and only the 2nd from Puerto Rico and the first to come directly from the island. To say that I was apprehensive about the experience would be an understatement, but fortunately for me, engineering is a practical occupation, and one’s worth and reputation is usually judged more on your skill and aptitude rather than your political abilities. While I am going to limit my comments on the subject in deference to this site being about cars, really until the 1970s it was difficult for people that weren’t WASPs to advance to senior levels. Fortunately today, we have a great group of people off all colors and types willing to make work. At GM today, the VP of Styling Ed Welburn, was my boss at one point at Oldsmobile and a top rate guy!
While I do miss the brashness and hard charging attitudes of the day, when the sky was the limit and you indeed felt like you were God (like Oldsmobile GM John Beltz once opined), today talented men and women of all kinds are able to follow their dreams. So we shall see what the future brings!
Craig, thank you for this. This was the reality many of us forget about. Coincidentally, GMI (in my hometown of Flint, Michigan) was, by the early ’90s, a progressive educational institution that held a two-week summer program geared at recruiting kids of color. I attended in the summer of ’91, back when I thought I would be the next Harley Earl.
U. of Puerto Rico has a top-rated engineering school at Mayagüez, and thus is popular with recruiters. It’s a Land Grant college, a result of American colonialism.
I started at GMI August 1966… so much in this article was familiar…
Loved this incredible, first-hand account. Now I have to look up more of Charles Platt’s work.
Thanks for re-posting this wonderful series. This time through I sit here, wondering what sort of unintended consequences resulted from being part of a corporate culture that, for successful inclusion, required the ability to consume large quantities of alcohol while appearing sober (which in the substance abuse literature is seen as a marker of risk for alcoholism-think of the guys in your school who could, amazingly, down a case of beer, and where they tend to be now). This is in addition to the real time effects of alcohol on judgement. I know that the personality trait of risk-taking correlates with abuse of mood altering substances, I wonder what other sorts of “natural selection” were going on there, and how this affected the corporate culture, decision making and long-term outcomes for the company.
I really believe that drinking was not a part of the corporate culture, but more of an unwritten rule that went along with it.If you we re in the ‘big boy`s ‘ club ,you just sat there and had a few so that you would fit in, so to speak. It also seemed to carry over into the non-managerial side of middle class culture of the era as well .My parent s did a lot of entertaining in the late `50s to the mid `70s, and there was always plenty of hard liquor to go around. However,I never saw one of their guests get so drunk that their speech was slurred, or they staggered when they walked. It was a social thing , and fortunately most people knew their limit, or were able to hold their liquor without there being any major problems.
GM’s vision of driving in 1976 with the Firebird II (made in 1956) —
https://youtu.be/Rx6keHpeYak?t=1m48s
GM had it so easy after WW2. Europe and Japan had been bombed to hell, industry destroyed and their popuations traumatised by US carpet bombing. The wealth of the British empire was transferred to the US via lend-lease. America was the richest country in the world with no international competition. GM could sell anything they could make to a population who were rolling in it. As is common in such a situation, they thought their success was due to their own genius. (We saw it again with property speculators in a rising market). As soon as there was any viable competition it was shown how utterly complacent they’d become and how incompetent their management was, incapable of recognising the need to change until too late, and then incapable of managing the changes necessary.
The description of the way GM management carried on reminds me of what I’ve heard of the colonialist British companies. Unilever et al execs were the same.
The criticisms of the US government who bailed out this incompent company strike me as the utmost ingratitude. Take the taxpayers money and bite the hand that feeds you. The strength of capitalism is its efficiency. Those who fail in the market go to the wall and a more efficient producer takes over. Why would you accept or promote socialist subsidies in the land of free enterprise?