>> who was the woman who gave him a hug? what was her role in the rating of the book? >> everything. . .

i have clearly known you a long time. i wonder why did you write this book now? >> guest: well it is clearly something i couldn't have written while i was actively employed by general motors because some people either within general motors or within other countries -- companies might have been upset that it was always a book i wanted to write because i have worked for a number of very interesting personalities and i felt people with a great deal of ability on one side but some very serious flaws on the other and the broad public rarely if ever gets an inside look at the overall behavior of some of these famous executives that they have read about. >> host: so what is your definition of leadership especially in this? what do you look for in a good

dealer? >> guest: you definitely, the most important prerequisite is an absolute sense of integrity because if that is unfair than everything else is built on a house of cards. but you also look for a healthy degree of self-confidence. there has to be some ego. you can't have a retiring shy person who likes to defer to other people. that's not possible. it has to be somebody with some command presence. a leader also has to if they have interpersonal skills but must have the ability to communicate eco-'s the leader can say do this and don't ask why. just do it because i say so. that's not a very effective form of leadership. and much better form of

leadership is to use the power of verbal or written communications to take the vision that everybody wants to follow and once you have got all the troops mobilized and wanting to go in the same direction as you do then it becomes pretty easy. >> host: well i read this book a couple of times preparing to talk about this today with you and i honestly am trying to figure out who did you think was the most effective leader or did you have a favorite leader? i had a difficult time because you gave both the pluses and minuses alternately as the scoring in the book but who was was -- who do you think the most effective leader was that that you worked with in the auto industry? >> guest: while the most effective leader i have worked within the auto auto industry i would have to say for all it's worth, for all his flaws and all of his profanities and the downsides to him was without question lee iacocca.

>> host: and why? did you learn things from him? >> guest: well, you know i learned a lot of good things and i hopefully didn't learn too many bad things. lee iacocca was passionate about the company, passionate about this inner drive of course another hallmark of a good leader. they have to be enthusiastic about the task they have embarked on and they have have to be able to convey that enthusiasm. lee iacocca was a brilliant communicator and he also on good days and he was sometimes off his game a little bit but on good days, he could listen to a very very complex multifaceted as this problem and listen to everybody talk and after 30 minutes he would say wait a minute wait a minute everybody shut up. i think i have got this figured out and then he would lay out an impeccable step i step plan. there were other days when a

seemingly obvious problems seems to escape him and he was also at times, at times he was i would say overly driven by a sense of ego and people needed to differ to him and he needed the red carpet rolled out for him figuratively speaking of course. he was also often somewhat shy and especially in the company of others that he didn't know. but overall take the weaknesses and the positives, he was a highly effective, highly visible leader who could rally the troops not only in-house but he could also get the dealers behind him and he saw the brilliant job that he did with the u.s. congress during the days of the chrysler loan guarantees.

the leave me that was a tough sell. >> host: i agree with you. he was loved and respected. i was trying to figure out also the least respected. who in your career or in your life that you wrote about did you least respect and why? >> guest: well, art hopkins whom i never worked for directly but he was the ceo -- chairman and ceo of exxon corp. and the world market producer of lead acid batteries. he was the ceo of the company and i uncovered the biggest possible can of worms. he was in violation of many state and federal laws and found guilty of racketeering. i mean there was not only a lack of integrity but there was also a colossal ego, this man should

never have been in a position of responsibility of any large organization. but again he possessed some of the traits that good leaders have, which was the enormous degree of self-confidence, at the command presence. he looked like a leader conqueror he sounded like a leader, that he lead used the vocabulary of leadership and people were persuaded by him. they did follow him and they were fooled by him. you are dealing with somebody who possesses a skill set that did not possess the moral or ethical requirements to be a leader. he eventually dragged the company down. when i took over it was impossible for me to do business with certain companies. i couldn't entertain walmart as a customer even though they potentially would buy a seven or 8 million batteries a year but they would just say i'm sorry we are not going to deal with a

company where the former ceo is headed for the federal penitentiary. so i found a lot of times i couldn't raise equity because the company was still under indictment in several states so this was a guy who personal greed and willingness to cheat and lie to achieve his goals actually destroyed the company and drove it into chapter 11. >> host: i think you are dead right that the way. let me ask you this question. at the end of the book you have the scoring metric system which are called -- where he had things and metrics. talk about that a little so people understand what the metrics are. i don't think people who know you very well would think of you as a metric sol. >> guest: i am not. of course debbie first of all

the set of leadership attributes are my own and i don't complain that they are complete. other people might have others but i think i have a fairly comprehensive list. secondly, for the importance or the weighting of those leadership skills i mean to be honest some people might not attach this high of a weeting to integrity. others might attach a greater weighting to creativity. i think i gave the disclaimer that these weightings are suggest -- subjective and the way i see at other people may have different ways but i wanted to at the end of the book, i wanted people to have an opportunity to kind of see an effort even if it's subjective quantification but i wanted them to see some sort of quantified way of assessing who

is best, second-best in who is third best and i also wanted to encourage people to do a self-assessment or to assess their present leaders. you will probably recall at some point in the book i said those individuals who have worked for me and in any of the four companies that i worked for i certainly would welcome them filling out the same form on me and sending it back to me because you are basically never too old to learn. >> host: why don't we use this as a chance to talk about yourself as a leader. what do you think some of the leaders thought about having you and as a member of your team. some clearly chose you and it looks like if you may not have. what do you think about your self-assessment? >> guest: first of all, i don't classify ourselves as an articulate and confident.

i do classify myself as articulate because i can describe what i want. i can describe the vision and i can get people enthusiastic. i'm clearly always very passionate about the business i was in. i think-tanks to my training in the marine corps and also my early training at general motors and later training at ford and larger automobile companies i had a pretty impeccable sense of business ethics, what you do and what you don't do so on the integrity front i think i passed. i certainly think i am a creative person so i found it easy to come up with new ideas and new solutions to old problems so i give myself a high score on that. i think i'm a better leader than i was support because i found i had a lifelong problem of not being able to tolerate fools

gladly and at times when i was working for a leader who is behaving in a particularly strange fashion, i didn't always keep it to myself. of course one of the rules you should observe as a subordinate is to maintain loyalty to your leader and you should not openly criticize that leader in the presence of others. that is one that i occasionally violated so i marked myself down on that one. >> host: one of the things that struck me in reading your book is that an organization can become a bureaucratic institution that can dampen inspiration. i don't think you ever let that happen yourself but how do you and how do we make sure that doesn't happen? >> guest: well it basically -- this is why i say good leaders

conquer really good leaders are often impatient. they are often somewhat temperate and somewhat arbitrary because the leader who always listens to everyone, always listens to lots of viewpoints and wants to make sure that everybody is considered before he or she finally makes a decision you just lose valuable time. i think a good leader does have a sense of impatience, is impatient and overly long meetings where a lot of people make contributions to demonstrate their knowledge as opposed to actually advancing the meeting. a lot of leaders violate good management behavior and they say stop talking about that please. we have heard it before. just keep quiet please. we need to get this over with. well you know that is unpleasant to hear and triggers fear and anxiety in the meeting but good

leaders are focused on getting the job done and they are focused on getting it done fast. and you can have a very pleasant environment with that leadership trait but not as much gets done. i think you and i both know the examples of the leadership style that was overly patient, overly tolerant of other opinions and finally was too slow moving. good leaders run roughshod over that. >> host: you and i did know people that were too patient. you were allowed to show your impatience more than i was. let me ask you a question. how do you encourage creative thinking? how did those great ideas come forward and be heard in an organization? >> guest: yeah and i don't think anybody has ever completely solve the is

certainly one way to do it is by espousing new and different solutions yourself. secondly, people say well boy this guy really thinks out of the box and maybe that's okay. you definitely encourage other people to think out of the box and you reward people who think out of the box even though the idea may not pan out the first time. above all when people try something out of the box and it doesn't work you don't punish them. i will tell you just a little 30-second story. two young engineers at chrysler when i was there took a company car home with them -- a company engineering card because they thought they could make some modifications to where you could shift the four. >> automatic transmission with a little switch which is now known

as the tap shift and every car has got it. they successfully did that and they were able to demonstrate the chrysler for the cost of $10 a car introduce a manually shift of full automatic transition -- transmission. when the organization heard about it was immediately how dare you work on a company car. who authorize you to take a company car home with you? do you realize that you did unauthorized damage to a company car? the whole bureaucracy was about two to descend on them and they were about to be squashed. i found out about it and i said wait a minute, could these two kids exercise their own initiative and did something that every automobile company in the world is trying to do. general motors hasn't done at ford hasn't done it and nobody has done it yet. they figured out a low-cost way to get get the honor aid the convenience of being able to shift the automatic transition

transition -- transmission that his desire. he finally wound up giving them the chairman's prize. i think you could do that sort of thing once or twice and you reward innovation as opposed to squashing it the word gets out and then what you find is that all of the innovative people in the organization who prior to that sort of hunkered down, they come out of the woodwork and start making contributions. >> host: let me ask you a question that i think the united states government could use some help on to me. i knew what you're going to say when you talked about there in the station's reactions. i've worked in those organizations and in the auto like so many corporations who been so successful for so many years in large bureaucratic organizations. what is your solution for government and bureaucracy and how do you get rid of levels of bureaucracy that come to exist

in organizations that aren't successful in creation to the innovation? >> guest: it's a problem facing a lot of businesses and certainly facing a lot of american communities and we saw what happened to detroit. over time we had built an apparatus, and administrative apparatus that is simply no longer supportable by its revenues. i was just talking to a consultant today about a major american corporation that is facing headwinds with declining revenue declining margins and they are also reluctant to reach an and take the bitter medicine to right size the company. basically what it takes is somebody who doesn't try to --

when there is a new problem instead of asking your existing organization to deal with this new problem and expand their scope and new department is formed. we have got departments all over the place, many of them operating. i don't know how many intelligence services we have had a lot of corporations behave the same way. you will remember it general motors under the so-called gold fast initiative. goal initiative. goal fest is supposed to be a spontaneous flow of little ideas that can be quickly adopted to streamline the organization to make things easier. as it happened the ceo wanted to know how many were occurring throughout the company, who is creating go fast in which department was creating --

how many were adopted and what with the savings be so ehud parallel bureaucracy was built around the go fast initiative which was designed to eliminate bureaucracy. i see you all large organizations doing that. they will create a new bureaucracy to solve the problems of the old bureaucracy and of course the old bureaucracy doesn't want its problems solved. the only way to cut through it is you've got to be either external factors like chapter 11 which unfortunately would be a great way to fix a company if it weren't for the fact that the shareholders get wiped out but detroit is undoubtedly in a couple of years going to emerge as a new stronger well-balanced city with a realistic tax base,

a lot of hereto for public services privatized etc. etc.. certainly it's true for general motors and is true for chrysler and true for a lot of american companies. government is going to require require -- i hate to say this but it's going to require a chief executive who is not consensus driven but very focused on streamlining government and reducing the size of big government come for reducing budgets and unfortunately forcing a lot of people out of government service and encouraging them to find jobs somewhere else. again this gets back to my comment on leadership. i highly affect of leader who is facing a difficult or seemingly intractable situation cannot wait around for everybody to

agree with what he or she is doing. at some point -- that is why he or she is the leader. it's going to take somebody in government to really force change and say i don't care about all this. we don't need this, though we don't need that. we can consolidate that or tell everybody, everybody is going to get rid of 25 to 30% of the people. you guys figure it out. i'm not going to tell you how to do it. it's going to take something arbitrary like that and of course it's an unpleasant task. will the person be heavily criticized? yes. will there be negative press? yes. will he or she likely be voted out of office the next time around? again yes and that is why it's so difficult to do. instead of actually tackling the problem most leaders in

government and industry just kind of kick the can down the road and say well this is something we are really going to have to address some day. and then a lot of these people find comfort in doing long-range plans. the long-range plans are usually five years out and they are usually designed to show we will adjust this problem in a few years and this is how he planned to do it but meanwhile the revenue will pick up and we will be okay. i have seen in my career hundreds of those plants which make everybody feel good and they all go home at night and they are tired and they have worked on this long-range plan. they are actually doing something about the problem and once the long-range plan is finished and everybody says wow we fix that one and of course they haven't fixed the darn thing. >> host: i agree with everything you just said either

way but i collect call it the program du jour. the auto industry is to have the program du jour which is a phrase that could be used. things would come in and i'm not sure it really made a difference. did any of them make a difference? >> guest: no. >> host: you and i agree on that one too. >> guest: all these silly initiatives of this and that and it was really the program du jour. we usually sold to the company by consultants. the american society resource professionals are going to be sending me a bunch of angry e-mails on this one but human resources has all almost become a cancerous growth in american industry. human resources used to be keep

track of people keep their personnel record and make sure they get paid and serve the right ones up for raises a raise is periodically but human resources has expanded into all kinds of programs. i mean just myriad programs and they grow and they grow and they grow. they are the instigators of many of these enormously time-consuming bureaucracies creating new initiatives that everybody has to pretend to believe in and usually books are handed out that everyone has to read. it's a colossal waste of time. i saw a lot of that chrysler and i obviously saw a lot of it at ford. you and i both saw more than we wanted to see at general motors.

i think if human resources were either outsourced or cut down back to their basic functions of keeping the personnel records and making sure people get paid and the promotional increase takes place i think we would all be a lot better off. they create way more work than they alleviate. you and i both remember what was it, that performance management assistant at general motors? performance management program, yeah. we would spend literally hours or days developing next year's goals and quantifying them all and then checking them against other people's goals. having big meetings to make sure that everybody's goals were consistent with everybody else's goals. when it was all done he put it

in the desk drawer and you never looked at it again. >> host: do you think people would be having a heart attack right now you were at one of the companies. that is what you're trying to do in this book about leadership. asked -- you don't have any women leaders in the book and i'm curious about what you think about women as leaders and what you think of them as being part of the team and why does the auto industry have a glass ceiling for women at the top? >> that several questions in and many female reviewers of the book has said this guy is obviously sexist because he doesn't deal with a single female leader. the reason i didn't deal with a single female leader is because i never had a female superior. it was just an opportunity that i missed. my career was mostly in the days before women achieved any sort

of significant promotion. so it's just not my fault. it's other people's fault for not promoting them a early enough so i could report on them. having said that all in all what do i think of women as leaders? i think women are highly effective as leaders. not all of them but good female leaders are highly affect it. i like to look at national leaders like margaret thatcher or golda meir of israel and so forth. we have numerous examples of highly affect the female leaders in politics. to a certain extent in industry. looking at general motors i don't think we can really complain about glass ceiling at gm anymore. a number of officers or female now.

maryborough who was executive vice president for product development and certainly in the case of married laura often spoken of as a candidate to succeed dan ackerson as ceo of general motors and ford motor company has a number of highly placed females whose names as gave me now. i will make this prediction. i think within five to six years at the latest one of the large automobile companies will have a female ceo. >> host: do you think it took someone like dan eggers and coming from outside the industry to start to appreciate the value of when then and d. you think the recent trend in the last five or 10 years is from outside the industry has been something of the industry needed to get it shaken up a little? >> guest: yes, i do. first of all i think in the case of general motors i think rick

wagoner was very open to female leaders and wanted to see them promoted as fast as possible and put them in conditions of greater responsibility. and willing to push female leaders pretty fast. you know maybe even take a little risk and push them faster than what we would normally say they were ready for it. there is no problem there but it was dan ackerson who made what i consider the boldest move of putting mary bharara and for product development. a broader question competently think it was good to bring outsiders and? i think we have outsiders in all three american companies. you have alan mulally at ford and dan ackerson at gm. i was always have the feeling that an automotive ceo should

have an automatic background because he needs to understand the industry. i have revised my opinion on that. the most important is for a nonmotive -- nonautomotive experience ceo to possess good leadership skills and must have the judgment to be able to listen to the right people. alan mulally recently said somebody asked him you were an automotive person. how did you know how to move things forward? he said when i came to ford i didn't have a clue about what to do to move things forward at all of the ideas on fixing ford were right there with my people. these were people who had been held down and hadn't been listened to. i listen to them and their ideas made sense. the global product development at these which general motors

took me from the time i got to gm in 2001 to 2005 to get global product implemented as opposed to each company doing their own cars which is so wasteful. alan mulally came to ford and asked some of the people what about the way they do business and someone said gm converted the global product development. that is obviously what we should be doing. we are doing duplicate cars over the world and make snow sense whatsoever. mullally says why don't we do it? there is resistance from the europeans and resistance from the latin americans. the lely says let's talk about it and we will make a decision. he hadn't been at ford for three weeks when he made the decision to go to global product development. i could give you similar examples that i observed where they just use judgment and common sense.

why are they using judgment and common sense better than the seasoned automotive professional? most of the seasoned automotive professionals had 30 years of training in running a business the wrong way. running it at the numbers and doing all the product plans and all laid out with the cost targets in the rate of return targets and only doing the ones with a higher rate of return. it was basically a bean counter at excellence and a lot of times product excellence suffered. dan ackerson comes in and he says look, i don't understand this business but all i know is general motors used to make not very appealing cars and we were losing money, right? right. now we are making highly desirable cars that cost a little bit more to make that we are making money. is that write? right. then why would we change?

let's keep making great cars the best we know how with a lot of technology in them and a lot of quality because this is the highly trained thirty-year veterans of the automotive business. this is not a business like the restaurant and food business. it's always the same. if you run your plan totally to make as much money as possible and you express everything is money, we spend this much on the product and took 10% out and added a margin and we will sell it for this much, in five years we can have stock at $100. i've been to a zillion meetings like that. we never talk about what you do have to do for the customer to get to those numbers. and the philosophy i have always followed and that most

successful businessmen followed is satisfy the customer, get the product right, get it better than the competition if you can, then the money will follow. process is the reward for doing the job right. it's not a god-given thing that you can put down on the spreadsheet in managing the rest of the business to get that profit. dan ackerson and alan mulally, are the businessmen? sure. do they care about the bottom-line? of course they do that they want to get to the bottom line by producing excellent products that the customer is willing to pay for. >> host: so building on that why did the auto industry go through a collapse? was it because they weren't building good products? was there anything that could've been done differently and did you have any responsibility for what happened? >> guest: well, i will start

with the last one first. sure i've probably wasted some money here and there and i probably caused the creation of some cars are versions of cars that turned out not to sell so well as i thought they were going to do. as wayne gretzky the famous hockey player says you miss 100% of the shots you don't take. all in all my batting average of successes and failures is probably i will make a bold statement, probably not people who can equal my batting average for success versus failure in the products they help create. but i think the problem debbie is what we talked about earlier. it's almost institutionalized doing everything through bureaucracy. don't take any risks. don't take any chances.

don't accept the obvious. study everythineverythin g and then study it again. if you don't like the way it comes out study it one more time and have all of these departments and subgroups and initiatives and things that absolutely add no customer value but we are a large organization and we are going to behave like a large organization. we are going to have staff like a large organization and people people -- executives often see their role as overseeing this huge apparatus successfully as opposed to creating real customer value as a primary goal. as i said in my book, i really do put a lot of the blame on the u.s. business and the way

business graduates are taught in this country. >> host: if i may ask you this question. you didn't necessarily like everybody that you worked with. do you as a leader have to like the people that you are working with and if you don't how do you -- and some organization's? >> guest: well, i think a good leader, he may or may not like the people that he has got that he should try to hide that dislike and mainly try your level best not to play favorites. playing favorites is what destroys the moral and a situation. i was in bed a few times in my career where every time i opened my mouth the leader would say oh there we go again lutz. we are not interested in your opinion and then some yes maam a well tailored well articulated

competent on the other side of the table would echo the boss's views but express them slightly differently and all kinds of smiles and praise would be heaped on him. i found that absolutely sickening. that does tend to destroy morale in an organization. if you are going to be nasty be nasty with everyone. if you are going to be nice -- i try to inject a lot of humor into meetings because i felt it loosened everybody up and you got a better exchange of ideas. but you have to be consistent and again the most important thing is don't play favorites, treat everybody the same and a lot of good culture of sports teams are extremely tough but yet they manage to convey to the

players that they are being tough on them because they want the team to win. a good leader does the same thing in an organization. he is tough but people know that he's not being tough because -- he is being tough because he wants the company to win. >> host: most leaders at sometime in their career have to deal with conflicting priorities. how do you choose the priority that this going to drive the business decision ultimately? >> guest: well, that is a good question. part of the general motors process where we have to write down her holes there are a lot of conflicting goals on there. of course leaders of organizations are in conflict all the time. long-term success which means we shouldn't do this right now or short-term success like the

quarterly earnings makes this stock looks good and makes the stock go up and makes the options look valuable etc. etc. but it's going to hurt in the long term. the long-term short-term is there all the time and a lot of times there are conflicts. one of the famous ones in the automobile business is cost versus quality. do you spend $15 more per car putting and added rustproofing or using a better quality bearing and very often in the past and with the over emphasis on cost, caused, cost in the automobile industry and the old days when there was a goal conflict between quality and cost. quality was prioritized. are these bearings going to last

30,000 miles but it will be out of warranty and it's not going to cost us anything whereas if we put in a better bearing they know that the cost is $2 per card. most of the decisions tended to be driven towards cost. i think good leaders can look beyond that. the visionary leaders like the people we have running the business now will say hey quality is free. you may be investing a little bit in the car right now but downstream effects are customer loyalty resale value absence of recalls etc. etc. etc. will more than pay for the added quality we are putting in the car. you have to adopt that as an act of faith. good leaders are able to make those trade-offs and the smart leaders will make those trade-offs in the direction of long-term results, in other

words this is why many private companies to better than public companies. privately-owned companies where the granddad in the sun and the kid all on the business, they can make the decision of let's not be short-term because we want to build the company. public companies are under unbelievable pressure for short-term results all the time. it's one of the things that tends to hold them back. but a good leader when faced with these he will but his moral compass be his guide. what is really better here, a short-term cost reduction or customer satisfaction? what is really better here? a short-term quarterly earnings report that looks good in next quarter we are going to have to explain cloud we are down but in the meantime we will look like you rose? he will say let's not do any

funny business this quarter. let's just let -- run our business soundly and we will have a good progression next quarter. i think good leaders make those judgments intuitively but they tend to be ethically guided as opposed to putting up a short-term smokescreen. >> host: that is good advice. let me ask you another question. what's the one mistake you see leaders make the most that you would warner caution to someone in leadership to be aware of? >> guest: well, i think the largest mistake that i certainly have witnessed with both of the leaders that i worked for is too great a faith in numerical analysis. because they will take a five year sales projection or a five-year revenue projection or

a five five-year projection of health care costs, or a five-year projection of price per barrel of oil and so forth and they will accept that because they got it from one of their great departments that his post creates these numbers. i worked in one of those departments. i was the so-called senior analyst and i know at the end of the day when you filter all the way down through the layers of management and you get to the mda who is doing those numbers a lot of it is i just look at the sheet of paper and i say, well let's see, 10 is too much. five is too little. why do we go with 7.5. ..

>> will attend on a numerical analysis. it is exactly like like quantification. you can argue with a list so at the end of the day the historical numbers the product or the judgment of large corporations is from people who are fresh out of

business school so why you believe those numbers? >> i am sitting here not knowing how to frame the question but not of political correctness you did say is killing the government with corporations hired to deal with legitimate issues? like what i worked at it general brooders they said why would a woman want to work at general motors? that is a true story how are you sure they are open as they need to be but at the same time not for political correctness killed the ability to be productive? >>. >> we have to separate diversity from political correctness. up the teleview years ago

was a white that dominated culture to force open opportunities. to me that has nothing to do with political correctness. where it becomes absurd is when for instance i was hugely chastised because we talked about a female designer house killed she is and happened she was one of the most attractive women i have never seed in my life and i made the offhand comment at she is also extremely beautiful. old my god you would have thought i use blasphemy in a church. the full weight of h.r. and

senior management came down upon me to say we don't comment on reagan's appearance in the more. excuse me but what is so negative about making a comment as long as he don't say or imply she got to her position because of her beauty but you fully recognize of her contribution and to say by the way a very attractive woman? but any comment related to someone to parents is now banished from the lexicon in all organizations and some point political correctness starts to in french on the first amendment because receive a network of two and

don't you can say this that a and when you work your way through this political correctness thinking what ever happened to the old first amendment rights? you cannot even refer to an extremely obese person as fat is the more. five ft. 11 in weighing 380 pounds excuse me she is that. upn find euphemisms to say she is larger or queen size but but the total perversion of our living wage to avoid phrases or references that could conceivably be offensive to some is wrecking a lot of things in this country if i was a dictator i would step been.

>> you know, you will have a lot of reaction to what you just said and i will have a longer conversation with you because there has been a lot of discrimination over the years it is not as simple as you may get. so how do you have a valid discussion? i did experience discrimination almost my entire career so it is not as simple as people would like to make it either but that is another conversation >> guest: that is true. and i know our joint friend very well in she had some great discrimination but i don't think that has anything to do with political correctness.

>> host: that we need to have this with only a few minutes left you have so many things to share with people. what would you do differently if you were starting over? >> guest: i often thought if i was less outspoken or less critical the way the company was run and i may not have alienated as many bosses is as i did in could have risen to greater heights but then i tell myself i would have denied my own being or my sense of critical analysis or my frustration with things the way it could be brian. first of all, i would be frustrated as elect back

every time on chrysler sometimes i wish i was less in temperament and to read the news but you never know. but i look back on my career >> host: most people would say you have had a very successful career to be very frank. you have. are you really retired bob lutz? what is next for bob lutz?

>> guest: i will definitely not be an executive in a major corporation. i am a contributor to ford or a cnbc contributor. i write and i am a board member of a variety of companies and a little bit of consulting and now involved with a partner in producing premium min's watches one of which is right here also starting a small automotive venture so i have plenty to keep me busy. >> host: i do not call that retired. with just a couple of minutes left its people a starting to follow in your footsteps would that be to

male or female starting out on leadership? >> guest: be passionate about whatever you do. if you are passionate about fashion or the furniture business, go with that. hospitality common go into that. last night's i heard a sportscaster in said he is the most widely known sportscaster in the united states it he was walking around to be a sportscaster what he 12 gb his whole life so it is an essential ingredient or you are a nine to five slave watching the clock ticking off the bonds to retire in you will not be

successful. so what did your greatest passions hard work, try to exceed requirements, and never be satisfied with the status quo and give extra and always maintained professional integrity. don't try to pull funny stuff or ingratiate yourself also behave with absolute integrity that is a lesson that america is used today really need to hear. >> you have taught the lot over the years. >> host: i do not always agree but you say it like it is 8 feet we need more people to say what they think. >> guest: john is one of

my hero's. >> host: i love you both. i look forward to seeing you soon and i do hope people berndt from your book seen your wisdom. take care. >> guest. [laughter] thank you.

>> there is some magical process people i used to sell insurance to and then he would take his money with the insurance policy that entered into a responsible adult. and in respect -- responsible adults but they could sell a for monday because there is some kind of magical process at the end of a couple of years they are the defenders of our freedoms.

>> host: so you did not join the military because of your eyesight? >> guest: yes. about one year ago i have laser surgery i used to read all the stuff write-up to my eyeball. i wanted to be a tanker and it took rotc in college. >> host: can you see yourself writing anything beyond cia or military? >> i write the kind of books that i like to read.