Talk:Jack Welch/Archives/2012

Proposed revisions

I'm writing here to suggest some improvements to this article, which I do not feel comfortable making myself. I work for Strayer University, which runs the Jack Welch Management Institute, so I have a conflict of interest with Jack Welch as a subject, although I do not work for him personally. Below I've written up several concerns about this article with some suggested changes:

Plagiarism

 Done

There are several instances of what appears to be plagiarism in this article — a concern that has previously been raised on the Talk page here. In the section below, taken from the "Tenure as CEO of GM", the first two paragraphs read very similar to the original source and the block quote seems to be an unnecessarily long borrowing from this Businessweek article from 1998.

Welch was displeased with the $1,000 raise he was offered after his first year, as well as the strict bureaucracy within GE. He planned to leave the company to work with International Minerals & Chemicals in Skokie, Illinois.

Reuben Gutoff, a young executive two levels higher than Welch, decided that the man was too valuable a resource for the company to lose. He took Welch and his first wife Carolyn out to dinner at the Yellow Aster in Pittsfield, and spent four hours trying to convince Welch to stay. Gutoff vowed to work to change the bureaucracy to create a small-company environment.

"Trust me," Gutoff remembers pleading. "As long as I am here, you are going to get a shot to operate with the best of the big company and the worst part of it pushed aside."

"Well, you are on trial," retorted Welch. "I'm glad to be on trial," Gutoff said. "To try to keep you here is important."

At daybreak, Welch gave him his answer. "It was one of my better marketing jobs in life," recalls Gutoff. "But then he said to me--and this is vintage Jack--'I'm still going to have the party because I like parties, and besides, I think they have some little presents for me.'" Some 12 years later, Welch would audaciously write in his annual performance review that his long-term goal was to become CEO.

I'd like to suggest replacing the above wording with a rewritten, summarized version that contains the same key career information, and streamlines what I think are superfluous details. I am of course open to suggestions about re-including some details. Here is the wording I propose:

In 1961, after roughly one year of employment with GE, Welch planned to quit his job as junior engineer because he was dissatisfied with the raise offered to him and was unhappy with the bureaucracy he observed at GE. Welch was persuaded to remain at GE by Reuben Gutoff, an executive at the company, who promised him that he would help create the small company atmosphere Welch desired.

References

Wording in "Criticism" section

 Done - Youreallycan 14:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I also propose rewriting a sentence in the "Criticism" section that quotes from the Businessweek source above, as it presents an opinion as fact and does not correctly reflect the source material. The original source reads:

Other critics have questioned whether the pressure Welch imposes leads some employees to cut corners, possibly contributing to some of the defense-contracting scandals that have plagued GE or the humiliating Kidder, Peabody & Co. bond-trading scheme of the early 1990s that generated bogus profits.

and the sentence in the article reads:

Critics also say that "the pressure Welch imposes leads some employees to cut corners, possibly contributing to some of the defense-contracting scandals that have plagued GE, or to the humiliating Kidder, Peabody & Co. bond-trading scheme of the early 1990s that generated bogus profits."

The source also does not attribute this criticism to any person or group in particular, and as this opinion is currently only sourced to the Businessweek article, I believe it should be noted that this is where the criticism was mentioned.

I propose replacing the current language with the following:

According to Businessweek, critics of Welch have questioned whether the pressure he places on employees may lead them to "cut corners", which may in turn have contributed to controversies over defense-contracting, or the Kidder, Peabody & Co. bond-trading scheme in the early 1990s.

References

Inaccurate information

 Done

To reflect recent changes to the Jack Welch Management Institute and to correct inaccurate information I would like to suggest a revision to this section.

Currently the original text inaccurately implies that Welch provided only a donation and a name to the institute, however Welch's active involvement in this program has been supported by several sources including this article from the Washington Post.

It is also inaccurate to state that classes took place on campus at Chancellor University. Welch explains in an interview with Wired Academic that the program is offered entirely online.

Given the information presented in these sources I would like to suggest replacing:

Thanks to a donation from Jack Welch, the Jack Welch Management Institute at the Chancellor University in Ohio was founded in July 2009. The institute offers a MBA program based on Welch's management philosophy. Classes are offered both online and at the school’s Cleveland campus.

with the following:

In 2009, Welch founded the Jack Welch Management Institute, a program at Chancellor University that offered an online executive MBA degree. The institute was acquired by Strayer University in 2011. Welch has been actively involved with the curriculum, faculty and students at the online business school since its launch.

References

There are other issues with this article I think should be changed, but this I think will do to start. I'd very much appreciate it if someone is willing to be bold and make these changes. I will be watching this page and respond as quickly as I can, if there are any questions. Thanks in advance, Hamilton83 (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Please explain how the two refs provided support the statement "has been actively involved with the curriculum, faculty and students at the online business school since its launch." It appears that we can source that he provides weekly broadcasts to the school and "spends hours" on it. This will be my only comment in this thread unless I am paid commensurate with you - otherwise, I object strenuously to having my unpaid time wasted by a paid advocate. Hipocrite (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem, Hipocrite. I just posted an explanation with quotes at the Biography of Living Persons Noticeboard. You don't have to do it if you don't want, but if you did I would appreciate it. Thanks. --Hamilton83 (talk) 21:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional revisions

{{Request edit}} Following the revisions I suggested above, I have some additional suggestions to help improve this article. I've explained these below, including new citations where needed:

Infobox and introduction

The infobox for this article currently includes outdated information regarding Welch's marital and career history. Welch's most recent professional role is as the founder of the Jack Welch Management Institute, so it is not correct to include his former role as the CEO of General Electric under the "Occupation" parameter. I'd like to request that the infobox be edited as follows:

• Move "Former CEO of General Electric" under "Known for"
• Add "Founder and professor at the Jack Welch Management Institute" under "Occupation". This is verified by the institute's website.

Additionally, to reflect the career developments of Jack Welch and the updates to the infobox I would like to request an edit to the introduction. I propose the addition of this sentence after the statement regarding Welch's net worth:

Jack Welch is the founder of the Jack Welch Management Institute, an educational institution established in 2009.

References

• I fixed the infobox, though took out the "and professor" part, because it makes the line too long and isn't really necessary to state. If relevant, it can be stated in the body of the article. I also added the sentence to the intro, though making it just Welch, so there isn't a repetition of his full name. Silverseren^C 23:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Personal life

The "Personal life" section contains multiple instances of information that would be better suited under a different heading. Adding a section titled "Opinions" would create a more suitable place in the article for several statements of opinion currently found in "Personal life", such as:

• He is also a global warming skeptic. Yet he has said that every business must embrace green products and green ways of doing business, "whether you believe in global warming or not...because the world wants these products."
• Another statement that can be moved into this new section is the sentence about his party affiliation, for which I would also like to suggest a rephrasing, as the word "revealed" suggests that this information was previously shrouded. Additionally, the role of Piers Morgan here is of little importance:

In June 2011, Jack Welch revealed in an interview with Piers Morgan that he is a Republican.

I would like to suggest changing this to:

Jack Welch identifies as a Republican.

I also propose the removal of some unsourced information from this section, as it places too much importance on trivial aspects of Welch's private life. For instance, it is not particularly interesting or noteworthy that a business executive plays golf:

Welch underwent triple bypass surgery in May 1995. He returned to work full time in September of the same year and also adopted an exercise schedule that included golf. Welch is a member of Augusta National Golf Club. However, in Winning, Welch acknowledges that back problems forced him to give up playing golf, and that, surprisingly, he doesn't miss it. He acknowledges using his time formerly spent on the golf course to consult with companies and indulge other personal interests such as modern art, international travel, teaching, and attending Red Sox games. Since then, he has picked up his golf game, playing at courses such as Nantucket Golf Club, Sankaty Head Golf Club, and the Country Club of Fairfield, Connecticut among others.

References

• Done and done. Pretty straightforward here. Silverseren^C 23:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

New section on post-GE career

While the article currently contains a lot of detail about Welch's career at GE and much (arguably unnecessary) information about his personal life, there is no section dedicated to his career after GE. Information relating to the latter part of his career now appears in the "Personal life" section including his teaching role at MIT and the foundation of the Jack Welch Management Institute. I'd like to propose the creation of a new section titled "Post-GE career", where this information could be moved. I have also drafted the following which could be added to such a section:

Following Welch's retirement from GE, he became an adviser to private equity firm Clayton, Dubilier & Rice and to the chief executive of IAC, Barry Diller. In addition to his consulting and advisory roles, Welch has been active on the public speaking circuit, and co-wrote a popular column for BusinessWeek with his wife, Suzy, for four years until November 2009. The column was syndicated by The New York Times. In 2005, he published Winning, a book about management co-written with Suzy Welch, which reached #1 on The Wall Street Journal bestseller list, and appeared on New York Times' Best Seller list. Since January 2012, Welch and Suzy Welch have written a biweekly column for Reuters and Fortune.

References

I'd rather not make these changes myself due to my conflict of interest. If any editors watching this page are able to make these edits, it would be most appreciated. I am watching this page and will reply as quickly as I am able to any responses or questions. Thanks in advance, Hamilton83 (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like we're all good. I also went ahead and re-arranged the sections, making the Criticism section a subsection of the GE career part, since that is pretty much what it is discussing and things like that. Silverseren^C 23:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Jack Welch Management Institute spam

The Jack Welch Management Institute is a footnote in a distinguished career. Beyond GE, Welch is better known for Clayton, Dubilier & Rice, IAC, BusinessWeek, Winning, and the Reuters column than some for-profit school that pays a shill to edit Wikipedia.

His current job might be author, columnist, or something. His hardly-notable school is not his current job, nor is making it the only thing in the lede aside from GE appropriate weight.

I suggest that when the shill asks you to edit something about his employer, you don't, without very careful review. Hipocrite (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I think all of those things should be mentioned in a more expanded lede and we probably need multiple things in the occupation section of the Infobox, but you can't have a former occupation as his current occupation. Silverseren^C 23:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

As the editor who asked for these additions, I'd like to comment on this discussion to explain the requests and suggest a way forward. It may be that the introduction in general needs to be expanded, however I believe that whether or not more detail is added, JWMI is notable enough to be included: Welch's founding of the institute and continued involvement has been the subject of coverage in the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, CNN Money and Bloomberg Businessweek, to name just a few. Compared to his Reuters column that began earlier this year, I would say that JWMI is notable enough to mention in the article's introduction.

Regarding the change to the infobox, I agree with Silverseren that "Former CEO of GE" is not an occupation, although it is the primary reason for Welch's notability. Would it make sense to change the infobox so that it states under "Occupation" that he is a professor at JWMI, author, consultant and public speaker (in whatever order there is consensus for) and move "Former CEO of GE" to "Known for"?

I'm interested to hear what others think about this, and I'd like to help where I can. Thanks, Hamilton83 (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

More suggestions for improvement

{{request edit}}

Thanks to Silverseren for the help with the changes I suggested above. I also have some additional suggestions to help improve this article:

Post-GE career

There are details about Welch's involvement with Sacred Heart University, his teaching at MIT and his foundation of JWMI that appear in the "Personal life" section. Since these are professional activities and all took place following his retirement from GE, I'd like to suggest moving this information to the new "Post-GE career" section.

 Done--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Shareholder value

The following quote appears in the section "Tenure as CEO of GE":

This is often acknowledged as the "dawn" of the obsession with shareholder value. Later, in an interview with the Financial Times on the Global financial crisis of 2008–2009, Welch said, “On the face of it, shareholder value is the dumbest idea in the world. Shareholder value is a result, not a strategy... your main constituencies are your employees, your customers and your products.” Welch did not make such a comment while still the CEO of GE.

As the final sentence of this passage notes, this information is unrelated to his time as CEO of GE. And the final sentence is clearly meant to impart a critical viewpoint, without a reliable source to suggest it. As it's written, this information doesn't really belong in a biography of Jack Welch, but would be more suited in the shareholder value article. If other editors think that this statement should remain in this article, perhaps it would be more appropriate to add it to the new "Opinions" section.

References

 Done Trimmed and moved to opinions section.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced criticism

In the "Criticism" section, there are three statements that are either unsourced or are not supported by the source provided. I would like to request that these be removed.

• The claim made in the following sentence is not supported by the source cited:

Some industry analysts claim that Welch is given too much credit for GE's success. They contend that individual managers are largely responsible for the company's success.

The source is an opinion column piece about the impact of executives' charisma on business success, that uses Welch as an example. It makes no mention of individual managers or how much credit Welch deserves for GE's success.

• There is no source for the following statement:

It is also held that Welch did not rescue GE from great losses as the company had 16% annual earnings growth during the tenure of his predecessor, Reginald H. Jones.

I've found a 1980 New York Times article that supports the 16% figure, but cannot find a source that criticizes Welch for not having rescued GE from losses. I believe this is editorialization.

• Also, in the "Criticism" section the following statement is included:

In addition, Welch is a vocal opponent of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

The source cited is a dead link and I also feel that this statement does not accurately represent Welch's opinion of Sarbanes-Oxley. I have found two sources where Welch expresses a more neutral opinion to the act:

"First of all, Sarbanes-Oxley had to happen. We needed to get confidence back in the investment community. And now the question is what are the unintended consequences?"

"This new rule does nothing more than puts more teeth into what companies should have been doing anyway."

If other editors feel strongly that his view on Sarbanes-Oxley does belong in Welch's article I would propose it be moved to the "Opinions" section and be amended to more accurately reflect his opinion.

References

As I've noted on this page before, I'd prefer not to make any of the edits I've suggested here myself due to my conflict of interest. I'd appreciate if other editors could review these changes and make them if they're able to. Thanks in advance, Hamilton83 (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I came here from NPOVN. I read through the cited references for your first two points and I agree that the statements are not found in the references. I do not have time right now to work on the third. Let's see if there is input from other editors. But it does appear the statements in question should be revised or deleted.Coaster92 (talk) 05:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Coaster92, thanks for looking over these requests. There have been no other replies here, at the BLP noticeboard or to my message at the Paid Editor Help page, so I was wondering if you'd be able to look at the third unsourced criticism?

Also, I'm not sure if you saw my other two requests above, about the material from "Personal life" to add to the section now called "After GE" and possibly moving or removing the statement about shareholder value from the "General Electric" section. If you have the time to look at these, that would be great.

I'll also try the Help desk, to see if anyone there can help with the requests, but if you're able to make any of these changes I'd really appreciate it. Thanks, Hamilton83 (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Hamilton83. In response to your message on my user talk page, I came here to check out the article and talk page and it looks like everything has been done as you have requested by Canoe1967. So I think you are set for now.Coaster92 (talk) 06:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Canoe1967 for reviewing and making the edits, and also thank you to Coaster92 for your comments. The help from both of you here is really appreciated. As all my requests have been answered, I've updated the request edit template. Thanks, Hamilton83 (talk) 14:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You are very welcome.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Compensation

Thanks to everyone who has helped before. It turns out that I do have one more request, the following portion of the "Tenure as CEO of GE" section misrepresents the benefits Welch received after his retirement from General Electric. Also, the salary and retirement plan numbers presented in this section are not supported by the source:

At the time of his retirement, Welch received a salary of $4 million a year, followed by his controversial retirement plan of $8 million a year, which included GE's $80,000 per month luxury apartment in Trump Tower (New York City), free food and wine, access to a $300,000 per month B737 corporate jet, VIP tickets to the Metropolitan Opera, the Knicks, Wimbledon, the US Open (tennis) and the Red Sox, an office and a secretary in the GE building and a limousine with driver.

Here is the wording I suggest, citing a more recent source and clarifying the reason for the benefits and the actual benefits he received:

Welch's income and assets came under scrutiny during his divorce from his second wife Jane in 2001. The retention package agreed upon by Welch and GE in 1996 promised him continued access after his retirement to the housing, entertainment and transportation he had as CEO. These benefits were agreed upon in lieu of a more traditional stock package. According to an interview with Welch in 2009 this agreement was filed with the U.S. Security and Exchange Commission. As a result of the media attention his divorce proceedings brought to his retention package Welch chose to renounce the benefits.

I would appreciate it if anyone is able to review this and make the change. Thanks in advance, Hamilton83.

I took a look at the reference for the current statement in the article concerning Welch's retirement compensation. The source is actually quoting the ex-wife's divorce papers, which are not a reliable secondary source. The source also states that Welch gave up the package and started funding most everything himself. So there needs to be an edit based on this alone. But I was not able to identify or connect to the source of your proposed statement. Let me know what the source is and how to connect and I will have a look at that.Coaster92 (talk) 05:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I would say that two things need to be addressed with regards to the paragraph about his retirment package.

1. Why did GE offer Welch a nonstandard package?
2. He didn't refuse the package because of increased media coverage according to the article. According to your source it says that he's legally bound not to discuss divorce proceedings. From the article: "Of all the questions that 60 Minutes Wednesday asked Welch, that was the only one he couldn't answer. Part of his divorce agreement with his former wife is that he can't talk about it. "

Maximilianklein (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Coaster92 and ‎Maximilianklein, thanks for your replies. Coaster92, the sources I've used here are 2002 Guardian article used as a source right now and also an article from CBS News from 2009.

To answer your first question, Maximilianklein, the CBS interview with Welch explains that the package was in lieu of stock in the company, as Welch preferred to keep the benefits he'd received as CEO of GE. Quotes from Welch in the article explain that he didn't want more money but did want to retain the lifestyle he'd enjoyed as CEO. I've adjusted the proposed wording below to include this explanation:

Welch's income and assets came under scrutiny during his divorce from his second wife Jane in 2001. The retention package agreed upon by Welch and GE in 1996 promised him continued access after his retirement to the housing, entertainment and transportation he had as CEO. These benefits were agreed upon in lieu of a more traditional stock package because Welch did not want more money, preferring instead to retain the lifestyle he had enjoyed as CEO once he retired. According to an interview with Welch in 2009 this agreement was filed with the U.S. Security and Exchange Commission. As a result of the media attention his divorce proceedings brought to his retention package Welch chose to renounce the benefits.

I'm not sure what you mean about the CBS source not supporting that he renounced the benefits after media attention during the divorce proceedings. The end of the first page and the top half of the second page in the CBS article discusses the divorce and the negative media attention. A quote from Welch states:

"So I decide I'll give it back, and GE got completely out of the press."

The quote you mention is on the next page, discussing his relationship with Suzy Welch. This statement is actually a response to Welch being asked what his then-wife said when he told her about his relationship with Suzy. I don't believe that quote from the article means he can't discuss anything about the divorce proceedings, just that particular aspect. Hopefully the change made to the wording above looks ok to you and my explanation here answers your second question. Thanks, Hamilton83 (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

IMO the proposed paragraph could use more detail, including specific mention of the luxury apartment, jet and chauffeured limo (instead of "transportation") and why the package came under scrutiny, ie, presumably the need to allocate the perks in the divorce, possible SEC questions, and the issue of greed.Coaster92 (talk) 05:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I would mostly OK with the edit if you incorprated Coaster92's suggestions above, and and one more change. Rewriting the saintly painting of the middle sentence "because Welch did not want more money, preferring instead to retain the lifestyle he had enjoyed as CEO once he retired." To something more objective. Honestly I'm not sure how that sentence could even be true, how can someone prefer a luxury lifestyle over money? It leads me to suspect that Welch had different motives for not accepting the money, but that is not the scope of this article. Either rephrase, or simply write that the package was declined. Maximilianklein (talk) 06:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, the reference does specifically state that, so it's not technically non-objective. Silverseren^C 22:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Based on Coaster92 and Maximilianklein's comments, I've made a few changes to the proposed replacement paragraph, so far as the sources were able to support the information you each asked for. For the moment, I've mostly left the wording explaining Welch's reason for choosing the benefits over stock options, although I did clarify that this was the explanation given by Welch. As Silverseren said, this was the reason given in the source. This version hopefully addresses all of the details asked for:

Welch's income and assets came under scrutiny during his divorce from his second wife Jane in 2001, after she included details in divorce papers of what she said he received as benefits from GE. Welch's contracts with GE were subsequently investigated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The retention package agreed upon by Welch and GE in 1996 promised him continued access after his retirement to benefits he received as CEO including an apartment in New York, baseball tickets and use of a private jet and chauffeured car. These benefits were agreed upon in lieu of a more traditional stock package because, according to Welch, he did not want more money, preferring instead to retain the lifestyle he had enjoyed as CEO once he retired. According to an interview with Welch in 2009 this agreement was filed with the SEC. As a result of the media attention his divorce proceedings brought to his retention package, particularly claims that such a package made him look "greedy", Welch chose to renounce the benefits.

If this now includes all the information that editors here have requested, perhaps any further edits can be made once it has been added into the article. Thanks, Hamilton83 (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I feel that Hamilton83 has made good faith efforts to listen to community input and been flexible in rewording and the portrayal of the compensation section. Based on the incorporation of community feedback I have added the proposed text to the article and under the "criticism" section. If somebody feels that this was an inappropriate or premature edit we can undo my edit and reopen discussion. Maximiliankleinoclc (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this edit. The changed passage is a much better, more neutral description of what occurred and follows exactly what is stated in the references. Silverseren^C 01:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Maximilianklein for adding the paragraph and Silver seren for your kind comment. I noticed that the original paragraph regarding Jack Welch's retirement benefits is still included in the "CEO" section. Since the new wording was intended to replace this, could someone remove the sixth paragraph from the "CEO" section? Thanks, Hamilton83 (talk) 14:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I object to this additions - its attacking in nature and personally intrusive without notable value to the reader apart from personal intrusive trivia. - If you added it - please remove it and await consensus - thanks - Youreallycan 05:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

There was consensus before your objection. What exactly is wrong with it? The whole point of it being rewritten was because it was too negative in the first place and the extra details are needed to show that his denial of the stock package wasn't a negative thing. Silverseren^C 09:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I just removed the text, that the new compensation paragraph was meant to replace, but I did add the total value of the package to the new text because I felt that it was important to grasp the magnitude of the dispute, even though I agree it's wrong and unencyclopedic to get into the line-item details. @Youreallycan, as Silver seren has said there was consensus before, and the latest edits are less personally intrusive, and less trivial. What are your specific objections to the way the text currently reads? Maximilianklein (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Unhinged and latest wife, is there a link?

Can someone add in a section on the new wife. Is she the reason that Welch is becoming slightly unhinged? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.142.97.140 (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)