Why did Leyland fail?
There are others better qualified than I to speculate as to the reasons but I served 29 years with Leyland and I saw it thrive, then decline and finally collapse in 1993. Many of the reasons have been identified previously by others but I will present my choice of reasons based on actual observations and feelings at the time. There are many reasons, including missed opportunities, and they vary greatly in terms of short-term and long-term impact. With two particular exceptions, the company could probably have survived the all other problems it faced.
To set the scene, in the early sixties, Leyland Motors was the largest truck & bus manufacturer in the UK and the UK was the largest truck market in Europe. But the truck market always cyclical in nature and whenever the UK economy caught a cold, the truck industry would catch a bad dose of ‘flu.
Leyland exported around 60% of production, was highly profitable, and respected as a supplier of quality commercial vehicles. Despite that, it was a relatively small industrial organisation in comparison with the UK car industry and was seen as being paternalistic, parochial, parsimonious and occasionally uncompromising.
As this is a truck forum and my background is in trucks, I will mostly limit my comments to the commercial vehicle side rather than cars.
Here is my list of what I consider to be a fair selection of the most critical reasons, in rough chronological order.
1. Leadership and succession.
In 1963 Sir Henry Spurrier, grandson of the founder, retired and selected Donald Stokes the sales director as the new managing director of Leyland Motors. This was a surprise to many as the main contender was perceived to be Stanley Markland who was the then MD of both Albion Motors and Standard Triumph. Both Stokes and Markland had started out as Leyland student apprentices and having progressed to director level, they emerged as arch-rivals for the top post.
Stokes was an absolutely brilliant sales executive. He was articulate, engaging, enthusiastic, technically competent, unassuming and unpretentious - all this with a broad smile. He had vision and was solely responsible for charting Leyland’s drive into overseas markets immediately after WW2. Export sales prospered hugely under his management for 20 years. Stokes was ambitious and always had an appetite for new challenges and conquests.
In contrast, Markland was the consummate business manager. Whilst he could be a bit abrasive, he had an acute business sense and was widely respected right down to shop floor level where he was seen as firm and decisive. He was the man sent by Spurrier to turn round Standard Triumph after its take over in 1961. He did so in exemplary fashion - slashing costs and excess management whilst promoting young talent and returning it to profitability. He was then appointed to MD of ACV where he brought about the extensive development of the AEC truck range and introduced the new AV505 and AV760 engines.
Having been passed over for the top job, it would be no surprise that Markland resigned within a year. Markland’s departure was a massive loss as he was a highly competent engineer and business manager. This led, in my opinion, to undermining both the engineering and business integrity of the company. Markland would have avoided many, if not all, of the major pitfalls that were to be encountered later.
Leyland was then in a “golden period” with full order books, decent products, factories working overtime, huge export orders, continuous product innovation and public acclaim.
Perversely, this aura of success would bring about political interference which ultimately would be fatal – hence reason No3.
To be continued shortly……