Family squeezed out of John Deere

Font Size:

By Melissa Coulter | Friday, February 29, 2008 |

My family has always been a John Deere family. The land my dad farms has seen at least three generations of Gardners and many, many models of John Deere tractors pass through the neat rows of corn and soybeans in rural Warren and Knox counties.

We still have some of those classic green machines. The Model A could never pull its weight in the field today, but it’s won a few tractor pulls and is still used for lighter duty jobs. Our family of Deere tractors also includes a Model G, a 70, a 4320, a 4630 and a 2001 John Deere combine.

That combine is the last Deere our family will purchase. As a moderate operation of 1,000 or so acres, we’ve been priced out. It’s hard to justify buying a $250,000 combine when you use it only

30 days a year.

At a breakfast for members of the Young Professionals Network in December, I asked Deere CEO Bob Lane if the struggles of family farmers who had always been loyal to Deere were of concern to the company. He told me that, while small, niche farms that included an income source outside the farm were still able to get by, it was the very large, very efficient farms that were needed to feed the world population in the future.

“The middle has kind of fallen out,” Lane said.

I was stung. I was just as discouraged to read his remarks at the Deere and Co. annual meeting Wednesday in a story by Jennifer DeWitt:

“It is not a compliment to call the John Deere high-performance team a family,’’ Lane said, adding that in a family if one makes a mistake they are not kicked out of the family. “But if you are not pulling your weight on a high-performance team, you are out of the team.”

To compete globally and in the future, he said “only those who want to be on a high-performance team are selected.”

It hurts to be told that family farmers, who have driven generations of green tractors in their fields, have no place on Lane’s “high performance team.” As for retirees, all those people they spent more time with during their working years than they did with their actual family were efficient teammates at best.

Divergent1 wrote, “I guess Lane has made his point loud and clear, hasn’t he? The global economy has made great companies like JD into something their originators might not recognize or want to be associated with. The days of feeling like family are done. The only thing that matters now is hitting stock analysts’ estimates and producing earnings for shareholders.”

Dutchman retorted, “Isn’t it the job of a CEO of a publicly traded company to make money for the shareholders? Why not buy some Deere stock and get on board the money train?”

Great ideas. I have some others.

If it’s no longer about family, why not lose the Deere name? Global Equipment Corporation more clearly communicates the company’s line of business. Why continue to commemorate family members through the Deere-Wiman House or Butterworth Center? Katherine Deere never built a tractor. Why educate kids about John Deere’s self-scouring steel plow at the Pavilion? It has long since been dropped from the “high-performance team.”

The message to farmers to get big or get out has gotten louder over the last two decades. Still, it takes a long time for tradition and loyalties to die. Apart from the combine, the newest Deere in my dad’s implement shed is 30 years old. We haven’t been able to afford a new Deere tractor since before I was born.

Lane’s words seem intended to divest any stubborn sentimental attachment to the Deere family name.

Bindlestiff wrote, “The message is clear. ‘Family’ is passe. ‘Team’ works for the board, Wall Street and large shareholders. Those clinging to the family paradigm will need to adjust. Years don’t matter. Intentions don’t matter. Pull your weight NOW or adios. Corporate America laid out for the locals in undeniable terms. Reality.”

Sorry, Dad.