Successful brand cultures can no longer be monocultures
The recent power struggle at Harley-Davidson has been one of the most unedifying spectacles in recent U.S. corporate history - certainly the most embarrassing outbreak of boardroom incompetence and self-interest in Harley's history.
Those whose fingerprints have been on this saga - on either side of the arguments - should hang their heads in shame and crawl into a deep, dark, cold space under a 'Rock of Shame'. They should be doomed to forever dwell in a cave of darkness, a "Bog of Eternal Stench"!
I am writing this the day after Harley's May 14 annual shareholder meeting. One that shunned the once former practice of making such meetings a celebration of brand and corporate culture. Instead, the opaque, paranoid Zeitz era resulted in this highly controversial 'gathering' being no kind of 'gathering' at all.
It was almost Stalinist in its closely controlled stage management - at an undisclosed location, online only and restricted to shareholders of record only. Unlike the meetings of yore, brand loyalists and enthusiasts who have the ultimate 'skin in the game' were certainly not welcome.
These days this isn't an unusual way for corporations to try to exert control over their deliberations - the 'cone of silence' is their friend. But at this time the board needs all the friends it can find. From the Harley board's point of view the way the proceedings played-out must have felt like a pretty unfriendly environment - borderline toxic in fact.
However, those on the other side of the aisle who were seeking the board's ouster (or at least seeking the blood of three of the most prominent board members) have no reason to be quite as self-congratulatory about the outcomes as their spin suggests they are entitled to be.
By the primary interpretation, Harley won and H Partners lost. But, in reality, there were no winners,H Partners have played a shoddy game of 'Hedgie Hubris' throughout. Yes, the three directors that they wanted out - Zeitz, Linebarger and Levison - will all now have resigned from the board of Harley-Davidson Inc. by the next annual shareholder meeting (May 2026), but as the second largest shareholder in HDI (9.3%) H Partners have no justification for claiming "a clear referendum for change."
Though the outcomes of the meeting met their specific objectives, whatever happens now it is the interests of Harley-Davidson's dealers that are the ones that need to be put back into the crosshairs.
When you buy shares in an engineering-based company such as Harley, the primary asset value you are investing in is the ability of the dealer network to sell the product and earn money for all concerned. The ability of the workforce to build a product that is fit for purpose, and the ability of engineering teams to develop products that the ultimate brand ambassadors in this equation - the riders who buy the products - actually want.
Hello H Partners - it is not, in fact, all about you. It is not in fact about how smart you are (or are not) in making investment decisions. "Freeing the Eagle" is not about recouping your investment, that luxury doesn't come until the dealers, employees and engineers have been freed to do their thing.
For my money, the whole board should have voluntarily submitted their resignation the moment the 2024 annual results were published on May 1, 2025.
They should have been replaced by an interim Board of Directors consisting of one representative form the largest shareholder as interim Chairman (Blackrock - step forward Larry Fink, or his anointed Padawan learner); Jonathan Root (the present CFO and President, Commercial) as interim President - maybe, ultimately, as CEO; Chief Engineer Ben Wright; Michael Edmunds, the present VP Motorcycle Operations; a representative chosen by the dealer network and with Paul James and Bill Davidson as the 'Keepers of The Flame'.
"it's about the dealers, stupid"
Yes, the next CEO should be from outside of the company, but it should be someone from the inside the Motorcycle Industry - Rod Copes maybe? Scott Miller? If not an American, then the company and its followers should not hold their noses at the thought of someone from the Japanese or European motorcycle industries.
The worst that could happen by recruiting a CEO from within the international motorcycle industry would be that, for what I think would be the first time ever, Harley would have someone who has looked at the motorcycle industry from the inside, but through a non-Milwaukee lens. Someone who knows the motorcycle industry from a wider perspective. Someone who understands the Harley brand's weaknesses and strengths from seeing it being operated in a competitive context.
If that individual had also spent time rising through the ranks elsewhere with dealer development chops, then all the better.
The only way Harley is going to be able to kick-start itself down the 20-year survive and thrive turnaround pathway that it needs to embrace, is to start building a company that can take customers from other manufacturers.
The primary task of any CEO is to build a business that is capable to redirecting as much revenue as possible from competitors' customers bank accounts and into his or her own balance sheet instead. It's called capitalism, it's called competing - it's not called sticking your head up your ass and wonder why the lights have gone out.
If somebody wants to engage with your brand the job of the CEO is to have built a business that offers the options the buyer wants and needs; to have equipped the sales network to be able to say "Hello, yes of course we can help, do please come in, you are welcome here."
Harley needs to embrace the changed attitudes that consumers will have (already have) to the motorcycle ownership and riding experience in the future (and yes, that can even include electrics - of the right kind, at the right time), but by definition that change cannot be found in the aging out boomer demographic and even given recent inflation, will rarely be found at north of $25k.
The successful motorcycle factories of the future will be those whose production combines several often seemingly irreconcilable differences of objective. They need to become multi-platform - regardless of what they are called - and they need to become multi-buyer in price-point and riding preference terms.
When it comes to 'making that sale', diversity of buyer and product offering are not your enemy. Successful brand cultures can no longer be monocultures.
