Introduction
Organizations often change due to internal and external factors, and General Motors (GM) is one such company that has experienced a transformation. Kuppler (2014) describes the corporation as a major automotive manufacturer facing an ignition switch crisis that led to the deaths of several people. The enterprise’s main attributes include a history of failures, insufficient communication, no sense of urgency, and an unwillingness to take responsibility (Kuppler, 2014). Accordingly, GM’s primary weaknesses are conflicting messages from top managers, reluctance to raise issues, and inadequate decision-making process (Kuppler, 2014). Nonetheless, the company’s main strength is its new CEO, Mary Barra. Kuppler (2014) suggests that, at the time of the scandal, Barra needed guidance but had the potential to resolve the crisis. GM’s example demonstrates that leadership and culture are interconnected and affect all elements of the business.
Organizational Modeling
GM’s behavioral organizational model (BOM) presented in the case study is autocratic. The model views an enterprise’s administration as the highest authority, with personnel being obedient and reliant on managers (Syaifoelida et al., 2019). Before GM’s scandal, some lower-level employees had raised the ignition switch issue, but senior executives ignored the matter, and the staff had no power to alter the situation (Kuppler, 2014). Moreover, the autocratic style urges employees to comply and not oppose their supervisors (Syaifoelida et al., 2019). Consequently, such an approach caused most of GM’s staff not to discuss hazards and avoid accountability due to managers’ carelessness (Kuppler, 2014). The case study demonstrates that GM’s autocratic organizational model facilitated the corporation’s problems.
Aside from the autocratic method used in GM, the automobile and related industries utilize other BOMs. For instance, the custodial model is based on the managerial orientation of money, with the employees being focused on bonuses (Syaifoelida et al., 2019). Such an approach provides personnel with a sense of security and happiness but can result in poor cooperation and a lack of inspiration (Syaifoelida et al., 2019). In contrast, the supportive method concentrates on leadership over money or authority and emphasizes the manager-employee connection (Syaifoelida et al., 2019; Stewart et al., 2019). Another model that companies employ is collegial, which prioritizes partnership and teamwork (Syaifoelida et al., 2019). Under the collegial approach, people are encouraged to take responsibility and be self-disciplined (Syaifoelida et al., 2019). Each behavioral organizational model presents certain advantages and can be used by distinct industries.
The differences between why organizations utilize particular BOMs can be explained by the attributes of a specific sector. For example, GM may have selected the autocratic method because, over the years leading to the crisis, the automobile industry was concentrated on the number of manufactured cars over their quality (Davis, 2021). Employees were expected to work in their positions rather than participate in the decision-making process, and the managers took control over the resolutions (Davis, 2021). Therefore, GM’s choice of the autocratic model is reasonable regarding the company’s attributes. In comparison, firms in the aerospace industry, which is similar to the automobile sector, seem to follow other BOMs. The field of commercial aviation has always been concerned with safety and promotes a proactive protection culture, which enables training, accountability, and reporting (Teske & Adjekum, 2022). Accordingly, the aerospace sector is connected to supportive and collegial models, with the former emphasizing employee improvement and responsibility and the latter focusing on discipline and accountability (Syaifoelida et al., 2019). Therefore, organizations use distinct BOMs depending on what has been embedded in their cultures and what objectives they pursue.
A corporation’s culture is affiliated with and impacts organizational models. BOMs provide reasons for people to conduct in a particular way, and culture reflects accepted and shared practices and norms (Syaifoelida et al., 2019; Perkins & Arvinen-Muondo, 2013). Consequently, culture generates a work environment and influences BOMs by directing the interactions between leaders and employees. Notably, the autocratic model can be regarded as one of the past approaches, and such styles as collegial can be deemed more popular because traditional authoritative management is not suitable currently (Perkins & Arvinen-Muondo, 2013). Accordingly, culture affected GM’s autocratic method by creating a “toxic” atmosphere with executives conveying conflicting messages and personnel being reluctant to raise issues (Kuppler, 2014). However, the ignition switch crisis has indicated the need to adopt new procedures. Now, GM’s culture impacts the company’s organizational model by suggesting that the top management is responsible for making decisions and that employees must report potential safety hazards (Kuppler, 2014). Culture impacts BOMs differently by producing environments with distinct standards.
Under the case study’s focus, GM operates within an organizational model unique to its industry. As discussed above, GM’s concentration on the autocratic approach can be explained by the specifics of the automobile sector that expect staff to work and comply, leaving executives with the power to make resolutions. The practice where leaders expect subordinates to do what is told is distinctive to the automobile industry and is used by many leaders (DeVere, 2021). Despite being quite popular, such a method is not the most efficient, and considerable enterprises have begun prioritizing different practices (DeVere, 2021). Nevertheless, GM’s autocratic model is the one typically employed in the field of the company’s specialization.
As mentioned earlier, the ignition switch crisis has signified that GM should embrace a new BOM, and such a change can lead to a shift in motivational approaches. The case study demonstrates GM’s adherence to autocratic practices, which do not seem to follow a particular motivational model. Before the ignition switch disaster, GM did not have a concrete psychological contract that is a key component of employee encouragement and addresses such factors as mutual trust, confidence, and fairness (Perkins & Arvinen-Muondo, 2013). Under the autocratic method, GM promoted neither of those attributes because everyone avoided responsibility, had no sense of urgency, and had no intention to follow through with a plan of action (Kuppler, 2014). However, as the corporation had acknowledged the listed problems, GM turned to organizational modeling trends, which appear to lean towards collegial and supportive approaches (DeVere, 2021). Accordingly, the case study suggests that GM can adopt such a motivational model as job enrichment, concentrating on meaningful tasks, responsibilities, and feedback (Perkins & Arvinen-Muondo, 2013). Consequently, changes in BOMs direct towards modifying the patterns of stimulating the personnel.
Leadership Theory
Due to GM’s crisis, the business resolved to change its leadership style (LS). The enterprise used to follow autocratic leadership, which led to a lack of communication accountability (Kuppler, 2014). Although such a style presents short-term advantages, autocratic leaders tend to restrict socialization and are not concerned enough with employee motivation (Al Khajeh, 2018). GM must have realized the impracticality of traditional “command and control” management in a world that has begun to value collaboration and healthy relationships (Perkins & Arvinen-Muondo, 2013, p. 115). Therefore, the corporation must have adopted a transactional style and encouraged employees to report safety hazards in exchange for recognition (Al Khajeh, 2018; Kuppler, 2014). The shift in GM’s LS can be explained by the ignition switch disaster that was caused by problems of autocratic leadership.
Furthermore, GM transformed its LS due to the administration’s traits and choices. The company’s management can be characterized by no sense of urgency or responsibility and unwillingness to execute proposed plans of action (Kuppler, 2014). Moreover, GM’s senior executives did not make sufficient decisions to resolve the matter regarding the ignition switch because the directors could not choose between customers’ safety and the business’s expenses (Kuppler, 2014). A lack of adequate determinations and reluctance to perform duties generated the crisis and forced the shift in LS.
The modification in GM’s LS was affected by internal and external influences. Interior forces reflect one’s unique features, and external factors are represented by the effects of the environment (Perkins & Arvinen-Muondo, 2013). GM’s internal facets include conflicting messages from top management, subordinates’ hesitation to raise issues, and the firm’s avoidance of accountability (Kuppler, 2014). The corporation’s external influences at the time leading to the disaster derived from the increased costs within the automobile sector (Plumer, 2015). Because GM’s leadership was careless and unreliable and could not handle the industry’s impact, the company had to change its LS.
GM’s autocratic LS relates to the business’s decision-making process through employee behavior. Individuals’ conduct is affected by what they learn from their surroundings (Perkins & Arvinen-Muondo, 2013). Accordingly, GM’s personnel have realized that they may not address important problems by viewing how their superiors made poor choices (Kuppler, 2014). Therefore, the association between a LS and an enterprise’s decisions can be described by their effects on employees.
Organizational Culture
GM is represented by distinct internal cultures (ICs) before and after the ignition switch disaster. IC reflects values, practices, and norms accepted by the staff and is connected to organizational behavior, which concerns how people act at the workplace (Perkins & Arvinen-Muondo, 2013). For example, prior to the crisis, GM followed the hierarchy type of culture focused on control systems and characterized by poor performance (Pathiranage et al., 2020). In particular, the enterprise demonstrated such factors as not discussing serious matters and not taking corrective actions (Kuppler, 2014). Although, in his case study, Kuppler (2014) argues that GM failed to transform its IC sufficiently, it appears that the corporation has turned toward the clan culture. This kind of IC concentrates on engagement, collaboration, and accountability (Pathiranage et al., 2020). For instance, GM has resolved to enable employees to report safety issues through its Speak Up for Safety program (Kuppler, 2014). Moreover, the enterprise has emphasized safety awareness and centralized decision-making (Kuppler, 2014). GM seems to be oriented toward creating a culture that influences organizational behavior through promoting open communication and inspiring the personnel to be more responsible.
Insights and Conclusions
General Motors demonstrates a connection between leadership styles and culture. LS and IC complement each other because they affect employee conduct and processes within the company. For instance, when GM maintained the autocratic LS, the business followed the hierarchy type of IC, and both leadership and culture were based on control and restricted employees’ freedom to address issues. The changes in LS and IC influenced one another because, as GM shifted toward the transactional LS, the corporation began embracing such features of the clan IC as responsibility and cooperation. Moreover, LS and IC have influenced the personnel’s behavior through environments created by the enterprise’s administration. For example, GM’s autocratic leadership’s authority produced the hierarchy culture that expected employees to comply and not contradict superiors. In contrast, transactional management can facilitate the clan culture for GM’s staff to feel unrestricted to raise problems. The case study of General Motors indicates a link between LS and IC and how they impact the organization’s operations.
References
Al Khajeh, E. H. (2018). Impact of leadership styles on organizational performance. Journal of Human Resources Management Research, 1-10.
Davis, M. (2021). How the U.S. automobile industry has changed. Investopedia. Web.
DeVere, J. (2021). Six leadership styles that get results. AutoInc. Web.
Kuppler, T., (2014). The GM culture crisis: What leaders must learn from this culture case study. Switch & Shift. Web.
Pathiranage, Y. L., Jayatilake, L. V., & Abeysekera, R. (2020). A literature review on organizational culture towards corporate performance. International Journal of Management, Accounting and Economics, 7(9), 522-544.
Perkins, S. J., & Arvinen-Muondo, R. (2013). Organizational behaviour. Kogan Page.
Plumer, B. (2015). The GM recall scandal of 2014. Vox. Web.
Stewart, G. L., Courtright, S. H., & Manz, C. C. (2019). Self-leadership: A paradoxical core of organizational behavior. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6, 47-67.
Syaifoelida, F., Hamdan, M. A. M., Fikry, A. A., Eqwan, M. R., & Nazmi, I. (2019). The qualitative measurement towards organizational behaviour by using Kano method, CRM and ServQual. International Journal of Engineering and Management Research, 9(6), 91-97. Web.
Teske, B. E., & Adjekum, D. K. (2022). Understanding the relationship between high reliability theory (HRT) of mindful organizing and safety management systems (SMS) within the aerospace industry: A cross-sectional quantitative assessment. Journal of Safety Science and Resilience, 3(2), 105-114. Web.