A leadership style describes a leader's way of implementation of plans, providing direction as well as motivating subordinates. Initially, it was evident from the Volukas Report that GM practiced the authoritarian leadership style. Authoritarianism is characterized by the strictly professional relationship between leaders and subordinates. The leaders focus on efficiency rather than culture. Authoritarians are known to make decisions independently or without consulting subordinates, as well as mostly providing for downward communication. Clearly, there was a reluctance to address issues regarding the ignition issues showing the lack of an open door policy. It is coupled with conflicting messages from top management where they emphasized that cost control was a critical factor and at the same time indicated that when in a dilemma between cost and safety, safety should take priority. It is observed that the leadership style changed to a more democratic one. The change was as a result of GM realizing that the issues failed to be addressed due to communication issues (Chang, 2007).
Authoritarianism caused culture issues such as poor communication and failing to take responsibility for matters. Resolutions that supported Democratic leadership included an attempt to implement communication to raise awareness regarding safety as well as using visible communication methods such as bulletins as well as reducing the reluctance of employees to highlight potential safety issues (Ofori, 2009).
The shift to a democratic leadership style is characterized by encouraging employees by explicitly communicating with them regarding classifying issues as security or potential safety issues. Formulating protocols can do enhancing security for increasing priority for security issues to appropriate management levels. Continuous review and strengthening the reporting process by employees of safety issues also help to show the shift in leadership style (Chang, 2007).
Certain external and internal factors could have led to a change in the leadership style. Most of these are sourced from government legislation and regulations that emphasize on the environment and concern for safe automobiles. This can be illustrated by the EU’s restriction on using heavy metals for environmental reasons. Additionally, vehicle emissions have been made stricter. The motor industry has also been affected by the credit crunch which has forced companies to be more economically sensitive due to decreased consumer spending. The above factors have in return elicited the need for employees to take extra caution regarding safety elements of the cars which are demonstrated by the insistence on identifying potential or actual security issues. This is facilitated by establishing an efficient framework for this purpose. The internal factors include the establishment of the speak up for safety program encouraged employees to report potential safety issues promptly. Coupled with this is the Global Product Integrity organization to enhance safety and quality of their products (Ofori, 2009).
The internal culture at GM was initially represented by an efficiency-oriented business that aimed at cutting costs. This is supported by the assertion that cost is everything. This is an apparent compromise in quality in pursuit of profitability. The culture also represented a lack of efficient communication which is shown by the reluctance to raise concern over issues. It is also represented by avoidance of responsibility which entails passing the responsibility for certain matters to other people. This acts as an impediment to solving problems. The culture at GM is also plagued by the employees lack of urgency regarding matters, as in the ignition error, unless the driving factor is cost or safety. The culture is also affected by individuals coming to a consensus regarding certain courses of action without any intention of implementation which renders it useless (Ofori, 2009).
There are numerous examples that support the above culture at GM. They include the insistence on cost-cutting which compromised on quality. The process of addressing an issue was rendered ineffective by passing it through many committees without finding actual solutions since decision-makers could not be identified.
About the leadership style and internal culture, an attempt to shift to a more democratic leadership style is impeded by the internal culture. This impediment can be illustrated whereby the company encourages employees to speak up for safety through the program they implemented while they restructured the safety decision-making process to top management. This is a failure by including them in the decision-making process. However, the integration of safety processes under one leader complements the culture whereby individuals fail to implement plans as well as take responsibility for actions.
The change to a more democratic leadership style influenced the internal culture. For instance, encouraging employees to speak up also helps individuals to act promptly to potential safety issues and put in place procedures as well as their implementation. Similarly, a change in internal culture advocating employees to speak up has put an end on shifting responsibilities of individuals since safety issues are being headed by one leader who ensures that there is more accountability by leadership as well as ensuring following through on resolutions made (Ofori, 2009).
The leadership style and internal culture at GM have influenced the behavior of employees. For instance, they have shifted focus from merely making profits or cutting costs to providing appropriate levels of customer service. These have raised awareness regarding safety thereby ensuring that the quality of products is guaranteed. It has also led to employees taking responsibility especially when safety issues are placed under one leader. Encouraging communication in the company has ensured that faults reach top management enabling implementation of corrective action. Democracy gives them a more active role in decision-making which helps them own the decisions (Ofori, 2009).
REFERENCES
Chang, S. C., & Lee, M. S. (2007). A study on relationship among leadership, organizational culture, the operation of learning organization and employees' job satisfaction. The Learning Organization, 14(2), 155-185.
Ofori, G. (2009). Ethical leadership: Examining the relationships with full range leadership model, employee outcomes, and organizational culture. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(4), 533-547.
