Introduction
The mass product recall caused by the problems in the ignition systems was only the problem of quality assurance department of the General Motors, but also a reflection that the organization needs its organizational culture and leadership style to be fundamentally re-shaped. It has been previously argued that unless the company reconsiders its approaches to human resources management, organizational culture and leadership strategies, GM may face serious problems in the today’s vibrant markets. Specifically, because of huge media exposure, any further product recall may become the cause of substantial reduction in sales.
The purposes of this paper it to provide brief evaluation of the company leadership style and assessment of its organizational culture. In general, it argues that in order to stay competitive the GM needs to become more flexible and flatter, while increase individual accountability of each employee.
Evaluation of the leadership theory
The case study given revealed that despite all advancements of the digitalized economy and obvious benefits of the contemporary approaches to management, the Detroit-based vehicles manufacturer still adheres to the old-fashioned authoritarian approach to leadership.
Specifically, the discussed quality assurance problems indicated that before the ignition problems became known to the community, all major managerial decisions were taken by the senior executives only. Middle-line managers were able to take only those decisions, which were directly designated by the scope of their professional duties and responsibilities. Yet, when the problems became salient and the publicity started to mount, the company gradually shifted to participative leadership styles, and the input of technicians, engineers and other ‘blue-collar’ staff became valued. Yet, the importance of their inputs was declaratory only – in spite of the fact that the problem was discussed in many committees, no affirmative decisions were made.
While no positive outcomes have been achieved in this particular case, yet the transformation of the General Motors leadership style occurred. The participative leadership strategy is still feeble, but in time it may grow, and become one of the core elements of the company culture. It is important emphasizing that the transformation occurred because of simultaneous influence of a number of internal and external factors. Externally, the shift was substantiated by the pressing economic realities, i.e. the key executives understood that ruling the organization in an autocratic manner is neither effective, nor it is productive (Kuppler, 2014). Internally, the employees’ urge for empowerment and influence on the company performance played its role, demonstrating to the executives that their opinion can no longer be ignored. Yet, this transformation might not have been possible without synergy between the two forces (Phegan, 1994).
Finally, because the company is still in the middle of the complicated transition stage, it is natural that the decisions are made in an old-fashioned autocratic manner, i.e. the subordinates report to the managers, who then report to their supervisors, and finally, all decisions of strategic importance are invariably made by the senior executives of the organization.
In general, organizational culture of the General Motors is hierarchical. Specifically, the practice reveals that the staff often relies on their superiors, when it is necessary to take any significant decision. In other words, the problems occur, the employees are reluctant to assume responsibility and wait before the management develops instructions to show them how to behave and act. The entire organization is focused on maintaining traditional structure, promoting efficiency and conducting operations in a way, which is consistent with the company policies and its doctrine of business development (Kuppler, 2014).
The case study at hand contains multiple examples, confirming that the organizational style of General Motors is indeed hierarchical. Firstly, in full accordance with this approach to building the company relationships, not a single employee decided to report to the management about the situation and to demand taking a corrective action. Instead, everyone kept silent. Even when the situation became an urgent issue for the company and it became vibrantly discussed in a variety of different committees, no one volunteered to take the ultimate responsibility. Secondly, reflecting a typical hierarchical system, no one spoke against the top management of the company even when the systemic violations of the well-established quality assurance procedures became known to everyone. The company employees remained loyal to their bosses and committed to the common cause.
Insights and Conclusions
The case study demonstrated that before the leadership and organizational culture transitions started, the both elements entirely complemented each other. While the managers continued to rule the company in an autocratic way, their subordinates did not demonstrated that they needed empowerment programs, or anything, that can change the company. Thus, it is reasonable concluding that autocratic approach to corporate governance and hierarchical company culture ideally complement each other in terms of creating a friendly and propitious environment in the company. At the same time, it significantly reduces the chances of surviving in a today’s economic world (Donovan, 2006).
Leadership style and organizational culture of General Motors seriously affect the behavior of their employees. In particular, before the transition started, the employees were sluggish and inert, believing that the successfulness of the company was mainly dependent on the accurate execution of the managerial instructions. However, with gradual transition to the participative model of organizational culture, the employees are expected to become more proactive and organizationally responsible.
References
Donovan, G. (2006). The corporate culture handbook: how to plan, implement and measure a successful culture change programme. Dublin, Ireland: Liffey Press.
Kuppler, T. (2014). The GM Culture Crisis: what leaders must learn from this culture case study. Web. Retrieved from http://switchandshift.com/the-gm-culture-crisis
Phegan, B. (1994). Developing your company culture : the joy of leadership : a handbook for leaders and managers. Berkeley, CA: Context Press.
