Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Organizational culture is a value system that defines peoples beliefs within an organization, or company. In this case study, GM seemed to only care about the profit rather than the safety of their customers. The ignition switch was an issue for over a decade and the issue was addressed but not properly taken care of. As a result of their ability to act 13 people were killed and one at GM seemed to step up and take responsibility for it (Kuppler,2014). Their CEO Mary Barra produced a plan to change the culture of GM for the better internally and did what she could throughout the transformation within the company. In my estimation, GM seemed to have more weaknesses than positives as they turned a blind eye to this issue and lacked genuine concern for their customers without a sense of urgency in resolving the issue, speaking their reaction toward the issue was incredibly poor (Kuppler,2014). Rather than employees stepping up and voicing their concerns on the ignition switch issue they kept their heads down and just did what they were told to not jeopardize their jobs felt a lack of management understanding, or didnt feel the issue was important enough for upper management to react and take action towards (Kuppler,2014). The organization model I feel best fits General Motors within the company is the Autocratic Model because within General Motors the decision-makers are the managers. It is the managers within the company that should be listening to their employees concerns, and issues to make GM, and their vehicles well-built and safe for public use with operational know-how taken into consideration as well.
The Autocratic Model is a successful way to run some businesses as it gives companies the ability to make quick decisions, creates a clear line of communication, counters team inexperience, improves productivity and efficiency, and can control employees’ stress (Gaille, 2018), but in this case, it seems to work against GM. For GM it seemed this model worked against them as management felt the issue did not take precedence over other matters and wasnt important enough for immediate attention, As a result of this matter their subordinates felt management took zero action toward this then they felt comfortable to do the same (felt the downfall would fall on management anyway). In my research, there are 5 types of organizational behavioral models which are autocratic (GMs model before the crisis) supportive, custodial, system, and collegial (Five Models of Organisational Behavior,2015). Supportive is a model that inspires leadership, the custodial is based on creating loyalty from benefits and wages, the collegial model is based upon teamwork, and lastly, the system model ties all of those models I mentioned earlier into a behavioral model where it takes all of these models into account to reach an organization’s goals and objectives (Gaille, 2018). Comparing this to other car companies GM has many competitors within their industry, but its largest competitor globally is Toyota Motors.
Toyota at the time had a better sense of how to treat its employees, and primarily followed the collegial model which means college. This means a group of employees having a common purpose in their work, goals, and objectives. The collegial model relates to a teamwork-based model highlighting delegation and mutual understanding. The foundation of the collegial model lies in management’s building a feeling of partnership with their employees and a common goal that can be mutually achieved. Under the collegial approach, employees feel needed and useful thus making them more vital toward the end product. They consider managers as joint contributors to organizational success rather than as bosses (MODELS OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOUR, 2014-2019). This model is crucial because it gives employees a sense of self-worth and promotes unity amongst staff as managers guide their employees rather than the Autocratic Model directing employees around without a goal or their customers in mind. This then results in a more proficient working environment as employees arent in fear of punishment, and with the custodial model employees depend on the organization rather than themselves in comparison, collegial builds teamwork, which is the goal of all organizations, especially these days bosses (MODELS OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOUR, 2014-2019).
One aspect you must look at is the similarities in the culture that GM and Toyota conducted themselves. There are differences between the organizational model in this case study and those used by other organizations within the auto industry. Every industry tries to establish its own culture within the business or organization, and not one business has the same outlook, goals, and aspirations for its company. Other auto industries may adopt other models such as the custodial model, in which the employee will base their work on benefits and rewards as their main driving force to be productive and efficient. Another may adopt the supportive model which solely relies on proper leadership, as this model promotes teamwork that focuses on training and development in the hopes of making their employees happier and more efficient. What works in the auto industry may not work in the manufacturing industry as the manufacturing industry Is focused on the production of quality goods as quickly and efficiently as possible. A cohesive and well-trained staff makes this possible whereas an industry such as sales drives their employees with commission and is every man for themselves, as they make, they’re living off how many sales are achieved per quarter or annually depending on the business. Historically, Japan has always been a proud nation so when issues arise, they seem to keep things internal, although they use the Collegial model as a basis for their internal employees regulation, going public with things is pretty much forbidden which gives them the Autocratic Model as well.
GM was sort of the same concept as the United States is a very proud nation and GM has been a staple for the US for some time now, they have become accustomed to turning their heads and forgetting the customers should be the main focus of all automobiles built. One way Toyota made the right decision that GM didnt was that once they knew the airbag was going to affect people, they made it public as soon as possible to recall vehicles and pressed people to not have passengers in the passenger seat until the issue was resolved, showing concern for their customers which is something GM lacked. It took GM eleven years to address the issue and for the information to reach top management which purely showed the resolve of managers adopting the autocratic model (Kuppleer,2014). I feel that many companies within this industry have a sense of autocratic models of behavior because they were not called out by the public.
The auto industry is a very fast-paced industry and many employees just do what they must do to keep their jobs without question. Those who had concerns were ignored making safety a huge issue as time went on and culturally this became the norm within GM and many other auto companies as well as manufacturing companies. In saying this, it doesnt mean all car companies have this mentality. As mentioned earlier Toyota seemed to take some responsibility in recalling defective airbags, as GM took over a decade for things to become apparent there was an issue (Kuppler,2014). When base-level employees and management get along and work together more can get accomplished (although Japan was secretive as well, they had more of a collegial approach to public safety concerns). Every generation has a different model to follow in terms of the concepts and things that motivate them. The concept of motivation will never change, so a smart business owner should always pay attention to the things that motivate people to be productive, accurate, and efficient so their business can run smoothly. Without a substantial market to impede on, or a product that has the quality to sell within the market niche your business is doomed to begin with. In the end, GM woke up and admitted their faults. Employees must take ownership in what they do and that starts from the culture created within the organization, and in this case, Mary Barra did just that. Many people have reviewed this case study and have wondered what kind of leadership style, and organizational behavior is being exuded throughout the company during the time of the ignition switch crisis.
Ultimately, people have different perspectives as to what leadership is. Some feel a leader is an individual with followers, others feel a leader is someone with stature within a company (hierarchical), and another person may feel a leader is someone who empowers others around them. All of these are examples of what some may feel defines a leader. As these ideas were formed by leaders within their organizational niche, in my opinion, a natural-born leader who can adapt to situations and become more diverse in motivating others to accomplish a common goal is extremely important. Throughout my research, the definition of a leader that resonated with me the most was written by Kevin Kruse, a contributor to Forbes, and the author stated: Leadership is a process of social influence, which maximizes the efforts of others, towards the achievement of a goal (Kruse,2015). The leadership style that GM expressed at the time was autocratic as many top leaders within the company made decisions and expected their subordinates to comply even if the evidence said otherwise. Top leaders had known about the issue for many years now but took what was called the GM nod , meaning upper management officials would nod their heads in agreement with a consensus at the end of discussions and meetings, without the intention of following through with the proposed course of action when issues arose (Kuppler,2014). Another form of management style that was exuded is called the Laissez-Faire Leadership style, also known as delegation leadership. Laissez-faire is the leadership style where the leader gives full freedom to his subordinates to act on their own. Here, the leader once defines the goals, policies, programs, and limitations for action and then leaves the remaining process to be accomplished by the subordinates on their own (Business Jargons, 2016). Within GM many top officials took the hands-off approach in terms of ground-level operations which allowed mid-level members to make the decisions. There are some pros to this style when your employees are properly trained, and trust is built, and proven, throughout the chain of command. At GM it seems that leaving tough decisions to the group ended up hurting them as upper management has neglected the issue for 11 years (top-level autocratic approach despite mid-level delegation evidence) and expressed what was known as the GM salute , meaning top officials crossed their arms and passes responsibility when issues were faced and put the blame onto others (Kuppler, 2014). Resulting in the group doing nothing about the issues that were presented because top officials didnt seem interested.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.