FINAL PROJECT 2

Introduction

General Motors (GM) is among the largest automakers globally, as it operates in 37
countries. The company is portrayed as an entity that seeks to gain results without emphasis on
the process used. As such, it recorded a landmark ignition switch crisis in the wake of 2014
following the death of 14 victims and 54 crashes. These predicaments were attributed to their
faulty culture, which had more weaknesses than strengths. For instance, there was no sense of
urgency to resolve the issue despite its prevalence for over a decade (Kuppler, 2014). Also, the
corporate culture inhibited accountability, and thus no one was ready to take corrective
measures. Besides, there was incompetence and reluctance to raise concerns within the
organization. However, the notable strengths include GM’s strong brand portfolio, adequate
knowledge of the home market, and global presence. Mary Barra, the CEO, resolved to handle
the ignition switch problem and sought to lead a cultural transformation for the betterment of the
company.

Organizational Modelling

Organizational Model used in the Case Study
Organizational behavior is used to define how employees act in an organization. After a
comprehensive analysis and evaluation of GM’s case, it appears that it conformed to the custodial
Model. This is a unique version that ties employees’ loyalty and motivation to economic security
(Academic Library, 2014). At the GM, the workers were more attached to the organization than
the leaders and managers. The employees knew that the firm is good at work due to the benefit
packages and job security in some instances. As a result, the organization harbored low
performers trapped within the company because the deal was too good to leave.

FINAL PROJECT 3
For this reason, the attrition program recorded at least 35,000 resignations in 2006 when
the firm incurred a $10 billion profit cut. A significant number of employees opted to leave the
company as the new benefits were not attractive. This is a clear indication that, indeed, GM was
dominated by the custodial Model.
Other Models used in the Automotive Industry
Each person in the automotive industry adopts a particular behavioral, organizational
model. Major competitors such as Toyota use the collegial Model, which is fundamentally based
on teamwork. Each member is motivated to actively participate in the project at hand regardless
of the job titles or status, unlike the custodial Model, where employees might handle tasks
independently (Warrick, 2017). The workers are motivated to deliver the best, come up with
innovative ideas, and positively contribute to the corporate culture. The management acts as a
supervisor, unlike the autocrat model, where formal authority dictates all the activities. The
autocrat type seems to be worse than the custodial Model due to the micromanaging of staff and
low job satisfaction, which suppresses their morale. Other companies such as Ford use the
supportive Model where the employees’ daily welfare is attended to encourage self-motivation.
Unlike the custodial Model, employees must not be motivated through economic security.
Organizational Models in Information Technology (IT) Industries
Each industry and organization adopts an organizational model that suit its needs. With
regard to IT industry, the most common organizational model is supportive model. Supportive
model relies on leadership rather than money or authority. The manager supports and encourages
employees in performance of their tasks and projects. If there are skills or knowledge that the
employees lack, the manager helps them to develop the required skills and knowledge so that

FINAL PROJECT 4
they become effective in performance of their job. The manager is also actively involved in
ensuring that the employees work well as a team to achieve group objectives.
As for employees, they are oriented towards performance of job. The rationale of the
model is that employees are likely to be motivated and driven if they work in an environment
that values their contributions to the organization, gives them recognition and status, and
supports their professional development (Academic Library, 2014). Employees who work for an
organization that uses supportive model believe that their work is key to the success of the
organization. The feeling that their work is important and valued makes the employees to work
hard in order to become even more important and esteemed in the organization.
Many organizations in Information Technology industries have adopted supportive model
because it provides a conducive environment for innovation. This is because IT work generally
requires driven and motivated employees. An example of an IT organization that uses supportive
model is Google. The America-based multinational technology company has developed a
corporate culture that emphasizes employee motivation, support of employees by managers, and
their continuous training (Smithson, 2018). The training ensures that the employees get the
required skills and knowledge to perform their tasks competently. The training takes both formal
and informal approaches with active involvement of managers.
Difference between Organizational Models
Each automobile company uses a different organizational model since what works best
for GM might not suit Ford, Toyota, Nissan, among other firms. Furthermore, they have different
needs and corporate setups that require specific models. Also, each player in the industry has
distinct aims and objectives; hence they have to vary in various aspects. Even though they all

FINAL PROJECT 5
seek to produce quality products and make more sales, they have to adopt different avenues.
Essentially, each company assumes a model that best suits its manufacturing practices.
Impact of Culture
Culture is all about the shared attitudes, goals, values, and practices within an institution.
It has drastically changed from the past to the present dynamic environments. Currently,
organizations do not have to integrate traditional beliefs and norms. Companies have embraced
multicultural settings where they welcome people with different affiliations (Academic Library,
2014). The technology has also modified the cultural fabrics by improving operations and
relationships at the workplace. Also, employees have become more autonomous, unlike in the
past, where they would be subjected to a dictatorship environment. These cultural alterations
have comprehensively had profound impacts on organizational models over time.
Unique Organizational Model
It seems that GM is not correctly operating within the organizational Model unique to its
industry. The company appears to be running on the custodial Model, which is not much
effective in the automotive industry. It would be better if it considers adopting the collegial
Model as it is the best fit for this field. Most manufacturing and assembling activities deserve
teamwork and cooperation to ensure that the final products are well synchronized. There is a
need for a collaborative environment rather than the current state.
The shift in Motivational Model
The motivational models have shifted in comparison to organizational modeling trends.
They have become more oriented to employees’ behavior as shaped by the organizational
models. The motivations have been customized to meet the specific needs and expectations of

FINAL PROJECT 6
the workforce. They are oriented to nurturing the employees and enhancing their compatibility
with the industry (Warrick, 2017).

Evaluation of Leadership Theory

Description of Leadership Style
According to the case study, it is apparent that the laissez-faire leadership style
dominated the company. This is a form of leadership that involves the least amount of oversight,
and thus leaders tend to trust that people know what to do (Rizki, Parashakti & Saragih, 2019).
As such, Mary Barra, the CEO and other top executives, including Chief Engineer and the
Vehicle Line Executive, were not aware of the issue until when it was too late. The culture was
relaxed, and employees were not ready to address the ignition switch issue. No one demonstrated
a sense of urgency, as all members pointed fingers to each other instead of devising solutions.
However, the culture shifted to transformational leadership following the 2014 unfolding. The
need for leadership change was fueled by the pressure from the caused damages and legal case
after legal case. Engineers validated that indeed the issue persisted when the ignition switch was
moved out of the run position by a fish scale.
Characteristics and Decisions
The newly adopted transformational leadership is based on the philosophy of inspiring
change and innovation to shape the future success of an organization. Barra decided to focus on
the bigger picture and motivate teamwork to handle the prevalent issues. She introduced a team
of 35 safety investigators to help identify and address the emerging challenges on a real-time
basis. She further encouraged the integration of speak up programs to cultivate transparency and
open communication. As a good leader, Barra acknowledged the faulty GM culture, apologized

FINAL PROJECT 7
to the victims, and promised to adopt a positive workplace. Since then, GM took control and
ownership of the situation to rebuild trust with potential clients.
Internal and External Influences
Kuppler (2014) notes that before the change in leadership, there was a notice of hesitant
workers in raising issues. This is a perfect example of an internal influence on the GM that
contributed to the shift in leadership. An instance of external power came when Barra was
summoned to testify before the House and Senate Subcommittee about the ignition switch
challenges. Besides, the media, including the Voluka Report, is considered as a striking external
force of influence. It appeared like a novel with many characters, potential villains, an Indiana
University study, State Patrol Report, endless committees, and numerous legal cases. A
combination of both internal and external influences amounted enough pressure to drive change
in leadership style.
Relationship.
It seems that the leadership style used in the case study was directly related to the
decision making process. The decision-making process hardly engaged the employees to
determine their views. In return, the employees hardly channeled their issues to the top
management. The created environment made the workers believe that it was in order not to
convey critical problems. It appears that there was a weak relationship between the management
and the task force, and hence each party acted independently. The employees had a degree of
self-government since, after all, the feedback avenue was attenuated significantly. The top
leadership hardly held gatherings with their subordinates until the 2014 Town Hall meeting. The
executive made less-consultative decisions that led to the firing of 15 employees.

FINAL PROJECT 8

Assess Organizational Culture

Internal Culture
The internal culture at GM is presented to be corrupted and was majorly concerned with
profits. It was primarily focused on getting the job done with less emphasis on the avenues used.
It is quite unfortunate that the ignition switch problem persisted for 11 years, yet no one was
concerned provided the company generated revenues. The safety of their clients was of least
priority when compared to the produced numbers. One of the engineers confirmed that the
fabrics of the entire culture were driven by cost control. It is also apparent that the relaxed
lifestyle lacked responsibility, stability, transparency, and efficiency (Rizki et al., 2019).
Examples
The conflicting messages from the top management echoed that cost is everything.
Besides, the culture was compounded with GM salute, which was a clear indication that no one
was ready to take responsibility. Barra further noted that the GM nod dominated the workplace
as workers would agree to the proposed plan but would not follow up. Moreover, there lacked a
sense of urgency, and issues could hardly be rectified if they didn’t touch of cost. Even though
the ignition switch problem landed on the hands of investigators, engineers, and lawyers, it was
not raised to the highest authority due to the relaxed culture.
Insights and Conclusions

The laissez-faire leadership style demonstrated in the case study does not complement the
internal culture. The excessive freedom provided to the employees contributed to their awkward
behavior in the long run. The leaders trusted their employees and expected that each player
would faithfully perform his/her due duties. However, the workforce exploited the opportunity

FINAL PROJECT 9
and turned the situation to suit their convenience. Kuppler (2014) explains that everyone who
came in touch with the issue was in a position to make changes, but no one took responsibility.
Based on the case study, it seems that the leadership did not deliver the expected culture.
The changes in leadership indeed influenced the internal culture. Barra adopted the
transformation style to impact the culture positively. GM appointed Jeff Boyer as the new vice
president of safety as a first effort to incline the culture for the better through the continued
reporting. The vice president was expected to deliver better services and introduce innovative
cultural strategies. Some decision-making privileges were also escalated to a higher authority to
put the workers under governance. Generally, the leadership change transformed the corporate
culture, and the company has never recorded the ignition switch crisis.
The leadership styles and internal culture of GM influenced employees’ behavior in
several ways. The laissez-faire leadership style led to the halo effect and made the employees
less bothered. They were quite reluctant and could barely prioritize critical issues. The internal
culture made the workers more autonomous and independent. There lacked collective
responsibility, and each member developed unwelcoming behaviors.

FINAL PROJECT 10

References

Academic Library. (2014). Models of Organizational Behavior. Retrieved from:
https://ebrary.net/2814/management/models_organiational_behaviour
Kuppler, T. (2014). The GM Culture Crisis: What Leaders Must Learn from this Culture Case
Study. Retrieved from:
https://web.archive.org/web/20161013135112/http:/switchandshift.com/the-gm-culture-
crisis
Rizki, M., Parashakti, R. D., & Saragih, L. (2019). The effect of transformational leadership and
organizational culture towards employees’ innovative behaviour and performance.
Smithsonian, N. (2018). Google’s Organizational Culture and Its Characteristics. Panmore
Institute. Retrieved from http://panmore.com/google-organizational-culture-
characteristics-analysis
Warrick, D. D. (2017). What leaders need to know about organizational culture. Business
Horizons, 60(3), 395-404.