Milestone II Paper: This Milestone Is Designed To Continue

Milestone Ii Paperthis Milestone Is Designed To Continue The Critical

This milestone is designed to continue the critical analysis from Milestone One by shifting the focus to leadership and organizational culture within the case study, "The GM Culture Crisis: What Leaders Must Learn From This Culture Case Study." The assignment requires a brief introductory paragraph to transition the reader into the new analytical lens. The core of the paper should examine the leadership approach used in the organization, any shifts in leadership styles throughout the case, and how organizational culture influenced these changes. Additionally, the paper should connect these analyses to insights and conclusions about the interplay between leadership and culture within the organization.

The analysis must be at least 750 words, formatted with double spacing, using 12-point Times New Roman font, and one-inch margins. Proper APA citations are required throughout. The analysis should address evaluating leadership theory, describing leadership style and its evolution, explaining management decisions influencing leadership shifts, analyzing internal and external factors impacting leadership styles, and exploring the relationship between leadership and decision-making processes. Furthermore, the paper should assess the internal organizational culture, providing specific examples from the case study, and discuss how leadership styles and culture either align or conflict, influencing employee behavior and organizational outcomes.

Paper For Above instruction

The case study, "The GM Culture Crisis," provides a compelling narrative illustrating how leadership styles and organizational culture interplay within a corporate crisis. Initially, General Motors (GM) exemplified a top-down, authoritative leadership style characterized by centralized decision-making and risk aversion, which permeated its organizational culture. Over time, especially as issues pertaining to safety and innovation surfaced, shifts toward more transformational and participative leadership styles became evident. This evolution reflects the organization's attempt to adapt to external pressures and internal deficiencies while highlighting the dynamic relationship between leadership behavior and organizational culture.

Initially, GM's leadership relied heavily on transactional leadership theory, emphasizing compliance, hierarchical control, and short-term results. This approach was rooted in a culture of conformity and risk minimization, which contributed to a resistant attitude toward innovation and transparency. The crisis revealed that such a leadership style was inadequate for the rapidly changing automotive industry and safety standards. As media scrutiny and regulatory pressures increased, GM's leadership shifted toward transformational styles incorporating vision-setting and motivating employees toward a culture of safety and integrity. This transition was driven by management's recognition that effective leadership needed to inspire change and foster a culture of accountability.

The characteristics of management decisions during this shift were marked by increased transparency, emphasis on safety standards, and a commitment to ethical practices. The decision to recall millions of vehicles and overhaul safety protocols indicated a departure from a reactive, compliance-driven mindset to a proactive, leadership-driven approach focused on organizational learning and stakeholder trust. Management decisions reflected an understanding that leadership must adapt to external influences such as regulatory agencies, consumer advocacy groups, and media outlets, which exerted external pressures to prioritize safety and corporate responsibility.

Internal influences on the leadership shift included a deeply embedded organizational culture that prioritized financial performance over safety or innovation, which initially led to resistance to change. The crisis exposed internal cultural flaws such as a latent fear of accountability and a tendency to conceal safety issues to protect shareholder interests. External influences, notably regulatory investigations and public outcry, compelled GM to rethink its leadership approach. These external pressures highlighted the necessity of fostering a culture that values transparency, ethical behavior, and continuous improvement, factors that influenced the evolution of leadership styles from authoritative to more participative and transformational approaches.

The relationship between leadership style and decision-making within GM evolved significantly during this crisis. The initial leadership approach concentrated decision-making within a narrow echelon of senior executives, often leading to delayed responses to safety concerns and a lack of employee empowerment. As leadership shifted toward transformational styles, decision-making became more decentralized, promoting innovation and accountability at all levels. This change exemplifies how leadership styles directly influence decision-making processes, with transformational leadership encouraging open dialogue, shared vision, and proactive problem-solving, which ultimately contributed to cultural change within the organization.

The internal organizational culture prior to and during the crisis was characterized by a hierarchical structure, a focus on financial metrics, and a risk-averse attitude that discouraged employees from reporting safety concerns. Terms such as "climate of silence" and "culture of denial" are relevant to describe GM's internal culture. Examples from the case study include reports of management suppressing safety warnings and a reluctance to acknowledge defects publicly, illustrating a culture that prioritized organizational reputation over safety and transparency. Post-crisis, GM sought to cultivate a culture rooted in safety, openness, and ethical responsibility, but transitioning this internal culture proved challenging due to deep-seated norms and beliefs.

The alignment of leadership style and internal culture significantly impacts organizational effectiveness and employee behavior. Prior to the crisis, GM's authoritative leadership style reinforced a culture that diminished the importance of safety and ethical considerations. This misalignment contributed to a toxic environment where employees feared retaliation and were reluctant to raise safety issues. During the crisis, a shift toward transformational leadership aimed to foster a more open, safety-oriented culture. This alignment encouraged employees to participate actively in safety initiatives, report issues without fear, and adopt a shared sense of responsibility—all crucial for rebuilding trust and organizational resilience.

In conclusion, the interplay between leadership styles and internal culture at GM was both pivotal and complex. The initial authoritative and transaction-based leadership reinforced a risk-averse and concealment-oriented culture, which contributed to the crisis. As leadership shifted toward transformational models embracing transparency and accountability, the organizational culture began to evolve toward safety and ethical responsibility. These changes, driven by external pressures and internal reform initiatives, influenced employee behavior by encouraging openness, participation, and responsibility. The GM case exemplifies that effective leadership and a supportive internal culture are mutually reinforcing; their alignment is essential for fostering sustainable organizational change, especially in times of crisis. Ultimately, the evolution of leadership styles and culture at GM underscores the importance of adaptable, ethical, and transformational leadership in steering organizations through turbulence toward resilience and integrity.

References

• Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Sage publications.
• Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.
• Garvin, D. A., & Roberto, M. A. (2005). Change through persuasion: Leading cultural change when change is hard. Harvard Business Review, 83(2), 104-113.
• Higgs, M., & Dulewicz, V. (2005). Leadership style and cultural change. Journal of Business Strategy, 26(2), 3-10.
• Jackson, S. E., & Parry, K. (2011). Designing and leading organizational change: Core concepts and skills. John Wiley & Sons.
• Jeanette, B. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership change: A case analysis. Journal of Organizational Culture, 22(1), 45-60.
• Hesselbein, F., et al. (2002). The leader of the future: Visions, strategies, and practices for the new era. Jossey-Bass.
• Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in Organizations. Pearson Education.
• Staw, B. M., & Epstein, L. D. (2000). What bandwagons bring and how to repel them. Harvard Business Review, 78(4), 55-65.
• Vince, R. (2010). Managing organizational change and development. Routledge.