The GM Culture Crisis After Reading The

Httpswitchandshiftcomthe Gm Culture Crisisafter Reading The Case

Httpswitchandshiftcomthe Gm Culture Crisisafter Reading The Case After reading the case study, address the following critical elements. I. Introduction A. How is the organization described in the case study? What are its key attributes? What are its strengths and weaknesses? II. Organizational Modeling A. Describe a current behavioral organizational model used in the case study. B. Compare the current behavioral organizational model used above to other models used within the industry and also within external related industries. C. Explain why there are differences between the organizational model used by the organization in the case study and those used by organizations in another similar industry. In other words, what are some of the reasons for using these different organizational models? D. Compare the current impact of culture on current organizational models to the impact culture has had on past organizational models. E. Explain how the organization is or is not operating within an organizational model unique to its industry. F. Explain if motivational models have shifted in comparison to the organizational modeling trends Use the case study “The GM Culture Crisis: What Leaders Must Learn From This Culture Case Study” in the Module Three Reading and Resources section to complete your organizational analysis. After reading the case study, answer the Milestone One prompt (Sections I and II of your final project).

Paper For Above instruction

The case study titled “The GM Culture Crisis: What Leaders Must Learn From This Culture Case Study” provides a comprehensive analysis of General Motors’ organizational culture, highlighting its attributes, strengths, and weaknesses. GM, historically a giant in the automotive industry, has been characterized by its complex hierarchical structure, entrenched corporate culture, and a focus on operational efficiency. The organization is described as having a strong legacy of engineering excellence and large-scale production capabilities, but also facing significant challenges related to innovation, employee engagement, and adapting to global market shifts.

The key attributes of GM include a traditional top-down leadership style, a reliance on established bureaucratic procedures, and a culture that has historically prioritized cost-cutting and mass production. Its strengths lie in its extensive brand portfolio, global manufacturing footprint, and experience in the automotive industry. However, weaknesses are evident in resistance to change, a risk-averse mindset, and a culture that may stifle innovation and agility. The case emphasizes that these cultural traits have contributed to GM’s struggles with modern market demands, especially in the face of technological transitions such as electric vehicles and autonomous driving.

Organizational modeling within GM is largely depicted as a hierarchical, command-and-control behavioral model. This model emphasizes a structured chain of command, formalized decision-making processes, and clear authority lines. Such a model aligns with traditional manufacturing industry standards but has increasingly become a barrier to innovation and responsiveness in the rapidly evolving automotive sector.

Compared to industry models, GM’s current behavioral approach contrasts with more agile, decentralized models employed by tech companies like Tesla or Google. These organizations utilize flatter hierarchies, collaborative cultures, and rapid decision-making processes that foster innovation. In the automotive industry, newer entrants and tech-oriented companies are moving towards models that promote flexibility, employee empowerment, and customer-centricity, which differ markedly from GM’s rigid hierarchical approach.

The differences between GM’s organizational model and those of similar industries are driven by various factors, including historical legacy, industry norms, and strategic priorities. GM’s traditional model reflects its origins as a manufacturing powerhouse rooted in mass production and efficiency, whereas technology-driven companies adopt models supporting agility and innovation. Additionally, external industry pressures, such as technological disruption and changing consumer preferences, influence organizations to shift or retain specific models suited to their strategic goals.

The influence of culture on organizational models at GM has shifted over time. Historically, GM’s culture reinforced a hierarchical and compliance-driven work environment. However, recent trends indicate a move towards fostering open communication, innovation, and employee engagement, aligning with contemporary organizational practices. Nonetheless, the deeply ingrained cultural elements persist, impacting the organization’s ability to fully embrace modern models.

As for industry-specific models, GM’s organizational structure still operates predominantly within a traditional automobile manufacturer framework. While some initiatives have attempted to integrate digital and innovative approaches, the core model remains rooted in established manufacturing paradigms, which sometimes create tension with emerging industry trends focused on agility and customer-centricity.

Motivational models at GM have experienced shifts alongside organizational modeling trends. Past motivation strategies centered on job stability, hierarchy, and compliance. Today, increasing emphasis is placed on intrinsic motivators such as innovation, empowerment, recognition, and a sense of purpose. These shifts aim to enhance employee engagement and adapt to a workforce demanding more meaningful work and opportunities for creativity. The evolving motivational landscape reflects broader organizational changes and the necessity for GM to keep pace with industry trends toward more dynamic, responsive workplaces.

References

• Alvesson, M., & Sveningsson, S. (2008). Changing organizational culture: Cultural change work in progress. Routledge.
• Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1994). Competing for the future. Harvard Business Review, 72(4), 122-128.
• Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading change. Harvard Business Review Press.
• Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
• Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources. Prentice-Hall.
• Gordon, J., & DiTomaso, N. (1992). Predicting corporate performance: A new theory of corporate coherence. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17(4), 5-19.
• Baron, R. A., & Tang, J. (2009).Entrepreneurial teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(2), 231-258.
• Whetten, D. A., & Cameron, K. S. (2011). Developing management skills. Pearson.
• Johnson, G., Scholes, K., & Whittington, R. (2008). Exploring corporate strategy (8th ed.). Pearson Education.
• Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2005). Blue ocean strategy. Harvard Business Review, 83(10), 76-84.