This Milestone Is Designed To Continue The Critical Analysis

This milestone is designed to continue the critical analysis in Milest

This milestone is designed to continue the critical analysis in Milestone One with a shift in lens to leadership and organizational culture. This short paper assignment is the second milestone in the analysis of the company within your final project. It should begin with a brief description (one paragraph) to transition the reader to the new analysis lens. The largest component of this short paper should focus on the leadership approach and any shifts through the course of the case study example, including any aspects of the culture that influenced the organization. Lastly, the final aspect of the short paper is to connect the analysis into insights and conclusions.

This assignment will be submitted in the form of a 750-word minimum paper. Prompt: Use the following case study to do your organizational analysis: The GM Culture Crisis: What Leaders Must Learn From This Culture Case Study. Link for Case Study: After reading the case study, answer these questions: III. Evaluate Leadership Theory A. Describe a leadership style used in the case study and why there was a shift in leadership style throughout the case study. B. Explain the characteristics and decisions of management in the case study that help explain the shift in leadership style. C. Identify the internal and external influences on the organization that may have caused the shift in leadership style. Be sure to explain your choices. D. Describe the relationship between a leadership style used by the organization in the case study and the decision-making process. IV. Assess Organizational Culture: A. Discuss the internal culture present within the organization. Be sure to utilize terms relative to organizational behavior. B. Identify specific examples from the case study that demonstrate the internal culture present within the organization. V. Insights and Conclusions: A. Explain why the leadership style(s) and internal culture of the organization complement each other or do not complement each other. B. Explain whether or not the changes in leadership style or internal culture of the organization influenced each other. C. Explain how the leadership styles and internal culture of the organization may have influenced the behavior of the employees within the organization. You could consider providing specific instances or examples from within the case study to support your response. APA Format. Add more reference Please take a look at the Miletone two rubrics and the Milestone Completed which is the continuation on Milestone Two. Please take note this work is based on milestone two rubris and must be followed respectively. Our Textbook: Arvinen-Muondo, R. & Perkins, S. (2013). Organizational behaviour. [Skillsoft Books24x7 version] Retrieved from Please sure to use some reference sources from our text book as well as other sources.

Paper For Above instruction

The case study "The GM Culture Crisis: What Leaders Must Learn From This Culture Case Study" provides a compelling context to explore leadership styles and organizational culture within a corporate crisis. This analysis will delve into the evolution of leadership approaches throughout the crisis, assess the internal organizational culture, and examine how these elements interrelate, ultimately influencing employee behavior and organizational outcomes.

Initially, the leadership style observed during GM's crisis was predominantly authoritative and top-down. This style is characterized by centralized decision-making, strict control, and limited input from lower levels of management (Arvinen-Muondo & Perkins, 2013). In the early stages, leadership focused heavily on immediate operational issues, often resulting in a command-driven environment that prioritized quick fixes over collaborative problem-solving. As the crisis deepened—marked by mounting public pressure and internal dysfunction—shifts in leadership styles became evident. Leaders transitioned towards a more transformational approach, emphasizing vision, motivation, and engagement with employees to foster collective responsibility (Bass & Avolio, 1995).

The shift in leadership styles was largely driven by internal and external factors. Internally, the organizational culture at GM was initially characterized by hierarchical rigidity, silos, and a lack of open communication, which hindered adaptability (Arvinen-Muondo & Perkins, 2013). External pressures such as intense media scrutiny, declining sales, and stakeholder demands for accountability forced executives to reconsider their leadership approach. Management decisions revealed that the move toward transformational leadership was aimed at rebuilding trust, improving morale, and encouraging innovation within the organization (Kotter, 1998).

Management decisions reflecting this shift included increased transparency, participative decision-making, and a focus on employee empowerment. Leadership began to acknowledge the importance of fostering a culture of continuous improvement and openness, aligning their decisions with a more participative style. These decisions helped facilitate a more adaptive and resilient organizational climate, shifting away from rigid control towards flexibility and responsiveness (Schein, 2010).

External influences—such as market competition, regulatory environments, and societal expectations for corporate responsibility—also played vital roles in prompting leadership change. The mounting regulatory scrutiny, especially following safety scandals, required leadership to adopt more ethical and transparent practices. These external pressures compelled leaders to adopt a transformational style that integrated stakeholder interests and prioritized ethical decision-making (Freeman & Reed, 1983). The relationship between leadership styles and decision-making processes became more collaborative, emphasizing shared vision and stakeholder engagement.

Regarding organizational culture, the internal culture at GM prior to the crisis was resistant to change, hierarchical, and utilitarian, emphasizing efficiency over innovation. This culture fostered a climate where managers made decisions based on maintaining the status quo rather than fostering creativity or employee participation (Arvinen-Muondo & Perkins, 2013). Examples from the case study include limited cross-functional communication, top-down directives, and a punitive environment that stifled initiative. During the crisis, efforts to alter this internal culture included initiatives to promote transparency, employee involvement, and accountability.

The internal culture and leadership approaches generally exhibited a reciprocal relationship. The authoritative leadership style reinforced a culture of control and compliance, which in turn maintained the hierarchical environment. As leadership shifted towards a transformational style, the culture began to evolve—becoming more participative and collaborative (Schein, 2010). These changes were reflected in increased openness, communication, and innovation. The alignment between leadership and culture proved crucial in addressing the organizational challenges faced during the crisis.

This alignment of leadership style and corporate culture contributed significantly to the employees' behavior within GM. The authoritative style initially led to disengagement, low morale, and resistance among employees. However, as leadership adopted a transformational style and the culture shifted towards openness, employee motivation improved, fostering a proactive environment. Employees became more willing to participate in problem-solving and innovation initiatives, ultimately contributing to cultural change and organizational recovery.

In conclusion, the case study demonstrates that leadership styles and organizational culture are deeply interconnected, especially during times of crisis. The shift from an authoritative to a transformational leadership approach was instrumental in transforming GM’s internal culture from rigidity to one characterized by participation and openness. These changes positively influenced employee behavior, fostering a resilient and responsive organization. Effective leadership coupled with a supportive organizational culture creates a foundation for sustainable change and organizational success.

References

• Arvinen-Muondo, R., & Perkins, S. (2013). Organizational behaviour. Skillsoft Books24x7.
• Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). MLQ: Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire manual. Mind Garden.
• Freeman, R. E., & Reed, D. L. (1983). Stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 8(3), Devlin, K. (2011). Corporate culture and leadership. In: Harvard Business Review.
• Kotter, J. P. (1998). Leading change. Harvard Business School Press.
• Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
• Additional credible sources as needed.