Final GM Culture Crisis Case Study 1 Final GM Culture Crisis Case Study 8 Final The GM Culture Crisis: Trystia Savor Southern New Hampshire University The GM Culture Crisis: What Leaders Must Learn from This Culture Case Study Culture is the most important element in an organization. When culture is ignored on several aspects about an organization like public relations or safety and quality, this could spell doom for the progress of the organization. A good organization culture on the same areas gives an organization a good and ideal outlook. Currently, GM has been in the news and probably for the very wrong reasons. The company has been investigated lately about an ignition switch recall that may have led to the deaths of 13 deaths that are confirmed (Kuppler, & Kuppler, 2017). To cope up with this bad publicity and safety issues the company is making a series of changes that will set the company back on a good track record. The culture crisis at the company can be use and studied in depth by other companies to avoid cases of compromise on quality and safety standards that may end up hurting lives and an organizations customer. The GM case is an interesting and peculiar case as seen from the case study; a company’s culture that is quite dysfunctional and it yet still delivers amazing work at a very global scale. Evidence and investigations show that the problem with the switch was well known in advance by engineers at the GM facility who wished it away and failed in their oversight duty. After the recovery of a crashed car in a junkyard and the switch was identified as the problem, the whole issue was put off as a customer convenience problem rather than a problem of safety (Kuppler, & Kuppler, 2017). A speak out for safety culture must be prioritized at the organization. People and employees who report safety problems and other technical hitches that compromise safety should be rewarded. The organization must reward and promote good and safety conduct from its employees rather than rebuke them for compromising the speed with which a product launch is completed before a timeline. An organizational culture that prioritizes safety over competitive advantage should be the benchmarking culture and drive of the organization. The organization highlighted the problem without offering a real solution to it. The real crux of the matter however lies at the center of the company’s culture which at any rate can be said to be less keen on the important things like safety, prioritizing profits over safety. This is the problem with GM. At the onset, the report from Barra seemed to comprehend the problem but things changed with the tabling of the report at the House Committee. From the report, one could tell that the company and the investigators did not address the overarching issue in the recall and that was organizational culture. Parts of the report asserted that it was hard t ...

1. Final GM Culture Crisis Case Study
1
Final GM Culture Crisis Case Study
8
Final The GM Culture Crisis:
Trystia Savor
Southern New Hampshire University
The GM Culture Crisis: What Leaders Must Learn from This
Culture Case Study
Culture is the most important element in an organization. When
culture is ignored on several aspects about an organization like
public relations or safety and quality, this could spell doom for
the progress of the organization. A good organization culture on
the same areas gives an organization a good and ideal outlook.
Currently, GM has been in the news and probably for the very

2. wrong reasons. The company has been investigated lately about
an ignition switch recall that may have led to the deaths of 13
deaths that are confirmed (Kuppler, & Kuppler, 2017). To cope
up with this bad publicity and safety issues the company is
making a series of changes that will set the company back on a
good track record.
The culture crisis at the company can be use and studied in
depth by other companies to avoid cases of compromise on
quality and safety standards that may end up hurting lives and
an organizations customer. The GM case is an interesting and
peculiar case as seen from the case study; a company’s culture
that is quite dysfunctional and it yet still delivers amazing work
at a very global scale. Evidence and investigations show that the
problem with the switch was well known in advance by
engineers at the GM facility who wished it away and failed in
their oversight duty. After the recovery of a crashed car in a
junkyard and the switch was identified as the problem, the
whole issue was put off as a customer convenience problem
rather than a problem of safety (Kuppler, & Kuppler, 2017).
A speak out for safety culture must be prioritized at the
organization. People and employees who report safety problems
and other technical hitches that compromise safety should be
rewarded. The organization must reward and promote good and
safety conduct from its employees rather than rebuke them for
compromising the speed with which a product launch is
completed before a timeline. An organizational culture that
prioritizes safety over competitive advantage should be the
benchmarking culture and drive of the organization.
The organization highlighted the problem without offering a
real solution to it. The real crux of the matter however lies at
the center of the company’s culture which at any rate can be
said to be less keen on the important things like safety,
prioritizing profits over safety. This is the problem with GM. At
the onset, the report from Barra seemed to comprehend the
problem but things changed with the tabling of the report at the
House Committee. From the report, one could tell that the

3. company and the investigators did not address the overarching
issue in the recall and that was organizational culture. Parts of
the report asserted that it was hard to conclude whether general
culture was to blame. Contrary, it is in fact just the very
opposite, that it is easy to conclude that the organizations
organizational culture and behavior is to be blamed for the
crisis.
In the wake of the crisis and tabling the report, the organization
has taken a path to remedy and mitigate the crisis (Kuppler, &
Kuppler, 2017). This remedial path began by apologizing to the
victims and offering no excuses for what happened. This was
the right path but then again came the firings, procedure
changes, policy changes and a host of other top down changes.
The thoroughness of the investigation can be seen by peeping at
some of the conclusions appended at the end of the report. Even
after knowing the problem and having the responsibility to fix
the problem, no one actually did volunteer and solve the
problem. Nobody demonstrated the urgency to deal with the
switch problem in a period of 11 years. Several company
personnel were aware of the problem to include lawyers and
engineers and no one raised the issue to be dealt with at the
highest levels.
The organizational culture at the helm of the company down to
the subordinate staff in GM is bureaucratic. The culture is also
more of process oriented and this has led to little or no results
over discussed issues. In the suggested report by Valukas, there
are 90 suggestions that have been recommended for the
organization that include a change in the organizational
structure, communications with regulators and supplier
interactions (Kuppler, & Kuppler, 2017). Still, the
recommendations that fall under the category of safety and a
culture of individual accountability are the hardest to
implement.
The ways in which an organization changes its culture is tricky
to implement and identify. Cultural change is slippery and
nebulous. Simple structural moves are not enough for the

4. company to excel and become a preferred auto company for
consumers, the behavior of the organization has to change
radically. To get people to talk to each other and improve
departmental communication and improve databases is quite
simple. Adding a few positons while disciplining a few
employees is also quite simple, but getting people to take
responsibility and accountability for some problems is not very
easy. This is the kind of cultural change that needs to occur at
GM. A culture of accountability and collective responsibility
needs to be instituted at the center of the organization. Instilling
corporate morals in an organization such that people take
ownership of something that has long been perceived as the job
for someone else.
The leadership style used in the case study is the laissez-faire
where the management gives control to its subordinates and the
power to make the important decisions. This leadership style
can be evidently seen throughout the case as the management
was not supervising any work that was going on. There were
many defects in the product which never reached the upper
management. The lower managers also failed to solve the
problem and neither did they report it. Due to this leadership
style, the managers were unaware of the happenings at the
organization (Skogstad et al. 2007). They were involved in
other important tasks while the essential tasks of safety were
subordinated. If these would have been reported, then the
tragedy would not have occurred and the upper management
would have taken care of the problem.
After the incident occurred, the management and leadership
style was changed from laissez-faire leadership style to
democratic leadership. Jeff Boyer was named the Vice President
of safety. He was to oversee all the work of the lower level
employees and to oversee the safety processes and to ensure
that all the guidelines are being followed. Furthermore, the
company introduced 35 new safety instructors that would keep
the upper management informed regarding any mishaps that
might appear in the future.

5. The internal influences that impacted the company’s leadership
policy could be the amount of trust that the company had over
their employees and lower level managers. The management
believed that the lower level workers and managers were
capable people and would do their jobs effectively. The external
influences that bought about the leadership policy were the
tough competition that the company faced from other
organizations. As a result, the upper management of the
organization restricted themselves to the important and priority
tasks while other tasks were delegated.
The relationship between the decision-making process and the
leadership style is of laissez-faire. In this leadership style, the
workers have the power to take any decisions that they see fit
and the upper management are more engrossed with their own
tasks. There is not a lot of check and balance and the lower
level managers and workers are given a free reign regarding the
decision-making process.
The internal organizational culture of the organization is very
informal due to the leadership style of the company. An
Adhocracy culture is followed in the organization as the
employees have the power to take the decisions themselves.
Leaders are considered to be innovators and risk takers and they
handle the priority tasks of the organization (Lund 2003).
Moreover, the organization promotes freedom in the
organizational culture.
There are many instances that show that the company was
operating under an Adhocracy organizational culture. Firstly,
there was no sense of urgency to complete the tasks on time and
the employees enjoyed considerable freedom. Secondly, no
reports or complaints regarding any safety defects were reported
to the upper management and the employees took the decision to
hide it themselves. Lastly, there was also a reluctance to raise
the problems towards the managements. All these aspects are
associated with an adhocracy culture.
Their leadership style of laissez-faire and the adhocracy
organizational culture favored each other greatly. The

6. leadership style and the organization both promote freedom for
the employees. Secondly, in both the leadership style and the
organizational culture, the employees have the power to take the
decisions themselves.
Both the leadership style and the culture of the organization
were harming the company. There was too much freedom and
lack of supervision over the employees. The employees took the
decisions themselves, noticed the negative implications of these
decisions but failed to report them to the management. As a
result, the change in the leadership style was greatly influenced
by the organizational culture. This is because a democratic
leadership style will ensure that an adhocracy organizational
culture is supervised properly to ensure that no mishaps and
conflicts arise.
As the employees were given too much freedom and the power
to make the decisions due to the leadership style and the
organizational culture, they started to believe that they owned
the business and ran it as they see fit. They took all the
important decisions especially regarding consumer safety and
bothered to tell the upper management regarding the negative
implications. Many employees were also fired due to non-
compliance and having a bad attitude. The employees behaved
and reacted this way because of the lax management and the
leniency that they have been afforded for the past many years.
Hence, the behavior of the employees was molded and shaped
due to the leadership style and the organizational culture.

7. References
Kuppler, T., & Kuppler, T. (2017). The GM Culture Crisis: what
leaders must learn from this gm-culture-crisis
Lund, D. B. (2003) Organizational culture and job satisfaction.
Journal of business & industrial marketing, 18(3), 219-236.
Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Aasland, M. S., &
Hetland, H. (2007) The destructiveness of laissez-faire
leadership behavior. Journal of occupational health psychology,
12(1), 80.