100%(13)13 out of 13 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 11 - 13 out of 21 pages.
behavioral trends in society, as well as other social influences on the worker population as a whole. The technological influences that I believe factored into the change seen at GM include how social media, internet, and tools used to navigate these new mediums has greatly altered andaffected numerous aspects of how workers work, manage their time, communicate, and the list goes on. These aspects of GM, though not all negative, did have negative trends or patterns develop over time that no doubt influenced leadership over time, in fact deficiencies in the leadership with respect to these aspects was a major contributor to the shift seen. Analyzing the internal influences mentioned, internal-communication and the organization’s structure tie in with one another in that the way the organization is set up with respect to departments, responsibility distribution, supervisor/management positioning, and worker distribution and
FINAL PROJECT12grouping, all have a direct bearing on how well internal communication works and its effectiveness, and the internal communication and how well it is functioning have a direct bearing on any shifts seen in leadership style as is the case here. Moving on to the relationship shared between facilitative/authoritative leadership styleand the decision-making process, it can be said that that decision-making process is adversely affected when that leadership style isn’t maintained as was intended by design. In other words, when either a facilitative or authoritative leadership style, or a combination of both as is the case with GM, isn’t applied and maintained in a proper manner, or is degraded over time, the decision-making process and management oversight are a couple of the critical components affected. We know that in an effective facilitative leadership environment, a leader gives their followers direction without giving strict and detailed orders but instead gives them the ability to apply their skills as they see fit and doesn’t stand over their shoulder watching them perform their duties; this can work great under certain circumstances and with the right individuals. In this type of environment the decision-making process is more of a shared responsibility instead of all decisions being made by a sole-source. In GM’s case however, where an authoritative leadership system had been in place for some time, but evolved as time progressed as society andculture changed to become more facilitative, they never fully made the switch and bad habits set in to the company’s culture. Instead of an environment where workers didn’t have to necessarily be told what to do, and were skilled, motivated workers that instead took the initiative themselves, GM had developed a culture from top to bottom whose modus operandi was “it’s notmy responsibility”. The case study mentions how the ignition switch issue, the problem that highlighted GM’s culture crisis, had “passed through an astonishing number of committees” and they would simply flag the issue and propose some solution before it moved on and would eventually “die in committee or with some other ad hoc group exploring the issue” (Kuppler,