SCQF Strategic Management Report Sample
Assignment Requirement
For this assignment you can choose your organization where you are currently working or where you have worked earlier. If you are choosing any other organization it has to be one about which you have firsthand knowledge so as to fulfill the requirements of the assignment. You will write a Report on the chosen organization’s strategic management changes that it wants to incorporate, to find answers to certain questions set up in the main assignment task given below.
The assignment will have the following important components/steps:
1. Analyse the current vision, mission, objectives and existing strategy of the organization
2. Conduct a detailed environmental analysis using the tools in the modules and identify the environmental challenges and possible opportunities
3. Identify an important environmental challenge and discuss the possible impact of it on the organization and its stakeholders
4. Create a strategy using tools learned to overcome this challenge and discuss how you would implement it in your organization.
5. Discuss the various challenges you would face in the implementation and discuss how you would improve innovation as well as make effective use of change management principles.
Solution
1. Introduction
1.1. Introduction to the Company
Founded in 1908, General Motors Corporation (GM) is known as one of the world’s largest automotive conglomerations. Innovation and leadership in the automotive market are the focus of the company's vision, with a mission to design, manufacture, and sell vehicles that offer superior quality and value to customers around the world. Strategic objectives of GM over the years: Maintaining technological leadership, providing enhanced customer loyalty, and optimizing global operations for sustainable growth. From electric models and fuel-efficient vehicles to trucks and some of the world’s most luxurious vehicles available under brands including Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick, and GMC, GM’s global product portfolio is incredibly diverse. In North America, the South America region of GM includes a global customer base, as operations extend across North and South America, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. But in 2009, the company was in severe financial distress, eventually filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy with debt of $172 billion versus $82 billion in assets. Before the bankruptcy, GM had lost money steadily, two years on two straight consecutive losses from 2004 onwards. There were post-bankruptcy efforts to do a significant amount of restructuring, including asset sales and operational streamlining. Since its expansive scale, the company for UNSW university assignment help has employed thousands worldwide, however, the company had to downsize its workforce due to the crisis, to ease costs and improve its financial health.
1.2. Current Business Scenario
During the pre-bankruptcy period, GM was faced with an increasingly competitive, dynamic, and uncertain automotive market. Due to increasing fuel efficiency and technology advances, major rivals like Toyota, Ford and new kids on the block Hyundai started capitalizing on wanting a new eco-conscious consumer. At this time, GM’s market shares also declined as GM was relying on bigger, less fuel-efficient vehicles, and lagging in market shift. By looking at GM’s core competencies, we see a heritage of engineering pedigree and worldwide brand recognition. But bureaucratic culture was slow to make quick decisions and respond to change, as analysts dubbed it 'plodding.' However, the historical strengths of the company included manufacturing scale and product diversity, whereas historical weaknesses included an entrenched hierarchical structure that exacerbated its inability to innovate and engage in cross-departmental collaboration.
Porter’s Five Forces Analysis
Industry Rivalry: The automotive industry is highly competitive among mainstream automakers such as Ford, Toyota, and new kids on the block Tesla. The competition for GM during its pre-bankruptcy times was at its highest as the market evolved with new technologies and sustainability-driven innovations. Global economic pressures and swaying perceptions of consumers meant that companies were increasingly faced with a need to compete on fuel efficiency, design aspects, and sophisticated technology in product lines to go down this road.
Threat of New Entrants: Despite that, capital investment and technological expertise acted as barriers to entry, but the threat rose with the growth of startups and tech companies adopting EV technologies. They were unburdened of legacy systems and had flexible structures; they were a challenge for established automakers such as GM requiring fast adaptation and innovation.
Bargaining Power of Buyers: As technological advancements expanded their choices the bargaining power of the consumers increased. Automakers aligned with consumer values of environmental and economic concerns began to receive preference over competitors who integrated advanced EVs and fuel-efficient models. Its slow and forced pivot towards these new demands left GM in weaker bargaining positions and less loyal to its customers.
Threat of Substitutes: Substitute products present a moderate threat. The automotive products were competing with public transportation, car-sharing services, and other new mobility solutions (e.g., electric scooters) as the market was changing towards EVs, becoming a new direct market challenge. As it is today, there are certain new alternatives available that GM needs to adapt or risk losing market share to.
Bargaining Power of Suppliers: In particular, the supply chain provided moderate power on specialized components to service the advanced technology such as batteries of EVs. Specialized technology dependence created strategic vulnerabilities to efficient supplier relations and diversification.
VRIO Analysis
Valuable: The experience of GM was a significant source of engineering and design expertise and iconic brands supporting its market position. But we were not maximizing our internal efficiency to the full extent those assets could be.
Rare: Of traditional manufacturers, few were as blessed with historical know-how and proprietary vehicle technologies as they were. This gave you an edge over competitors, but you needed to integrate better with modern technologies such as EVs and autonomous driving.
Imitable: Comparisons can be made between the scale and depth of GM’s operations and the moat that was provided to it. It left itself open to failure, however, to not capitalize on this properly with innovative product development.
Organized: GM struggled with organizational structures that would properly exploit its strengths before bankruptcy. Its bureaucratic structure slowed down decision-making and diluted the power in desired, scarce resources. This restructuring endeavored to make the organization more score with strategic goals, e. g. speed, risk-taking, and accountability.
Organizational Lifecycle Stage
Maturity Stage Challenges: GM found itself in an established but overly complex, rigidity situation in the maturity stage of its lifecycle. This rigidity fostered a culture that wouldn’t change, that was resistant to change which inhibited innovation and stifled being able quickly to respond to market trends. The need for strategic restructuring grew out of this stagnation in the mature phase to break down silos, improve internal collaboration, and refocus on customer-centric strategies.
Strategic Shift for Renewal: In the post-bankruptcy era management leadership changes occurred through the hiring of Ed Whitacre to rejuvenate the organization. The targeted changes were supposed to upset the entrenched hierarchical culture and to introduce an urgency and responsiveness government into GM's operations. Pivotal in aligning the resources with inherently dynamic market dynamics were streamlining the decision-making process and empowering lower-level management (Calza Sorrentino, and Tutore, 2023).
2. Environmental Analysis and Need for Change
PESTLE Analysis
Political Factors: Furthermore, GM had to deal with a fair number of political challenges, centered around things such as regulation and government intrusion. GM’s 2009 restructuring was the product of that bailout, with the U.S. government taking a lead role in keeping the automotive giant troubles such as Pickens kept in check and others from having a broader impact on the economy. This intervention underscored the political stakes tied to GM’s recovery, revealing a landscape where compliance with emissions standards and sustainability regulations was critical. The influence of political pressures highlighted the need for strategic alignment with both federal and international environmental policies to avoid penalties and maintain market access (Thomas et al., 2021).
Economic Factors: The economic climate during GM's bankruptcy was marked by the global financial crisis, which drastically reduced consumer purchasing power and access to vehicle financing. These conditions exacerbated GM's financial distress, reflecting deep-rooted vulnerabilities in its cost structure and market positioning. To navigate such economic downturns, GM needed significant cost-cutting measures and strategic realignment. The automotive industry’s cyclical nature also meant that GM's resilience would depend on its capacity to adapt swiftly during economic slowdowns and capitalize during growth periods (Benzidia, Luca and Boiko, 2021).
Social Factors: Shifts in consumer preferences toward eco-friendly and sustainable transportation presented both a challenge and an opportunity. As awareness of climate change grew, consumers increasingly sought vehicles with lower emissions and greater fuel efficiency. GM's product lineup, which had long emphasized traditional combustion engine vehicles, lagged competitors that were pioneering hybrid and electric vehicle (EV) technology. Addressing these social trends was crucial for GM to appeal to a more environmentally conscious customer base and improve its brand perception (Eierle et al., 2022).
Technological Factors: Technological innovation was a double-edged sword for GM. While the company had an established history of engineering prowess, it faced substantial pressure from disruptors such as Tesla and other tech-focused automakers. These competitors embraced cutting-edge EV and autonomous vehicle technologies, creating a competitive advantage that threatened GM’s market share. To keep on top of things, GM had to reorient its R&D focus by speeding up the emergence of electric models, autonomous vehicle initiatives, and adding extra connectivity.
Legal Factors: It was nonnegotiable for GM to keep its market presence by complying with emissions standards and safety regulations. From 2009 on, legal frameworks governing vehicle emissions and fuel economy got tougher and tougher, forcing automakers either to come up with some new technology or face the penalties. GM must integrate advanced technologies in a way that will meet these regulatory requirements while protecting profitability. Compliance went beyond U.S. borders; international standards meant that we needed to reach a global political agreement on a compliance strategy.
Environmental Factors: Automotive production and vehicle emissions’ impact on the environment was becoming more scrutinized, and companies had to take greater measures to be more sustainable. This meant that GM’s response would have to involve a movement around reducing its carbon footprint and moving to incorporate environmentally friendly practices throughout its value chain. That meant increasing energy efficiency across manufacturing processes and expanding an offering of low and zero-emission vehicles. These changes were a command priority in response to the growing global focus on sustainability and corresponding public, and governmental expectations.
.png)
Figure 1: PESTLE Analysis
(Source: Eierle et al., 2022)
SWOT Analysis
Strengths: GM’s extensive global operations and strong brand recognition were significant assets. Established brands like Chevrolet and Cadillac retained customer trust and loyalty. GM’s longstanding history in vehicle manufacturing provided it with deep-rooted expertise and a wide range of production capabilities (Benzaghta et al., 2021).
Weaknesses: Bureaucratic inefficiencies and an entrenched corporate culture stifled agility and innovation. The complex structure of the organization hindered swift decision-making, a necessary trait for responding effectively to rapidly changing market conditions. Additionally, GM's reliance on less fuel-efficient vehicles during the 2000s contributed to a slow response in adopting new, environmentally driven market trends.
Opportunities: The growing market for electric and hybrid vehicles offered GM an opportunity to diversify its product offerings and align with consumer and regulatory trends company could also benefit from the progress in autonomous driving technology, positioning itself as a future leading company of future mobility. Long-term growth potential and competitive advantage could have been realized in the form of strategic partnerships, and investments in sustainable energy solutions (Puyt et al., 2020).
Threats: The nature of the automotive industry was highly competitive (Ford, Toyota, and Tesla are just some examples) and players in the industry became very strong in defining their position in the market which is not a bad sign. And the race to innovate in the EV space was only being made more intense by regulatory pressures and technological disruptions. The historical delay of GM in answering the market change puts it take risk of losing further market share (Jatmiko et al., 2021).
.png)
Figure 2: SWOT Analysis
(Source: Jatmiko et al., 2021)
Impact of External Challenges
These external factors had a collective impact bringing about strategic change, with the urgency underscored by these external factors. GM’s vulnerability to economic shocks became evident when hit by the global financial crisis and the imperative of a durable structuring in the financial and operational arrangements was apparent. The pressure to evolve comes from technological advancements and the consumer movement toward sustainability. Symptomatic of the company’s complex hierarchy, the slow pace of decision-making became a major obstacle in being able to respond effectively to these changes (Murtinger et al., 2021). When CEO Fritz Henderson served, his leadership lacked the radical change necessary to reinvent that company. That theme continued, with the appointment of Ed Whitacre who made a strategic pivot by reducing bureaucracy and speeding up decision-making. In keeping with Whitacre’s decentralization approach, he gave management teams more authority to decide quickly and made GM’s historically rigid culture a thing of the past. Its purpose was to make this cultural change that would encourage accountability and for the company’s operational focus to be aligned with customer and market demands. But the challenges persisted there as well, such as resistance from our long-standing employees who were used to the old structure and (who had) a strong mindset that wanted to resist change.
Justification for Strategic Change
The analysis reveals to us without any doubt that strategic change was vital for GM to raise and maintain its competitive position. It was a critical juncture when the 2009 bankruptcy shone a light where real change was needed: a more customer-centric, and presumably more innovative drive. The Whitacre leadership of faster decision-making, combined with a leaner organizational model, was a step in the right direction. The first aim of this approach was to strike down stacks of bureaucracy that had previously prevented any improvements and replace them with a more orderable culture that may be adaptive to exterior pressures. The justifications for strategic change were that it would pull together GM’s strengths, such as its engineering heritage and global brand power, and its weaknesses in organizational structure and slow willingness to adapt. To respond to industry challenges and align with evolving consumer behavior and industry regulatory expectations, GM realized by adopting more proactive leadership, embracing technological advancement, and focusing on environmentally friendly practices. The intended shift is to promote a culture that associates financial stability with overall growth and long-term survival.
3. Strategy Identification and Implementation
3.1 Strategy to Overcome Challenges
Application of Strategy Formulation Tools
Ansoff’s Matrix: This strategic tool identifies growth opportunities by categorizing them into market penetration, product development, market development, and diversification. General Motors (GM) can use a hybrid strategy involving market penetration and product development to address post-bankruptcy problems.
• Market Penetration: It includes increasing market share by enhancing current products in its markets. Thus, for GM this provides an opportunity to invest in competitive pricing strategies, heightened marketing strategies, but also customer retention programs to secure its presence versus established rivals (Darma and Noviana, 2020).
• Product Development: Given that the concept of sustainable transportation necessitates new products, such as electric and hybrid vehicles, the shift is in motion. A product line extension to technologically advanced, environmentally friendly models in parallel with current consumer preferences and regulatory requirements is supported by our work. In this view, this approach would give GM a strong product portfolio and make GM a forward-looking company.
.png)
Figure 3: Ansoff’s Matrix
(Source: Darma and Noviana, 2020)
BCG Matrix: The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) Matrix uses market share and growth relative to the company average to divide business units into Stars, Cash Cows,
Question Marks, or Dogs. For GM, this tool aids in resource allocation and strategic focus:
• Stars: Recent investments into the EV division have given the EV division a solid footing in a high-growth area that needs additional resources to continue to be competitive. R&D and partnerships to the technology of battery are essential to continue investment.
• Cash Cows: On the contrary, little aligned with future market trends, traditional internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles still sustain high revenues. We need to optimize resources to sustain profitability and shift gradually elsewhere.
• Question Marks: However, the technology for autonomous vehicles has yet to prove profitable. To secure market potential in this segment, accordingly, this segment requires strategic funding and collaboration with the tech partners.
• Dogs: A low-performing model with declining demand should be phased out to free resources for more profitable product lines.
.png)
Figure 4: BCG Matrix
(Source: En.b2press.com, 2024)
Critical Success Factors
• KPIs: Tracking progress requires performance indicators, such as revenue growth from EV sales, market share in eco-friendly vehicle segments, and customer satisfaction scores. Success benchmarks also include the reduction in decision-making time as an operational efficiency metric.
• Market Trends: With the increasing demand for sustainable transport, strict environmental regulations, and worldwide focus on technological references, there has been an urgent need for accelerated product innovation and market adaptation (Djalic et al., 2021).
• Expansion Areas: Several opportunities are available through prioritizing growth in emerging markets with rising disposable income with environmental awareness. Tailored products to these regions can expand GM’s global range.
3.2 Implementation of Strategy
Step-by-Step Plan for Implementation
Short-Term Objectives
1. Enhancing Product Portfolio: Focus on getting off the ground with mid-priced electric models to attract a broader customer base.
2. Marketing and Branding: GM is running campaigns that emphasize its commitment to innovation, and it is a sustainable company.
3. Operational Streamlining: Making approval processes easy to quicken decisions and minimize paperwork backlog (Chintala, 2021).
Long-Term Objectives
1. Technology Investments: Funding for future growth to secure continued funding in EV technology autonomous vehicle R&D.
2. Sustainability Initiatives: Including implementing eco-friendly production methodology and implementing a circular economy approach.
3. Partnerships and Alliances: Working with tech companies toward software and battery technology advancements (Danylyshyn et al., 2021).
Resource Allocation and Timeline
• Phase 1 (Year 1-2): Funds should be immediately allocated to R&D of the electric vehicle innovation including the partnerships of battery efficiency.
• Phase 2 (Year 3-5): Increased marketing directed at green technology, additional production facilities for EVs, and additional training for the workforce in new technologies.
• Phase 3 (Year 5 and beyond): New technology platform full integration, sustained improvement program, and market position evaluation for strategic pivoting if necessary.
Potential Consequences
Positive Impacts
• Increased Market Share: The result of strengthened product offerings fitted to current market trends: increasing consumer engagement, and sales (Varadarajan, 2020).
• Customer Engagement: Focusing on sustainable features and introducing them can improve the ability of GM to make stronger relationships with consumers, and to meet the needs of eco-conscious purchasers.
• Operational Efficiency: Process streamlining can create an agile culture and contribute to overall organizational performance (Damaj et al., 2021).
Negative Impacts
• Resistance to Change: Tosshifting entrenched organizational practices could prove to be met with pushback from long-standing employees and managers who are used to norms and procedures as they are.
• Budget Constraints: Some new technologies require extensive R&D, new production lines, and strategic marketing, draining budgets and giving a dim outlook for the first revenues.
• Implementation Risks: Timeline and financial stability are at risk from potential supply chain disruptions and technological failures in new product lines.
Change Management Principles
Kotter’s 8-Step Change Model
1. Establish a Sense of Urgency: Arguing that strategic change is necessary but doing so in a way that should communicate the existential need for change, as it relates to market shifts and technological advancements.
2. Create a Guiding Coalition: Getting together such a team of leaders and influential managers that would support the change process.
3. Develop a Vision and Strategy: Develop a well-thought-out vision for innovation, sustainability, and streamlining of operations.
4. Communicate the Change Vision: With wide employee buy-in and understanding using multi-channel communication.
5. Empower Broad-Based Action: Eliminating barriers and bureaucracy in the path of change, managing to support decisions and autonomy.
6. Generate Short-Term Wins: It makes sense to get quick milestones like carrying new EV models and tangible improvements in efficiency.
7. Consolidate Gains and Produce More Change: Using initial wins to shift even more deeply into the culture and the processes of the company.
8. Anchor New Approaches in the Culture: Introducing new behaviors into the corporate ethos for long-term sustainability.
.png)
Figure 5: Kotter’s 8-Step Change Model
(Source: Damaj et al., 2021)
ADKAR Model
• Awareness: Educating stakeholders on the need for transformation to secure organizational alignment.
• Desire: Creating an environment that fosters a willingness to participate in the change.
• Knowledge: Providing training programs to equip employees with the necessary skills.
• Ability: Implementing new tools and systems that facilitate performance improvements.
• Reinforcement: Regular assessments and feedback loops to maintain progress and solidify change.
.png)
Figure 6: ADKAR Model
(Source: De Keyser et al., 2020)
Strategies to Foster Innovation
Initiatives to Encourage Creativity
• Cross-functional teams: Pushing their employees to come together and share insight and solutions in innovation hubs that create an environment for diversity.
• Intrapreneurship Programs: Supporting the implementation of new ideas within the organization (De Keyser et al., 2020).
Building a Culture of Continuous Improvement
• Feedback Mechanisms: Collecting feedback from employees and consumers regularly to adjust strategies and remain relevant.
• Learning and Development: Investing in continuous learning programs to keep the workforce adept at handling emerging technologies and methodologies.
Encouraging Agility
• Flexible Structures: Shifting towards a matrix structure that supports swift adaptation and aligns teams with strategic priorities (Hyun et al., 2022).
• Recognition and Rewards: Implementing incentive programs that acknowledge innovative contributions and promote a proactive mindset.
4. Leadership Values to Manage Strategic Change
4.1 Leadership Styles and Organizational Performance
Overview of Leadership Theories
Transformational Leadership
Transformative leadership is likely one of the most researched leadership styles with application to organizational change. One area is that it is meant to inspire and motivate the employees by having a unified vision that even each of them can share and meet the end goal and that of the organization. Such leaders want their followers to grow and be creative and innovative. By prioritizing long-term objectives, transformational leaders foster an environment built on trust, respect, and commitment. This approach is particularly effective in times of significant organizational change, as it motivates employees to embrace new ideas and take ownership of their work (Saputra and Mahaputra, 2022). Transformational leadership is also linked to high employee engagement, which in turn boosts performance. Those who apply this type of leadership are seen as role models, and they inspire others to go above and beyond what is expected of them and contribute to the organization's long-term success. The transformational leadership style is characterized by its emphasis on intrinsic motivation and empowerment, which motivates individuals as well as organizations to change.
.png)
Figure 7: Transformational Leadership
(Source: Saputra and Mahaputra, 2022)
Transactional Leadership
Transactional leadership focuses on maintaining order, consistency, and efficiency within the organization. This style relies on structured processes, defined roles, and clear expectations for performance. Leaders using this approach set specific goals and reward employees for meeting those targets, which helps to ensure that short-term objectives are achieved. Transactional leadership works well in stable environments or during periods of routine operations when there is a clear need to maintain control and efficiency. The emphasis is on performance management, where leaders monitor employees' progress and provide incentives for compliance with rules and procedures (Specchia et al., 2021). However, while transactional leadership is effective in promoting task-oriented behaviors, it is less suited for driving innovation and addressing major shifts in the market. It can also result in a lack of employee motivation beyond the rewards system, as it does not focus on personal development or fostering creativity, making it less effective in dynamic, rapidly changing environments.
.png)
Figure 8: Transactional Leadership
(Source: Specchia et al., 2021)
Situational Leadership
Situational leadership emphasizes flexibility, allowing leaders to adapt their style to the needs of their team and the specific circumstances they face. This approach is grounded in the idea that there is no single best way to lead; instead, leaders must adjust their behavior depending on the situation at hand. For example, a leader might steer away from a collaborative style for a team that is struggling or does not have much experience to ensure that there are clear instructions and close supervision. On the other hand, when the team is experienced and ready the leader could stop playing the commander role and take a supportive or a delegative role, leaving employees with more autonomy and more input. By allowing situational leadership, leaders can respond to changing conditions, which results in a dynamic leadership style that will take care of immediate challenges as well as long-term goals (Alfrida, Resi and Simbolon, 2020). This approach assists in leading teams across both stable and volatile environments and adhering to leadership style to the maturity, skills, and urge of the team at any point in time.
.png)
Figure 9: Situational Leadership Styles
(Source: Alfrida, Resi and Simbolon, 2020)
Distributed Leadership
Distributed leadership is any model in which responsibility for different kinds of leadership has been decentralized across multiple levels of the organization, with many decisions being made by all stakeholders. This approach, in large organizations such as General Motors (GM), serves well because this approach uses the collective wisdom and knowledge of employees at all levels. Leadership is split where no one person is making all the decisions, instead, it’s broken down into members of the team, who can take ownership of tasks and challenges. It promotes collaboration, accountability, and participation from every perspective in the decision-making process. Distributed leadership involves more people in leadership and brings more people, so it creates better creativity and responsiveness (Abdullahi, Anarfo and anyigba, 2020). Further, this approach lessens the hand that one leader or a small leadership team is holding over the organization, making the organization more agile. Distributed leadership helps those decisions to happen quickly informed by people closest to the issue, with teams that remain agile and able to adapt to change as organizations grow and become more complex.
.png)
Figure 10: Distributed Leadership
(Source: Abdullahi, Anarfo and Anyigba, 2020)
Analysis of Leadership Styles in the Organization
General Motors (GM) has been using a highly transactional form of leadership which has been conducted via centralized control and limited to rigid hierarchies. Maintaining stability and operational consistency was achieved, however, this led to bureaucratic inertia which stunted GM’s ability to adapt rapidly to market changes and technological disruption. The late 2000s financial crisis proved to be very limiting for this approach: when GM could hardly maneuver to the requirements of new consumers and competitive demands, it showed this rigidity. After the bankruptcy and restructuring period, GM leadership moved into transformational practices (Purwanto et al., 2021). Leaders like Ed Whitacre had taken initiatives like decentralizing decision-making and creating a culture of openness and empowerment. This followed the need for a more agile and customer-focused organization (Megawaty, Hamdat and Aida, 2022). Transformational leadership traits like vision sharing and motivational support helped GM adapt and compete in areas of research and development like electric vehicle development and sustainable technology.
In GM's response to varying stages of recovery and growth, there was the situational leadership model present. Leaders switched roles from authoritative to supportive and vice versa, sometimes, they did not hesitate to keep their roles of authority to guide the team in some challenges (Ichsan et al., 2021). The flexibility allowed GM to survive in a post-bankruptcy environment and respond to fast-changing market demands.
Impact on Strategic Change and Performance
GM fell on the side of transformational leadership, so it has made an important impact on GM's strategic change and performance. GM's leaders achieved this by creating a culture of accountability and collaboration, which allowed them to improve decision-making and shorten the time of product development. This shift enabled them to introduce new technologies, like hybrid and electric vehicles, going from a less competitive player in a changing industry to a more competitive one. Situational leadership also positively influences performance by creating the ability for leaders to dynamically change their approach to face problems and seize opportunities (Oubrich et al., 2021). This adaptability made GM resilient, both to the ups and downs of the economy and to advances in technology, keeping GM aligned with consumer wishes and regulators' needs (Jami Pour, Hosseinzadeh and Amoozad Mahdiraji, 2021).
Effects on Corporate Values and Organizational Culture
GM’s corporate values and culture were so dramatically changed to become transformational and situational leadership. Transformational leadership changed the environment of the company by emphasizing transparency, trust, and innovation. GM integrated these values into its strategic objectives, resulting in the delivery of a culture that values agility and customer-centric approaches at an organizational level. It was this cultural shift that helped unshackle silos and promote cross-functional teamwork that made GM lean, cohesive, and even more responsive (Nurani et al., 2021). These are valuing a culture built that supports employees to live up to the vision of the company and to take responsibility for their work. GM created a collaborative environment and, by doing so, improved morale and engagement of employees — critical factors for maintaining long-term change and innovation. The involvement of such values as accountability, integrity, and customer focus are all embedded because of transformational leadership.
Role of Leadership in Balancing Social Responsibility with Strategic Goals
The leadership of GM must oversee a good balancing act between strategic goals and responsibilities. Transformational leaders are good at embedding corporate social responsibility (CSR) into the strategic framework. Paais and Pattiruhu (2020) spoke of how GM was trying to practice sustainability and produce eco-friendly products that aligned with environmental regulations and market trends. This action showed the leadership’s willingness to meet society’s demandable financial results. GM's leaders are seeing that satisfying regulatory requirements is not the only trick to selling a car in the 21st century –embedding the principle of sustainability into the business model can also appeal to consumer values. In addition to building the company’s brand reputation, they also help keep the company in the black in the long haul. Jobs including GM leadership have proven that social responsibility and strategic interests can be achieved at the same time through investment in green technologies and by encouraging responsible practices.
Case Studies and Examples of Successful Leadership Integration
• Industry comparisons that demonstrate the effectiveness of transformational leadership in leading organizational strategic change are presented. As Elon Musk leads Tesla, it stands out for leadership during disruption and stands beyond performance metrics. Musk’s leadership was shaped by the fact of having a clear vision, long-term sustainability, and technological innovation, according to Musk’s leadership. These practices inspired GM’s leadership to work towards innovative strategies and compete at levels within the electric vehicle market.
• They also have another example in Toyota's lean leadership model – a model explaining the benefits of shared leadership responsibilities. This created a culture of continuous improvement, a value where employees could help find a solution and decide. As post-restructuring, employee involvement, and collaborative leadership were also corroborated, knowledge of their importance was like GM.
4.2 Recommendations
Proposals for Leadership and Strategic Adjustments
For GM to strengthen its strategic change efforts, a combination of transformational and situational leadership styles is recommended. This blend will provide leaders with the tools to inspire innovation while being adaptable to shifting market and organizational needs.
• Enhancing Transformational Practices: Leadership programs should continue to emphasize the development of vision-based skills. Initiatives such as leadership retreats and workshops on strategic communication can help leaders articulate the company’s vision effectively and motivate teams to achieve shared goals (Sa'adah and Rijanti, 2022).
• Adaptive Situational Leadership: Training programs should focus on equipping leaders to modify their approach as circumstances evolve. Crisis management simulations and adaptive strategy workshops can be valuable for developing this skill.
Corporate Values Needed to Support the Change
For sustained success, GM should embed core values that align with strategic change, including:
• Integrity: Upholding ethical standards and transparent practices in all operations.
• Customer Focus: Prioritizing customer needs in product development and service delivery.
• Innovation: Supporting a culture that encourages creative thinking and continuous learning (Javornik et al., 2021).
These values should be reflected in leadership behavior and reinforced through policies and practices that ensure collective adherence.
Suggestions for Training Programs and Leadership Development
Comprehensive leadership development programs can enhance GM’s capacity to implement change effectively:
• Change Management Workshops: Programs based on models like Kotter’s 8-Step Change Model can prepare leaders to guide teams through transitions, focusing on empowerment and communication.
• Continuous Professional Development: Providing leaders with ongoing access to courses on emerging industry trends, technological advancements, and strategic thinking can enhance their ability to respond effectively to market shifts (Kuenzi, Mayer and Greenbaum, 2020).
• Mentorship Programs: Establishing mentorship and coaching relationships can facilitate the transfer of knowledge and help build leadership competencies across all levels of the organization.
Building a Culture of Continuous Improvement
Leadership development should be paired with initiatives that promote creativity and agility across the organization:
• Innovation Labs: These can be established to give teams the freedom to explore new ideas and experiment with novel solutions without fear of failure.
• Employee Feedback Systems: Creating regular channels for feedback ensures that strategies remain responsive to employee insights, fostering a sense of ownership.
• Recognition Programs: Acknowledging and rewarding innovation and proactive contributions can further instill a culture of continuous improvement (Kim, 2022).
By investing in leadership training that incorporates strategic adaptability, emotional intelligence, and collaborative skills, GM can enhance its ability to manage change and sustain competitive advantage. This comprehensive approach will solidify GM’s position as an industry leader and ensure long-term growth and resilience.
5. Conclusions
The key strategic management issues identified in the analysis of General Motors (GM) revolve around the company's need to address both internal and external challenges that impact its long-term sustainability and competitiveness. GM also suffered from significant internal operational inefficiencies, bureaucratic inertia, and resistance to change that hampered its capacity to respond rapidly to market demand and technological discontinuities. From the outside, GM was facing former competition in the form of companies focusing on electric vehicles (EVs), like Tesla, who were forcing pressure for company changes while the rules were changing and the consumers changing what product they wanted from the automakers. To overcome these challenges the formulated strategy through a combination of transformational leadership and strategic alignment to innovation, and increased focus on sustainability. In this strategy, the company will also change its operational model to enhance value and integration, take advantage of the opportunity in emerging technologies, including EVs and autonomous vehicles, and build a customer-centric culture to drive long-term growth. The strategy hinges on two main assumptions that GM can complete its cultural and operational transformation while utilizing its existing brand strength and technological capabilities while continuing to embrace innovations.
In the EV sector, the strategy is that if GM, for example, is ready to invest in sustainable technology and adapt to the demand for a green product, it can retain its market share and compete with those who are faster moving in the market. Additionally, it presumes that the firm will be able to overcome its organizational inertia and construct a culture that encourages creativity, agility, and collaboration. The advantages of the proposed strategy will be evident through adaptability, customer needs, and technological advancement. Crowding out the idea of a diffusion bar along with Market 5 by investing in green technology and creating a more innovative and creative culture will foster significant progress in positioning the GM product offering to be future-proof. In addition, transformational leadership supplies the right degree of push within the employees and in the direction of the firm, all over the place modifying durations. However, potential limitations include the challenges of breaking down deeply entrenched corporate structures, overcoming employee resistance, and the significant financial investment required to transition to EVs and autonomous technologies. The shift towards green technology may alienate certain customer segments accustomed to traditional fuel-efficient vehicles, requiring careful management of brand positioning.
The proposed strategy is optimal for GM’s organizational context as it aligns with the need for cultural change, technological innovation, and market adaptation. It addresses both internal inefficiencies and external competitive pressures by positioning the company as a leader in sustainable automotive technology while fostering a more agile and innovative organizational culture. The shift toward electric vehicles and advanced technologies ensures GM remains competitive in an industry increasingly focused on environmental sustainability and reduced carbon emissions. The strategy also emphasizes the importance of leadership transformation, promoting a more collaborative and flexible corporate environment, which is essential for overcoming the organizational inertia that has historically hindered innovation at GM. Although there are risks and challenges associated with its implementation, including potential resistance to change, resource allocation issues, and adapting to fast-changing technological advancements, the strategy represents a comprehensive approach to overcoming GM’s strategic issues. It places the company on a trajectory toward long-term profitability, increased market share, and improved stakeholder trust while fostering an environment where innovation and customer-centricity can thrive. That’s why this holistic strategy positions GM for long, sustainable growth in a quickly changing industry.
6. References
1. Abdullahi, A.Z., Anarfo, E.B. and Anyigba, H., 2020. The impact of leadership style on organizational citizenship behavior: does leaders' emotional intelligence play a moderating role? Journal of management development, 39(9/10), pp.963-987.
2. Alfrida, E., Resi, P.T. and Simbolon, S., 2020. Leadership Style, Compensation and Its Effect on Employee Performance (PT. SSBP Case). Primanomics: Jurnal Ekonomi & Bisnis, 18(3), pp.138-149.
3. Benzaghta, M.A., Elwalda, A., Mousa, M.M., Erkan, I. and Rahman, M., 2021. SWOT analysis applications: An integrative literature review. Journal of Global Business Insights, 6(1), pp.54-72.
4. Benzidia, S., Luca, R.M. and Boiko, S., 2021. Disruptive innovation, business models, and encroachment strategies: Buyer's perspective on electric and hybrid vehicle technology. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 165, p.120520.
5. Calza, F., Sorrentino, A. and Tutore, I., 2023. Combining corporate environmental sustainability and customer experience management to build an integrated model for decision-making. Management Decision, 61(13), pp.54-84.
6. Damaj, I.W., Serhal, D.K., Hamandi, L.A., Zantout, R.N. and Mouftah, H.T., 2021. Connected and autonomous electric vehicles: Quality of experience survey and taxonomy. Vehicular Communications, 28, p.100312.
7. Danylyshyn, B., Olshanska, O., Zabaldina, Y., Mazurets, R., Khlopiak, S. and Pivnova, L., 2021. Designing a marketing strategy for the development of industrial tourism in the region. Journal of Optimization in Industrial Engineering, 14(Special Issue), pp.1-8.
8. Darma, G.S. and Noviana, I.P.T., 2020. Exploring digital marketing strategies during the new normal era in enhancing the use of digital payment. Jurnal Mantik, 4(3), pp.2257-2262. Chintala, S., 2021. Explore the impact of emerging technologies such as AI, machine learning, and blockchain on transforming retail marketing strategies. Webology (ISSN: 1735-188X), 18(1).
9. De Keyser, A., Verleye, K., Lemon, K.N., Keiningham, T.L. and Klaus, P., 2020. Moving the customer experience field forward: introducing the touchpoints, context, qualities (TCQ) nomenclature. Journal of Service Research, 23(4), pp.433-455.
10. Djalic, N., Nikolic, M., Bakator, M. and Erceg, Z., 2021. Modeling the influence of information systems on sustainable business performance and competitiveness. Sustainability, 13(17), p.9619.
11. Eierle, B., Hartlieb, S., Hay, D.C., Niemi, L. and Ojala, H., 2022. External factors and the pricing of audit services: A systematic review of the archival literature using a PESTLE analysis. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 41(3), pp.95-119.
12. Hyun, H., Park, J., Hawkins, M.A. and Kim, D., 2022. How luxury brands build customer-based brand equity through physical experience. Journal of Strategic Marketing, pp.1-25.
13. Ichsan, R.N., Nasution, L., Sinaga, S. and Marwan, D., 2021. The influence of leadership styles, organizational changes on employee performance with an environment work as an intervening variable at pt. Bank sumut binjai branch. The journal of contemporary issues in business and government, 27(2), pp.258-264.
14. Jami Pour, M., Hosseinzadeh, M. and Amoozad Mahdiraji, H., 2021. Exploring and evaluating success factors of social media marketing strategy: a multi-dimensional-multi-criteria framework. foresight, 23(6), pp.655-678.
15. Jatmiko, B., Udin, U.D.I.N., Raharti, R., Laras, T. and Ardhi, K.F., 2021. Strategies for MSMEs to achieve sustainable competitive advantage: The SWOT analysis method. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 8(3), pp.505-515.
16. Javornik, A., Duffy, K., Rokka, J., Scholz, J., Nobbs, K., Motala, A. and Goldenberg, A., 2021. Strategic approaches to augmented reality deployment by luxury brands. Journal of Business Research, 136, pp.284-292.
17. Kim, S., 2022. Critical success factors evaluation by multi-criteria decision-making: a strategic information system planning and strategy-as-practice perspective. Information, 13(6), p.270.
18. Kuenzi, M., Mayer, D.M. and Greenbaum, R.L., 2020. Creating an ethical organizational environment: The relationship between ethical leadership, ethical organizational climate, and unethical behavior. Personnel Psychology, 73(1), pp.43-71.
19. Megawaty, M., Hamdat, A. and Aida, N., 2022. Examining linkage leadership style, employee commitment, work motivation, work climate on satisfaction and performance. Golden Ratio of Human Resource Management, 2(1), pp.01-14.
20. Murtinger, M., Jaspaert, E., Schrom-Feiertag, H. and Egger-Lampl, S., 2021. CBRNe training in virtual environments: SWOT analysis & practical guidelines. International Journal of Safety and Security Engineering, 11(4), pp.295-303.
21. Nurani, D.W., SAMDIN, S., NASRUL, N. and SUKOTJO, E., 2021. The effect of leadership style on organizational commitment and employee performance: An empirical study from Indonesia. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 8(12), pp.141-151.
22. Oubrich, M., Hakmaoui, A., Benhayoun, L., Söilen, K.S. and Abdulkader, B., 2021. Impacts of leadership style, organizational design and HRM practices on knowledge hiding: The indirect roles of organizational justice and competitive work environment. Journal of Business Research, 137, pp.488-499.
23. Paais, M. and Pattiruhu, J.R., 2020. Effect of motivation, leadership, and organizational culture on satisfaction and employee performance. The journal of asian finance, economics and business, 7(8), pp.577-588.
24. Purwanto, A., Purba, J.T., Bernarto, I. and Sijabat, R., 2021. Effect of transformational leadership, job satisfaction, and organizational commitments on organizational citizenship behavior. Inovbiz: Jurnal Inovasi Bisnis, 9, pp.61-69.
25. Puyt, R., Lie, F.B., De Graaf, F.J. and Wilderom, C.P., 2020. Origins of SWOT analysis. In Academy of management proceedings (Vol. 2020, No. 1, p. 17416). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management.
26. Sa'adah, N. and Rijanti, T., 2022. The role of knowledge sharing, leader-member exchange (LMX) on organizational citizenship behavior and employee performance: an empirical study on public health center of pati 1, pati 2 and trangkil in central java. International Journal of Social and Management Studies, 3(1), pp.112-131.
27. Saputra, F. and Mahaputra, M.R., 2022. Effect of job satisfaction, employee loyalty and employee commitment on leadership style (human resource literature study). Dinasti international journal of management science, 3(4), pp.762-772.
28. Specchia, M.L., Cozzolino, M.R., Carini, E., Di Pilla, A., Galletti, C., Ricciardi, W. and Damiani, G., 2021. Leadership styles and nurses’ job satisfaction. Results of a systematic review. International journal of environmental research and public health, 18(4), p.1552.
29. Thomas, P.J., Sandwell, P., Williamson, S.J. and Harper, P.W., 2021. A PESTLE analysis of solar home systems in refugee camps in Rwanda. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 143, p.110872.
30. Varadarajan, R., 2020. Customer information resources advantage, marketing strategy and business performance: A market resources-based view. Industrial Marketing Management, 89, pp.89-97.
Fill the form to continue reading
Would you like to schedule a callback?
Send us a message and we will get back to you
Highlights
Earn While You Learn With Us
Confidentiality Agreement
Money Back Guarantee
Live Expert Sessions
550+ Ph.D Experts
21 Step Quality Check
100% Quality
24*7 Live Help
On Time Delivery
Plagiarism-Free
81 Isla Avenue Glenroy, Mel, VIC, 3046 AU
