The paper "Change Management of General Motors " is a great example of a management case study. General Motors is chiefly engaged in automotive production, promotion, funding and insurance functions. General Motors devises, manufactures and markets vehicles throughout the globe. It s largest firm carries out its function in North America. Novelty serves as GM's central competency and has been employed in service and know-how by GM to safeguard its position in the automobile industry. However, several internal and external threats involved in this industry have given GM a hard time in the past.
To overcome these shortcomings, General Motors implemented an organizational change procedure that had significant implications to its customers, senior management, staff and the government as well. GM was recently rescued from going down by the US government, at a time when it was at the verge of bankruptcy. Organizational Structure In July 2009, NGMCO Inc bought ongoing General Motors Corporation’ s operations and brands. As part of the plan, over 20,000 employees were to lose their jobs due to fiscal reasons. During this changeover, there was a shift from a conventional organizational model to a transformed organizational model (Dunn 2009).
This new organizational model had significant effects on GM's employees, its client base and the communities neighbouring General Motors factories. This transition also involved the implementation of new support systems to ensure that the changeover would be victorious. Conventional organizational models usually consist of a structure that is arranged in a pecking order with an executive or president at the top then followed by senior managers or deputy presidents, then other supervision personnel below and then a mainstream of junior staff below them (Cheung, Rowlinson & Jefferies 2009).
Job positions and roles are then grouped into departments in this type of organizational structure; General Motors was a good example of this type of structure before the transition took place. General Motors was split into autonomous automobile makers which included Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick, Oldsmobile and Pontiac. Each of the separate manufacturers functioned independently, therefore, contending with other GM factories. Due to competition from within, this kind of structure was highly detrimental to the progress of General Motors in the automobile industry. Johnson and Cain (2010) claim that the transformed organizational model is federal and cohesive in its operations and consists of a team against persons working towards similar goals.
In this kind of organization, conglomerates are run in a more aerodynamic and cost-effective manner. A transformed model will never have several departments that differ in terms of their requirements and responsibilities. In the transformed organizational model, General Motors had an option to induce a change in this great corporation by changing its traditional structure and running the corporation in a different way.
The exercise of transforming General Motors from a conventional organizational model into a transformed organizational model was however not an easy task; it took several years to centralize GM's operations. This changeover significantly changed GM's labor force. Junior employees and senior management personnel had to acquaint themselves with a host of certain centralized skills. Before the transformation, each and every GM's manufacturing plant utilized computer software that is tailored to its needs and therefore inter-communication within the umbrella company had become difficult and intricate. All the employees in General Motors including those in other GM offices in other parts of the world had to attain skills on how to use a central software program.
This was not an easy activity; however, communication became more fruitful and simpler. Moreover, General Motors designers had to study each other's design, planning and manufacturing procedures. The new system required that employees learn how to employ teamwork when communicating and performing their various duties.
Aggarwal, P, Venkatesh, A & Vaidyanathan, R 2009, ‘Using lexical semantic analysis to derive online brand positions: an application to retail marketing research’, Journal of Retailing, vol. 85, no. 2, 145-158.
Brand, M, Laier, C, Pawlikowski, M & Markowitsch, HJ 2009, ‘Decision making with and without feedback: the role of intelligence, strategies, executive functions and cognitive styles’, Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, vol. 31, no. 8, 984-998.
Brown, RH 1989, Social science as civic discourse: essays on the invention, legitimization, and uses of social theory, University of Chicago Press.
Cheung, YK, Rowlinson, S & Jefferies, M 2009, ‘A critical review of the organizational structure, culture and commitment in the Australian construction industry’, Construction Management and Economics, vol. 18, no. 7, 819-832.
Dunn, JA 2009, ‘Automobiles in international trade: regime or persistence?’, International Organization, vol. 41, no. 1, 225-252.
Johnson, KA & Cain, W 2010, ‘Adaptation and application of federal capabilities-based planning models to individual states: State of Colorado Case Study’, Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, vol. 7, no. 1, 1547-1610.
Palmer, I, Dunford, R and Akin, G 2006, Managing Organisational Change – A multiple perspectives approach, McGraw Hill, Boston.
Smith, AD 2009, ‘Financial sustainability through contingency planning: multi-case study’, International Journal of Sustainable Economy, vol. 1, no. 4, 317-334.