GM Strategy, Structure, and Decision-Making Processes
During its infancy years, General Motors operated under the umbrella of three strategic plans, which included the utility of resourceful marketing policy, accompanied by innovativeness, and well-planned international diversification (Garvin and Levesque 1). Over the years, the management of GM, under Sloam, developed a pricing pyramid, which has been able to fit the budgets of its customers.
In this regard, GM had to make cars that ranged from the economy class to luxury models, and it was able to top in the industry by differentiating itself from other vehicle companies in the United States. Through technological advances, GM has transited a series of innovations such as the annual change in vehicle models, inclusive of overhead valve V-8 engines, increased compensation, a fully automated transmission, and use of premium fuels.
Inclusion of financial products with money lending services via GM Acceptance Corporation subsidiary has been introduced. This has resulted in positive progress in making GM superior over time. Lastly, diversification has been achieved gradually with increasing level of export and purchase of motor firms abroad. For instance, Vauxhall, Opel, and Holden were purchased from the UK, Germany, and Australia, respectively by GM in five years.
About the structure of the company, the top management, headed by Sloam, developed a multidivisional structure that overshadowed the loose GM management system under the founding head, Durant. GM decentralized its operations in a controlled manner to achieve maximal efficiency and economy (Garvin and Levesque 2). Essentially, the decentralized management of GM entailed groups and divisions headed by group executives, the board of directors, and a policy group that completed GM as a leading motor organization.
The decision-making process has been under the management committee and the policy groups. The policy groups within the firm were formed to increase efficiency and performance outcomes. They involved members from all the departments to ensure a high level of diversity.
For instance, the groups ensured that management policies were reviewed in time and that labor contracts were signed according to the provisions of the law. The senior management in the decentralized organizational structure of GM has, over time, been detached from the interests of the lower groups. Thus, it has been focusing on broader issues about global markets.
Alignment of Organizational Processes
Considering the alignment of these organizational processes, the strategic plan of GM, since its creation, has been to provide quality products to all its customers with a gradual diversification internationally.
Attainment of market leadership was through a strong decentralized structure that was highly synchronized with strong linkages between the top management and lower group management (Garvin and Levesque 4). Decision-making was achieved independently without the interference from the senior management, including provisions where endorsement of innovations, the inclusion of new technology, financial obligations was left to specific group managers.
Challenges of Matrix Organization GM’s “Basketweave”
The major challenge in managing the matrix organization such as GM’s “basketweave” was managing change, especially in sustaining and upholding the correct balance between local and regional interests, and managerial interests relating to centralized management to guarantee optimal economies of scale in the organization (Garvin and Levesque 8).
Specifically, the senior management, under Wagoner, disparaged places where GM required streamlining its policies along horizontal lines of the matrix and acquisition of optimal economies of scale in the implementation of new vehicle models.
Solutions to the Challenges
The GM management, following several ASB meetings, the designed solution to the challenge to be a change in responsibility concerning product development and budgets regarding the engineering component of the company (Garvin and Levesque 8). The strategy of decentralization helped the company to improve its performance considerably. For example, all responsibilities, product, product manufacturing, and activities about strategic planning were centralized.
The ASBs Decision-Making and Rick Wagoner’s Role in the Process
The ASB decision-making process was principally mechanical and was characterized by differing worldviews concerning the assessment of its effectiveness. Better communication with senior management through flawless interactions resulted in improved processes in the organization. Due to these interactions, issues surrounding the ASB operations were made clear (Garvin and Levesque 13). This is pertinent to the definition of good decision-making processes about superior management.
On the premises of Wagoner’s intuitions, his consideration of ASB as an enemy of speed shows some demeanor of diversification, which is converse with the interests of the organization and goals of the founding managers of the GM Corporation. On the other hand, his considerations regarding diversification of the mechanism and efficiency in decision-making elicit superiority in deliberating over twenty issues within a single meeting.
Diversity of Decision-Making Processes
Diversity of decision-making processes within firms implies that many people are involved in making decisions that could have implications of organizations. Thus, many companies always adopt diverse approaches to making decisions so that they could improve performance outcomes.
Diversity of the decision-making processes in large organizations may be hampered by different worldviews on issues impacting the companies. With a management system such as the one applied by GM, the simulation company would elicit strong decisions based on the stability of GM under the same valuable mechanisms employed in decision-making. Integrating policies as those implemented in ASB for governance and decision-making can lead to thriving of a simulation company.
Works Cited
Garvin, David A., and Lynne Levesque. “Executive decision making at General Motors.” Harvard Business School Case 1.1 (2006): 1-20. Print.