Introduction
Organizational culture is defined as the shared beliefs, assumptions, and values. Culture plays a significant role in the corporate management as well as the employee performance. The organization in the case study described as the GM is a firm with organizational cultural problems (Kuppler, & Kuppler, 2017). These issues are as a result of reluctance to raise the company concerns, avoidance of responsibilities, conflicts arising in the different departments of the organization, and lack of sense of urgency. The cultural problems that are affecting the GM organization range from the organizational history to the attributes of the workers as well as the way they take their responsibilities. For instance, the company’s 11-year history has been full of failures due to lack of sense of urgency being demonstrated as well as the inability to fix the ignition switch issue as reported by Kuppler and Kuppler (2017).

You're lucky! Use promo "samples20"
and get a custom paper on
"GM Culture Crisis"
with 20% discount!
Order Now

The irresponsible management raised issues concerning the GM ignition switch causing several fatalities that went unresolved for very a very long while. The company had been identified by the institutional engineers, but no sense of urgency was exhibited by the company to resolve the problem with the ignition switch. The strength of GM is that they have unity when it comes to addressing issues (Kuppler, & Kuppler, 2017). Their weaknesses are demonstrated by the way they gather together and agree on making a change but all in vain with no sense of urgency.

Organizational modeling
The current behavioral model exhibited in the case study is the autocratic leadership. With this approach of administration, the manager or to the management of the organization is able and has all the power to control the employees. This kind of model has been demonstrated through the way decisions are made in the GM organization whereby the workers are even not aware of a single individual who participated in the decision-making process. Laws are just enacted without consultations in the organization. This has led to the decrease in employee performance (Kuppler, & Kuppler, 2017). In the GM’s case, both employees and engineers were aware of what was going on in the organization and were responsible for consulting with the top management but intended to ignore it. Similarly, the model of leadership portrayed in this organization makes the leaders undermine culture. They fail to prioritize culture, and thus, the reported 13 fatal accidents that resulted in deaths were ignored. Lack of employee involvement in the decision-making process also led to poor performance since they felt unrecognized and unvalued.

Other behavioral models in the industry are collegial, supportive, custodial, and system. The collegial model is useful in promoting a cohesive teamwork environment. This model supports the idea of having self-discipline in the workplace and recognizes partnerships. This model’s performance portrays a steady increase when compared to the companies that operate in autocratic leadership model. In addition, the supportive behavioral model relies on leadership (Kuppler, & Kuppler, 2017). Enforcement of this model relies greatly on the supervisors who tend to motivate, support, and encourage the employees towards better performance and team-work. Managers also focus on development and training to improve employee performance.

Besides, the custodial model is contingent upon benefits. In other words, employees tend to perform to get rewarded. This model does not at all promote team-work since the employees tend to work only when promised rewards and also when intending to be ahead of their peers. Lastly, system model demonstrates that workers need to work in an environment where they are recognized and valued. Personal integrity and risk-taking are practiced under this model since all workers tend to be responsible for their duties towards increasing client satisfaction. The system model is based on self-motivation and trust to improve the employee performance. All workers under this model also tend to be self-driven of which it is not applicable to all workers in the industry (Zohar & Hofmann, 2012).

Lack of a sense of urgency in the GM’s autocratic environment led to the ignorance of the 13 fatal accidents since they were not responsible when it comes to solving issues. The autocratic model was unique in the vehicle industry since GM seemed to portray negative attributes in the way it handled matters. The ignorance was based on the management’s failure to train and encourage its employees to have a sense of urgency. The employees were not recognized and valued under the autocratic administration, and thus, the organizational culture was indeed a major area of concern (Zohar & Hofmann, 2012).

Therefore, I think the system and collegial motivational models might have been applicable in their environment. Since the car industry is currently changing as a means of adapting to the vehicles’ technology, the engineers need to be creative and ideal logic. If only GM workers took their responsibility and ensured self-motivation and self-drive in their activities, the company and the clients would have been safe (Zohar & Hofmann, 2012). The motivational models are capable of promoting the organizational culture. Like in the other organizations in the vehicle industry, GM HR managers must be very sensitive and keen towards motivating its employees and the staff accordingly.

Conclusion
GM was able to acknowledge its failures and took some safety steps towards improvement. To ensure that the history of this organization does not repeat itself, a change is needed in its culture. Employees must take ownership of their daily duties based on the organizational culture (Zohar & Hofmann, 2012). The behavioral model exhibited in the GM case study has been discussed as well as other models in relation to other organizations in the industry. Similarly, the motivational models have been outlined in this paper. Generally, this paper discusses the GM administration in relation to its leadership models.