Katharine Becks- Manag. Comm Case Study

profilerbgriff
ManagerialCommCaseStudyWeek2.docx

Case Study:    General Motors's New Top Buyer

In the spring of 1992, Ignacio Lopez de Arriortua hit Detroit like a storm.  General Motors was in trouble and needed help, so the company’s president appointed Lopez as the vice president of global purchasing.  He had saved the company millions of dollars in its European operation and set out to do the same for the entire corporation.  His goal was to save the company $5 billion in purchasing costs in 1993 alone.

Lopez approached his mission like a military commander.  He dubbed his employees “warriors” and moved a group of young managers into key positions.  He convened a series of intense meetings steeped in the rhetoric of war.  At these meetings, he insisted that the Western world is under attack, adding that saving GM was tantamount to saving Western civilization.  Attendees reported being overwhelmed by scores of PowerPoint slides that Lopez projected to support his points.  “It’s a message that’s as crafty as it is captivating,” suppliers say.  “He knows how to pounce on the emotional needs of an audience,” said Donald C. Trausch, president of Borg-Warner Corporation.

Lopez created upheaval.  He immediately sent a directive to all GM suppliers that costs had to be cut by as much as 10 percent.  Contracts were canceled and suppliers had to resubmit proposals.  He said he would work with suppliers only if they guaranteed to cut prices every year.  Some suppliers were extremely angry, while others were happy about the chance to do business with the huge auto company.

Lopez received considerable attention because he was responsible for purchasing billions of dollars’ worth of parts.  However, some of the attention he received and maybe even enemies made were because of his communication style.  For example, when he arrived in Detroit, he issued a 44-page health manifesto titled “Feeding the Warrior Spirit."  He told his employees they would have to follow his diet to remain competitive in his purchasing organization.  In addition, he told everyone, including the company president, to wear their watches on their right hands to remind them of the trouble faced by GM.  And his Basque accent could be perplexing, as he frequently caught people off guard.  At one interview, he replied, “I laugh at your question,” as he unnerved the journalist.  He tore into people as he demanded performance.  He responded to allegations that he might be too tough by saying, “It is tough, but it is fair.”

Although some were extremely critical of Lopez, others were complimentary.  “Lopez comes through and hits you over the head with a 2-by-4 and starts you bleeding.  Then he puts on a bandage and helps you heal,” said one manager.  A vice president of GM in Europe said, “Lopez has been tremendously misunderstood.  The bottom line is that his teams get in and do it."  When accused of possibly causing too much stress in the organization, Lopez simply shrugged, “We do not have the time.  If we had three years, we could make everything comfortable and no one would be fearful.”

 

Assignment Requirements

Write a two page case analysis (plus a cover page and a references page).  Be sure to include a brief summary of the critical aspects of the case in light of the course readings and topics.  Analyze the situation from the perspective of managerial communications.

In the analysis section of your paper, you should consider Mr. Lopez’s style in relationship to what was discussed in your assigned readings. Consider whether Mr. Lopez attempted to empower employees and the role of cultural diversity in reaction to Mr. Lopez.  Finally, discuss whether you believe Mr. Lopez created job stress.  Support your analysis with references to pertinent published, scholarly resources.  You must use APA style when creating citations and a references list.  

The final section of your paper must include conclusions and a recommendation.  When writing the final section, reflect on what could have been done to more effectively communicate and what should be done now, after the communication resulted in hurt feelings.

Refer to the sources of APA information and examples indicated on your syllabus and the APA summary PowerPoint available to you on the Canvas site. 

Rubric

F19-Case Study Rubric

F19-Case Study Rubric

Criteria

Ratings

Pts

Knowledge

35.0 to >31.5 pts

Proficient

Demonstrates comprehension through substantial synthesis and evaluation of concepts.

31.5 to >28.0 pts

Competent

Demonstrates comprehension through some integration and evaluation of key concepts and terms.

28.0 to >24.5 pts

Marginal

Partially integrated or evaluated key concepts.

24.5 to >0.0 pts

Weak

Did not include, mention or discuss key concepts or coverage of key concepts was inadequate or inaccurate.

0.0 pts

No Marks

35.0 pts

Thinking and Analysis

35.0 to >31.5 pts

Proficient

Provided substantive and appropriate evaluation, conclusions and application of concepts and terms. Identified and analyzed alternative views without bias and drew valid and supported conclusions. Used examples and cited scholarly research.

31.5 to >28.0 pts

Competent

Provided some evaluation, conclusions and application of concepts and terms. Identified and analyzed alternative views without bias using some examples and citing scholarly research.

28.0 to >24.5 pts

Marginal

Provided limited evaluation and application of concepts and terms. Identified and analyzed alternative views using limited examples. Did not cite scholarly research.

24.5 to >0.0 pts

Weak

Provided weak or ineffective evaluation and application of concepts and terms. Did not identify or analyze alternative views. Did not provide examples and did not cite scholarly research.

0.0 pts

No Marks

35.0 pts

Support of Assessments

10.0 to >9.0 pts

Proficient

Provided support of assessments and evaluations through research and use of scholarly resources.

9.0 to >8.0 pts

Competent

Provided some support for assessments and evaluations by citing textbook and some academic resources. Some statements should have been supported with references to scholarly resources.

8.0 to >6.0 pts

Marginal

Limited use of scholarly references. Primarily used non-academic references. Did not provide adequate attribution.

6.0 to >0.0 pts

Weak

Did not use scholarly references. Did not provide attribution when necessary.

0.0 pts

No Marks

10.0 pts

Focus, Organization & Structure

10.0 to >9.0 pts

Proficient

Demonstrated well-developed focus, thorough points of development, and a logical pattern or organization of ideas and concepts.

9.0 to >8.0 pts

Competent

Demonstrated good focus with average development and logical organization of ideas and concepts.

8.0 to >6.0 pts

Marginal

Limited focus with irregular development of theme. Did not adequately or logically organize ideas and concepts.

6.0 to >0.0 pts

Weak

Lack of a clear focus and insufficient development of theme. Lack of logical organization of ideas and concepts.

0.0 pts

No Marks

10.0 pts

Grammar, Punctuation, Spelling

5.0 to >4.5 pts

Proficient

The paper is mostly free of errors in grammar, punctuation and spelling.

4.5 to >4.0 pts

Competent

Very few errors in grammar, punctuation and spelling. The errors are minor and do not detract from the work.

4.0 to >3.5 pts

Marginal

Errors in grammar, punctuation and spelling cause distraction when reading the paper.

3.5 to >0.0 pts

Weak

Numerous errors in grammar, punctuation and spelling throughout the assignment detract from the paper.

0.0 pts

No Marks

5.0 pts

APA Style

5.0 to >4.5 pts

Proficient

Written work was formatted using APA standards. Properly cited scholarly sources using APA style to credit when paraphrasing or quoting. Correctly and completely listed cited works in APA-style References List.

4.5 to >4.0 pts

Competent

Within the body of the paper, there are some errors in use of APA formatting. Some errors or omissions in use or formatting of citations or References List.

4.0 to >3.5 pts

Marginal

Multiple errors in APA formatting throughout the paper. Did not adequately cite references or failed to use APA-style citations and References list.

3.5 to >0.0 pts

Weak

Did not demonstrate an effort to use APA style in the paper. Failed to use or properly format citations where needed or made omissions or errors in References List.

0.0 pts

No Marks

5.0 pts

Total Points: 100.0