Comparing The National Aeronautics And Space Administration, And NASA

However, there are organizations that do follow the other models described on the MYOB.com website. For example, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, or NASA, which follows more of a supportive leadership model, focused around building talent and creating aspiring leaders (MyOB.com, 2015, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2014). Though still involved with the manufacture of vehicles (rockets and space shuttles), NASA focuses its true time and energy on creating leaders from within its employee base; rather than shunning employee’s ideas, concerns, and suggestions, NASA encourages, and even thrives because of them.
When one looks at the difference in just these two organizational behavior models, it is clear to see

The reasoning behind the use of these differing models is one of tradition. Automotive companies like GM have been around for over a hundred years (General Motors, 2016), from a time when the “top-down” structure of leadership and behavior management was the only model. More recently, other leadership models and organizational behavior theories have come to light, allowing newer organizations like NASA to focus on what matters most to them (cultivating and nurturing their own talent), rather than doing “whatever the boss says.”
As a global company that encompasses several well-known automobile brands (General Motors, 2016), the impact of culture must be of utmost importance to the GM organization. Having an extremely diverse group of employees, from a variety of countries, creeds, and cultures, shows the need for a single, united business culture within the organization. And it would appear that GM does, in fact, possess a culture of its own. According to Kuppler’s case study (2014), however, that culture is known for ambiguous messages like “when safety is at issue, cost is irrelevant” but “cost is everything” (para. 8), finger-pointing, and denying responsibility (Kuppler,

If one looks at Vroom’s expectancy theory of motivation, it is expected that an employee will be motivated “only when he or she believes effort will lead to a good performance appraisal” (Vroom, as cited in Arvinen-Muondo & Perkins, 2013 a, para. 4), meaning that employees will be willing to work hard for their company when they feel that the company appreciates the hard work. In the case of GM, where employees were encouraged not to speak up about potential safety issues, out of fear of dismissal or retaliation (Kuppler, 2014), it is obvious that a concept like employee motivation may not be considered highly within the organization. As Latham states, “organizations tend to reward based on factors such as…being cooperative and not solely on performance” (Latham, as cited in Arvinen-Muondo & Perkins, 2013 a, para. 4), which furthers this idea of a lack of employee motivation at GM. Therefore, it would appear that as the culture at GM is desperately in need or change, so too, is the motivational model(s) in place. Because employee suggestions and concerns were often overlooked by leadership in favor of the bottom line, there is no reason to suggest that employee motivation is a high priority within the organization. Because of this, talent retention and employee satisfaction would likely be low as well, leading to troubles internally, as well as the already existing