General Motors CEO Mary Barra –
Leadership style analysis
Individual assignment – Critical essay
by
Biljana Stanisic
Linnaeus University, Växjö, Sweden
Master program, 120 credits
Psychology, Work and Organizational Psychology
Leadership Theories 4PS107
Instructor: Auksė Endriulaitienė
Date: 27
th
April, 2018.
Mary Barra
started working at General Motors when only 18 as a co-op student in 1980
(Colby, 2015). Now, she is Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the General Motors
Company, a position she’s held since January 4, 2016 (About GM: Mary T. Barra, 2018).
Throughout the 33 years of service she dedicated to General Motors, she has climbed the ranks,
playing the role of executive vice president of global product development, purchasing and supply
chain since 2013, August, and senior vice president since 2011, February, as well as plant manager,
executive director of vehicle manufacturing engineering, vice president of human resources and
product development. During her mandate in these roles, Mary Barra and her teams were in charge
of the engineering, quality and design of General Motors vehicles (About GM: Mary T. Barra,
2018). Now, she is the first female CEO of an automotive industry in the world.
Mary Barra has showcased her success as a leader through the toughest times of General
Motors – the bankruptcy filed in 2009 and the aftermath. She faced her greatest challenge named
“Switchgate” starting in 2014 as the CEO, a manufacturing issue related to car ignition which
resulted in 100 deaths, which was until her time hidden from the public. Mary Barra, being driven
by integrity, knew what her first move would be. She acknowledged the problem publicly, initiated
a full investigation, and committed that General Motors would make up for it, without a concern
about the cost (Johnson, Shelton, 2014). The move on her part was a risky one, which would
redefine the corporate culture of General Motors. Mary knew that a big change was necessary, and
she redirected the General Motors’ focus onto three factors – excellence, customer and
relationships. Transparency was highlighted in the company – as she initiated a program named
“Speak Up for Safety”, where employees were encouraged to report issues, instead of being
punished. Her goals for the company shifted from being the biggest, to being the best – stressing
quality at every level. Mary pulled GM from global markets such as Europe, Russia, South Africa
and India by 2015, transforming GM into a corporation prepared for the future of the automotive
industry (Colby, 2015). Today, General Motors are growing and the stock price has reached its
highest value in October, 2017.
Path-goal theory
. The path-goal theory is complex in nature, as well as pragmatic
(Northouse, 2016). According to Yukl (2013), the path-goal theory of leadership analyses how
situational factors determine what kind of leadership is necessary in order to boost employees’ job
satisfaction and effort they invest into work. This theory falls under the category of contingency
*
underlined words/phrases are the specific skills/behaviors/traits chosen according to the assignment
theories of leadership, due to the effectiveness depending on the composition between leader
behavior and traits of subordinates and task at hand. According to Northouse (2016), the path-goal
theory of leaderships originates its roots from expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964), which states that
subordinates will feel motivation if the results from the work they put in is valuable, if they feel
competent and if they are led by the belief that their efforts will be rewarded. By adjusting
leadership style (participative, directive, supportive or achievement oriented), the leader can help
subordinates to fill in what is missing in the current task or work setting (Northouse, 2016).
The path-goal theory relies of the four pillars of leadership effectiveness (Jermier, 1996),
as it is based on House’s (1971) former version of the theory which he named “path-goal theory
of leader effectiveness”. The first pillar is
directive leadership
(House, Mitchell, 1974), and
according to Mumford (2009), the leader should be able to inform subordinates on what is expected
of them and be able to properly explain how to perform tasks, as the leader should create a clear
path for subordinates to know their way and how to handle situations. Second pillar is
supportive
leadership
(House, Mitchell, 1974), which is, according to Dunbar (2009), when leaders take the
needs of subordinates into consideration, as well as showing concern for their welfare and create
a friendly, supportive environment. The third pillar is what House and Mitchell (1974) call
achievement-oriented leadership
, which Bertocci (2009) explains as leaders having to remove
obstacles from their subordinates’ paths in order for them to achieve their goals, as well as House
and Mitchel (1974) claim - setting high challenging goals to their subordinates and challenge their
capabilities to achieve the goal. The fourth pillar is
participative leadership,
involving team
members in the decision making process. All four pillars are applicable in different situations
according to the needs of the subordinate and the task at hand. For example, directive leadership
is successful in dealing with ambiguous tasks, while supportive leadership succeeds in repetitive
tasks, participative is appropriate when tasks are uncertain and subordinates are independently
capable, while achievement-oriented is great for tasks of a challenging nature (Northouse, 2016).
Leadership skills
.
According to Katz’s (1955) research in administration, he suggests that
successful leadership depends on three basic personal skills: technical, human, and conceptual.
Mary Barra showcases skills from all three general fields of skills presented by Katz.
Knowledgeable about the work*
. When it comes to
technical skills
, the fact that she has been
working in manufacturing and engineering since the beginning of her career at GM, as well as
showing preference towards these fields of work, and having a BSc in electrical engineering and
MBA (Colby, 2015) proves her knowledge and technical skill in the field of automotive
engineering, design and manufacturing is not to be taken lightly. Her experience in General Motors
of 33 years and the diverse positions she has held during that time showcased in the about section
the General Motors website -
About GM: Mary T. Barra
(2018, January), also shows her flexibility,
adaptability and intelligence to excel at any challenge thrown at her and the roles she has gone
through. Her functions prior to becoming Chairman and CEO of GM were as follows: executive
vice president of global product development, purchasing and supply chain, senior vice president
of global product development, vice president of global human resources, vice president of global
manufacturing engineering, plant manager of Detroit Hamtramck Assembly, as well as several
other executive engineering and staff positions (About GM: Mary T. Barra, 2018, January).
Human skills
are described as “people skills” by Northouse (2016), which are abilities
helping the leader to successfully work with peers, subordinates and superiors, in order to achieve
set goals for the organization.
Socially skilled
. Barra does not lack social or people skills
whatsoever, as Gover (2017) describes her as talented in communication, which was showcased
in the 1998 strike, when there was a major communication gap between union workers, engineers
and corporate executives. Mary Barra was selected by a senior executive to solve this
communication issue, when her title was general director of internal communications. What she
did to solve this issue is to place a communications professional in each GM manufacturing
facility, instructing them to update workers on the site’s quality, cost and performance numbers in
comparison to other GM plants. This format of communications had become the standard for
General Motors to this day. She has been described by colleagues and mentors as a great listener
and very approachable. According to Engelmeier (2014, January 22), several sources confirm her
creating an inclusive space for employees to express their ideas and opinions, in which the diverse
ideas are collected by Barra, and provided feedback. According to Matousek (2018, January 11),
she has been praised for her capability to communicate with subordinates and peers, while making
them feel valuable. Several colleagues added that she leads by example of loyalty and kindness,
as well as making sure that everyone is heard Matousek (2018, January 11). In an interview with
Hirsch for the Los Angeles Times (2013, December 13), Mary Barra described her management
style as collaborative, stressing the importance of team work and everyone being heard. In an
article for Center for Work Life, Hedayati (2014, January 8) describes Barra as respectful towards
her colleagues – saying she puts trust into them and offers responsibilities to draw out the best in
people. The best example of Mary’s respectful attitude is the case when she simplified the dress
code so as to allow employees use their own judgement. Her famous response to a manager’s
complaint about this decision was “so you’re telling me I can trust you to give you a company car
and to have you responsible for tens of millions of dollars, but I can’t trust you to dress
appropriately?” (Hedayati, 2014, January 8). When asked by Quartz at Work’s Fessler (2018,
February 6) what a key part of building successful professional relationships is, she responded that
she spends time getting to know her coworkers, their families and what is important to them.
Conceptual skills, according to Northouse (2016), are the power to navigate ideas and
concepts. “Whereas technical skills deal with
things
and human skills deal with
people
, conceptual
skills involve the ability to work with
ideas
” (Northouse, 2016, p. 45).
Conceptually skilled
. When
Mary Barra became CEO in 2014, having to deal with “Switchgate”, she was faced with a
challenge she could only solve with a new idea – transparency. Her ideas were considered to be
unconventional, but having faced the problem head on and taking all the responsibility on herself,
she pulled GM out of the crisis. She presented the idea of the program called “Speak Up for Safety”
(Ellis, 2017), where the employees were rewarded for reporting issues. In 1998, Mary created a
support system for women at her company, which helped women with issued they would face in
the work field. Later on, the support group instigated the creation of affinity groups for minorities
and women, which helped them with career development, networking and mentoring in Canada.
Barra has created the successor to these groups, which is known as GM WOMEN, standing for
“women offering mentoring, expertise, and networking” (Colby, 2015). When it comes to
innovation, Mary is future oriented. Engelmeier (2014, January 22) reported that Barra “she
increased efficiency through product innovation and created more vehicles that shared the same
parts”. Engelmeier also adds that she had the General Motors’ purchasing and product
development departments to join forces and work together, which was a never before seen move.
Leadership behavior.
When it comes to leadership behavior, Yukl (2013) describe a three
dimensional model consisting of task-oriented, relations-oriented and change-oriented behavior.
For this section I will present a leadership behavior of Mary Barra from each of these dimensions.
When it comes to
task-oriented behavior
, Mary is always action-oriented “because there’s always
a way to move forward”, as she confirmed in an interview with Fessler (2018, February 6) when
asked what did she do when she felt the most despondent. As previously mention, one of her
strengths is
assigning work to groups
, dividing the work and responsibilities among her employees.
For
relations-oriented behavior
, Barra has had a huge impact on
the recruitment of her company
– promoting a more inclusive recruitment regime, but not without highlighting the importance of
qualifications (Colby, 2015). This has resulted in a diverse workforce with competent employees
representing different perspectives. Lastly, for
change oriented behavior
, many news articles
(Matousek, 2018, January 11; Hirsch, 2013, December 13). covered stories of her
innovations,
technology and future oriented plans
for General Motors – now working on the fourth generation
on driverless cars, while some companies still haven’t started their first generation.
Leadership traits
. Attribution theory has had many authors making taxonomies of
leadership traits necessary for success, and one of those lists were created by Yukl (2013) as a
summary of numerous research of successful leaders. Three of these characteristics will be
presented for Mary Barra.
Integrity.
Barra took the first opportunity as CEO to show her integrity
and what she stood for – she publicly admitted to the ignition issue which resulted in deaths of a
hundred employees, began a recall of over 2.5 million cars with broken ignition switches which
could have turned off cars and prevent airbags from activating during crashes (Matousek, 2018,
January 11
).
She redirected the focus of General Motors to customer satisfaction, excellence and
hard work (Ellis, 2017, June 9). She established the PILOT “Winning with Integrity”, which is a
code of conduct serving as a reminder to employees to be passionate and work hard, but the right
way (Gover, 2017).
Determination
. Team work and collaborative work is what everyone praises
Barra for, but when a unanimous decision cannot be made by the team, she steps in to do it without
hesitation (Hirsch, 2013, December 13). She is driven, persistent, and quick to resolve issues. She
was described as having a persevering attitude and being decisive by Hedayati (2014, January 8).
One example is during 2008, when GM fell into bankruptcy. Barra had not shown a shred of doubt
that the company would survive. She reported to Stanford’s Tankersley (2011,
September/October) that it was indeed a difficult time, but she was confident that they would get
through. When faced with challenges, Mary Barra perseveres and pulls General Motors through.
She has the ability to make swift decisions, take risks, apply unconventional ways to her problem
solving, and take initiative in critical situations.
Sociability.
Mary Barra has shown sociability
through her interaction with employees, showing interest in their lives, getting to know their
families and their interests. She includes everyone in the decision making process, makes sure
everyone is heard and feels valuable. She has helped out her superiors numerous times and has
shown reliability and trustworthiness (Colby, 2015).
Main skill, behavior and trait
. Displaying numerous virtues as a leader, many coworkers
support her biggest quality, being a participative/inclusive leader, taking into consideration her
teams’ ideas and uniting them into an innovative product. Her main skill as a leader is the
delegation she performs, showing trust and respect to everyone, while serving as an anchor in
leading General Motors to success. She adjusts her leadership style depending on the situation –
when the group cannot make an agreement, she will show initiative and assertiveness. For
behavior, she is very much conceptually oriented – her problem solving technique is visionary and
bold, breaking the ice fearlessly into the market and taking responsibility for mistakes made on
behalf of the company. She has remade the recruitment approach and involved more qualified
women and minorities in the automotive industry. Where everyone was missing out, she saw an
opportunity. Her strongest trait – determination – has pulled her through 33 years of service in the
General Motors organization, fighting for the company on every front from manufacturing, design,
engineering to human resources, management and now leading the company. Barra has her eyes
on the future of the industry, having GM even beat Tesla’s Model 3 with the Chevrolet Bolt EV
(The World's 50 Greatest Leaders,
2018, April 19).
Application to theory
. The path-goal theory was chosen due to its diverse application and
showcases Mary Barra’s versatility in leadership. First of all, her display of directive leadership is
evident in cases such as the rapid reduction of the formal dress code. Barra created a situation in
which managers can make their own decision and use their judgement. She advised the managers
complaining to this policy to address their concerns with their employees and communicate in
order to address the issue. When it comes to supportive leadership, as mentioned previously, she
displays a great deal of concern for the needs of her subordinates, includes them in decision
making, praises her team in interviews, always addresses the people working for General Motors
when talking about the success of the company. The third pillar of path-goal theory is achievement-
oriented leadership, which Mary showcases in her never-ending quest to achieve better, make
better cars and never stop improving (Ellis, 2017, June 9). In an interview with Esquire (Fussman,
2018, February 6), she advised not to confuse progress with winning, “if the world is improving
at 10 percent and you’re improving at 2 percent, you might be improving, but you’re losing” (Mary
Barra, Esquire, 2018, February 6). Finally, participative leadership is one that describes Mary
Barra’s style best. Her decision to recruit the most competent and qualified of team members
allows her to use participative leadership, as she motivates her team members and cherishes their
qualities which lead to team success. Barra has a firm belief that everyone wants to contribute and
do a good job.
Success of the leadership style
. Mary Barra’s achievements have been evident throughout
her entire career at General Motors, and now especially since she became CEO. She saved General
Motors after their bankruptcy filing, increased the value of the company, reduced unprofitable
markets and focused on customer satisfaction, quality and hard work. Barra’s approach to
leadership, as described as mainly inclusive, has been successful in creating teams competent to
innovate new, future, technologically advanced vehicles. Her navigation through the crisis has
transformed General motors from a dreary symbol of the old guard to one of the leading companies
in automotive innovation (Matousek, 2018, January 11). The main issue in General Motors before
Barra’s leadership was described by Barra herself as a “lack of leadership, and extensive
compartmentalization within the company, which discouraged information sharing” (Weinstein,
Morton, 2015, p. 1). Barra described the “GM nod” as everyone agreeing to a proposed plan of
action, but there was no action taken after the dismissal of the meeting. Mary Barra’s actions in
crisis, leading to results and numbers on the stock market today say more about her success than
words. General Motors is competing neck-in-neck with Elon Musk’s Tesla in the electric car
manufacturing, design and innovation market, making the leadership of Mary Barra a successful
one in just four years of reign. Her leadership style was successful because she integrated team
work and collaboration into the main decision making process, as well as because she addressed
the issues and showed remorse for the mistakes made. Her leadership style was successful because
her decision-making skills and innovation brought General Motors to the future swift and focused
on quality. According to Yukl (2013, p. 164) “subordinates will perform better when they have
clear and accurate role expectations, they perceive that a high level of effort is necessary to attain
task objectives, they are optimistic that it is possible to achieve the task objectives, and they
perceive that high performance will result in beneficial outcomes”. Her inclusive style of
leadership has achieved the beneficial outcomes Yukl has described.
Leadership improvement recommendation
. According to aforementioned information on
Mary Barra’s qualities, I will address some improvement recommendations based on the path-goal
theory. According to House’s (1996) reformulated path-goal theory, which add four new pillars to
the original four ones (work facilitation, group-oriented decision process, value-based leadership
and work-group representation and networking), Barra fills in all the requirements for a path-goal
leadership style. Her value-based leadership, accent on team work and team representation is a
perfect representation of this approach to leadership. However, according to the theory, I have
failed to find a motivational tool used by Barra, except for encouragement and respect for her
coworkers. There have not been any studies researching job satisfaction among her employees, to
confirm whether this approach is successful on every front. One thing for Barra to improve on is
her assessment of her worker’s weaknesses and how can she compensate for their deficiencies in
their abilities. Follow-up feedback on her leadership from her coworkers is encouraged.
Summary
.
In summary, leader of General Motors, CEO and Chairman Mary Barra, has
shown success after success since the start of her leadership in 2014. Long before she became
CEO, she has shown leadership potential and abilities, ever since her studies until now, 33 years
later. Her flexibility and adaptability, as well as educational background in electrical engineering
and business administration, in combination with achievement-oriented behavior and strength in
maintaining relationships with her coworkers while navigating team work and using it to its highest
potential has propelled her to the position where she is now. When the board was choosing a new
CEO, she was in competition with three other male candidates, and she was unanimously chosen
for that responsibility and position. What Barra has done in the four years since is unprecedented,
and with her future-oriented and innovative mind, the possibilities are endless and her success will
only proceed to grow.
In conclusion, I will add three pie charts visually representing her leadership style in the
classic path-goal theory (chart 1 – four pillars), in the newer one reformulated by House (1996)
(chart 2), as well as a general comparison to other leadership approaches she could also be defined
by (chart 3). Leadership styles which have a potential in describing her approach are situational,
charismatic, transformational, ethical and participative leadership. Path-goal approach to
leadership was chosen due to its over-arching scope of characteristics which describe Barra best,
but some examples for as to why other leadership styles were chose will be given. She herself has
described her management style as collaborative (participative leadership), while bringing in
visionary ideas to improve and change the company, emerging when the company is in crisis
(charismatic), adjusting decision making to situation (situational), putting transparency at the
forefront (ethical), and motivating her subordinates to use their potential (transformational). Mary
Barra’s strengths are represented in table 4, independent of theories, based on research.
Directive leadership
Supportive
leadership
Participative
leadership
Achievement-
oriented leadership
TABLE 1 - PATH-GOAL LEADERSHIP - 4 PILLARS
Directive leadership
Participative
leadership
Supportive
leadership
Achievement-
oriented leadership
Work facilitation
Group-oriented
decision process
Work-group
representation and
networking
Value-based
leadership behavior
TABLE 2 - PATH-GOAL LEADERSHIP, HOUSE 1996 - 8 PILLARS
Path-goal leadership
42%
Situational
leadership
10%
Charismatic
leadership
10%
Transformational
leadership
10%
Participative
leadership
20%
Ethical leadership
8%
Table 3 - Leadership styles
Path-goal leadership
Situational leadership
Charismatic leadership
Transformational leadership
Participative leadership
Ethical leadership
Ethical
8%
Transparent
7%
Action-oriented
8%
Collaborative
10%
Directive
8%
Supportive
7%
Innovative
8%
Visionary
10%
Future-oriented
8%
Adaptive
8%
Intelligent
10%
Risk-taking
8%
Table 4
-
Leadership characteristics
Ethical
Transparent
Action-oriented
Collaborative
Directive
Supportive
Innovative
Visionary
Future-oriented
Adaptive
Intelligent
Risk-taking
References
About GM: Mary T. Barra
. (2018, January), General Motors. Retrieved from
http://www.gm.com/
Bertocci, D. I. (2009).
Leadership in organizations: There is a difference between leaders and
managers
. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Colby, L. (2015).
Road to Power: How GM's Mary Barra Shattered the Glass Ceiling.
John Wiley
& Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey
Dunbar, S. B. (2009).
An occupational perspective on leadership: Theoretical and practical
dimensions
. Thorofare, NJ: Slack Incorporated.
Ellis, B. (2017, June 9).
Mary Barra – Transforming General Motors Through Powerful
Leadership.
Branding for Results. Retrieved from
http://brandingforresults.com/
Engelmeier, S. (2014, January 22).
Did Mary Barra’s Inclusive Leadership Style Propel Her to
The Top?
Industry Week. Retrieved from
http://www.industryweek.com/
Fessler, L. (2018, February 6).
GM CEO Mary Barra says too many women quit their jobs for the
wrong reason.
Quartz at Work. Retrieved from
https://work.qz.com/
Fussman, C. (2016, April 26).
What I've Learned: Mary Barra
. Esquire. Retrieved from
https://www.esquire.com/
Gover, J. (2017).
Reflections – Mary Barra
. IEEE Engineering Management Review, vol. 45, no.
2, second quarter
Hedayati, F. (2014, January 8).
Mary Barra’s Leadership
. Center for Work Life. Retrieved from
http://www.centerforworklife.com/
Hirsch, J. (2013, December 13).
Mary Barra new CEO at GM, most powerful female exec in
America [Q&A]
. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from
http://www.latimes.com/
House, R. J. (1971).
A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness
. Administrative Science Quarterly,
16, 321–339.
House, R. J., & Mitchell, R. R. (1974).
Path-goal theory of leadership
. Journal of Contemporary
Business, 3, 81–97.
House, R. J. (1996).
Path–goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated
theory
. Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 323–352.
Jermier, J. M. (1996).
The path-goal theory of leadership: A subtextual analysis
. The Leadership
Quarterly, 7(3), 311–316.
Johnson, C. E., & Shelton, P. (2014).
Ethical Leadership in the Age of Apology
. International
Leadership Journal, 6(3), 7–29.
Matousek, M. (2018, January 11
). Mary Barra was called a 'lightweight' when she became CEO
of GM — here's how she transformed the company and silenced her doubters
.
Business Insider Nordic. Retrieved from
http://nordic.businessinsider.com/
Mumford, M. D. (2009).
Leadership 101
. New York, NY: Springer
Northouse, P. G. (2016).
Leadership: Theory and Practice, seventh edition
. Sage Publications, Inc:
USA
The World's 50 Greatest Leaders.
(2018, April 19), Fortune. Retrieved from
http://fortune.com/
Tankersley, J. (2011, September/October).
What Drives Mary Barra
. Stanford Alumni. Retrieved from
https://alumni.stanford.edu/
Vroom, V. H. (1964).
Work and motivation
. New York, NY: Wiley
Weinstein, J., & Morton, L. H. (2015).
Collaboration and Teamwork
. Faculty Scholarship, Paper 163.
