I was reading the Detroit Free Press this morning, the paper my brothers delivered when we lived in Mt. Pleasant, a small college town in the center of the state. The cover story on GM highlighted the key roles the company has played in Michigan as well as U.S. history. It's a fascinating article, particularly the insights into the power of GM to shape U.S. politics and policy. For example:
In 1953, Eisenhower named Charles Erwin Wilson, then-GM president, as secretary of defense. Asked during Senate hearings if the defense secretary could make a decision against the interests of General Motors, Wilson answered yes, but famously added he could not imagine such a case, "because for years, I thought what was good for the country was good for General Motors and vice versa."But even in Michigan, some question whether the U.S. government should try to save the company. Should the taxpayers pay for executives' bad decisions? A recent poll suggests that taxpayers aren't too keen on this idea. Or is GM simply a victim of the country's recent economic near-collapse?
As an organizational communication scholar, I hope that Michigan's government officials learn their lesson and make a concerted effort to diversify the state's economy. For too long the U.S. automakers have held hostage the state's economy and for too long the politicians representing Michigan have listened to the automakers and ignored the pleas of other industries.
Whatever happens with GM, the case will provide important insight into how people should organize--or not--in the 21st century.
~ Professor Cyborg