Alfred Sloan Case Analysis
Chen Liu
HNRS2013
Dr. Marin Alfred Sloan: An American Icon
From his book My Year with General Motors, Sloan can hardly be considered as a typically American Icon at first. Sloan was different from the typical characteristically American figures: He believed in “decentralization”; he was more rational than emotionally orientated; he contributed the General Motors’s success to adaptation of American Market. However Sloan was quite confident with the differences. He preferred to distinguish General Motors from Fords at the formative years. He deliberately avoided managing General Motor in certain ways that Fords did. Fords, at that time had majority market. Share. The “centralized” idea was thus considered success and dominates the American industry. Although the “decentralized in administration” of General Motor was contradictory to the strategy of Fords, Sloan regarded it as a unique strength.
The confidence in belief mattered most in their winning. Yet those beliefs were based on rational analysis. Sloan preferred himself to be rational. He states that “one of the corporation’s great strengths is that it was designed to be an objective organization, as distinguished from the type that gets lost in the subjectivity of personalities.”
Trying to be rational, Sloan included every background factor that related to the success of General Motors. He contributed the progress of General Motors to American automobile Market-the freedom and opportunities it provided. Yet what he valued more was the adaption of General Motor. He saw the mobility it applied to the changing American Markets. In turn, Sloan felt proud that General Motor contributed to the characteristics of American success. In essence, He was proud of his disbelief in common senses, his distinguished way of success with rational strategies and the contributions that General Motor made to American characteristic of market. By being non-American at
HNRS2013
Dr. Marin Alfred Sloan: An American Icon
From his book My Year with General Motors, Sloan can hardly be considered as a typically American Icon at first. Sloan was different from the typical characteristically American figures: He believed in “decentralization”; he was more rational than emotionally orientated; he contributed the General Motors’s success to adaptation of American Market. However Sloan was quite confident with the differences. He preferred to distinguish General Motors from Fords at the formative years. He deliberately avoided managing General Motor in certain ways that Fords did. Fords, at that time had majority market. Share. The “centralized” idea was thus considered success and dominates the American industry. Although the “decentralized in administration” of General Motor was contradictory to the strategy of Fords, Sloan regarded it as a unique strength.
The confidence in belief mattered most in their winning. Yet those beliefs were based on rational analysis. Sloan preferred himself to be rational. He states that “one of the corporation’s great strengths is that it was designed to be an objective organization, as distinguished from the type that gets lost in the subjectivity of personalities.”
Trying to be rational, Sloan included every background factor that related to the success of General Motors. He contributed the progress of General Motors to American automobile Market-the freedom and opportunities it provided. Yet what he valued more was the adaption of General Motor. He saw the mobility it applied to the changing American Markets. In turn, Sloan felt proud that General Motor contributed to the characteristics of American success. In essence, He was proud of his disbelief in common senses, his distinguished way of success with rational strategies and the contributions that General Motor made to American characteristic of market. By being non-American at