Final answer:
GM's failure to adapt to the market demands for fuel-efficient and well-designed cars, due to their bureaucratic culture and resistance to change, exemplifies their inability to remain competitive against more agile manufacturers like Honda and Toyota.
Step-by-step explanation:
GM's insistence on sticking to a bureaucratic culture that discourages new ideas, combined with its M-form structure and its inability to adapt to changing customer preferences for more fuel-efficient cars, produce higher quality, and create innovative designs best exemplifies resistance to change. The company's bureaucratic culture exhibited little flexibility on a day-to-day basis and had a large bureaucracy, which likely resulted in a lack of incentive for employees to work harder or better.
During the 1970s, Detroit's automotive industry became complacent due to a lack of competition, resulting in the production of cars that didn't align with the shifting consumer demands of the time. Japanese competitors like Honda and Toyota gained market share by producing small, reliable, fuel-efficient vehicles that were also more affordable due to advanced manufacturing techniques. This stark contrast with GM's approach to management and production underlines the consequences of being rooted in bureaucratic methods that are slow to adapt to the exigencies of a dynamic market.