In 1993 Pulitzer Prize winning author David Halberstam wrote a book about the 1950s – called appropriately "The Fifties".  He takes time in this book to talk about GM – a company today that has seen its leadership embarrassed, and its value for investors disintegrate in the face of mounting competition.  It's humiliated executives have asked Congress for a bailout to save the employees and customers from total failure – because they seem unable to figure out a solution themselves.  Read what Mr. Halberstam, a New York Times reporter, had to say about GM's rise to prominence:

*******************************************

"No one at GM could ever have dared forecast so much prosperity over such a long period of time.  It was a brilliant moment, unparalleled in American corporate history.  Success begat success… The postware economic boom may have benefited many Americans, but no one benefited more than General Motors.  The average car, which had cost $1,270 at the beginning of the decade, had risen to $1,822 by the end of it…twice as fast as the rest of the wholesale cost index.

There was in all of this success for General Motors a certain arrogance of power.  This was not only an institution apart; it was so big, so rich, and so powerful that it was regarded in the collective psyche of the nation as something more than a mere corporation:  It was like a nation unto itself, a seperate entity, with laws and a culture all its own.

The men who ran the corporation, almost without exception, came from small towns in America… Everything about them reflected their confidence tht they had achieved virtually all there was to achieve in life.  Others, critics, outside Detroit, might believe that these men were not such giants and might believe that they did not so much create that vast postwar economic wave as they had the good fortune to ride it… As for the intellectuals, if they wanted to drive small foreign cars, live in small houses, and make small salaries, why even bother to argue with them?

As success of the company grew, its informal rules gradually became codified.  The culture was first and foremost hierarchical:  An enterprising young executive tended to take all signals, share all attitudes and prejudices of the men above him, as his wife tended to play the sports and card games favored by the boss's wife, to emulate how she dressed and even to serve the same foods for dinner.

The essential goodness of the corporation was never questioned.  It as regarded as, of all the many places to work, the best, because it was the biggest, the most respected, made the most money and, very quietly, through bonuses and stock, rewarded its top people the most handsomely."

*********************************************************

If this was the world of GM, codified as Mr. Halberstam explains, it becomes easier to understand the behavior of GM in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s - as competitors kept chipping away at market share and power.  From 50% share of all automobiles sold in the 1950s, GM's share is now only half that.  Executives, managers and even union employees quickly came to believe (in the late 40's and 50's)the future would always be like the past.  But Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Subaru, Kia and others didn't accept GM's claim to a monarchy.  And now, everyone is paying for it.

Lock-in is built when companies are doing well.  And Lock-in keeps the organization from changing.  It is easy to belittle challenges, and blame poor performance on others.  As competitors evolve, at times making big improvements, the Locked-in organization will explain away poor performance – but resist accepting the need to change.  In the end, if we don't learn how to Disrupt the Lock-in and use White Space to become more competitive we all end up in the Whirlpool.  Even GM.