
Detours and Off-Ramps: Diverging Pathways to the Same Future
カートのアイテムが多すぎます
カートに追加できませんでした。
ウィッシュリストに追加できませんでした。
ほしい物リストの削除に失敗しました。
ポッドキャストのフォローに失敗しました
ポッドキャストのフォロー解除に失敗しました
-
ナレーター:
-
著者:
このコンテンツについて
What does it mean for a company to take a detour—not as an error, but as an investment in altering its narrative? In this episode of Decisions at the Fulcrum, we plunge courageously into the symbolic pathways forged by two of the US's iconic automakers: Ford and General Motors. This episode takes a step back from the insights of Part One, going to the underpinning symbolic arrangement supporting their different approaches to business revival and innovation.
Ford’s comeback of the Bronco wasn’t just about launching a product; it was a revival of collective nostalgia, a showcase of tough independence, and looking back with purpose.
Meanwhile, General Motors has put a lot on the line with the Ultium platform as a solution and a bold story of transformation, prospective sensemaking.
Through the lens of Symbolic Convergence Theory, we look into the ways both companies are crafting their own narratives. Ford taps into a thrilling adventure theme, harnessing nostalgia as a powerful anchor in these unpredictable times. GM, on the other hand, leaves behind what is traditional, embracing an ambitious idea of what could be.
This is a story that is above mere vehicles. It's a story about the narratives. Organizations envision their future, where shared visions are driven by memory, intent, and estimated risk, serving as the engine of technique.
Join Dr. William Hoffman's today, as he muses about sensemaking in moments of transition, rhetorical visions, nostalgia, selective recollections, trail meetups, ad campaigns, and a modular battery systems to ask: when legacy and possibility come into contact, what road would you choose?
Image: GM Ultium introduction in the early 2020s -
This episode may contain brief clips of archival audio, used under the Fair Use doctrine as defined in Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act (Title 17, U.S. Code § 107), which permits use for purposes such as criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. All usage is for non-commercial, educational, and transformative analysis.