A well known automobile company is facing crisis. It came to know poor decision making was the reason of that?
831444
Buy stock in Ford Motor Company.
889391
Trying to seek a solution to the problem for FREE?? Well if the reason has been found just lay off the decision maker who have made the company to what it is today and perhaps appoint you!!
10417
Trying to outsmart their competition but only they end up doing it to themselves. In other words, By them using cheap materials their cost of manufacturing cars will be lesser. Therefore they dont last while others use high quality materials that last long.
855607
Because they sold it for below market value to eat some of their losses.  You have to make up the difference.  It's not their fault that you couldn't pay for the car that YOU bought, so why should they be stuck with the remainder of the bill?
102705
Manufacturers will not release it because the car will be too good...hence they will not sell as many cars later.
437122
I think it depends on a variety of factors, such as the maturity of the brand, the level of risk exposure to the brand, how well-run the company is, budgets (big factor), etc.\n\nI think most companies adopt a reactive style of managing crisis (at least the ones I know), especially if the company is well-run.
262914
Often cheap labor, supplies, and materials costs for the company. At times a company may also get swamped with orders to fill and will need to to get it all on time to stay in good standing.
237664
In general, no. Maybe a few companies are paying an amout that is not in their best interest of the company, but oh well, companies make bad decisions all the time. Take executives pay into account before investing in the long term.
410575
If you look at this from cars that are dependable then yes Toyota should be in it. Although not a US automaker Toyota pushes US makers to step-up their game and do better.
887205
------------\nThe most damning piece of evidence in this controversy is the suppression of the NIMH battery. \n*\nThis battery was developed by a small Michigan research company. GM invested in this technology, and the NIMH battery was used in the two most successful electric cars built to date: GM's EV1 and the Toyota RAV4 EV.\n*\nSo what happened? After California gave in to industry pressure and scrapped their electric car mandate, nearly all of the electric cars on the road were crushed, and GM sold the patents for NIMH batteries to Chevron and Texaco.\n*\nA company named Cobasys was formed by the oil companies to control the patents. Cobasys sued Toyota and others to stop production of the large-size NIMH batteries used by electric vehicles.\n*\nSo how good are these batteries? Good enough to provide at least 200-mile ranges to electric cars. And they are durable. There are a few Toyota RAV 4 EVs still on the road, with the original batteries still installed. Many of these batteries have over 100,000 miles on them, with no failures.\n*\nCobasys makes it very, very difficult for anybody to manufacture large-size NIMH batteries. This means they are giving up markets for things like automotive starter batteries, motorized wheelchairs, golf carts, marine batteries, etc. \n*\nBear in mind that these are very, very good batteries, so NIMHs could dominate all of those markets if large-size NIMHs were sold. Somebody over there is VERY afraid of electric vehicles.\n----------
368846
That is a good question since they have so many stock options, that it would choke a cow. \n\nOne possible reason is that they want their name to appear on the list of insider trades so that people will think the stock of the company is undervalued and buy it to drive up the price so that they can exercise their options and make more money.  I admit that this logic is a little devious, but then again these are devious people we are talking about. \n\nAnother reason is that they think the stock is a good buy. OK, the possibility does exist. \n\nAnother reason is that they are trying to increase their holdings in the company as part of a power struggle for control of the company. This would possibly be the case in a company with only a few million shares outstanding.  \n\nAnother reason would be to put the squeeze on shorts. The classic example of this was Alan Ryan of Stutz Motor Car Company. Members of the New York Stock exchange had shorted the stock of Stutz Motor Car in 1920. Ryan controlled the company. He bought all the available outstanding stock of the company so that the shorts could not cover their positions. He had them by the balls. Then the exchange intervened because their members were in jeopardy of being wiped out and halted trading in Stutz.
271376
Its all about sense of securities. If company is not doing well, employees worry retrenchment. If company doing well, employees  worry competition from "new bird". \nAll and all, there are bad apples in the company whether the company do well or not. but most important of all is how the company make their general employees feel.. securities.
520589
No, lots of large british buisinesses are having to make redundancies and are losing a lot of money.\n\nA lot of british car factories are making thousands of redundancies.
1134051
It would be a waste of time and energy and impossible to enforce. Spending a lot of money doesn't guarantee success; Toyota, believed to be the biggest spenders in the paddock aren't having a lot of success, but Renault, with a smaller budget than Toyota, Ferrari and McLaren are.
720288
Some tough luck and a bad choice of tyres and set up and can be the reason for McLarens downfall. Any ways it has always been standard with the team after an excellent season the next season is where they completely mess up.
1067443
Yes definitely in crisis but much of it their BRAINS!!!!
1125629
You cannot knowingly sell an automobile that is defective.  You will be held financially responsible for the improvements necessary to correct the problems that were hidden from the buyer.