The Pinto Malfunctions

CASE STUDY 1: Pinto Malfunctions

Donald Whaley

BUSN 115, Section A

April 4, 2010

Professor Winfield

Table of Contents

Introduction Page 1

Where to Point the Blame Page 1

Planning Process Page 2

Leadership Style Page 3

Marketing Strategy Page 3

Recommendations Page 4

Conclusion Page 4

Introduction

The Ford Pinto in the 1970's was one of Ford's most popular selling vehicles. Unfortunately, even though the car was one of Ford's hot new products, it came with a few flaws. The car was rushed to production by Lee Iacocca, in just 24 months which the normal time for production planning is 43 months. This was to beat competitors in releasing 1971's hot new model the Pinto to the showroom floor.

Iacocca's plan to rush the Pinto to production was thought of to be a good idea, until technician's realized that the design of the car had major problems. At this time it was too late to do anything about it. The Pinto was already on the showroom floor. It went on to be the world lightest weighing car, and was sold for the same amount that it was in weight $2,000.

Even though the car sounded like a good deal and the leaders of the company felt good about the idea of the car and the process there are some key factors that came into play with the failure to meet the standard production process. A few things to take a look at is the effects that the business made on society/environment, breakdown of leadership style, the planning process that was expedited to fit leaders needs, and the marketing strategy that Ford used to push the vehicle to showroom floor.

Where to point the blame

One of the outcomes of the 1970's Pinto malfunction was the Ford Company being sued by the families of owners or occupants of the vehicle in the time of crashes or collisions. Who is to blame for theses mishaps?

After reading the article posted by Sherefkin, it goes to state that Lee Iacocca was to blame for overlooking and disregarding the necessary changes that should have been made to make the Pinto a safe vehicle for consumers.

Lee's actions caused Ford a grave deal of embarrassment and change Ford vehicles creditability. Ford would lose millions due to overlooking safety and focusing on sales. It seems to be a matter of greed and making money at any cost.

Planning Process Ford's vision of their new product was as they expected, but without the outcome of the Pinto being defective. The Pinto was #1 in sales for Ford Motors, and a lot of money was made during the production of this vehicle.

At what point did the goals of the company change? In the article by Robert Sherefkin, it explains that the company's goals never changed and to reach the goals, choices had to be made to go through with production even after defects were made aware of.

The objectives of the Ford Company were to focus on the short term. As explained in Sherefkin's article that "safety does not sell", which in terms means that the well manufacture of the vehicle in a safety stand point was not part of the main objective of the vehicle. An engineer stated that the company was run by "salesmen, not engineers."

Leadership Style Ford operated under the autocratic leadership when making decision for the well being of the company. All leaders made all of the decisions without any feedback from employees.

Thru, this process Lee Iacocca was the main decision maker in the operation of the Pinto. Iacocca put the company at a bad stand point when referencing the decision not to recall the vehicle at first site of the defects with the design of the Pinto.

Marketing