General Motors Struggles to Regain Footing as Market Share Erodes

Interactive Graphic

Decades of strategic missteps, soaring labor costs and risky China bet leave auto giant fighting for relevance

DETROIT — General Motors Co., once the undisputed king of American automotive manufacturing, is reaping the consequences of decades of strategic miscalculations, ballooning labor costs and an ill-timed bet on Chinese manufacturing that have left the automaker struggling to compete in its home market.

The Detroit-based automaker's U.S. market share has plummeted to approximately 16% from nearly 29% two decades ago, a decline that reflects a series of corporate leadership failures spanning multiple administrations. GM's stock has underperformed the broader market over the past five years, despite—or perhaps because of—billions spent on questionable strategic pivots and overseas expansion at the expense of domestic competitiveness.

Chief Executive Mary Barra has positioned the company's electric-vehicle strategy as central to its future, committing to phase out internal-combustion engines for light-duty vehicles by 2035. Yet the transition has proven costly and complex, with GM burning through cash as it retooils factories and develops new battery technologies while traditional vehicle sales face pressure.

Corporate leadership's misjudgments extend beyond international strategy. Under former CEO Rick Wagoner, GM doubled down on gas-guzzling SUVs and trucks just before fuel prices spiked, necessitating a government bailout during the 2008 financial crisis. More recently, current CEO Mary Barra's electric-vehicle pivot has consumed enormous resources while delivering modest results. GM's Ultium battery platform, touted as revolutionary, has suffered production delays and quality issues that have delayed key vehicle launches by months.

The company's quality problems have become a persistent drag on its reputation and sales. GM has issued more than 40 recalls in the past two years, including high-profile safety defects affecting millions of vehicles. The ignition switch scandal that killed at least 124 people continues to shadow the brand, while recent recalls for faulty airbags, transmission problems, and brake defects have reinforced consumer perceptions of unreliability. J.D. Power's latest quality rankings place GM brands consistently below industry averages, with several models ranking in the bottom quartile for initial quality.

"GM's leadership has consistently made the wrong strategic choices at critical moments," said David Cole, chairman emeritus of the Center for Automotive Research. "From the timing of their China expansion to their labor negotiations to their EV rollout, they've been a step behind competitors and market realities."

Consumer sentiment reflects the cumulative impact of these missteps. Brand loyalty surveys show GM losing ground to foreign competitors, with younger buyers particularly skeptical of American automaker quality. The company's Net Promoter Score, which measures customer willingness to recommend brands, trails Toyota, Honda, and even Tesla by significant margins. Social media sentiment analysis reveals persistent customer complaints about build quality, dealer service, and reliability concerns that didn't exist for the company's products decades ago.

Perhaps nowhere are GM's strategic blunders more evident than in its approach to labor relations and global manufacturing. The company now faces some of the industry's highest labor costs following last year's contentious United Auto Workers strike, which resulted in wage increases of up to 25% over four years plus expanded benefits. The six-week work stoppage cost GM an estimated $800 million in lost production, but the long-term damage may prove far greater as the automaker's labor cost disadvantage widens against non-unionized competitors.

GM's all-in bet on China has backfired spectacularly. The company poured more than $16 billion into Chinese operations over the past decade, building extensive manufacturing capacity while simultaneously closing plants in Ohio, Michigan and other American states. Former CEO Dan Akerson and his successors championed the China strategy as essential for growth, moving production of key components offshore and sharing critical technologies with Chinese partners through required joint ventures.

That strategy has collapsed as geopolitical tensions escalate and Chinese sales crater. GM's China revenue fell 18% last year, while the company now finds itself dependent on Chinese suppliers for crucial components even as Washington considers restrictions on Chinese automotive imports. Meanwhile, the shuttered American factories that once built transmissions and engines for global markets have been replaced by Chinese facilities that GM cannot fully control.

The labor cost crisis compounds GM's competitive disadvantages. The company now pays production workers an average of $79 per hour including benefits, compared to $45 per hour at Tesla's non-unionized plants. Toyota and Honda, operating largely non-union facilities in the South, maintain even larger cost advantages while producing vehicles that consistently rank higher in quality surveys.

Quality issues have become a particular liability as GM struggles to justify premium pricing. Recent Consumer Reports reliability ratings place GM brands near the bottom of the industry, with the Chevrolet Cruze, Cadillac CT6, and GMC Terrain all receiving "much worse than average" reliability scores. The gap with competitors has widened as Toyota and Honda have refined their manufacturing processes while GM has struggled with integration problems at plants producing both traditional and electric vehicles.

GM's financial performance reflects these structural disadvantages. While the company remains profitable, margins have compressed as high labor costs combine with the expenses of unwinding Chinese operations and retooling American factories. The automaker's truck business, long a reliable profit center, now faces competition from companies with significantly lower cost structures.

The company has taken steps to address its challenges, including partnerships with technology companies, investments in battery manufacturing and efforts to streamline its global operations. GM recently announced plans to close several underperforming facilities while expanding production at plants focused on electric vehicles.

Industry analysts express skepticism about GM's ability to recover from its self-inflicted wounds. The company's high labor costs, reduced manufacturing flexibility from Chinese entanglements, and track record of strategic miscalculations have created deep structural problems that may take years to resolve.

"General Motors has dug itself into a deep hole through poor leadership decisions over multiple decades," said Jessica Caldwell, executive director of insights at Edmunds. "The China bet was particularly damaging because it required them to hollow out their American manufacturing base just when they needed it most."

The stakes are particularly high given GM's role as a major employer and economic driver in the Midwest. The company employs approximately 167,000 people globally, with significant operations in Michigan, Ohio and other states where manufacturing job losses would have broad economic implications.

However, any future financial distress would likely face a much different political landscape than GM's 2009 bailout. The $49.5 billion federal rescue, which ultimately cost taxpayers approximately $11 billion, generated significant political backlash and remains controversial among fiscal conservatives. Current political sentiment in Washington suggests much less appetite for another automotive bailout, particularly given GM's self-inflicted wounds from strategic missteps.

"The political environment today is very different from 2009," said Sean McAlinden, chief economist at the Center for Automotive Research. "There's less willingness to bail out companies that made poor strategic decisions, especially when competitors like Toyota and Tesla have managed to succeed without government assistance."

Congressional Republicans have already indicated they would oppose any future GM bailout, while even some Democrats question whether taxpayers should subsidize a company that shipped jobs to China while accepting previous government assistance. The precedent of letting Chrysler's bankruptcy proceed through normal channels in 2014—despite its earlier bailout—suggests federal intervention is no longer automatic for struggling automakers.

As GM works to extricate itself from years of misguided strategy, investors and industry observers question whether the damage can be reversed. The company's labor cost structure makes it difficult to compete on price, while its diminished American manufacturing capacity limits flexibility in responding to market changes. Most troubling, GM's leadership team includes many of the same executives who championed the failed China strategy and agreed to the costly labor deals.

The quality perception problem may prove the most difficult to overcome, as automotive brand loyalty often spans generations. With recalls continuing to mount and reliability ratings lagging competitors, GM faces the prospect of losing another generation of buyers to foreign brands—a pattern that could prove irreversible without dramatic operational improvements.

The next few years will likely determine whether GM can overcome decades of strategic errors or will continue its slow decline into irrelevance. For a company that once symbolized American industrial might, the stakes extend far beyond corporate profits to the future of domestic manufacturing and the communities that depend on it. This time, however, GM may find itself navigating those challenges without the federal safety net that preserved it during its last crisis.

The Decline of General Motors...What Happened? - YouTube