Excellent, I always wanted to be a automotive stylist. How does a huge corporation manage to deal with flaky creative types and vice versa? I sometimes think the evident mediocrity of much of the work output from stylists for the big manufacturers must be down to an inability to think or communicate in mutually comprehensible terms across that cultural divide. Maybe the best never make it through the hiring process for similar reasons--you wind up with an HR suit's idea of a stylist instead of an actual one. I actually think Ford stylists have done pretty well of late so they must be doing something right. This is the same company that penned the Mustang II.
The modern styling division was invented in the late '20s at GM by Alfred P. Sloan, who had the vision to bring in a talented styling manager from outside, Harley Earl, and then give him full autonomy by making the position a full GM executive board VP. In this way the Styling VP outranked most of the division executives trying to interfere with his mission and he was free to set up his own little country inside GM. The system had its faults but it's not completely out of line to claim that GM enjoyed styling leadership for several decades.
One more example of Sloan's genius.
After the war Ford essentially followed this template with George Walker, a sort of Harley Earl type with a similarly big, colorful personality.
However, over at Chrysler, president K.T. Keller knew nothing about design or style and cared even less. But he ruled the entire product process, inventing ridiculous edicts -- for example,that all Chrysler products must be tall enough for men to wear a hat inside. Or, why all the products looked so dowdy and antiquated in the late '40s and early '50s and didn't catch up until Virgil Exner introduced the Forward Look.
From time to time, the suits always manage to intrude on the design process, which is usually (but not always) the cause of the Motor City's most harrowing design gaffes.