At Brown and Gordon, management prizes getting the job done quickly and simply, but that no-nonsense style clashes with the complexity needed for integrated information systems.
Brown and Gordon Auto Parts (B&G) is a global leader in auto parts manufacturing, operating multiple plants across the American Midwest. Despite nearly $2 billion in revenue, B&G has struggled with profitability due to a recession and declining auto sales, pushing plant capacity down to 60%. The management style is tough and pragmatic, focused on speed and simplicity over formal procedures. This culture influences every aspect of operations — including information systems (IS).
The challenge is clear: B&G’s cost-cutting, no-frills culture is at odds with the complex, integrated nature required for effective IS management. Understanding this tension is critical to diagnosing why IS investments may be underperforming.
The company culture is a double-edged sword
B&G’s culture is described as “tough” and “no-nonsense,” with managers who have risen through operational ranks and prioritize getting the job done quickly and simply. There is little patience for frills or fancy procedures.
This culture has advantages:
- Speed and decisiveness: Managers are action-oriented and focused on tangible results.
- Operational expertise: Managers know the frontline realities deeply, having worked their way up.
But it also has significant drawbacks for IS:
- Resistance to formal processes: Complex systems require planning, standards, and coordination — all seen as “frills” by B&G leadership.
- People-oriented, not process-oriented: Assignments are based on individuals’ track records for getting jobs done rather than matching expertise or functional fit.
- Adversarial management style: Pitting managers against each other to spur competition can undermine collaboration, which is essential for integrated IS.
The IS function reflects these cultural traits. It is split between two directors managing application development and operations separately, but lacks a coordinating element responsible for standards, planning, education, and project management. This organizational gap means major IS projects often proceed without full awareness of how they fit with existing or future systems.
The consulting report Talvinder reviewed flags that the dual directorship without integration, combined with a culture that prizes individual accomplishment over collaboration, creates a risk of fragmented, incompatible IS development.
Cost-cutting mode is the default — but it is a dangerous lens for IS
B&G’s management is in strict cost-cutting mode, driven by the business downturn and competitive pressures. Every investment, especially in IS, must be justified by tangible savings — almost always through job eliminations.
This creates a trap:
- IS investments are approved only when they promise headcount reductions.
- Intangible or long-term benefits — like increased agility, data quality, or better decision support — get ignored.
This approach is short-sighted for IS. Information systems are complex, with benefits that often emerge over time and through cumulative improvements in integration, data flow, and user adoption.
The consulting report implicitly warns: justifying IS expenditures solely by job cuts undervalues the strategic role IS can play in enabling better operational decisions and future growth.
At B&G, this means IS is seen more as a cost center to be squeezed than a strategic asset to be nurtured. This mindset limits investment in planning, education, and standards — all vital for long-term IS success.
Organizational structure and controlling shape IS outcomes decisively
The IS division at B&G reports upward in a clear chain: MIS Vice President R.L. Buck Steubens reports to the VP of Finance, who reports to the company president. However, the VP of Finance delegates IS responsibility fully to Steubens, effectively isolating IS decision-making at a lower level.
Within IS, two directors share responsibility:
- Tom Mansfield leads application development.
- Harry Crowley leads operations.
Local plants have their own operators reporting to local line management, but IS operations are highly centralized, using a telecommunications network to connect to Cleveland’s central systems.
The consulting report highlights a missing third coordinating element within IS, which would typically handle standards, planning, education, project management, and database administration. Without this, integration across application development and operations is weak.
Moreover, the organizational style is heavily people-oriented rather than process-oriented. The emphasis is on who can get the job done rather than who has the right expertise or where the function fits best.
The report also notes B&G’s use of “adversary management” — deliberately pitting managers against each other to spur competition. While this may work in some operational contexts, it is fundamentally at odds with the integration and communication that IS requires.
This structure and controlling approach mean:
- IS lacks clear integration and coordination at the working level.
- Planning and education receive inadequate attention.
- Standards and protocols are insufficiently established.
- Decision rights are fragmented, increasing the risk of siloed or incompatible systems.
Decision-making at B&G is predominantly individual, limiting IS success
The problem statement asks whether B&G exhibits group decision-making or individual decision-making.
Given the management culture and organizational design, the answer is clear: B&G favors individual decision-making, often driven by managers’ track records and competitive dynamics rather than collective planning or consensus.
In IS, this manifests as:
- Separate directors owning application development and operations without a coordinating role.
- Local plant operators managing their own processes with limited central integration.
- Decisions made based on immediate operational needs rather than strategic alignment.
This environment undermines the collaborative and integrative decision-making essential for complex IS projects.
The CIO role is diffuse and limited in impact
B&G does not have a Chief Information Officer (CIO) in the traditional sense. Instead, the MIS Vice President, Buck Steubens, heads the IS division and reports to the VP of Finance.
However, the VP of Finance delegates IS responsibility fully to Steubens and does not participate actively in IS decision-making. The consulting report suggests that while the CFO could theoretically serve as an integrating force, this is unrealistic given the expanded duties of the office.
Without a strong CIO role that integrates strategy, standards, and execution across IS functions, the information system is vulnerable to fragmentation and underperformance.
The lack of a clear CIO with cross-functional authority reduces the ability to:
- Align IS initiatives with broader company strategy.
- Enforce standards and protocols.
- Drive education and planning.
- Coordinate between application development and operations.
This gap contributes to the problems identified in the IS function at B&G.
Indian context: What can Indian PMs learn from B&G’s IS challenges?
While B&G is a US-based company, its story holds lessons for Indian product and technology leaders.
- Culture matters deeply. A no-nonsense, cost-cutting culture may hinder the complex coordination IS demands. Indian companies with similar cultures must consciously build integration and planning capabilities.
- Cost-cutting is necessary but insufficient. Justifying IS investments solely on job eliminations misses the value of strategic IS capabilities that enable scale and agility.
- Organizational structure shapes outcomes. Dual directorships without integration cause fragmentation. Indian startups and enterprises should clarify roles and ensure coordination mechanisms.
- Strong leadership roles are essential. The absence of a CIO or equivalent with cross-cutting authority leads to disjointed IS efforts.
- Decision-making style affects IS success. Collaborative, cross-functional decision-making is critical for IS projects, which cannot thrive under purely individualistic or adversarial management.
Companies like Razorpay and Flipkart have shown the value of integrated product and engineering leadership with strong coordination — a contrast to B&G’s siloed approach.
Field Exercise: Analyze your company’s IS culture and structure (15 minutes)
- Describe your company’s management culture: Is it people-oriented, process-oriented, or a mix? How does this affect IS or product teams?
- Identify the leadership roles in your IS or product function. Is there a CIO or equivalent? How centralized or decentralized is decision-making?
- Reflect on how cost pressures impact IS investment decisions. Are they justified primarily by direct cost savings or by strategic value?
- Assess the level of coordination between application development and operations teams. Are there integration mechanisms like standards, education, or project management?
- Write a short paragraph on what changes you would recommend to improve IS effectiveness in your context.
Test yourself: IS decision-making at B&G
You are Buck Steubens, MIS Vice President at Brown and Gordon Auto Parts. The company is in cost-cutting mode and requires IS expenditures to justify job eliminations. You have two directors managing application development and operations separately, with no coordinating element. The CFO delegates IS responsibility to you but does not get involved. You need to propose a plan to improve IS integration and effectiveness.
The call: What organizational changes and leadership actions do you recommend to align IS with company culture and cost constraints?
Your reasoning:
Where to go next
- Understand organizational dynamics in product teams: Organizational Design for Product Management
- Learn how to build cross-functional collaboration: Cross-Functional Team Leadership
- Explore cost management strategies: Product Finance and Budgeting
- Develop skills in stakeholder management: Managing Stakeholders Effectively
- Study information systems fundamentals: Information Systems in Product Management