This paper examines the role of management accounting and management information systems (MIS) in shaping managerial decisions at Ford Motor Company. Drawing on Ford's experience during the global financial crisis, the paper describes how accounting data drives borrowing decisions, traces the evolution of Ford's decision-making structure from top-down to more democratic processes, and identifies additional information sources that could strengthen the decision-making process. The paper also evaluates Ford's Performance Management Program (PMP), analyzing its strengths, its legal controversies, and its limitations in recognizing individual employee skills and seniority.
This paper demonstrates evidence-based critical evaluation: the writer uses cited sources to establish a factual baseline, then applies organizational and management theory to assess effectiveness and limitations. The critique of the PMP is a strong example — the writer acknowledges the system's intent, identifies its documented failure (discrimination lawsuits), and proposes a direction for improvement, all within a few sentences.
The paper is organized around four discrete management questions, each functioning as a mini-essay: (1) how accounting data shapes managerial decisions; (2) how Ford's decision-making process operates; (3) what additional information would benefit that process; and (4) how performance evaluation methods affect motivation and productivity. A references section closes the paper. This format suits business management coursework that requires applied, question-by-question analysis of a real organization.
Ford Motor Company has held itself in a position of relative insulation from the financial crisis that has targeted the automobile industry with particular severity. However, this is largely a matter of presentation — Ford has struggled to find creative ways to present its balance sheet so as to dissuade the view that its fortunes have declined with the broader economy. As its contemporaries Chrysler and General Motors accepted massive bailout packages from the federal government, Ford's management was forced to address decisions shaped primarily by accounting scenarios.
Recording massive losses on sales, Ford's leadership came under pressure to decide how best to secure the financial resources needed to remain viable. According to an article published in Time Magazine (2009), "with its sales down nearly 50%, there is no way for it to make it to the end of the year with its current debt structure. What the company is not saying is that it may not be able to make it another six months without outside help. There are only so many costs that can be cut for Ford to remain a viable global car company" (McIntyre, 1). This points to the urgent demand to make key management accounting-driven borrowing decisions — whether from the federal government or from private lending institutions — based on information and insight provided by accounting managers and the management information system (MIS).
Historically, Ford has been a top-down organization, with little power or decision-making authority invested in those outside the offices of its top-ranking executives. In its early phases, decisions were made by the CEO with assistance from a small group of close advisers. This mode of governance was fated to prove ineffective as the company grew. As one source notes, "Ford's business slipped as rapidly as it rose because the size of the business had outgrown the family-style management with which its founder persisted" (Datta, 1). Today, Ford's decision-making process more closely reflects the approach taken by its competitors, where a more democratic apparatus channels input from multiple departments before arriving at a final resolution.
Taking the conditions of the global recession as a practical example, any decision made by Ford concerning borrowing to support its continued viability would be shaped and refined through an array of appropriate departments. First, financial reporting, accounting, and financial forecasting precipitate the establishment of a decision. That decision is then passed to legal and operational personnel, who determine its feasibility, practicality, and long-term implications. Finally, decisions evaluated through these proper channels are presented to a board of trustees or stakeholders for a final vote. This process combines sound organizational theory with democratic corporate governance, helping a company like Ford coordinate all of its moving parts in the face of a crisis.
Decision-making is affected by a wide range of concerns and conditions, many of which may be overshadowed by more dominant considerations such as accounting conditions or market sales figures. However, it is not always possible for the immediate leadership team to consider every relevant aspect of a decision, given the many responsibilities implied by management or administrative authority. Therefore, it will often fall to members of the organization at other levels to introduce important peripheral concerns into the conversation surrounding a decision.
For instance, when making decisions about borrowing in the face of operating losses, additional information of value might include data on broader market patterns, projected trends in the cost of materials, commodity price fluctuations such as those related to oil prices, patterns related to consumer confidence, and the stability or volatility of banks and the federal government. Consultants within Ford should regard the provision of such insights as essential to the sensibility and balance of the final decision, ensuring that narrowly financial analyses are supplemented by a fuller picture of the operating environment.
Ford's experience during the financial crisis illustrates how management accounting and organizational decision-making structures are inseparable. Sound financial information, democratic governance, and sensitive performance evaluation are all essential to a company's long-term viability. By improving the flow of information across departments, broadening the range of data considered in key decisions, and adopting more nuanced methods of performance evaluation, Ford can strengthen both its decision-making processes and its organizational resilience.
You’re 72% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.