In every dealership group, there is an invisible force shaping the technology stack. It is not the CIO. It is not the controller. It is not even the dealer principal.
It is the general manager.
As dealership groups grow into multi-rooftop organizations, their internal processes are not keeping up. Workflows drift apart. Tools multiply without coordination. Accountability becomes inconsistent. Departments work differently depending on the store. The foundation that once supported a three-store group begins to fail when the group reaches twelve stores or twenty stores or more.
The GM has more influence on the technology environment inside a dealership than any other role. Vendors know this. They have built entire sales strategies around it. They understand how dealerships operate, how decisions get made, and who has the authority to push a new system into daily use.
This creates a dynamic that most dealership groups have not recognized, and it is becoming a significant source of operational instability.
As groups scale beyond ten rooftops, GM driven tech decisions begin to create a pattern of fragmentation that leadership cannot see until it is too large to control. It shows up slowly, spreads quietly, and becomes one of the most expensive and disruptive issues inside growing dealership groups.
This is the problem that no vendor ever talks about, but every vendor benefits from.
The Vendor Playbook: Sell to the GM, Not to the Group
If you look at the history of automotive retail, the technology ecosystem evolved when dealerships were primarily standalone stores. Each one operated independently. Each GM had complete authority over both operational and technology decisions. That structure became the foundational assumption vendors built their businesses on.
The vendor playbook has always been simple.
- Win over the GM.
- Sell the GM on a better way to run their store.
- Secure the contract.
- Rely on the GM to enforce adoption.
- Repeat the process if the GM moves to a new store.
This worked perfectly when dealerships were single-store operations. It was efficient. It was profitable. It gave vendors a direct line to the decision maker who had immediate authority to say yes.
But that same model is now creating chaos inside dealership groups that have grown into large, complex, multi-rooftop organizations.
Why Vendors Prefer GMs Over Groups
The vendor decision is not irrational. It is intentional and logical. Vendors attach to GMs for several reasons.
GMs can say yes faster.
Enterprise committees and cross-department alignment take time. GMs make quicker decisions.
GMs have more influence on daily operations.
They can enforce adoption directly, which vendors see as an advantage.
GMs often bring vendors with them.
This gives vendors recurring revenue without needing enterprise contracts.
GMs are looking for solutions they can control.
Many GMs prefer systems that match their personal management style.
This entire dynamic is beneficial for vendors.
It is not beneficial for the dealership group.
The GM Driven Tech Cycle Is Not Scaling
When one GM chooses a tool and another GM chooses something different, the group slowly starts to fracture operationally.
Inconsistent Tools
Different GMs bring different systems into the store.
Inconsistent Workflows
Different tools force employees to work differently in each rooftop.
Broken Handoffs
When workflows differ, interdepartment transfers become unreliable.
Operational Gaps
Gaps in workflow force back office teams to create manual fixes.
This cycle builds on itself.
A New GM Arrives
They introduce their preferred recon or workflow tool.
Another GM Takes Over
They prefer a different pricing or process platform.
A Third GM Joins
They bring a system they used in another group.
The Cycle Continues
Tools change again, and the store resets its workflows each time.
The larger the group becomes, the more this pattern accelerates.
What begins as simple preference becomes enterprise fragmentation.
The Hidden Costs Leadership Never Sees
From the surface, everything looks fine. Cars are selling. Service is busy. F&I is producing. There is no visible indication that the operational environment is suffering.
But beneath the surface, GM driven technology choices create real, measurable costs.
Training costs increase
because every store uses different systems.
Reporting becomes unreliable
because data formats differ across rooftops.
Vendor expenses quietly multiply
because the group pays for redundant tools.
Turnover becomes more disruptive
because new GMs reset the stack when they arrive.
Reconciliation takes longer
because accounting has to understand multiple processes.
Operational alignment becomes impossible
because no one defines a standard.
None of these problems appear on a DOC report. They do not show up in sales meetings. They do not raise alarms until the group reaches a level of scale where inconsistency becomes too costly to ignore.
Why This Model Worked in the Past but Does Not Work Now
The automotive industry has changed.
Dealership groups are no longer small, independent clusters of stores. They are complex, multi-rooftop enterprises with centralized accounting, shared service strategies, group level reporting, and tight organizational dependencies.
The GM driven tech model made sense when:
- Stores operated independently
- Back office processes were simple
- Groups had only a few rooftops
- Technology needs were minimal
- Reporting was done manually
Those conditions no longer exist.
Modern dealership groups require:
Consistent workflows
Unified technology
Shared visibility
Enterprise process design
Standardized data
Controlled vendor ecosystems
These are not preferences.
They are structural requirements for an organization that hopes to scale properly.
GM Turnover Has Become an Operational Risk
General managers are not permanent fixtures.
They come and go. They move between stores. They shift roles. They get promoted. They get replaced.
When a GM leaves, everything they brought with them becomes unstable.
The store does not just lose a leader.
It loses the operational structure that leader created.
For vendors, this is fine.
For dealership groups, this is a strategic liability.
When a group grows to twenty rooftops or more, GM turnover becomes one of the largest sources of technology churn. It also becomes one of the largest sources of operational inconsistency.
A group cannot scale if each GM brings in a different system, and each system reshapes how the store operates.
The Future Requires Enterprise Driven Technology, Not GM Driven Technology
Dealership groups must begin making technology decisions at the enterprise level, not the rooftop level. Otherwise, they will continue to operate as a collection of independent stores instead of a unified organization.
The groups that succeed in the next decade will adopt:
- Group wide process standards
- A unified technology stack
- Shared visibility across rooftops
- Consistent training
- Centralized operational rules
- Enterprise level accountability
These changes are not about taking power away from GMs.
They are about giving the entire organization a foundation that scales.
Individual stores should operate with flexibility, but not with inconsistency.
The industry has reached a point where GM driven technology decisions are no longer sustainable. The larger a dealership group becomes, the more dangerous this dynamic is.
The future belongs to groups that can align their operations at the enterprise level.
Those who cannot will continue to struggle with instability, hidden costs, and constant operational friction.
