Fordism and Post Fordism Debate - Essay Example

?A critical overview of the debates between Fordism and post-Fordism Introduction Henry Ford created an amazing invention with the creation of a gasoline engine within a motorized vehicle. The participation in the invention of motorized transportation, however, is less impressive than the innovations in manufacturing that revolutionized society. As the assembly line was refined, Ford looked to the way in which the worker was engaged in the process and provided an incentive through welfare capitalism to create loyalty and promote stakeholder philosophies. In addition, he promoted the consumerist philosophy so that the workers could afford the products they helped to make, thus increasing demand. The post-Fordism philosophy suggests that an evolution of manufacturing towards a more flexible manufacturing process that is designed towards accommodating the information and technological age. However, not all theorists agree that this is actually a post-Fordism concept. The idea of post-Fordism is misleading, suggestive that Fordism has been abandoned or that the current philosophies are opposing. This is not true. Fordism still exists in manufacturing and the new philosophies are in line with an evolution of the originating concepts, society being created through the ways in which the worker sees his position in the world as reflected by his position within the work force. Henry Ford Henry Ford developed the design for the Model T automobile, but it was the philosophies of industrial management that he implemented that revolutionized industry. Ford was born in 1863 near Detroit, Michigan in the United States to a Father from Ireland and a mother who was born in Michigan of Belgium parentage. Ford was a chief engineer with the Edison Illumination Company, but spent his extra time and money working on the gasoline engine. Ford designed the Model T and created a manufacturing company in order to make the auto for the public (Ford and Crowther 2006). The Model T was introduced to the public in 1908, the price on the automobile at 875 American dollars. This was a relatively low price in regard to the cost of living at the time and was intended to be affordable for the average American. Eventually, the base price on the auto dropped to around 370 dollars, a price that was more than affordable and created an empire for Henry Ford. It was not until 1927 that other models of automobiles were made at Ford. In the meantime, Ford implemented revolutionary practices that set the course for a new way of thinking about labour and wage. Industrial Sociology Welfare capitalism is found when an employer takes on the responsibility of the employee and offers welfare like services. This type of employee-employer relationship provides for benefits that are beyond the wage. This can include health care, housing subsidies, and education. Ford adapted a management style that promoted loyalty throughout his organization. After experiencing a high turnover of employees, he decided to offer his workers five dollars a day plus pay medical expenses, create pensions, and provide recreational facilities in order to build employee loyalty (Jacoby 1991, p. 94). The business philosophy that was at work was in creating an atmosphere of stakeholder interest. Ford hoped that by paying the employees more and by caring for their needs, they would look at the workings of the machinery as part of their own success (Jacoby 1991, p. 94). Ford created a work culture on the floor, the employees depending on the increased pay and benefits and therefore all focused on creating the best product possible. The assembly line had taken much of the craft out of work, but the inspiration of stakeholder interest was intended to put that spirit of accomplishment back into the worker. The use of this type of incentive created the work culture, a society that was contained and required passing through the employment process to become a part of the group. The lines outside the plant toward the employment office were so crowded that there were days that they used a water hose to soak people and send them home when they wouldn’t disperse. According to Jacoby (1991), this only meant that the soaked individuals would go home long enough to change their clothes, only to return and continue to wait for their opportunity to work for a company that was paying a wage that was well beyond any other industry for the unskilled worker (p. 96). Fordism Another concept behind the welfare capitalism that Ford put into place was the idea that if you pay someone a high enough wage, they can afford the product that is being made, thus helping to further promote the interests of the company. When people spend money, they support businesses, but unless they make a wage that allows them the luxury of disposable income, they cannot truly participate in the economic balance. There are three primary concepts that are at the foundation of Fordism as it relates to the assembly line: standardize the product, use special tools that have specific purposes to facilitate the assembly line, and eliminate the need for skilled labour while giving the workers increases in wages and incentives (Toliday and Zeitlin 1992, p. 1). The effect of Fordism on society is to have mass production balanced with mass consumption. This creates a consumer driven society where demand becomes high, creating the need for supply, which in turn creates jobs. The circular dependency creates a social contract in which expenditure is expected through increased pay which is justified by the need for mass consumerist behaviour. Theory behind labour was first explored by Frederick W. Taylor who conceptualized the work force through scientific management. Two primary principles were considered by Taylor in which the concept of modern industrialization in regard to labour was revolutionized. The first concept was that production could be broken down into individualized and specialized tasks, and the second concept was that the tasks could be structured within the factory so that they held a productive logic. Ford changed the dynamic that Taylor envisioned as Taylor wished to organize labour around machinery where Ford sought to eliminate the need for labour through machinery (Hall 2005, p. 284). Post-Fordism Post-Fordism is best described by its flexibility. According to Amin (1997), however, there are at least eight possible ‘ages’ that have occurred that are part of the post-Fordism philosophies. The first is the information age which generates wealth through knowledge, the flow of information central to success. The second is post-modernity which extends consumerism into all facets of life, both private and social. The third is the age of global interdependence which connects the world economies. The fourth is which is defined by technological innovations which create strategic advantages on a national level. The fifth a corporate control in which corporation and banks have control over markets and states (p. 2). The sixth is defined by flexible specialization in which specialized units of production, decentralized management and workforces are all flexible and versatile to shift with current trends. The seventh age is defined by social movements that shift the economic climate towards humanizing capitalism. The intent is that the whole culture is actually a stakeholder in all aspects of a business, with corporate responsibility in terms of the internal environment is expected as well as corporate responsibility to the external environment. The final age listed by Amin (1997) is the rejection of technologies and consumerism, a reversal of social attitudes away from the consumerist aesthetics that have dominated since the time of Ford (p. 2). Critical Evaluation According to Marston (2004), “Post-Fordism offers a theoretical framework for understanding how the market and flexible forms of production are becoming widespread across all sectors of society” (p. 20). This statement suggests that post-Fordism is a methodology of creating an understanding of how society is being remodeled through concepts such as the value of money, meeting consumer demand, and encouraging the acquisition of enterprising qualities (Marston 2004, p. 20). In order to define how these concepts are different from Fordism, it might be considered that Fordism was founded through the concept of mass production, trade unionization, and welfare capitalism where post-Fordism is characterized through information technologies, diversification in product lines, and a dependency on the market. According to Marston (2004, p. 21), Morrow has suggested that in the post-Fordism world, technological societies will be subject to human actors as they shape the development of those technologies into usable formats in which society realizes change. Koch (2006) suggests that globalization will continue, but that nations will still have control over their labour and social constructs, thus creating more and less attractive pools from which to create relationships with industry (p. 173). Therefore, while post-Fordism is drawing societies closer in economic relational interdependency, there is the probability that some retention of individual control will be maintained. Kumar (2005) discusses the concept of the third Italy that existed in the 1970’s and the 1980’s in order to relate the real world social development of post-Fordism. The first Italy which is geographically located in Turin, Milan, and Genoa, is defined by mass production. The second Italy is the economically undeveloped south. The third Italy is defined by central and north-eastern regions of Tuscany for its textiles and ceramics, Emilia-Romagna for knitwear, ceramic tiles, automatic machines and farm machines, Marche for shoe production, and Veneto for shoes, ceramic, and plastic production (p. 62). The third Italy can be seen as a microcosm of the desired result of post-Fordism. Small industries, comprising usually no more than ten or so employees with all of the industries somewhat related to each other. This type of structure could be referred to as decentralization and social integration as the businesses worked together, even going so far as to refer each other to customers when possible. Kumar (2005) describes these industries as “high-technology cottage industries” as the manufacturing processes were all new, but small and flexible to provide for the customer what was needed. Within the businesses and between the businesses, a culture of collaboration was creating a system in which all stakeholders were considered in the way that business was conducted (p. 63). A system where social collaboration is emphasized will extend into the policies of communities and the actions of political factions in response to the social environment that has been built around a group of businesses that all work together to increase their growth. In a collaborative system, such as was seen in Italy, the social response to the development of industry was positive, creating a circular economy of support that extended into the fabric of the culture. The concept was based upon the idea that by providing for customers even when it required giving business to another better suited company, the same would be reciprocated. Community effort exemplifies the flexibility that is illustrated in post-Fordism. The Debate The concept of post-Fordism indicates that there has been a demarcation between the Fordism era and the post-Fordism era. According to Soja (2000), this is a misleading idea and negates the idea that Fordism still exists. Fordism, as defined by mass production and mass consumerism, is still well within society and is part of the foundation of much of the manufacturing that is still being conducted (p. 170). The world is filled with goods that have become part of the fabric of society. While it is true that there has arisen an information age that has created deep globalization which is dependent upon a society that has become dependent on technology, the core of Fordism still exists and is part of the sociological fabric of most cultures. Soja (2000) brings forward the idea that the use of the prefix ’post’ neither indicates a break with Fordism nor a theoretical opposition to the concept as should be suggested (p. 170). Fordism is still used in the manufacture of goods, either through direct adherence or evolved adherence that has expanded upon the idea. Kumar (2005) quotes several theorists on the concept of post-Fordism. Avin Tofler suggests that “The ultimate goal of this effort is now apparent: completely customized goods, made with wholistic, continuous flow processes, increasingly under the direct control of the consumer” (p. 61). Kumar (2005) quotes Robin Murray as suggesting that because industry has been designed for flexibility in that it responds rather than flaunts regulation and shifts from scale to scope and cost to quality that the post-Fordism era is vastly different than the Fordism era. However, his third theorist suggests that the concept of post-Fordism has no attachment to reality. Simon Clark states that “Post-Fordism is not a reality, not even a coherent vision of the future, but mainly an expression of hope that future capitalist development will be the salvation of social democracy (Kumar 2005, p. 61). As in the example that was given through the third Italy, the future of social democracy is defined by Clark as dependent upon capitalist development that has become flexible and collaborative. Industry has not developed to the point that it no longer participates in mass production, therefore it is not without merit that Clark suggests that post-Fordism is not a reality. As well, because aspects of the concept of post-Fordism can be found within industry, it is reasonable to believe that there can be both Fordism and post-Fordism in parallel frameworks. Information and Technology The concept of the information society is concerned with certain changes that must be identified as post-Fordism. The information and technological advances that have occurred have led to a situation where a shift in the expectation that individuals have about their work experience has redefined the Fordism account of the position of the worker. In Fordism, the worker was not expected to get fulfillment from his or her job. The job was a function that provided a small part of the whole. The concept of the artisan was gone, the skilled worker with a point of view on his or her creation was no longer part of the equation. Thus, the worker was there for the wage and engaged with his or her job solely for the interest they had in seeing the company succeed so that the wage would continue to come. However, as information and technology have reformed society, a shift has been observed towards creating meaning within employment. According to McLaughlin (1999) “the tone of the discussion is overwhelmingly optimistic pointing to the liberative effects of technology, for example in terms of creating highly skilled and enriching jobs, more autonomous and less alienating forms of work, and more harmonious and consensual relations between management and labour” (p. 49). The need for high levels of skills to work with the new technologies and to handle the knowledge that is available have provided for the possibility of a shift in the way that labour views its position within the work force. Where skill had once been eliminated, it is reintroduced which gives the worker a sense of belonging within the work culture. Karl Marx wrote about the exploitation of the worker in regard to the use of people without a recognition for their humanity. Marx protested capitalism because the social form of labour is negated when it is producing exchange (Gines 2003, p. 231). Marx understood that exploitation was inherent in the employee/employer relationship, but felt that in the mass production environment, the worker was no longer recognized for the human condition. Alienation was the result, thus dehumanizing the work force. Marx protested capitalism because the workers became part of the machinery, their intellectual input no longer relevant as they repeat their actions in order to create, but without a creative process. The worker becomes alienated, a sense of otherness becoming attached and the individual becoming part of the collective mind of the machinery. The irony of technology is that it opens the opportunity for the worker to become part of a thinking, creative team in which innovation is the key to success. The flexibility that is involved in shifting with evolving technologies creates a need for post-Fordism aesthetics so that the system can adjust and grow with the rate of innovation. The business of manufacturing must keep up with the changes that are being introduced, thus creating a world in which the large manufacturing plants are beginning to become obsolete. However, at this point in time, this is naive. This suggests that all items would come from small, flexible operations in which goods are created in smaller quantities in regard to the needs of the customer. While the culture of the world is moving towards this type of consideration, it is no where reasonable to believe that the plethora of goods that are being brought to the shelves of retail stores can be provided without Fordism style manufacturing. Conclusion The creation of fully automated manufacturing would help to facilitate this type of concept, but some forms of human interaction with the machinery is still needed in almost all manufacturing situations, if not all. While society no longer thinks in terms of the worker in mass manufacturing, he or she does still exist. Automobiles are still manufactured through the assembly line as are most mass produced products. In order to maintain the lifestyles that have developed on a global level it would be near impossible at this point in the sociological evolution of manufacturing to go entirely without the worker so that human work could be moved to a more fulfilling level of satisfaction. However, if one looks at the shift that Ford intended when he moved away from Taylorism, it was precisely that goal that he was working towards realizing. He wanted to find a way to eliminate the human worker and replace as many aspects of the manufacturing process with machinery as possible. Therefore, much of what is intended through the concepts of post-Fordism is in line with the ideals that Ford intended. However, the concept of a worker who could afford to spend on manufactured goods is reflective of Fordism which defined the worker as a part of the economic relationship. As Ford created stakeholders out of his employees, he also created customers. References Amin, Ash. 1997. Post-Fordism a reader. Studies in urban and social change. Oxford [u.a.]: Blackwell. Ford, Henry, and Samuel Crowther. 2006. My life and work. Stillwell, KS: Digireads.com. Gines, Montserrat. 2003. The meaning of technology: selected readings from american sources. Politext, 160. Barcelona: UPC. Hall, Stuart. 2005. Modernity: an introduction to modern societies. London: Blackwell. Jacoby, Sanford M. 1991. Masters to managers: historical and comparative perspectives on American employers. New York: Columbia University Press. Koch, Max. 2006. Roads to post-Fordism labour markets and social structures in Europe. Aldershot [u. a.]: Ashgate. Kumar, Krishan. 2005. From post-industrial to post-modern society. Oxford: Blackwell. Marston, Greg. 2004. Social policy and discourse analysis: policy change in public housing. Aldershot: Ashgate. McLoughlin, Ian. 1999. Creative technological change: the shaping of technology and organisations. London: Routledge. Soja, Edward W. 2000. Postmetropolis: critical studies of cities and regions. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Tolliday, Steven, and Jonathan Zeitlin. 1992. Between Fordism and flexibility: the automobile industry and its workers. Oxford: Berg. Read More