Evolution and Retention - Essay Example

?Evolution and Retention: Taylorism, Fordism and Post-Fordism in the Ultra-industrialised Society Since human civilization discovered fire countless eons ago, then followed the discovery of agriculture, there was nothing more significant and epoch-making moment than the inception of the Industrial Revolution in the early 18th century. During this period and even until today, people have been devising schemes and formulas to propel industrial power and to boost production levels. To attain high productivity and efficiency rates was the ultimate goal of industry movers and shakers who have given rise to the economic phenomena called Taylorism, Fordism and Post-Fordism. An Industrial Breakthrough: Taylorism After having worked in the steel industry and noticed a pervasive culture of purposeful inefficiency and underperformance of workers called ‘soldiering’, Frederick Winslow Taylor (1856-1915) was motivated to scientifically investigate the causes and solutions to the said problem. The outcome of his investigation -- a comprehensive work which received both commendation and criticism upon its release -- was encapsulated in The Principles of Scientific Management (1911). In his unorthodoxly treatise, Taylor greatly emphasized the need to employ scientific methods in improving the occupational operations of industries to combat workers’ sloppiness and unprolificacy. He also advocated for the division and simplification of job routines and for the optimisation of specialised responsibility (Kanigel 5). In his ‘time and motion studies,’ Taylor sought to determine the fastest way to complete a specific task and the best possible way to conduct it. After several experiments, Taylor was able to propose monumental scientific management principles to maximise efficiency and profit that would also benefit not only the owners, managers and workers of a particular industry but also the whole economy. Interchangeably called Taylorism, the school of thought revolves around the belief that the scientific study of the whole gamut of occupational tasks is key in the success of the business; that the systematic selection, training and development of each worker is important in ensuring higher productivity values; and that division of work between management (planning) and workers (execution) should be implemented so that focused attention is rendered towards their respective duties (Taylor and Epley 45). To be sure, Taylorism is a management system that aims to guarantee maximum prosperity for the owner and at the same time, considerable material improvement for the worker -- higher wages, better working conditions and higher productivity. In the words of Pugh (1997, p. 275), “maximum prosperity for the owner meant the development of all aspects of the business and the achievement of good financial results. Benefits for the worker meant offering relatively high salaries and more efficient utilization of labour, that is, the attribution of higher level tasks according to their present manual skills.” Moreover, the payment-by-result method of wage determination in Taylorism implants the bonus piecework scheme, rewarding the employee per work done rather than his or her skill level. Although rightly denounced by individual laborers and labor groups for trying to alienate them (indirectly but substantially) and treating them as mindless, emotionless, and easily replicable factors of production, Taylorism was a critical factor in the unprecedented growth of US manufacturing output that catapulted Allied victory in Second World War, and the subsequent US domination in the industrial world. The said management practice and industrial protocol has also been tremendously emulated in some other parts of the industrialized world, thus changing the face of work and the entire landscape of the industrial sector (Tickell and Peck 358). A Fresh Perspective: Fordism The criticism against Taylorism based on the grounds that it dehumanises the workforce by treating the members as machines and by looking at them as ‘unthinking creatures’ precipitated a movement that would soften the image of the already-institutionalised efficiency-based management. Although division of work, productivity-oriented wage and functional supervision were already in place, a new management principle that would suffice the alleged inadequacies of Taylorism emerged. This was primarily championed by the American industrialist and automobile pioneer Henry Ford (1863-1947) who was quoted to state: “Man needs leisure to think, and the world needs thinkers. One of the hardest things in the industrial world today is to find enough men who are capable of thinking a problem through, executives who can do the whole job without further supervision or additional prompting.” (Ford 144) When examined critically, however, Ford’s industrial doctrine is essentially similar with that of Taylor’s. There is actually no major difference. Fordism, the eponymous manufacturing system, is built on the concept of product standardisation, technology utilisation through the assembly line and the skilled labour elimination in direct production. It also believes in the need to pay the worker higher wages to stimulate efficiency (Beynon and Nichols 35). The five-dollar workday (equivalent to 100 US$ in current terms) was originally launched in the Ford Motor Company. Fundamentally, Fordism is about increased mass production via technological advancements. Ford’s preoccupation and devoted interest in the assembly line was considered revolutionary and phenomenal during the time when the assembly line was just an everyday tool. It was Ford who unleashed the effectiveness of the assembly line in his car manufacturing business. Like Taylorism, Fordism also gives importance to the decomposition of complex and complicated tasks into simpler ones, yet with the aid of specialised tools (Gilbert et al. 64). For Fordism, technological tools would allow for a very adaptable flexibility in the assembly line, hence cutting down on manpower. Nevertheless, industries that employed the system of Fordism deskilled their labour forces, which in turn curbed production costs (67). Not only applicable to the automotive industry but also to all manufacturing processes, Fordism attempts to mechanise production in response to the growing demand of standardised products by the general public. Surprisingly in this manner of operation, Ford’s promise that workers should be considered cerebrates and intelligent humans have just turned into a product of lip service. Despite the positive response from business owners and managers and in spite of the increased income of ordinary workers, Fordism became a symbol of corporate bureaucratisation where large companies could always rationalise the conditions of managing production and consumption through unfair means. Eventually, the trend of work homogenisation in the pursuit of standardisation obtained the ire of most labour unions (Hall 289). Responsive to Society’s Clamor: Post-Fordism The period when rapid technological changes were observed and the intimidating emergence of the Japanese economy (extremely affordable and efficacious automotive products) was noted engendered Western industry thinkers to look for a more relevant, effective and people-oriented organisational system. Similarly, the exponential rise of oil prices and other raw materials, notwithstanding the demand of consumers for unique products, fomented an era called Post-Fordism (Lipietz 26). In another perspective, Amin (85) pointed out three main driving forces behind the emanation of Post-Fordism. According to him, they are the advent of technological progress, internationalisation and globalisation and the natural tendency of the paradigm shift towards Post-Fordism. He further explains that the stiff competition with the newly industrialised countries (NICs) have incited the advanced capitalist economies of the First World to develop new core competencies and technologies. Based on his elucidation, he purports that governments should continually promote technical development so that business can benefit from it tremendously. Likewise, he indicates that the state must transfer its industrial support to newly conceived sectors rather than to the declining ones (87). Furthermore, Amin illumines that the phenomena of internationalisation and globalisation placed much weight on the wage increase and production costs that burden the business side of the industry. It is on this premise also that he recommends the exhaustion of national or domestic sources of capital and demand to secure optimum success of industries in a Post-Fordist era (89-92). Also called Flexiblism and Flexible Specialisation, the seeming panacea to all labour dilemmas focuses a shift to information and communication technologies and a direction towards a more flexible, decentralised forms of labour functions and work organisation. In a word, Post-Fordism is about small-batch production rather than mass production. Post-Fordist industries invest and build intelligent systems of labour and tools that are flexible and could instantly respond to the whims of the market. Accordingly, mass markets became less important while special markets for luxury, custom and social products and services became the priority. Cognizant of this new consumption tendencies and culture, production transformed into a less homogenised and standardised process. Nonetheless, there was a greater emphasis on product choice and uniqueness -- thus, marketing, packaging and design centred on consumer lifestyle, taste and culture rather than by social class (Koch 28). The period is marked by a decline in the proportion of skilled and male workforce, the surge of the service and white-collar jobs, and the wide reception of female workers (Baca 170). Bottomline: No Significant Difference But even though mass consumption dictates for differentiated products, production process for Post-Fordist industries remain grounded on efficiency and productivity goals (Bramble and Fieldes 43). Though times have changed when the workforce is already a mixture of the male and female species and the skilled and unskilled breed, the fact remains that technological advancement is imperative to survive in an environment of an even tougher competition. Although hailed by many as a breath of fresh air, in essence, Post-Fordism is still a recipient of the tenets derived from both Taylorism and Fordism. While Taylorism is about rigid work supervision procedures and Fordism entails strict worker discipline and technological implementation, Post-Fordism presents flexible authority and control systems by which dynamism and creativity are encouraged. However, when analysed closely, the production process of the industry remained the same. Although there were evolutions and new trend names, management is still primarily centred on workers’ efficiency and profit maximisation. Yesterday and today, and even in the future, the industrial sector would always aim for a more efficient production system and a greater increase in productivity, which would translate into higher income for the workforce, larger profit for business owners and stronger competitive presence for the particular industry. Works Cited Amin, Ash. Post-Fordism: A Reader. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 1994. Print. Baca, George. "Legends of Fordism: Between Myth, History, and Foregone Conclusions," Social Analysis 48.3 (2004): 169-178. Print. Beynon, Huw, and Theo Nichols. The Fordism of Ford and Modern Management: Fordism and Post-Fordism. Northampton, MA: Eward Elgar, 2006. Print. Bramble, Thomas, and Diane Fieldes. Post-Fordism: Utopia Fantasy Or Historical Break? School of Industrial Relations and Organizational Behavior, New South Wales UP, 1990. Print. Ford, Henry. Ford on Management: Harnessing the American Spirit, reprint. Malden, MA: Basil Blackwell, 1991. Print. Gilbert, Nigel, Roger Burrows, and Ana Pollert. Fordism and Flexibility: Divisions and Change. London: Macmillan, 1994. Print. Hall, Stuart. Modernity: An Introduction to Modern Societies. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 1996. Print. Kanigel, Robert. The One Best Way: Fredrick Winslow Taylor And The Enigma Of Efficiency. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005. Print. Koch, Max. Roads to Post-Fordism: labour Markets and Social Structures in Europe. Surrey: Ashgate, 2006. Print. Lipietz, Alain. Towards a New Economic Order: Postfordism, Ecology and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1992. Print. Pugh, Derek S. Organization Theory: Selected Readings. 4th. ed. London: Penguin Books, 1997. Print. Taylor, Frederick W., and Tracy S. Epley. The Principles of Scientific Management. Bellingham, WA: Enna, 2008. Print. Tickell, Adam, and Jamie A. Peck, Social Regulation After Fordism: Regulation Theory, Neo- Liberalism And The Global-Local Nexus. Economy and Society 24.3 (1995): 357-386. Print. Read More