Comparison of Fordism and Taylorism - Research Paper Example

Comparison of Fordism and Taylorism Introduction There have been heated debates among the economists on the ideal approach towards enhancing production efficiency using existing labor force. The pursuit to enhance industrial efficiency through economical use of resources with ultimately increased output has been a major concern of industrial management since the industrial revolution era. Over the years, scientific theory by Taylor and Ford theories have significantly shaped the theoretical foundation of production, labor force and the wage rate system. The basis of rewarding employees underpinned the reason for these theoretical platforms. In order to run a successful industry, call for a systematic study of the labor force and productivity. In order to make rational and sound comparisons of these theories, it is crucial to understand their economic sense that informed their designs. Background of Scientific Theory Fredrick Taylor is considered the father of scientific theory, as theorized in the late 1880s and 1890s; the theory has significantly impacted positively to economics on labor and production (Neilson and Rossiter 69). Taylor motivation was based on the need to have a new dimension in the production process1. After the era of rule of thumb where employees were subjected to forceful long working hours, Taylor observed that despite the long working hours, there was little reflection on the productivity. Before coming up with scientific theory, he studied employees pattern in jobs such as movement and time wastage. He recognized there was a lot of time wastage and the unskilled approach used was ineffective. Certainly, the theory was founded after systematic identification of production and output mismatch. The analysis paid attention to rationality, work ethics, standardization and removal of wasteful processes in the entire industrial processes. This harsh economic background informed his suggestion on training each employee and selecting them to undertake the best-suited jobs. In addition, the emphasis on efficiency through utilization of relevant skills and knowledge culminated into the scientific model that is relevant to modern economics and management. Fordism Theory Background This theory developed substantially in 1930s following a shift in European economies to the use of machines and equipment in industrial processes (Kluvert 160). According to Charles Maler, the theory developed from its predecessor Taylorism, a suggestion that focused on organizational productivity through enhancing creativity and innovation in each process. As efficiency continued to dominate economists vocabulary, Fordism introduced a paradigm shift to an emphasis on mass production using less effort as possible. By late 1930s, Antonio Gramsci who held strong Marxist ideas adopted Fordism terming it as an economic globalization concept that would yield liberalization in the 20th century (Beynon and Theo 14). It was, therefore, seen as a new economic approach of improving on productivity by substantially cutting the manpower costs. Notably, industrial economists continue to make comparisons on the two approaches in industrial processes. Notably, this theoretical foundation came into existence during the industrial revolution era. Although they appear old in origin, they remain relevant in shaping production processes to date. In addition, through studying systematic application these sound scientific and post-scientific suggestions, the industrial development would be immense. Literature Review2 The Rise of Theoretical Approach in Production After the Industrial revolution era, there has been growing interest in the economics of workers ‘performance and the subsequent enumeration (Peci 280). Several economics and management theories have grown tremendously in an attempt to describe work performance and enumeration criteria explicitly. The Fordism theory and Taylor theory on economic productivity and reward are the primary elementary theories that have stirred debate across regulatory and practicing economists. The fundamental basis is largely similar, but a look at individual theory unravels striking differences and a substantial similarity. As economics evolved through the 19th and 20th century, the basis of theoretical views was to offer an informed approach towards building sustainable and flourishing economies in corporate and governance spheres. The difference Between Fordism and Taylorism Firstly, Taylors scientific management theory presents a piece-rate wage system built entirely on the basis of rewarding productivity while Fordism envisioned a double time-based wage system. The two approaches differ significantly, although both stems from a study of labor and intensification based payment. As the number one priority, the economic basis of these two approaches was a creation of an efficient system that would improve productivity, but lowers the cost of production. To achieve the goal, the two schools of thought have different approaches (Peci 282). According to Taylorism, workers are a complex group with both obtuse and insightful elements. This means workers have diverse capabilities whose joint effort can create enormous output to the industry. However, Fordism focuses on the possibility of large-scale production using machines (Lynskey 23). With the use of machines that are easy to operate, Ford envisions expansion of industrial productivity and subsequent improved returns. The theory has no interest with creativity and skill of the employees that would deliver the product. According to Fordism, the ultimate result of mass production can be achieved with or without a skilled labor. On the Contrary, scientific theory encapsulates efficiency through selecting an employee best suited for each job. Taylor anchors his industry productivity to the prerequisite knowledge and skills (Pruijt 99). Secondly, Fordism believes in engaging in automated productivity and systems that are powered by machines and equipment. 3The ultimate standard of the output is not a chief concern, through automated mass production can be achieved at minimum cost. The extra expenses on training the employees should be avoided and adopt a hands-on practice (Beynon and Theo 13). On the other hand, Taylor envisions training employees for a particular job. The argument forwarded is economically viable since the theory emphasizes on time reduction due to training on appropriate knowledge and skills4. The industrial based production has several independent but integrated parts of production. As a superior approach to enhancing output, Ford believed that the independent production units could be merged and facilitated by one semi-skilled worker (Kluvert 154). This was a total contrast of Taylors approach; his focus was putting a skilled person at every level of productivity in order to realize high output and quality of the products within the shortest time possible. James Hartness, one of the critics of scientific theory identified that individual employees are different from each other and thus, the most efficient way for one of them could be inefficient to the other (Vallas 24). Based on this argument, he preferred Ford point of view of mass productivity. Lynskey (23) states that Taylorism assumed that both the economic and managerial interest of workers in a particular line of production was similar certainly, this is misleading. In an ideal economics, the economic interest of each employee significantly differs. Besides, the motivation to work and the efficiency of each worker cannot be identical. Similarly, when he tried to implement the scientific theory in projects such as Watertown Arsenal or Link-Belt Corporation, the systems could not create economic sense (Baldoz 91). It, therefore, made a scientific approach to productivity too theoretical. Fordism, on the other hand, has three key economic pillars based on research and practice. Firstly, it is stemmed from the standardization of production that machines and equipment can largely perform without skilled craftsmanship. It is quite possible to run an industry with significant automated productivity, and only unskilled laborers can finish on the manual jobs that do not need skills. The Coca-Cola Company has successfully operated on automated production and bottling systems that allow workers to intervene through facilitating movements of bottles and drinks (Kluvert 149). With Taylorism, the emphasis would have been to have a line of specialized employees across each point of activity5. Secondly, Fordism views an increased in productivity as a purely an accomplishment of special-purpose tools and equipment (Beynon and Theo 16). Furthermore, existence of tools and equipment are widely seen as primarily assembly of components of mass production. Workers who are deficient of knowledge and skills but have basic skills on handling of machines are allowed to operate the machines as long as the production keeps improving. Unlike Taylorism, this theory negates the role of knowledge and training in productivity. It is, therefore, presents unethical and unprofessionalism risks to the entire process In addition, the mode of rewarding employees in these two theories differs slightly, although mass productivity underpins the two systems. Firstly, Fordism interlaces payment of the employees to the level to earn them the ability to afford the products they make. Besides, the enumeration mode is the fundamental definition of this theory; it focuses on low-cost productivity and payment of employees to descent life (Klluuvert 156). Because of this rewards system, many scholars have referred this theory to be an ideal model of economic expansion. It encapsulates the importance of workers living standards as a measure of reward for the work performance. On the contrary, the scientific theory pays attention to individual productivity. Individual worker creativity and innovation forms the basis of identifying individual input to the entire production process (Peci 280). Fordism, on the other hand, pays no attention to innovation and creativity in production efficiency6. It focuses on the system that would enhance mass production in the industry. Evaluation of the workers in scientific theory is on the basis of ability to contribute to making production efficient in using revenues and time delivery. Fordism focuses primarily on the ability to achieve mass production using available machines and equipment. No single theory, however, can be best suited for an industrial process. Economists argue that by blending the two theories, a more effective production and labor force can be achieved (Kluvert 155). Similarly, a striking difference is that the scientific theory derives its economies of labor and production on the planned economies. Similarly, it is built on central economic planning that requires that expenses incurred into economic activity should be predicted and measured (Pci 289). In addition, through matching the work with the appropriate skilled manpower, the theory foresees productivity optimization through controlling design. Beynon and Theo (13) agrees that Fordism, on the other hand, hardly reflects on the process design, it is built around establishing optimal production through maximum-based economies. Any production as described by Ford should focus on using less effort possible, but double production to the maximum. By comparing it to Taylorism, it is arguably a lazier economy whose efforts hardly match the output. The emphasis on the process is largely negated, but the output ought to be measured at the output of each subsistence input. Similarities between Fordism and Scientific Theory Nilson and Rossiter (67) state that the mutual benefits of these two theories was an increased in productivity. In fact, the theories have now been seen as the industrial revolutionary measures that helped to shrink the "pores" in labor. It was solely achieved by creation of time-based productivity that was a paradigm shift from duration-based reward system7. Time-saving using these approaches was achieved through reduction of labor movements, improved coordination and synchronized machine use (Lynskey 24). As an economic achievement, the theories have now introduced a measure of productivity based on the actual output. The two theories shares labor pattern study as a primary approach towards achieving high industrial output. With Fordism and scientific theory, there is provision of break from jobs and machines buttons. As a fundamental basis of these theories, they recognize workers as human beings prone to exhaustion and errors. In order to limit risks of errors, the breaks provided are, usually, compensated with intensive labor upon resuming (Peci 81). Notably, Taylorism and Fordism envisage in their theoretical framework that workers, input should be largely voluntary. The goal of production should be improved volume. However, together hold the view that lazy workers or those who intelligently pretend to work hard would be unmasked by measuring the final output (Pruijt 78). Besides, the final production represents an individual or joint effort, whether by machines or through human skills. An accumulation of the work force should be consistently monitored and evaluated for meaningful investment in labor and production (Vallas 21). Besides, both theories borrow heavily from each other as far as wages are concerned. Both approaches incorporate relative pay based on individual efforts8. As Aglietta an astute economist at the University of Florida puts it, the theories conceptualize that the wage is the abstract concept in both theories. The most important factor in the reward system is the fact that they encourage relative wage systems that are anchored on the fundamental output of either an independent or a joint production. The effort and the skilled, valued should portray as an ultimate determinant in raising production. In order to restore sanity to wasteful employment, the theories envisaged the increased labor intensity within working hours with a view of compensating the wasted time. Similarly, the theories create an economically important motivation to the employees. It ensures that through differential piece-rate, the employees will work hard for better pay. In addition, by adopting different pay rates for same job occupants, it aims at breaking economic bubble of paying too much for a little job. As a fundamental rule in economics, labor cost should be maximized or optimal production. Furthermore, the theories conceptualize wage rates as a derivative form of time-based economy (Schröter 17). From Productivity to Profitable-based Wages Notably, the individual productivity as a basis of rewards for a job has no bearing with the overall companys profits as a whole. The misleading factor in this approach is the negligence of the hostility of capital and labor9. Whereas labor can be productive, the ultimate measure of the profits should factor in the resource material, revenue use and time spend on each part of the process. The Fordism double-wage system seeks to ensure profits sharing unlike Taylors wage system that reward efficiency and skill which occasionally may not necessarily translate to profits. However, in ideal economics profits sharing should factor in labor expenses and the overall production wear and tear (Baldoz 89). Discussion Relevance to the Modern Economics While comparing the practicability and relevance of each of the theories, it is clear that they differed in principle but integrated with addressing the primary concern. Firstly, the scientific theory emphasis on training individual for a particular job remains alive today. Notably, the new economic dispensation envisions enhancing efficiency in industrial processes. Besides, the striking similarity of minimizing work force wastage through close monitoring of employees movements and performance has remained alive to modern corporate economics. The emphasis on industrial and corporate creativity and innovation informs the shift from traditional absenteeism and late arrival at the workplace. Beynon and Theo (11) agrees that today, the current economics are referred to as Post-Fordism, it emphasizes on integrating the efficiency strategies to maximize on productivity. Notably, the use of mass-production rockets in Karel Capeks play represents a traumatic vision in the modern economies. It emphasizes on mass production application in industrial processes and to the people. In addition, the new industrial dispensation, new information technology is important. In introducing information technology in mass production, the economists identify this as the ultimate success of Fords vision on automation of production with a view of enhancing production volume. In addition, there has been marketing of products in niche markets than in mass consumption. With this approach in marketing, the Fordism theory will significantly gain acceptability in marketing its mass produce (Kluvert 153). Both theories failed to address the place of service industries that are increasingly becoming dominant. Both Taylor and Ford called for increased productivity in manufacturing industries while consistently failed to mention the place of service industry. In the wake of increased in service-based economy, Taylorism would properly fit. The call for standardization and training of employees in a particular skill to fit a certain job would allow service industry to promote standardization of services (Peci 282). The uniformity of service as a sole responsibility in the service industry would make the theory convenient. In addition, the current economics is founded on the global financial marketing. It would be theoretically right to apply both Taylors and Fords theory on enhancing productivity through standardized large-scale production10. Besides, the theories will be relevant in foreign trade economics where the focus in on increasing foreign exchange using automated processes that are standardized, Japan has achieved immense industrial growth through Taylorism (Tamura 514). Conclusion Fordism and scientific theories have significant similarities and striking differences alike. However, the fundamental economic principle of optimization of production with maximum use of the limited available capital forms the basis of these theories. The major difference is the emphasis of skillful and innovative employees in scientific theory and emphasis on mass production with semi-skilled labor force in Fordism. However, both theorists agree that there is a need to reward individual effort through the graduated wage system11. While Taylorism and Fordism are two-century-old theories, they have economics relevance to the modern economics. Works Cited Baldoz, Rick. The critical study of work labor, technology, and global production. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 2001. Print. Beynon, Huw, and Theo Nichols. The Fordism of Ford and modern management: Fordism and post-Fordism. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Pub., 2006. Print. Kluvert, Trumpert. "Patterns of Work in the Post-Fordist Era: Fordism and Post-Fordism." Capital & Class 32.3 (2008): 152-157. Print. Lynskey, Michael J.. "Manufacturing Ideology: Scientific Management in Twentieth-Century Japan. (Book Reviews).." Business History 1 Apr. 2002: 22-28. Print. Neilson, B., and N. Rossiter. "Precarity as a Political Concept, or, Fordism as Exception." Theory, Culture & Society 25.7-8 (2008): 51-72. Print. Peci, A.. "Taylorism in the Socialism that Really Existed." Organization 16.2 (2009): 289-301. Print. Pruijt, Hans. "Teams between Neo-Taylorism and Anti-Taylorism." Economic and Industrial Democracy 24.1 (2003): 77-101. Print. Schröter, Harm G.. Americanization of the European economy a compact survey of American economic influence in Europe since the 1880s. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer, 2005. Print. Tamura, Yutaka. "Japanese Production Management and Improvements in Standard Operations: Taylorism, Corrected Taylorism, or Otherwise?." Asian Business & Management 5.4 (2006): 507-527. Print. Vallas, Steven P.. Work: a critique. Cambridge, UK: Polity, 2012. Print. Read More