Fordism, Neo-Fordism, and Post-Fordism - Essay Example

? FORDISM, NEO-FORDISM AND POST-FORDISM By Number Location Fordism, post-fordism also known as, neo- fordism are forms of work processes. These theories of production were developed to enhance mass production to maintain economic growth and increase material production. They particularly deal with organization of industry and production (Amina 2008, p. 197). They also cover political and social aspects. These work processes lead to efficiency and an increase in production. This essay brings out the central ideas of Fordism and Post-Fordism. Moreover, the essay discusses the strengths and limitations of each form of work process for employers and employees. Lastly, it critically examines whether these theories are relevant to the work in the contemporary organization. Fordism refers to a notion of modern social systems and economic growth. It bases its concept on industrialization and a standard form of production for the sustainability of population growth. It gives emphasizes on the change in working conditions of workers. It is a form of production used in automotive industries to increase production (Fincham and Rhodes 2005, p. 231). It focuses on producing goods at low costs giving its workers' decent wages. For the mass production to occur it uses special purpose machinery. The form of production applied the three principles to enhance the mass production. First, they employed special machines, which operate on an assembly line (Buchanan and Huczynski 2010, p. 121). These machines did not require skilled employees because one employee did one task repeatedly. Second, standardization of products, this is to say that nothing was hand-made. All their products were made using machines (Fincham and Rhodes 2005, p. 121). Third, they focused on the welfare of the workers. The workers were paid high wages so that they can afford the products they made; this was to avoid theft cases. In his principle, Henry Ford the founder of Fordism simplified work-using assembly lines. This is where a worker did a certain task repeatedly. Research shows that, Henry Ford was not the original founder of assembly lines he increased its efficiency. This form of production increased affordability to the average consumer. Increase in wages reduced worker absenteeism increasing the production turnover to 400 percent annually. This form of production encouraged specialization within the organization hence quality in the production of goods. Fordism as a form of work process has different strengths. First, the use of assembling lines as a form of production encouraged specialization. This is because one worker did the same task repeatedly hence specialization. Specialization results for quality and quantity production. Thus, the goods produced, were quality thus attracting a wide market (Lister 2010, p.51). This led to more profits on the part of employers. In addition, the high wages given to the workers encouraged them to give quality service. As stated above the production increased by 400 per cent because of the high wages given to employees (Buchanan and Huczynski 2010, p. 121). Theft cases did not occur among the employees because of the high wages and they could afford the goods, which they produced. Even though the work was tedious, the employees had a sense of security for their work because of the presence of the industrial unions, which bargained for their wages. On the other hand, Fordism had its own limitations. This particularly resulted in the onset of development of Post- Fordism by Antonio and Bonanno (Lister 2010, p. 95). They said that this form of production was not efficient because the population had reduced due to the effects of World War II. The goods produced remained that means that the demand had reduced making this form of production ineffective. This form of production was rigid and did not encourage the introduction of new ways of production. With the monotonous work, the workers got bored with time and they stopped providing quality services. Due to specialization on the same line of production there was no prospective of promotion therefore no motivation for employees. On the part of employers, it required a high level of concentration in order to control the speed of the assembly line. As time went by it was difficult to forecast on the market demand, less production resulted in loss of the market share while too much production resulted in the sale of goods at discount or high cost of storing the surplus goods (Grey 2009, p. 41). Research shows that in the 1970s, Marxist picked up Ford’s concept and developed Post-Fordism also known as neo- Fordism. This form of production encourages globalization of financial markets. As earlier stated, Fordism form of production did not encourage incorporation of the new technology. Post- Fordism form of production encouraged the adoption of the new information technology to support production (Buchanan and Huczynski 2010, p. 121). The form of production encouraged the production of food for the niche market. This is a small market with specified needs and range in the prices of goods. This is to say that, the market is the one, which defines the features of the products to be produced. The goods are meant for a certain demographic group in the society. This form of production focused its attention on consumer choice and segmentation of the market. In Post-Fordism, which is also known as, Neo-Fordism, tertiary sectors in the economic dominate compared to manufacturing sectors (Mullins 2007, p. 123). This means that they focus on offering services not necessarily goods. In this form of production, people offer their time and knowledge to provide effective labor (Greenberg and Baron 2008, p. 131). The effective labor is to improve productivity, sustainability, and performance. Post- Fordism does not encourage mass production it encouraged the production of goods for a specific market. Specialization applies to the entire company that means that every employer is specialized in different lines of production within the organization. On the market side emphasizes is on an individual consumer that means the producers do not see it as a homogenized identity. In this form of production, the economy is in global terms. Research shows that it is a more flexible form of production (Edgell 2011, p. 111). As earlier stated Fordism produced goods in the sample line of production this is to say that this form of production lacked variety. With the increase in technology, customers expect variations in the products. It recognized the past methods of production but encouraged the incorporation of the technology and globalization, which changes the form of work. The form of production encouraged extensive use of microelectronics and information technology. The combination of the new technology and ideas of the past resulted in production of more quality goods. In this form of production, companies used machines, which were multipurpose. Marketing based its target on age, culture and taste rather than the social class (Lister 2010, p. 121). There was decentralization of managerial functions. There were no supervisors to tell the workers what to do they are independent. There were less state intervention and domestic goods could compete with international goods. There are different advantages in Post- Fordism. Due to the high level of innovation, the products produced were quality (Grey 2009, p. 145). In addition, in this form of production consumers regulate the production of goods they get the standard of goods that they want. Post – Fordism is a flexible mode of production this is to say that, it changes with the improvement in technology. On the other hand, Post-Fordism has different disadvantages. First, there is no sense of security for the workers. This is because the technology is moving so fast, once a project was finished, and it meets its goal the work ended. This is why a researcher said that Post-Fordism created projects instead of jobs for life (Bradley, Erickson, and Williams 2000, p. 172). The older workers were disadvantaged because Post-Fordism did not focus on the person’s experienced but rather adaptable employees. This is to say that a person’s experience lost value. In the modern organization system Post-Fordism dominates. Most companies have adopted this form of production due to the increase in change of technology. This is due to its flexibility. This means that it changes as the technology changes. The change in market demand has also resulted in the adoption of Post-Fordism in most organizations (Mullins 2007, p. 101). The work process encourages flexible specialization that means it is easily adaptable to change in the new development skills. The wide spread of computers encourages it to be effective in the contemporary organization (Greenberg and Baron 2008, p. 131). The presence of the niche markets advocates for more creative and skilled personnel to meet the market demand. In today’s contemporary world Post-Fordism has been given an upper hand. On the other hand, Fordism is applicable to organization, which focuses its production on a large scale. This is because Fordism focuses on mass production and mass consumption. In a recap, the central ideas of Fordism and Post-Fordism are clearly outlined in the essay above. Fordism as a work process focuses on mass production. As stated above Fordism did not require skilled personnel because of the repetition in the mode of production. The assemble lines developed by Henry Ford in 1913 were used in this work process. Because of its rigidity, a new form of work process was developed that was the Post- Fordism, which was flexible with the development in the new technology. Fordism focuses on a large market that means it does not have a target market while Post-Fordism focuses on a niche market. The essay critically discusses the strengths and limitation of the two-work process and lastly their relevance to the contemporary organization. Bibliography Amin, A. 2008. Post-Fordism a Reader. Hoboken, John Wiley & Sons. Bradley, H., et. al. 2000, Myths at Work, Cambridge: Polity Buchanan, D. and Huczynski, A. 2010, Organizational Behaviour, Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall (7th edition), Edgell, S. 2011, The sociology of work: continuity and change in paid and unpaid work. London, SAGE. Fincham, R. and Rhodes, P. 2005, Organizational Behaviour, Oxford: Oxford University Press. (4th edition) Greenberg, J. and Baron, R. 2008, Behavior in Organizations, Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall (9th Edition), Grey, C. 2009, A very short and fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about studying organizations, London: Sage (2nd edition) Grint, K. 2005, The Sociology of Work, Cambridge: Polity (3rd Edition) Lister, R. 2010. Understanding theories and concepts in social policy. Briston, Policy Press. Mullins, L. 2007, Management and organisational behaviour, Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall, (8th edition) Read More