The Impact of Taylorism and Fordism on Management Practices - Essay Example

The Impact of Taylorism and Fordism on Management Practices Introduction The models known as Taylorism and Fordism are both styles of management thatare used to describe organisational administration methods that have been used all over the world by business enterprises. Henry Ford, who was the creator of the Ford Motor Company, lent his name to the management model known as Fordism. This method of management is based on Henry Ford’s preferred use of mass production units to produce numerous vehicles in his corporation without necessarily requiring the labour of many workers. Fordism is characterised by the existence of strong hierarchical structures where employees labour next to each other in a singular production line. Taylorism, which is a scientific management model, was named after Fredrick Winslow Taylor and holds that the best way for the management in any company to ensure that the necessary work is done by ensuring that the work techniques being used are constantly being improved. The Properties of Fordism and Taylorism Taylorism and Fordism methods of management have certain differences in the areas of fragmentation, automation, and work specialisation. There are also different expectations on the level of intellectual contributions that are expected of employed personnel. The concept of Fordisms tends to lean on the automation of mass production processes. This removes from the significance of using emotional intelligence in managing workers and operations in the workplace (Hughes 2005). Fordism’s emphasis on using technical processes in meeting objectives has the tendency of causing managers to view personnel as machines or implements that can be used to meet the requirements determined by the organisational executives. The management theory of Taylorism is different from Fordism because it seeks to convince workers that they can realise personal as well as corporate objectives at one go; and so should work harmoniously in order to achieve the collective objective. For a long time, Fordism was beneficial for suited industrial corporations were involved in the mass production of different objects. For instance, Henry Ford’s Corporation used this model successfully for years. Corporations such as General Electric, on the other hand, used the Scientific Management concept of Taylorism in managing their work-practices. The 1970s saw serious changes impact the business scene as technological advances compelled managers to introduce more product diversity while also streamlining production methods for the sake of realising greater flexibility (Leicht and Fitzgerald 2006). Taylorism and Fordism in the Management of Employees Both Taylorism and Fordism highlight the importance of machine use in different capacities. The hierarchical administrative structure that both Fordism and Taylorism support does not support the formation or sustenance of trade unions. It is evident, in the firms that use both of these management methods that the activities of trade unions are not given merit by them. Many Indian organisations, for instance, tend to support the use of Taylorism or Fordism. According to Bain and Taylor (2008), for instance, the management teams in Indian call centres usually do not wish for their workers to become members of trade unions as they feel that this may interfere with an organisation’s daily operations. This paternalistic attitude that is at times even extended to include the personal choices of workers is suggestive of the way American organisations in the 1920s to the 1960s operated under Fordist principles. Taylorism, while critical of the function of trade unions, stressed more emphatically on the importance of ensuring that the corporate operations are fulfilled in the most efficient manner. Frederick Taylor stated that there are definite scientific guidelines that should be used to effect improvements. Fordism, like Taylorism, holds that workplace efficiency results from ensuring precision in aspects such as the clear separation of responsibilities, job design, and the rigid policing of techniques of implementation (Liu, Perrewé, Hochwarter, and Kacmar 2004). Taylorism also stresses on the significance of enhancing operational procedures by conducting an evaluation of workers’ individual production processes and then transforming them in order to generate the maximum output through different sizes of workforces. The management system supported by Fordism is aimed at allowing the minimum amount of discretion between organisational executives and their employees while fragmenting tasks so that workers are allocated minimal tasks. This is evident in the work processes that were used by the Ford Motor Corporation. For instance, in 1913, the company launched its assembly line (Heuven, Bakker, Schaufeli, and Huisman 2006). Even though it attracted many workers for this line, many of them would only remain at their posts for a short period because they were discouraged by the monotonous work even as the production quotas were constantly being increased. The model of Fordism would propel the automaker to international fame because it was quite revolutionary in its time. Fordism and Post-Fordism The development of technological processes for use in organisations that marked the 1970s marked the beginning of transition to a post-Fordist economy. The principal trait of post-Fordism is the growing irrelevance of the bureaucratic large-scale business enterprise which actually works contrary to the realisation of organisational objectives. In developed nations, Post-Fordism has accompanied the development of information technologies which allow for a more decentralised and flexible type of labour process whereby organisations seek to influence consumers by appealing to the lure of new lifestyle taste instead of appealing to their social classes (Vidal 2007). This process has been assisted by the diversification of the labour force in many nations to include greater numbers of women as well as assorted ethnic groups. However, even with the push to embrace Post-Fordist ideals, there are still many organisations such as the fast-food industry in developed nations that embrace Fordism. While many managers in post-Fordist organisations have had to embrace less rigid methods of management, the development of other shadow-industries in developed economies has served to preserve the Fordist element in the developed world. According to Ahmad (2008) the immigrants in nations such as Britain serve to continue the principles applied in Fordism. For instance, Pakistani immigrants in the United Kingdom still have to work under depressing circumstances that include low pay, long hours, and deplorable working conditions. These are conditions that existed in the mainstream economy of the United States in the 1920s (Ahmad 2008). In the 1950s, American organisations operating under Fordism began to accept unionised labour. However, many Pakistani immigrants in Britain, in spite of living in a Post-Fordist economy, still have to deal with material burdens that are more characteristic of an economy that mostly operates under Fordist principles. In some cases, even Post- Fordist economies do not afford many benefits to workers. According to van Echtelt, Glebbeek, Wielers and Lindenberg (2006) Netherlands, which is considered to be one of the nations whose organisations embrace Post-Fordism, cannot guarantee that its workers will be paid for overtime work. The performance-based salary received by workers automatically results in indifferent workers who are not prepared to take risks in order to perform better. In the present globalised marketplace, business managers in nations such as the Netherlands have to deal with issues such as the presence of standardised manufacturing procedures. In addition, many of them are not trained on how to present their companies as being places that offer flexibility, opportunities for individual career growth, and teamwork. In the knowledge-based economy, it is critical for organisations to be able to present an image that portrays the best qualities it can offer. According to Berry and Bell (2012), one of the reasons why post-Fordism may be difficult to embrace in all but the richest national economies is because it calls for extensive cultural as well as social changes. For instance, within an organisational context, post-Fordism will require managers to effect pluralism and greater fragmentation which can only take place through the weakening of the more established block identities and collective solidarities. Once this is achieved, the organisational manager will be able to oversee the materialisation of new identities that are connected with better work flexibility, and the utilisation of individual choices by means of personal consumption. This can be very beneficial in terms of creating a diverse workforce that includes increasing percentages of female workers as well as personnel from assorted ethnic backgrounds (Berry and Bell 2012). Post-Fordist economies are also likely to encourage the ratification of equal opportunity laws which are usually more likely to improve the status of workers than their investment in education or even participation in the national labour force. Post-Fordism and Emotional Intelligence in the Workplace Emotional labour refers to internal effort that an employee exerts in order to carry out his or her duties. For workers to be able to perform emotional labour, they have to repress their private feelings, and instead display the preferred work-related emotions. This makes emotional labour an asset that can be sold or bought. According to Apte and Goh (2004) there are four types of emotional labour that exist in the workplace. These include presentational emotional labour, where social laws determine the emotions that are manifested, philanthropic emotional labour where the management of emotions is proffered as a gift, prescriptive emotional labour, where the professional code is responsible for managing emotions, and pecuniary emotional labour where the management of emotions is done for commercial gain (Apte and Goh 2004). According to Doherty (2009) post-Fordist transformations in the corporate scene may comprise of ensuring that there is more cooperation within organisations so that managers seek to improve the status as well as emotional health of their personnel through initiatives such as job security and participative decision-making. However, managers in Post-Fordist economies also have to consider the fact that there is less job security than would be the case in a Fordist economy. Post-Fordism comes with structural changes that are believed to be the main cause of the break-down of homogenous employment experiences that characterise Fordism. According to Doherty (2009) the experience of modern team oriented activities that is afforded by Post-Fordism does not replace or satisfy the feeling of disconnection that is often experienced by workers. In essence, only the most technologically advanced industries can entertain aspects such as the emotional labour concerns. According to Heery (2005) only large enterprises which are dominant can pursue high value-added and high quality strategies in order to be able to prosper. Even though organisations that embrace the Post-Fordist model benefit due to the quality, it is not uncommon for corporate franchise to only affect the top level of executives. It is not uncommon for organisations that have embraced Post-Fordism to have a still rigid and highly specialised organisational structure where employees have to work under close supervision. In such cases, even workforce diversity could be negatively affected. According to Tatli and Ozbilgin (2012) the concept of managing diversity in a Post-Fordist framework extends beyond affirmative action. It includes involving diversity planning in strategic planning. This means that managers have to seek to generate work cultures that embrace diversity and include strategies on implementing diversity in their corporate objectives. In addition, in the Post-Fordist economy, diversity does not merely refer to issues concerning women and workers from different ethnic backgrounds. It also refers to issues concerning homosexual and transgender workers. This is a factor that has not been adequately addressed in Fordism. According to Mustafa F. Özbilgin, T. Alexandra Beauregard, Ahu Tatli, and Myrtle P. Bell (2011), Fordism is more supportive of hetero-sexist settings which tend to support organisational cultures of silence in which employees fear that they will be penalised if they express their real opinions. Conclusion Both Taylorism and Fordism support the notion of managers seeking to encourage their employees to use the fastest means to accomplish their responsibilities. These management models also encourage managers to use strict guidelines when supervising their employees. In a large number of organisations, managers have to deal with the use of Fordism or Taylorism along with Post Fordism. For instance, even if the organisation may be supporting flexibility, the daily labour operations carried out by its employees may still be more aligned to suit Fordist principles; thus making it a possibility for workers to engage in alienating work practices. References Ahmad, N.A. (2008) ‘Dead men working: time and space in London’s (‘illegal’) migrant economy’, Work, Employment and Society, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 675-692. Apte, U.M. & Goh, C.H. (2004) ‘Applying lean manufacturing principles to information intensive services’, International Journal of Services Technology and Management, vol. 5, pp. 488–506. Bain, P.M. & Taylor, P. (2008) ‘No passage to India? Initial responses of UK trade unions to call centre off-shoring’, Industrial Relations Journal, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 5-23. Bolton, S.C. & Boyd, C. (2003) ‘Trolley dolly or skilled emotion manager? Moving on from Hochschild’s managed heart’, Work, Employment and Society, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 289–308. Berry, D.P. & Bell, M.P. (2012) ‘Expatriates: gender, race and class distinctions in international management’, Gender, Work & Organisation, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 10–28. Doherty, M. (2009) ‘When the working day is through: the end of work as identity?’ Work Employment Society, vol. 23, no. 84, pp. 84-100. Heery, E. (2005) ‘Sources of change in trade unions’, Work Employment Society, vol.19, no. 91, pp. 92-106. Heuven, E., Bakker, A.B., Schaufeli, W.B. & Huisman, N. (2006) ‘The role of self-efficacy in performing emotional work’, Journal of Vocational Behavior, vol. 69, pp. 222-235. Hughes, J. (2005) ‘Bringing emotion to work: emotional intelligence, employee resistance, and the reinvention of character’, Work, Employment & Society, vol. 19, pp. 603–25. Leicht, K.T. & Fitzgerald, S.T. (2006) Postindustrial peasants: the illusion of middle-class prosperity, Worth, New York. Liu, Y., Perrewé, P.L., Hochwarter, W.A. & Kacmar, C.J. (2004) ‘Dispositional antecedents and consequences of emotional labour at work’, Journal of Leadership & Organisational Studies, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 12-25. Mustafa F., Özbilgin, T., Beauregard, M., Tatli, A. & Bell, M.P. (2011) ‘Work–life, diversity and inter-sectionality: a critical review and research agenda’, International Journal of Management Reviews, vol. 13, pp. 177–198. Tatli, A. & Ozbilgin, M. (2012) ‘Surprising inter-sectionalities of inequality and privilege: the case of the arts and cultural sector equality, diversity and inclusion’, An International Journal, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 249-265. Van Echtelt, P.E., Glebbeek, A.C. & Lindenberg S.M. (2006) ‘The new lumpiness of work: explaining the mismatch between actual and preferred work hours’, Work Employment & Society, vol. 20 no. 3, pp.493-512. Vidal, M. (2007) ‘Manufacturing empowerment? employee involvement in the labour process after Fordism’, Socio-Economic Review, vol. 5, pp. 197–232. Read More