The Impact of Taylorism and Fordism on Contemporary Management Approaches - Essay Example

The Impact of Taylorism and Fordism on Contemporary Management Approaches and Practices Introduction The early development of Fordism and Taylorism has helped in building foundations for new capitalist economy. This development has also contributed to emergence and growth of industrial unionism. The primary components generated from the above two theories has helped in shaping firms, in terms of labour and production processes, in various capitalist societies. Both Fordism and Taylorism have provided opportunities for capitalists to control the production process as well as workers. Various influential features of Fordism and Taylorism have been identified, contributing to overall industrial workplace success. For instance, separating the process of execution and conception; knowledge monopoly to control workers and their execution; and a dissociated labour process are major principles followed in the Taylorism theory (Schor, 1992). Major components of Fordism include manufacturing division, moving line and scientific management of workers. However, both the above theories have suffered various criticisms. Current research on flexibility in professional and managerial work has revealed that temporary outsourcing, job insecurity as well as project based groups are highly effective in enhancing pressure for performance, especially among managers and professionals who are ready to display their value (Fraser, 2001). These are direct results of the increased pressure from organisational policies. Taylorism has been criticized for its lack of apathy towards workers and subsequent rise in unions, widening the gap between employees and workers expectations and organizational objectives and goals. The current study will evaluate various impacts of the above two theories on contemporary management approaches and practices. Analysis Taylorism was developed by Taylor during early 19th century. According to the theory, the best way to train workers is to standardize work; so that they can learn by performing their task in a repeated manner. The theory also focused on controlling the workers so that they can be properly directed for making service utilization. The objective of Taylor’s theory was to ensure control and autonomy over workers and transform skilled tasks into simplified jobs. These jobs would be then completed by unskilled workers by providing them simplified trainings. Taylorism theory insists on de-skilling workers, limiting their specialisation to one single segment or department. Constant repetition of the above process would lead to higher quality outputs and better production. In order to evaluate the optimal time required for completion of work, numerous unskilled workers were employed in night and day shifts (Taylor, 1919). It can be seen that Taylorism’s primary focus is on controlling workers and overall decision processes. In his early works, Taylor had suggested that best decisions as well as strategy making processes are undertaken by higher management and top executives. The lower level workers as well as floor level executives perform best under controlled environment. Taylorism theory has hugely benefitted capitalist economies by controlling workers and increasing production substantially, without any significant rise in wages and salaries. The various components of Taylorism will help in further understanding of Taylorism and its influence. Disintegrating the labour process is the first critical component of Taylorism theory. This is done by studying the labour processes at large and making rules and guidelines at work. This kind of work environment is quiet common in large manufacturing firms, where works are differentiated in hierarchal levels and workers are involved in specific tasks (Fraser, 2001). In order to further strengthen the control of capitalists, the second component was established; this states that conception and execution should be separated. This separation should be according to division of manual and mental work. Mental workers include engineers and the management is solely responsible for planning and strategy making. They have knowledge monopoly and influence the short-term as well as long-term vision and mission of an organisation. Taylorism has also insisted that this knowledge should be made property of the organisation as the management has strategic influence over the process. So, the contract system as well as provision of benefits and bonuses for higher management and top executives had begun with contemporary management practices. This knowledge is also frequently used by the management to de-skill workers and ensure maximum output (Schor, 1992). Taylorism’s third component is using knowledge monopoly in order to control workers’ execution. This has led to the establishment of job planning as well as scientific wage system. The job planning process presents a pre-planned and systematic manner for continuation of labour processes. On the other hand, scientific wage system has been created to increase workers’ output as well as set minimum standard for outputs and productive work. A present issue in implementing scientific waging system is when workers try to conceal their actual capabilities or full potential from the higher management in order to raise maximum wages on lower skills. Fordism has been revolutionary, especially in situations such as, over-control of labourers by the capitalists. Fordism established strategies for fixing those issues that were resulting in de-skilling of workers as well as lowering their wages. Workers were increasingly becoming agitated due to high productivity driven policies as well as submitting to job plans. Scientific wage system started giving rise to high workers turnover and several strikes. In order to reduce this increasing disproportion between demand and production as well as workforce dissatisfaction, Fordism theory was discovered. In brief, Fordism theory combined Taylorism with manufacturing division and added it to the moving line. The term Fordism was invented in 1920s and was popularised during 1930s (Stevenson, 2011). Fordism implemented various guidelines; for instance, it referred to a strict production system categorised by technologies. Taylor’s theory, also known as scientific management, focussed on establishing best practices that would eliminate worker’s discretion. Other strategies included delaying incentives in order to force unmotivated workers to achieve their tasks and eliminate inefficient techniques. Taylor theory emphasized on four major management responsibilities. These were gathering traditional knowledge possessed by employees; reduction of those techniques and skills by dividing them into smaller tasks, dictated through written manuals; scientific selection of workers, training them and making sure that they are using only established and standard methods; and separating decision making elements such as, coordination and planning from manual workers (Cappelli, 1999). Henry Ford had combined few of the important features of Taylor’s methods with his own techniques and innovation. Similarly, manufacturers in the Fordist era followed management policies such as, segmentation of tasks and separating execution from planning. If the management approach is viewed according to the doctrine of scientific management, it can be seen that Fordist strategies reduced differences in employee innovation and individual capabilities. Even so, managers in the contemporary working environment are finding it extremely difficult to keep employees involved in planning and decision making fully occupied, adding to the latter’s agitation. Though the Fordist approaches to management were well productive, these needed strong demand from consumers for mass-production and standardization of goods. The contemporary business environment is intense with global competition and consumer demand has increased with higher production, manufacturing and distribution costs. As a result, manufacturers have started to adopt lean approaches such as, involvement of a team responsible for continuous improvement (Smith, 2001). Though some of these innovations have been able to reduce certain issues in management approaches of emerging organisations, they have unsuccessfully intensified others (Hodson, 2001). Fordism theory has shown relevance in various organisational practices. The popularity of this theory can also be attributed to the fact that it showed relevancy in different nations with differing working conditions. Fordist model has always relied on technology and its long-term linkage to production and output generation. Various operations and functions were carried out by organisations with the objective of attaining sequential results. The outputs were particularly linear and sequential, where outcome of the first work outlet transformed into second work outlet’s input. Nevertheless, a major limitation of this approach is its high dependence on technology. The process requires regular patterns of input and any variation in resource flow can be harmful to its entire functioning. In addition, this approach needs an established external environment setting that is ready to take hold of the output without any hindrance (Fraser, 2001). Declining job security is becoming one of the pressing issues in contemporary organisational workplace. Increasing number of outsourcing, employee layoffs, probationary and temporary employment, job performance scrutiny as well as intensive screening have made employees scared and worried than ever, thereby leading to overwork, physical and mental draining and exhaustion (Cappelli, 1999). These challenges have also started to penetrate the managerial and professional classes by the way of introducing financial problems, which were not considered in the decision making and planning department. The erosion of security among workers can be traced back to the era of Taylorism and Fordism, when employees and workers were trained to provide better output and be more flexible to technical and managerial changes. This pursuit towards flexibility resulted in higher work pressure as well as a need to remain competitive. In contemporary management, the combined influence of Taylorism and Fordism theories can be better understood by factors such as, increasing intensification of job, impact on employees, increasing employment insecurity as well as large-scale changes in structure of work organisations (Cappelli, 1999). Especially, Fordist’s organising principles regarding mass production contributed to the big occupational division in the general work nature. Under Fordism, task segmentation, close supervision, bureaucratic constraints and automation boosted further deskilling and alienation in manual tasks; whereas, managers and professionals enjoyed a work experience that was more favourable. Post-Fordism, flexible innovations intended to boost productivity, increase profits and reduce costs. These strategies are heavily influenced by Fordism and have reshaped the manufacturing and production sector, thereby inviting criticism regarding occupational courses and career management (Leicht and Fennell, 2001). Involvement of employees as well as related innovations has altered manual responsibilities and roles and increased outsourcing and layoffs. Taylor, in his theory and work practices, had emphasized on retaining the deserving and first class employees only. This philosophy has been implemented and is still at large popular among management. For instance, more than 1500 managers were fired from Crocker Bank after it was acquired by Wells Fargo. According to the management at Wells Fargo, firing managers was impetus in order to maintain profit margins and reduce wastage arising from unmotivated and unproductive workers (Collins, 2001). Researchers also fear intense pressure due to unsuccessful tasks, threat of layoffs and elimination, negative evaluation by peers as well as increasing workload due to downsizing. For instance, 1980s and 1990s saw professionals from California reporting longer working hours and finding it difficult to spend time with family due to increased job loss as well as unemployment (Fligstein and Shin, 2004). Conclusion The current study was an investigation of the influence of scientific management theories, popularly known as Fordism and Taylorism, on contemporary work practices. The two theories were revisited in their original forms and were evaluated in terms of their modifications, changes, acceptance and rejection. The study also explored their influences on management practices, other that manufacturing and production and the manner in which Fordist and Taylorist ideals have expanded into daily lives of employees and workers in the present scenario. The image that has emerged on studying the last century reveals that increase in work and organisational flexibility has been achieved at the cost of workers’ welfare. Pressure among employees have grown stronger owing to group discipline and self-monitoring tactics, which are a direct result of strict organisational policies, coming straight from scientific management approaches. Increase in manual work has resulted in high amount of worker solicitation in terms of input and productivity, thereby adding to the already intense internal competition. Though firms have achieved many of their goals and objectives through scientific management theories and principles by increasing production pace and introducing management control over production, yet these achievements have materialized at the cost of higher stress and conflict among employees and workers. These conflicts in turn are decreasing overall productivity of organisations in the contemporary business environment. This has further diminished chances of innovation in these organisations. Thus, organisations in the present business scenario should incorporate better and more flexible employee involvement activities and consider employee demands and needs as a major objective in their overall organisational policies and goals. Reference List Cappelli, P., 1999. The New Deal at Work: Managing the Market-Driven Workforce. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Collins, J., 2001. Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap and Others Don’t. New York: Harper Business. Fligstein, N. and Shin, T., 2004. The Shareholder Value Society: A Review of the Changes in Working Conditions and Inequality in the United States, 1976 to 2000. New York: Russell Sage. Fraser, J. A., 2001. White-Collar Sweatshop: The Deterioration of Work and Its Rewards in Corporate America. New York: Norton and Company. Hodson, R., 2001. Dignity at Work. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Leicht, K. T. and Fennell, M. L. 2001. Professional Work: A Sociological Approach. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Schor, J. B., 1992. The Overworked American: The Unexpected Decline in Leisure. New York: Basic Books. Smith, V., 2001. Crossing the Great Divide: Worker Risk and Opportunity in the New Economy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Stevenson, S., 2011. New labour in libraries: The post-Fordist public library. Journal of Documentation, 67(5), pp. 773 - 790 Taylor, F.W., 1919. Scientific Management. New York: Harper & Row. Read More