Taylorism at Work - Essay Example

Impact of Taylorism and Fordism on Contemporary Management Approaches and Practices Impact of Taylorism and Fordism on Contemporary Management Approaches and Practices Introduction Information revolution has transformed this world in incredible ways. The society has experienced great revolutions such as the Neolithic Revolution and the Industrial Revolution. Therefore, information revolution can be considered the third great revolution in human history. This key feature of the information revolution is the way it has transformed the workplace environment. This includes changes such as production organization, micro-electronics, biotechnology and automation. It is a globalized phenomenon. The society has transformed greatly especially in developed countries. Some of the observable changes include high living standards, social classes, women in leadership and managerial roles, higher education has expanded, decentralization of industries and the world economy is globalized. However, these developments have their negative effects in the society. For example, it has led to unemployment, increase in crime, mental illness, drug abuse, public disorder, increase in pollution and stress in densely populated cities. Nevertheless, the developed countries differ from one another in terms of political, historical, economical and societal structures. This paper explains the key features of Taylorism and Fordism models. The contribution these two models have made to the contemporary management practices. Although, people may regard them as Post-Fordism or Neo-Taylorism they still contain the basic elements of the 1990s. The modern workplace has had huge transformations but still, it is guided by the concepts of the initial Taylorism and Fordism models. Taylorism This model of industrial division of labor was developed by Fredrick, W. Taylor and is also known as scientific management. Taylor aimed at using scientific methods to help in the organization of work. It involved division of labor, whereby tasks are broken down into smaller components. The tasks carried out from planning up to execution are clearly differentiated in the model. In this model, the worker has no control over his/her work because the tasks are small and fragmented. The division of work into smaller units was meant to minimize the costs of both labor and job training. He also advocated for minimal interactions between the employees and managers. This management system main objective was to offer the owner prosperity and simultaneously benefit the worker. This could mean increased wages, good working conditions, and high productivity for the worker contrary to the management initiative and incentive system. The owner could achieve prosperity in terms of business expansion and making good returns (Crowley, 2012). The advantage of Taylorism as compared to the management initiative and inventive system is that both the employer and worker mutually benefit. These may be simplified as: 1) an established formal negotiation between labor and capital founded on mutual collaboration initiative; 2) a predetermined thought about human behavior; 3) the replacement of empirical methods by scientific methods; 4) the differentiation of the tasks performed by a manager and a worker. The Taylorism model offers rewards on the basis of the amount of work done instead of the skill level. This system somehow deprived the workers the pride of displaying their personal skills in the workplace. Hence, this scientific model was somehow odd to them. According to Liepietz (1992), he regarded the Taylorism model as promoting the rationalization of production. This model supports a system whereby the organizers of production ideas are different from the actual people who act on the ideas. This means that the semiskilled manual employees usually do the same tasks several times. Though, this should not be mistaken to be a scenario where employees are not supposed to think. For instance, whenever the supervisor or engineer gave instructions to be followed, it was expected that the employee would use their initiative to make sure it is done. Fordism Taylorism was majorly linked to the moving assembly line while Fordism is associated with the production system. Henry Ford was the person who came up with the Fordism model. Fordism was created from the combination of scientific management practices with the intensification of production trough increased automation. The Fordism model objective was to increase the quantity of good produced so as to get realize economies of scale. A typical example of the modern era of Fordism can be seen the healthcare sector whereby services are centralized to realize economies of scale. The model recognized also that the large quantity of goods produced required mass marketers (Ford, 1991). The Fordism model also had the aspects of division of labour, use of highly skilled personnel and use of expensive and sophisticated machines to perform various tasks. According to Ford, mechanization and the organization factory model intention was not to deter the growth of ability. Its aim was to decrease the losses and wastes incurred because of mediocrity, furthermore; man is the overall controller of the machine (Amin, 1994). Even though his intention was not to deter the development of ability, the Fordism model of organization by itself did this through the diverse supervisory and control structures used. The Fordism model first started in the USA and then spread to Europe. It was incorporated in various firms in the production process and management relations. This enabled industries to increase their produce while maintaining the quality of goods produced. The outcomes were reduced prices of goods hence benefit to the consumer. This model like Taylorism emphasizes on the differentiation of work; there is expert and manual work. Taylorism and Fordism are linked by the factor of division of labour. In the Taylor model much emphasis is on production management and control while in the Ford model attention is on the production line; hence, the term mass production. However, the two models aim at improving the production line, increasing productivity and human labour rationalisation. The scientific management model promoted a rise in wages since by creating a large workforce; this could in turn offer the consumer base of the produced goods. The Fordist model on the other hand combines mechanization and Taylorism. Thus, it is evidently that there is a strong relation of ideas between the Taylorism and Fordism model resulting to the contemporary management model (Vidal, 2011). The Fordism Crisis During the early 1970s, the Fordism model was at a crisis as the productivity rate and profits had reduced drastically. This period experienced great technological advancements. There were other emerging economies such as the Japanese, high costs of raw materials and oil prices were escalating. Also, consumers had new tastes and needed quality goods, all this factors influenced the search for new models of organization. According to Lane (1995, p.64) in response to this crisis termed the Fordism model to be outdated in that it had become rigid and failed to meet the new developments. The previous models were inferior in accomplishing the new demands of the market and providing a competitive challenge. Implications of Post-Fordism The Post-Fordism model includes the following characteristics stress on flexibility, permanent training, teamwork, and level of expertise. The new strategies require employees to be responsible, and an initiative and, thus, managers have intensified efforts to promote good communication skills and co-operation in the workplace. The new era of Fordism has influenced three major areas income division, employment and work organization. The scope of living labour appears to be reduced by the Post-Fordism while simultaneously work practices, wages and labour markets seem flexible (Vidal, 2011). There is increased discipline in the new flexible employment organization. The increased rate of hiring and firing of employees is also influenced by the self-discipline requirement. These flexible organization managements have detrimental effects to both the unskilled and skilled workforce. The flexible workforce is characterized by chaos and conflicts and lowers the morale of the employees. These changes have mostly impacted professions and managerial techniques that were previously shielded from such forces. This has led to a wider disparity between the professional and manual work, in spite of the different wages. The changes seen in manual work practices are astonishing. There are some aspects of the post-Fordism that are essential to manual workers. Nowadays, teamwork is greater than the previous years. However, these new developments have not enhanced the independence of the manual workers, or made their work meaningful, or driven them to be responsible. The outcomes include a stress of performance, particularly the rate of doing work. Hence, these workers might be hard working but do not work smart. The rising number of manual workers has not escalated directly with the increase in conflicts, and chaos in workplaces. This portrays that there are good managerial techniques which have developed to incorporate all employees (Beerepoot, 2013). The managerial and professional works have also experienced significant changes. These shifts are assessment through reputation, overwork, temporary outsourcing, and a rise in group work production. These flexible structures in the workplace are a representation of an advanced model of the Taylorism model. They have increased pressure to perform, and encroached on the environment of professional work and employee welfare. This has caused low commitment of employees, conflicts, chaos and stress. During the Taylorism era it was the manual workers who bore the burden of cost, however; in the Neo-Taylorism/Post-Fordism period it is the managers and professionals bearing the cost burden. These new regime workers are always threatened by the probability of being laid off as a result of economic recessions (Greenwood et al., 2007). Recently, organizations face increased challenges in the management process. These include instances of fading co-worker relationships that hamper inventiveness consequentially; this demeans the beneficial prospects of the Post-Fordism model innovations. The communication process can be hindered by lack of good leadership and unclear channels of communication (Crowley, 2010). Flexible innovations involved in the application of intense scientific management practices have significantly enhanced the deterioration of working conditions of both unskilled and skilled workers. The advanced Taylorism model seems to be forcing managers and professional to do an extra work as compared to the old Taylorism system. However, inadvertent penalties are encroaching into the natural incentives of their work. Conclusion It is apparent that the way work is done and controlled has changed nowadays. The Fordism model is characterized by its authoritative rule that emphasises on strict maintenance of discipline. It entails specialized and technical training; man is central to the control of the machine and gives a distinction between the intellectual and manual work. The management process is manifested by strict supervision procedures. On the other hand, Post-Fordism model portrays a flexible control and authority practices whereby compliance with the law and responsibility promotes innovativeness and diversity (Vallas, 2003). Although, if we analyze these management models on the basis of facts that influence the productive process, the results are somehow contradictory; evolution has not taken place. The management process seems to be the same regardless of the time. The major goal is rationalization of the production system, raising the production level, making profits and gaining a competitive advantage. Hence, even though the Post-Fordism and Neo-Taylorism have reflected intensification of human labour it does not discard the organizational structures of the Taylorism and Fordism. Large corporations show a phenomenon of moving to capital concentration and their dominance in the global business environment has increased tremendously recently. Apart from capital concentration and work intensification, the Post-Fordism has retained its initial aspect of division of work, though on a high level. For instance, Taylorism and Fordism represented a breakdown of work into straightforward and regular movements, in Post-Fordism the division of work also requires the groups tasked with the work to do it responsibly. To meet the dynamic needs of markets, decision making process has been decentralized, and the hierarchical levels have been trimmed down. However, the extent to which this de-centralization and hierarchical levels have taken place is not clearly determined (Muehlberger, 2007). In the past, the Taylorism and Fordism models did not promote the autonomy of the worker. There were strict control and supervision structures. In the Neo-Taylorism and Post-Fordism era there is a strict management system. There is no direct supervision and control; however, regardless the form it occurs, the workers’ autonomy is still inhibited. Some critics have argued that Post-Fordism is the same as Fordism, and Neo-Taylorism is the same Taylorism model. According to them the use of ‘post’ and ‘neo’ changes nothing. Nevertheless, we can conclude that Post-Fordism is not a new discovery; it is simply a continuance of the Fordism model the same applies for Neo-Taylorism. References Amin, A. (1994). Post-Fordism: a reader. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Beerepoot, N., & Hendrinks, M. (2013). Employability of offshore service sector workers in the philippines: opportunities for upward labour mobility or dead-end jobs? Work. Employment & Society, 27 (5), 823-841. Crowley, M. (2012). Control and Dignity in Professional, Manual and Service-Sector Employment. Organization Studies, 33 (10), 1383-1406. Crowley, M., Tope, D., Chamberlain, L.J., & Hudson, R. (2010). Neo-Taylorism at Work: Occupational Change in the Post-Fordist Era. Social Problems, 57 (3), 421-447. Ford, H. (1991). Ford on Management: Harnessing the American Spirit. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Greenwood, R., Deephouse, D.L., & Li, S.X. (2007). Ownership and performance of professional service firms. Organization Studies, 28, 219-238. Lane, C. (1995). Industry and Society in Europe. Aldershot, UK: Elger. Liepietz, A. (1992). Towwards a New Economic Order: Post-Fordism, Ecology and Democracy. Cambridge: Police Press. Muehlberger, U. (2007). Hierarchical forms of outsourcing and the creation of dependency. Organization Studies, 28, 709-727. Vallas, S. (2003). The adventures of managerial hegemony: Teamwork, ideology, and worker resistance. Social problems, 50, 204-255. Vidal, M. (2011). Reworking Postfordism: Labor Process Vesus Employment Relations. Social Compass, 5 (4), 273-286. Read More