Fordism to Post-Fordism: Revolutionising Management Models - Essay Example

Fordism to Post-Fordism: Revolutionising Management Models In the early 1900s Frederick Winslow Taylor and Henry Ford developed what can be called the classical management models. Taylor developed the scientific management module, while Ford developed what was to be named after him, Fordism. But as technology improved and automation and modern machines over take the society, Fordism and Taylorism took the backseat and philosophies they set forth were considered flawed and obsolete. A new system of work production arise from the ‘failures’ of Fordism and Taylorism, Post-Fordism or Neo-Fordism took its flight and set forth new standards for employment organisation, proficiency, and machinery, allowing the system to cope with the continuously shifting market and highly technical atmosphere that is shaping the late twentieth century global economy. Nevertheless, philosophers themselves have criticised this modernisation. To them post-Fordism is just like Fordism. Neo-liberalism is just the same as liberalism and so goes for neo-Marxism and Marxism. According to Green (1997), postmodernism is to be perceived as the continuity of certain ideals current within it and not as a progression beyond it. True can be the same for Fordism and Post-Fordism. This essay will assess the current trends and models that have been adapted by the current society and realise if Fordism and/or Taylorism indeed has been replaced and if this replacement system offered any real changes in the management modules. Jessop (in Amin, 1994 p. 9) revealed the dynamism of Fordism and present four levels of analysis. First, Fordism is a labour process, an industrial paradigm that made use of assembly line technique for mass production, employing mass workers for mass consumption. Second, Fordism is a regime of accumulation. Owing to a steady form of macroeconomic growth, it entails a decent circle of growth owing mainly to mass production and a rise in income associated with productivity. A rise in productivity based on economies of balance. An increase in demand owing to increase in wages, rising profits secondary to full utilisation of productive competence leading to multiplication of investment in improved production equipment and performance. Thirdly, Fordism is a mode of regulation, linking to Taylorism and imploring the separation of ownership from control in large corporations, holding on to distinctive multi-divisional decentralised organisations run by one controlling body. Elevating it to a mode of socioeconomic regulation that takes into account pricing monopolisation, union recognition and collective bargaining. Productivity is connected to wages and retail price increases financial emission and policies on credit oriented in securing successful aggregate demand. Lastly, Fordism is a general pattern of social institution, involving the utilisation of standardised mass commodities in households and stipulation of collective standardised goods and services provided by the political state. It can be surmised that Fordism was founded on the concept of mass production and removing the artisanal producer and looking to supply the current demands. It is said that human demands increase every day, and the need for gratification also increases and this is as it’s supposed to be. Under the benevolent influence of the American industry, women are unrestricted from work, the young people are safe from exploitation and with ample time they are given the will to go out and seek for themselves, products, suppliers and producers that will supply their needs and demands (Ford, 1991, p. 125) Fordism suited industrial companies that participated in mass production, Large companies like Ford Motors, The Reichskuratorium fur Wirtschaftkichkeit (RKW) located in Germany and The Philips Company in Eindhoven, Netherlands are good examples of Fordism in practice, where the philosophy of making things faster and cheaper is the normal trend. Taylorism on the other hand works by reduction of waste by eliminating inefficient worker activity and developing workshop organisation following the scientific studies on human efficiency and incentive systems. Pugh (1997, p.275) shows that to Taylor the scientific management’s advantage over the management of initiative and incentive is that under scientific management the continuous rhythm of work is certain. It can be said that scientific method caters to both employer and employee making it the better alternative. It can be said that scientific management is founded on formalised compromise agreements between capital and labor agreeing on reciprocal cooperation ideas, a preconceived notion that humans naturally suffer from indolence. Scientific methods should replace that of unproven practical methods and the separation of duties of executive and workers. It is distinguished by the establishment of bonus piecework system, rewarding by work actually done instead of doing it by ability level. It also works by standardising equipment of work and supervision. This method was identified by Taylor (in Pugh, 1997) as the management model that makes accord the rule not discord. Lipietz (1992) stated that Taylorism is a rationalisation system of production, separating the thinkers from the doers. Although it doesn’t necessarily follow that the doers will not need to think, doers are expected to use their initiative to guarantee that everything will go according to procedure. Scientific Management encouraged companies to develop efficiency by thoroughly scrutinising the basic processes of industrial production and reconstruct them to generate maximum production output without any preference to the size of labor force (Hudson, 1997). Taylor’s Scientific Management could be used in many types of organisation, including that of school systems. The use of multiple choice and standardised testing for assessment functioning, the government intrudes upon the initiative of the educators to teach what they want in the best way they can possibly find. Requiring the teachers to address substance that can be measured by standardised examinations and avoid analytical material preempts learning. This devaluates the teaching profession in the same manner scientific management made unworthy the role of skilled craft workers in industrial factories (Rees, 2001). The Fordism modules and Scientific Management created what can be called a ‘revolution’. The guarantee of considerable rise in productivity led many from all over the world to follow the patterns of management started by Ford and Taylor. But as the saying goes, ‘some good things never last’, in the 1970’s socioeconomic and politics strata changed and the world market together with it causing economic recession. Piore & Sable (1984, p.116) pointed to five critical episodes and boundaries of the system that strengthen the changes. First, the social unrest in the USA and some countries in Europe. Second was the floating exchange rate which weakened the stability on which mass production was based. Another was the oil embargo of the Arab States as a political response to Western support for Israel during their war in 1973 and the Russian Wheat deal, where Soviets went to the Western Markets to fill their shortages in wheat. These two events increased the volatility of economic system that was anchored on rigid wages and prices, making it vulnerable to deficiency in basic inputs and raw materials. The fourth episode was the oil shock that happened during the Iranian revolution of 1979. This forced the International Monetary Fund to assist third world debtors. This policy brought the growth of world purchasing power, at the same time destroying the confidence in international adjustment system. Oil prices rose dramatically and this caused recession and inflation in the industrial world. The last episode appeared due to high interest rates, debt crisis and world recession. Banks was forced to raise their interests and these rise in interest rates prolonged the recession. Whereas, the limitation of the system can be categorised as saturation of consumer goods in industrial countries making it more difficult to increase economies of mass production through domestic market expansion alone. Now, this recession together with the rising discontentment of the working force in working for factories, the mind-numbing production process was getting to the workers and philosophers and thinkers keen on developing new methods in order to increase economies and make the country stronger. Given an order to achieve this economic growth, the general consensus was that it was time for diversity and flexibility. Unfortunately, the Fordism-Taylorism structure did not leave room for these foreign words, it was deduced that Fordism, which was based on rigidity and unconformity, is unable to answer to new problems and challenges they were facing (Lane, 1995 p. 64). The 70’s also gave rise to the technological era and computerisation. The current production processes at that time was being diluted by new market demands and competition. Thus, Post-Fordism was coined to describe the changing strata. Post-Fordism can be described as a shift to the new technologies; A more flexible, decentralised type of labor process. This new process also focuses on customer’s lifestyle taste and cultures rather than social classes. Post-Fordism also gave rise to the service, employing white-collar classes and letting women join the workforce. Managers learned their lessons resulting to less rigidity and automation, reducing blue-collar masculine workforce. Companies emphasised these new forms provide better job. An example of which is Nissan, projecting an image of work as a place for empowerment erected around flexibility, quality and teamwork. Post-Fordism surfaced out of the effort of French regulationists arguing that the crises of the 70s signified the breakdown of the prevailing fordist political economy. The post-fordism system of accumulation is motivated by new information technologies. Production corporations now look to factories located all over the world to produce parts which are later assembled in their place of occupation. To minimise costs these companies rely heavily on subcontractors, part timers and just-in-time inventory schemes and other information technologies (Dicken, 1992) In conclusion, it must be realised that in the face of rising technology and modernisation and with the advent of computers and robotics, many companies still rely on manual labor in order to facilitate production of many consumer products and it is still widely acknowledge that human intervention is still needed to produce quality products for the consumption of the masses, and overall management for the best possible outcome for all concerned is still a driving force in the production industry. Fordism and post-Fordism management styles do still exist in our world, maybe not to the extent by which it was used and abused during earlier times. It can be said that the modern society adapted philosophies of both fordist and post-fordist agenda in order to facilitate a better management style. The concept of mass production for mass consumption is still a widely acknowledged philosophy, but it may have been integrated with the post-Fordism philosophy of flexibility. One example would be China’s production industry, many factories are built in China, mainly because of cheap labor and cheap lands. China products are mass produced and distributed all over the world at cheaper price, characteristic of both Fordism and post-Fordism genre. One cannot be chosen without the other, as was mentioned postmodernism is to be perceived as the continuity of certain ideals current within it and not as a progression beyond it. True can be the same for Fordism and Post-Fordism. It can be surmised that Fordism and Post Fordism still have their influences in the modern world. It cannot be accurately stated that fordism was replaced by post-fordism since different thoughts on Fordism and Post Fordism are nowadays still very important. Keywords like efficiency and diversity are still up to date and still found in industries of the modern world. It maybe that they are not mentioned by the terms Fordism and Post Fordism, but they still are the foundations of the industrial production processes and the basics of our present society are still approachable thru these models of management. References GREEN, A. (1997) Education, globalization and the nation state. London, MacMillan Press; AMIN, A. (1994) Post-Fordism: a reader. Oxford. Blackwell Publishing; FORD, H. (1991) Ford on management: harnessing the American spirit. Oxford. Blackwell Publishing; PUGH, D. S. (1997) Organization theory: selected readings. 4. ed., London, Penguin Books; LIEPIETZ, A. (1992) Towards a new economic order: Post-Fordism, Ecology and Democracy. Cambridge. UK Police Press; HUDSON, R. (1997) Toward less division of labor? New Production concepts in the automotive, chemical, clothing, and machine tool industries. Regional Studies; Cambridge 20, 305-315; REES, J. (2001) Frederick Taylor In The Classroom: Standardized Testing And Scientific Management. Radical Pedagogy 3(2). International Consortium for the Advancement of Academic Publication; PIORE, M. & SABLE, C. The second industrial divide. New York, Basic Books Inc, 1984. LANE, C. (1995) Industry and society in Europe. Aldershot. Elger; DICKEN, P. (1992) Global Shift: The Internationalization of Economic Activity. New York: Guilford Press. Bibliography Amin, A. (1994) Post-Fordism: a reader. Oxford. Blackwell Publishing Dicken, P. (1992) Global Shift: The Internationalization of Economic Activity. New York: Guilford Press. Ford, H. (1991) Ford on management: Harnessing the American Spirit. Oxford. Blackwell Publishing Green, A. (1997) Education, globalization and the nation state. London, MacMillan Press Hudson, R. (Jul 1997) Toward Less Division of Labor? New Production Concepts in the Automotive, Chemical, Clothing, and Machine Tool Industries. Regional Studies; Cambridge; 20, 305-315 Lane, C (1995) Industry and society in Europe. Aldershot. Elger Liepietz, A. (1992) Towards a New Economic Order: Post-Fordism, Ecology and Democracy. Cambridge. U.K, Police Press Piore, M & Sable, C. (1984) The second industrial divide. New York. Basic Books Inc. Pugh, D. S. (1997) Organization Theory: Selected Readings. 4th ed. London, Penguin Books Rees, Jonathan (2001) Frederick Taylor In The Classroom: Standardized Testing And Scientific Management. Radical Pedagogy 3(2). International Consortium for the Advancement of Academic Publication Read More