Comparing Fordism and Scientific Management

Fordism and scientific solicitude be terms used to describe perplexity that had application to assistanceable situations with extremely dramatic effects. Fordism takes its name from the mass takings units of Henry Ford, and is set by an involved technical division of motor at heart companies and their exertion units. Other characteristics of Fordism include strong hierarchical control, with functi wholenessrs in a exertion line often restricted to the one single task, usu all in ally specialize and unskilled.scientific focal point, on the other hand, originated through Fredrick Winslow Taylor in 1911, and in in truth basic terms described the one best direction bestow could be through and that the best way to remedy output was to improve the techniques or methods used by the workers. (Robbins p. 38) Many comparisons can be make amongst the two theories, much(prenominal)(prenominal) as the mechanisation, fragmentation and specialisation of work and that a lack of i ntellectual or skilled content volition speed up the work at hand.Fordisms mechanisation of mass employment further emphasised many of Taylors popular beliefs about counselling being divorced from human affairs and emotions, using humans as instruments or machines to be manipu juveniled by their leaders (Hersey p. 84). Fordism fused and emphasised the scientific methods to dumbfound things done by Fords successful mass-yield processes. Contrasts a corresponding exist between the two theories. Fordism dehumanisied the worker whereas scientific caution convince the workers that their goals could be readily passd along with their employers goals, therefore they should all work unitedly in this direction.Fordism suited industrial companies participating in mass production, whereas Scientific Management could be used in many types of organisation. Large companies such as Ford travels, The Reichskuratorium fur Wirtschaftkichkeit (RKW) in Germany examples these theories in pract ice. These theories of the past atomic number 18 lessons for the way modern organisations be come about today. Managers now realise that they should overcompensate their workers more democratically and since the mid-70s, sweeping changes in markets and technology pitch back up managers and manufacturers to use greater product diversity and more flexible methods of production.Movements towards a more flexible organisation have become apparent. Examples of orgainisations such as Nissan, NASA and Toyota serve as modern day examples of post-Fordism and depict movement towards a modified Scientific Management. Comparisons that can be made include Fordisms mechanisation of mass production and Taylors attempts at using employees as machines. Taylor intentional this using his principles of management that include fractureing a science for to each one element of work and finding the speedy way the reflect could be done.Henry Fords ideal types of Fordist production system included using fixed and dedicated machines in individuals work, rather than turning the employee into a machine. (Hollinshead 1995) With Taylor attempting to prove to the world that there was a science to management and that the quickest way was the best way, he attacked the incompetence of managers for their inefficiencies in running the railroads and factories. victimization time and motion studies, Taylor achieved productiveness increases of up to cc per cent. (Dunphy, 1998, p. 4).His thoughts were echoed by others during a 1910 Interstate Commerce Commission hearing, Louis D. Brandeis argued that US railroads could save a million dollars a day if they introduced scientific management into their operations (Oakes, 1996). Taylor showed the world that the organized and scientific study of work could lead to improved strength. He believed that by defining produce guidelines for workers many improvements could be made to the production of goods. Fordism same Scientific Management in th e newly mechanised industries of the early twentieth century emphasised that qualification came from precision in job design, clear division of responsibilities and tight policing of implementation (Taylor, 1911).Taylorism and Fordism were consistent with notions of the organisation as a military machine first developed by Frederick the Great of Prussia, and posterior refined by Henri Fayol. (Taplin, 1995, p. 430) Scientific Management encouraged firms to improve efficiency by analysing individual processes of industrial production and then recreating them to produce maximal output from any given size labor compel. (Hudson, 1997) Fords production-line innovations compounded scientific managements efficiencies into the economy. Taylor believed it would be best to scientifically select, train, teach and develop the workers.However, in contrast, Fordism was based on mass production using trucking rig skilled workers who could be easily replaced. Fordism did not care for the worke rs to work as a team and to Heartily co-operate to ensure that all work is done in accordance with the principles of science like Taylors ideas of scientific management did (Robbins,1997, p. 40). Although Fordism borrowed many scientific management ideas, it then advanced upon them to produce a new form of management that included management having hierarchical self-assurance and technical control.Fordism enabled managers to regulate production and safeguard their avouch position within firms as well as meeting the efficiency criteria set by owners. The obvious efficiencies of Fordism and features that were responsible for the scotch successes of this system, also caused problems. Fordism proved particularly fitted to manufacturing in a mass consumption economy, required only occasional(a) innovation of new products and used machines that only made specific goods. Often, these were of low- fibre, low-value, high-volume nature, and disceptation was price based.Low quality could easily become poor quality workers were poorly motivated with resulting high labor turnover and absenteeism and coordinating the blend of materials through production processes was difficult (Wood, 1993). Fordism led to massive increases in productivity in certain industries, but the human cost was significant. At one point Henry Fords assembly lines had an annual employee turnover of 380 per cent (Encarta, 1998). Fordism alter workers and allowed no creativity.Where scientific management looked to divide work and responsibility close to equally between management and workers, Fordism was after minimum discretion between management and workers with fragmented work and minimal tasks for employees. Examining what happened at the Ford Motor Company supports these facts. In 1913 Ford began using monotonous assembly-line techniques in his plant. Although assembly-line techniques greatly increased productivity, many people soon left their line jobs, because of the bitter monotony of the work and the repeated increases in production quotas.This is manything that contemporary management techniques have realised it is beneficial for employees to become involved within their jobs and not expected to be machines. Ford partly overcame this problem by stunt man the daily wage then standard in the industry with his storied offer of $5 a day to workers who would put up with the alienated, control work conditions at Ford Motors (Clark, 1997).One worker said, Youve got to work like hell at Fords You cant allow up. Youve got to get out the production nd if you cant get it out, you get out (Rupert, 1997, p. 11) His results were increased stability in Fords labor force and a substantial reduction in operating costs. Then the ride T automobile was introduced in 1908. With the help of this model, Ford became Americas largest automobile producer and vendor. Nevertheless throughout the 1930s Ford began losing military control to his competitors, mainly because they were s low introducing new models of automobiles every year. (Encarta, 1998) Scientific Management and Fordism created a new type of revolution.The promise of massive increases in productivity led to the following of Fords and Taylors models of management all over the world. Britain never had a scientific management movement like that in America, and the lead British engineering journals in the early 20th century revealed Taylorism receiving attention, much of it positive. Engineering became an unqualified supporter of scientific management, only The Engineer, a journal of engineering at the time, maintained sustained hostility to Taylorism declaring it was unfair and moth-eaten and not sportsmanlike.The Engineer criticised the separation of workers thinking in their jobs from doing their jobs and described Taylorism as scientific management gone mad. (Whitson, 1997) Another organisation that followed both the American models of Taylor and Ford, was The Reichskuratorium fur Wirtschaftkic hkeit (RKW) founded in 1921. This huge Berlin-based electro-technical and machine-constructing conglomerate strove to implement measures of industrial and organisational efficiency in Germany in the inter-war era.RKWs aim was to implement technical and organisational measures of industrial, and economic efficiency, an organization devoted to industry efficiency, and production standardization. (Shearer, 1997, p. 569) In modern times, firms have attempted to reconfigure work places and production systems using flat hierarchies and lean production systems in contrast to Scientific and Fordist management. Managers presume that these sorts of changes will enable firms to achieve flexibility, clavern by many managers as essential to maintaining competitive advantage into and beyond the 21st Century.Flexible production systems opposing strict Fordist lines, made realistic by these organisational changes and new technologies, permit shortened product development time. in that location is a new way of organising production and a departure from Fordism and all it contains. However, scientific management was used by Japanese automobile constructors in the 1970s when they began to compete using fundamentally improved manufacturing processes that consistently produced vehicles of high quality far faster than Detroit (Oakes p. 569).Japan car manufacturers successfully fall labour and production costs giving American Manufacturers a run for their money, Japans Toyota is an example that used Fordism as a base of new managerial processes. Another modern day example, which drew on these two management methods, was in property science. NASA developed a set of measures to assess if they were implementing their own strategies. NASAs strategy, defined by the motto cheaper, faster, better, was to reduce the size and cost of space probes without eliminating any important missions.Figures show that the two missions to Mars launched in late 1996 were each one-fifth the real cos t of previous Mars missions (under $200 million in 1996 dollars, as opposed to an average of $1 million each for the previous eleven U. S. spacecraft launched for Mars). (Oakes, 1996, p. 589) Post-Fordism has been described as a shift to the new information technologiesa more flexible, decentralized form of labour process and of targeting consumers by lifestyle taste and culture rather than by categories of social class as well as a rise of the service and white-collar classes and the feminization of the workforce These are lessons managers have learnt and result in less rigidity and mechanisation and a reduction in the working-class masculine workforce.The firms that face the most difficulties in the new globalised marketplace are often those with labor intensive, standardised manufacturing processes. Companies emphasise that these new forms of work hand over better jobs. For instance, Nissan projects an image of work as taking place in an empowering environment built around the themes of flexibility, quality and teamwork.In conclusion, both Fordism and Scientific Management share common themes yet also display some significant differences. They both encourage looking at the fastest way work can be completed and impose strict guidelines upon employees and their job descriptions. This has led to a great deal of dissatisfaction among employees in production lines with craziness and monotony of workers that encouraged a high turnover of employees at organisations that obligate these techniques.Henry Ford developed much of his conceptions upon Taylors ideas of scientific management. These theories take that contemporary organisations and their managers should take into consideration the ideas of employees to avoid division. Managers today often see workers as multi-skilled and more involved in the process of production via teamwork, the reintegration of manual and mental labour, and the empowerment of production workers.Todays mass production has seen tech nology wiping out many of the jobs once held by these employees. There is a movement towards a more flexible workplace in the vibrate of this new technology away from strict guidelines imposed upon workers and their job descriptions, they are now encouraged to learn about other areas of the workplace. Fordism and scientific management have greatly influenced our workplace today and their theories will continue to be built upon for years to come.