The Fordist Production System - Essay Example

I The fordist system of production effectively revolutionized production/manufacturing, redefined the relationship between laborer and labor and, to a large degree, is responsible for the evolution of the consumer culture. While it is no longer the dominant manufacturing/production system, its position of prominence having been usurped by lean and just in time manufacturing, Fordist elements may still be detected in present-day organizations. The Fordist system of production is grounded in a well-defined work philosophy whose primary focus is the relationship between worker and task and worker and machine. As per the Fordist economic and production philosophy, assembly line production technologies, such as which required individual worker dedication to single, repetitive tasks, were the key to mass production, hence economic prosperity. Assembly lines were dedicated to the production of a single thing, implying the development of dedicated machine tools and workers, operating individually rather than as a work team, were responsible for the performance of single tasks within the assembly process. The implication here is that the said philosophy is funding upon the division of a single project/process into its constituent elements and the total dedication of man and machine to the efficient and timely execution of those single tasks. The Fordist production system, as defined in the above, reduced the cost of automobile manufacturing by 90% and led to the evolution of mass production and the associate mass consumption, and consumer culture. Although incontrovertibly efficient, however, it was not flexible and led to the accumulation of significant inventories. This, however, does not imply that the Fordist system has passed out of existence since several of its elements have been integrated into contemporary organizations and management systems. These elements are lack of specialization, as in workers and employees being able to fulfill a number of tasks if and when required, control over the business processes, efficiency predicated on the division of single projects into its constituent parts, calculability, predictability and, importantly, the organization as an efficient machine. In the final analysis, therefore, while the Fordist system of production may have been replaced by others more compatible with current requirements and realities, its philosophical elements have survived and have been integrated into organizational management. II Despite their positive impact upon production and their contribution to the evolution of more efficient and effective organizations, Taylorism and Scientific Management were, as a result of the controversy they inspired, replaced by the human relations approach to management. Following a brief overview of both, the differences between the two approaches shall be elucidated. Scientific management adopts an objective, rational approach to organizational management, such as which decentralizes socio-cultural and human factors and considerations. This approach advocates the division of labor in the production process for the attainment of maximum productivity, even as it insists upon the separation of the physical from the mental tasks. The aforementioned practices are predicated on the belief that the work process is measurable, in that the componential elements of a single process can be quantified, just as the steps involved in the completion of each can be measured. The implication here is that through the rational quantification of work process steps, the calculation of the time it tales to complete each, the work process can evolve into a semi-automatic and highly efficient phenomenon. Scientific management, as may have been determined from the preceding, marginalizes the human factor, to the extent of rendering the work process an unthinking and routinised one wherein workers are isolated one from the other. Its focus on the rational, leading to its failure to acknowledge the human factor was a source of criticism and controversy. More importantly, it is precisely within the context of the aforementioned criticisms, that the human relations approach evolved; it evolved as a reaction against the scientific, rational approach and in acknowledgement of the human factor which ultimately shapes and defines an organization and the work processes therein. It is, accordingly, possible to define as the antithesis of the scientific management approach, in that it regards the organization as a living organism and insists on the integration of soft factors into management paradigms, alongside the adoption of techniques and schemes designed to motivate employees and generate loyalty and commitment towards the organization. In final commentary upon the above, the human relations approach significantly differences from the scientific management one in that it centralizes the human and cultural factors which are marginalized by the other and defines them as the key to organizational success. III Within the context of increasing intense competition and ever-changing market trends and consumer demands, the survival of organizations became dependant upon their capacity for timely, possibly proactive, response to market demands. Taylorism and Fordism did not allow for the requisite flexibility insofar as machines and workers were dedicated to the execution of highly specific tasks, not to mention the focus on mass production. Management paradigms and production processes had to be reworked in order to afford organizations the capacity for flexibility. It is within this context that both lean and just in time philosophies arose. Flexibility, implying the capacity of both labor and products to respond to changing market requirements and trends, is at the core of the lean and JIT philosophies. As per the aforementioned, mass production is effectively eschewed in favor of production as a response to market demand, or just in time production. This ensures that the company/manufacturer does not carry a costly inventory such as which there may not be a market for. Flexibility, focusing as it does on lean management and production, is funded upon an explicit awareness of the mercurial nature of markets and consumers. That which is in demand today, whether goods, services or skills, may not be in demand tomorrow. Organizations which do not take this into account run the risk of resource wastage and effectively constrain their capacities for timely responsiveness. Lean becomes the key to resource preservation and rational allocation, on the one hand and a predicator of flexibility, on the other. Quite simply stated, lean necessitates the integration of labor skills and the design of work processes, including assembly lines, so that they can be adjusted to meet changing demands. It implies building flexibility into the business process and into employees themselves. As is apparent from the foregoing, flexibility has been imposed upon organizations by changing market requirements, on the one hand, and the impossibly mercurial nature of markets, on the other. Ultimately, flexible organizations are the more competitive ones simply because they have embraced and adopted the tools and strategies which allow for immediate/timely response to customer demands. IV Motivation theories stem from socio-psychological theories which maintain that human behavior and actions can be managed towards the realization of specific objectives if there exists a motivation. Embraced by organizations the world over, a brief overview of Maslow and Taylor's theories will illustrate how motivation theories achieve the stated and how they may be applied to organizations. Maslow's theory of motivation probably stands out as one of the more influential and widely implemented ones. In essence, Maslow argued the presence of a hierarchy of needs, these being in order of importance, physiological, safety, belonging and love, esteem and self-actualization needs. The last, self-actualization needs, assumes importance as a motivator only when the earlier mentioned needs have been fulfilled. It assumes that once basic, economic and esteem needs are fulfilled, self-actualisation, or the sense of fulfillment and satisfaction which one derives from meeting his/her objectives and realizing his/her potential, functions as a powerful motivator. In comparison, Taylor's theory of motivation looks towards more concrete motivators. Holding that man is an essentially rational creature who works for economic gain and whose ambitions invariably tend towards the economic, the Economic Man motivation theory maintains that financial incentives constitute powerful motivators. They function to satisfy an entire range of needs and, hence, represent much more than financial gain. Both of the stated motivation theories are integrated into most organizations for the explicit purpose of directing and guiding employee behaviour towards certain objectives. Self-actualization effectively translates into goal-setting behaviour, wherein employees set themselves particular objectives and upon their realization/fulfillment feel a sense satisfaction consequent to their having realized their potential. Of course, this particular motivator is complemented by promotion schemes. As regards, economic motivations, they are integrated into organizations in the form of bonus schemes, benefits and pay packages. As may have been deduced from the above paragraphs, organizations do not limit themselves to the implementation of a single motivation theory but, indeed, may adopt the motivators recommended by more than one. Read More