The Transition From Fordism To Post Fordism

“With reference to a dualism of your choice (e.g., bureaucracy/post-bureaucracy, Fordism/post-Fordism, hard HRM/soft HRM), evaluate critically its validity as a tool for understanding the changing nature of work organisation”

Introduction

The definition of work is “ the application of effort or exertion to a purpose,” (Noon & Blyton 2002, p3) Though this does provide a reasonable definition a clearer one can be provided by Thomas (1999, xiv) who highlights three essential components to work:

1) Work produces or achieves something (it’s not an end in itself)

2) Work involves a degree of obligation or necessity (it’s a task set either by others or ourselves)

3) Work involves effort and persistence (it’s not wholly pleasurable, although there may be pleasurable elements to it)

Therefore this definition helps to clearly define the tasks individuals are expected to complete in their everyday lives, for example cleaning and ironing, but in particular in this assignment the focus will be primarily on paid work because there is a large importance in this area due to it being important as a source of employment and also the amount of time that is devoted to it.

Williams (2007 p1) states “there are many visions of the future of work,” varying from seeing the world as positive and moving progressively and others regard it as moving in the wrong direction. In particular there will be an emphasis on the dichotomy of Fordism and Post-Fordism focusing on the emergence of both dualisms and how they have shaped and will change the nature of the future of work.

Main Body

In today’s society the ability to compete in a global market has existing implications for existing patterns of work, the distribution of services and the production of goods.

Piore & Sabel (1984) have argued that the deterioration of a number of Western capitalist societies is a result of a largely redundant model of industrial development based on the mass production of standardised goods. This вЂ?Fordist system of mass production is based on Fredrick Taylor’s principles of вЂ?scientific management.’ Taylor was regarded as a systemiser. Nyland (1988) believes that the вЂ?systemisers’ were a diverse group of engineers, accountants and works managers who argued that U.S. firms had grown to a size where the internal functioning of the enterprise was becoming increasingly chaotic and wasteful, and so these systems had to be changed. Taylor’s belief was management should develop the most efficient use of labour by producing one right way of doing a particular job. Workers were encouraged to execute this process the right time every time and in return they would receive higher wages, an improved material lifestyle or punishment if compliance didn’t occur. In this idea, in consequence, the irrational and emotional dimension was removed from organisational life and it was replaced with rational, universally applicable structures which would achieve maximum effectiveness and minimal divergence (Fayol, 1916; Gulick & Urwick, 1937; Mooney & Riley, 1931). Piore & Sabel (1984, p236) argue “The extreme routinisation of work that Taylor implied presupposes the fixity of markets and the production process characteristic of mass production, meaning that such routine work represents how stable the market was for the production of goods at that particular time.

This system of �scientific management’ and rational approach to mass production was later developed on the assembly line by Henry Ford. Ford adopted the principles of Taylorism and at his car manufacturing plant in Michigan and used it to maximise output with the human worker conforming to a rationalised role of production in a factory geared to the mass production of standardised products (Williams, 2007). From this, Fordism was established, creating a benchmark and becoming extensively used in describing the processes of an assembly line through the combination of linear work sequencing and interdependence of tasks (Williams, 2007), one task being completed before another one can take place. A consequence of Fordism was the tendency of de-skilling and the degradation of labour (Beaverman, 1974). It can be argued that Fordism is therefore distinguishable from Taylorism in that it constitutes a form of work organisation designed for efficient mass production (Wood, 1989). Taylorism simply defines the process.

After the Second World War, Fordism encapsulated capitalism's potential for mass production. Due to the increase in the labour force, Fordism's increasing rate of development countered (for a time) toward a falling rate of profit as capital revolutionised the social forces of production and progressively reduced the proportion of exploitable living labour involved in the production process (Aglietta, 1979). At the same time, growing productivity and the cheapening of wage goods meant that the standard of living of the working class could improve significantly even as development intensified.

By the late 1960s, the growth of productivity reduced dramatically after 1966 and the Fordist labour process was reaching its limits (Aglietta 1979). Williams states two main developments were no longer appropriate due to the changing socio-economic conditions. Firstly, the ability of the working class to consume at the rate of the quantity required, creating bad economies of scale. Secondly, the Fordist labour process was unable to extract levels of surplus value necessary to counteract declining rates of profit, resulting in losses of revenue. Once this dynamic lost its momentum a massive frontal assault on workers, their unions, and their wages started. As Fordist production approached its limits, the danger of capitalist crisis began to reasssert itself (Aglietta 1979). In order for Fordism to survive, it needed to move beyond the limitations that Taylorism placed on it.

The 70’s saw the emergence of a new era, Neo-Fordism. There are many commentators; in particular Harvey (1989) suggests that Fordism evolved into Neo-Fordism. Noon & Blyton (2002) suggest this mean �new Fordism’ and refers to types of work organisation that have adapted many of the basic methods of Ford, but modified them through more flexible practices to match the changing social and economic circumstances. This viewpoint challenges