Would you argue that Fordism was a good idea or bad one?
The motor industry in the U.S. emerged towards the culmination of the 19th century (Degen, 2011, p. 5). Henry Ford devised the system of mass production and other techniques that revolutionised production resulting in the concept of Fordism. Fordism is a combination of social theories on production and the associated socio-economic phenomena (Brain, n.d, p. 474). This concept encouraged high wages resulting in a full-circle economy. It encouraged manufacturers to produce standardised products in bulk using unusual machinery and unskilled labor. Although Fordism tried to transform the production system, it was a bad idea. Therefore, this paper seeks to provide arguments against the Fordism concept.
Before the emergence of Taylorism and Fordism, the motor vehicle industry in the U.S. embraced a system of craft production. The system encouraged lean production by working with customer orders and skilled laborers. However, it failed to produce economies of scale (Degen, 2011, p. 7). It attained its maturity level due to the high production costs. Fordism introduced the system of mass production while Taylorism invented the scientific management approach. Taylorism identifies the scientific values of production. Fordism encouraged the standardisation of products, tasks, and standardisation process. On the other hand, Taylorism separated the administrative responsibilities that involve intelligence from the standardised tasks that involve least qualifications (Degen, 2011, p. 5). Both Taylorism and Fordism emerged almost at the same time (Degen, 2011, p. 5). They encouraged mass production resulting in the temporary success of the motor industry. According to Degen (2011), both concepts increased efficiency and effectiveness of the workers through the fragmentation of tasks. However, both concepts became monotonous and failed to recognise their employees as fixed costs. They failed to enhance their workers’ capabilities, commitment, and experience. As such, the concept failed to address the needs of employees.
Various reasons contributed to the failure by Fordism to address the emerging market demands. The crisis of Fordism occurred in the 1960s and 1970s (Vidal, 2011, p. 275). Various regulationists argue that the production process of Fordism facilitated the crisis (Vidal, 2011, p. 275). According to Vidal (2011), the system’s labor process attained technical limits during this period resulting in inflexibility and social problems. The system facilitated the deterioration of macroeconomic conditions. Since it employed mass production processes, it became elastic and overextended. Furthermore, Fordism resulted in disproportionate increases in wages and expansion of the state expenditure. The system failed to meet the emerging needs of the market. Thus, Fordism was a bad idea.
Fordism failed to adapt to the various social, economic, and political changes facilitating its transformation. These changes include technological changes, a rise in input and oil prices globally, emergence of flexible production systems, and changes in tastes of consumers. During this period, the emerging market demands and competitive factors challenged the production techniques. Consequently, Fordism became rigid and unresponsive to the emerging problems. Therefore, Fordism was a bad idea because it was unable to change with the various changing social, economic, and political factors.
Although Fordism tried to revolutionise the motor industry, it had various drawbacks. Besides, the service conditions among the workers became unbearable resulting in endless confrontation between the workplace and administration (Degen, 2011, p. 4). Consequently, the costs of labor and overall costs in the motor vehicle industry in the U.S. increased. According to Degen (2011), this aspect reduced the competitiveness of U.S. companies. Moreover, Fordism introduced bureaucracies in the motor firms that discouraged aspiring and gifted youths from joining the motor industry (Degen, 2011, p. 13). Consequently, the companies failed to produce innovative products. Furthermore, this concept separated mental from physical tasks creating a division between the white-collar and blue-collar workers (Degen, 2011, p. 21). In addition, Fordism contributed to the inability of the motor companies to respond to the emerging customer demands facilitating their decline. These drawbacks are a proof that Fordism was a bad idea.
It is important to mention that post-Fordism emerged because of the inflexibility of Fordism. Post-Fordism emphasizes on the types of consumers. Fordism focused on the social class, the white-collar laborer, and services (Brain, n.d, p. 482). Organizations focus on producing varied products to accommodate the various consumer groups. Moreover, this concept is associated with new information technologies. Information technology allows organisations to produce and immediately sell their products without necessarily stocking them. Companies have fragmented the production process with a majority of them specialising in particular lines of production. According to Brain, organisations have shifted from mass production of one product to effective and flexible equipment and labor system that are ready to change with the changes in the market. Furthermore, post-Fordism has resulted into globalisation of the capital markets and feminisation of the labor force.
It is important to acknowledge that Fordism revolutionised the production system in various ways. The concept encouraged product standardisation and resulted in high wages for the workers (Brain, n.d, p. 474). Moreover, it created markets that generated economies of scope and scale (Brain, n.d, p. 476). According to Brain, the concept created economies of scale by producing in bulk decreasing the unit costs. On the other hand, it created the economies of scope by capitalising on labor division. Furthermore, Fordism stimulated several institutions, governance, and public policies that minimized market failures and reformed industrial practices (Brain, n.d, p. 476). It is worth mentioning that various individuals adopted the concept. The principles of Fordism are the basis of the Bata approach that focuses on extension, exportation, and diversification (Chvatal & Burita, 2014, p. 60). Tomas Bata, Czech entrepreneur, modified the principles of Fordism to meet the objectives of the Bata approach.
From the above discussion, it is clear that Fordism resulted in the ultimate decline of the industry. In my view, initially, Fordism was a good idea, but failed to manage the emerging market demands in the end. I think Fordism changed the motor industry but later it facilitated the decline of motor companies in the U.S. The concept increased competitive disadvantages of these companies by increasing the labor costs and the overall costs of production. In my view, Fordism affected the ability of these companies to produce innovative products that met the emerging needs of consumers. As such, the U.S. companies failed to compete with the Japanese companies that produced innovative products through the lean production approach. It is clear that the concept increased the wages of workers. It contributed to the confrontations between the administration and the workers. In my opinion, such confrontations affect the efficiencies of both the companies and the workers affecting the performance of companies. Therefore, my argument is that Fordism was a bad idea.