Fordist production also provided large advancements in machinery. At the end of the nineteenth century most machines were still only general purpose, and relied on the skill of the operator. But with the emergence of the automotive industry new machines were developed. New design features included the machines being semiautomatic with special controls to change or reverse speeds. There was also advancement in being able to interchange machine parts which simplified setting up and controlled the tolerances of work. These machines were also capable of running continuously one set up. With the new widespread use of machinery and division of labour, the only tasks after setting up the machines were to feed it and remove the finished parts. Litter, points out that ‘Ford perfected the flow-line principle of assembly work. This meant that instead of workers moving between tasks, the flow of parts is achieved as much as possible by machines such that assembly workers are tied to their position and have no need to move about the workshop’ (Litter 1985). Under mass production, not only were parts interchangeable, so too were assemblers. According to Womack, Jones, and Roos (1990), the mass production system carried the division of labour to its ultimate extreme. ‘The assembler had only one task, to put two nuts on two bolts or perhaps to attach one wheel to each car. He didn't order parts, procure his tools, repair his equipment, inspect for quality, or even understand what workers on either side of him were doing. Special repairmen re-paired tools. Housekeepers periodically cleaned the work area. Special inspectors checked quality, and defective work, once discovered, was rectified in a rework area after the end of the line. The role of the assembly worker had the lowest status in the factory. In some plants, management actually told assembly workers that they were needed only because automation could not replace them yet.’ (Womack, Jones, and Roos 1990). The Fordist system of division of labour and the increased use of machinery, prevented there from being flexibility in production. Because the workforce was relatively unskilled, there ability to quickly adapt to change was hindered, as well as the long periods of time it took to adapt the machinery change in products and advancements was relatively limited.
Henry Ford pushed job fragmentation to an extreme and also exploited the labour market. Ford stated that ‘the jobs were classified to discover how many of them required the use of men with full capabilities. We found that 670 could be filled by legless men, 2637 by one legged men, two by armless men, 715 by one armed men and ten by blind men. Therefore out of 7882 kinds of job 4034 did not require full physical capacity’ (Ford 1922). The profit generating advantages of job specialisation, fragmentation and flow line production resulted in Fordism policies and principles being imitated by competing organisations in many different economies. With Fordism being adapted in many different countries, it caused some problems related to the development of industry. In many countries such as Britain, the labour force was made up of families, and with this new form of work organisation it eliminated such forms, and employers were then unable to ‘harness labour’s creative and productive powers’ (Litter 1985). This would therefore limit the flexibility of the production and as a result prevent organisations competing fluidly, because the products available in the market would be limited.
The period of Fordism was characterised mainly by mass production and mass consumption. Fordism also saw the rise of many new economic institutions which would ensure the future economic growth. The main element of the Fordist economic structure according to Bagguley is ‘production articulated to mass consumption’ (Keat & Abercrombie, 1991). Bagguley goes on to claim that the Fordist system produced large volumes of the same product are produced using specialised machinery dedicated to one product. Jobs were also largely unskilled, in complex hierarchies of control and subject to detailed organisation (Keat & Abercrombie, 1991). Fordist economic policy of harvesting vast amounts of raw materials for a designated product did not allow for flexibility in production. To change any part of the production procedure in the Fordist method caused considerable delays in production of up to months. And with the acquirement of raw materials for a certain product, many organisations found that it was too costly to change production, which limited competition between them since, each firm was attempting to produce the most products for the smallest cost. There products therefore, presented very little advancements or differences between them. Grint argues that Fordism had some limitations in so far as consumer demand was concerned. Grint claims that it was very well persuading everyone to purchase a product, but a saturated market would require some form of dehydration if it was not to choke off demand and hence profit and production (Grint, 1991). One part of the solution claimed by Grint was to stimulated variable demand. However the problem was the adoption of new technology to meet the demands of the consumer more quickly, and also to generate different consumer demands. The new technology would require a more flexible and a more skilled workforce, since flexible technology with an inflexible workforce does not lead to flexible production (Grint, 1991).
The Fordist systems lead to inflexible production and also limited competition between organisations. Fordist principles of division of labour and of de-skilling the labour force prevented there from being advancement and flexibility in production. Fordist economic principles also hindered production flexibility by not allowing fundamental changes in the design of the product. This would also limit competition between the organisations because innovation would be limited, and each firm would purely attempt to maximise their own outputs without attempting to advance their product because in the long run it would seem to be far too costly, due to the time it would take to raise production back up to its highest level of output.
Reference:
Ford, H, (1922) ‘My Life and Work’, Doubleday Page
Grint, K, (1991) ‘The sociology of Work’, Blackwell
Keat, R & Abercrombie, N, (1991) ‘Enterprise Culture’, Routledge
Litter, C R, (1985) ‘Taylorism, Fordism and Job design’ D Knights et al
Meyer, S, (1981) ‘The Five Dollar Day: Labour Management and social control in the
Ford Motor Company’, 1908-21, State University of New York Press.
Porter, H F, (1917) ‘Four Big Lessons from Fords Factories’, System 31 June
Womack, James P, Daniel T Jones, & Daniel Roos, (1990) ‘The Machine that Changed the World’, New York: Rawson Associates.
