Impact of Taylor and Ford on Organizations Today

1747 Words Dec 14th, 2012 7 Pages
Impact of Taylor and Ford on Organizations Today
Scientific management is a well known approach towards management and it can be traced back to the work of Fredrick Taylor and Henry Ford. Taylor believed that similar to the way that there is best machine to each job, so there is the best method that people should undertake their jobs. Fordism which picked up the name of its pioneer, Ford, involved mass consumption which is combined with mass production to produce widespread material advancement and sustained economic growth (Daft and Marcic, 2010). The paper elaborates the impacts of the scientific approach to management in today’s organizations and also to the employee with respect to Taylor’s and Ford’s influence. This approach has been
…show more content…
This approach, though, neglected the human element, so that in effect the work process was converted from worker machine relationship to two machines relationship (Cobley, 2009:53).
As per Pacharapha (2012), theorists of scientific management assumed that employees desired to work with minimum effort while receiving more money. Also took for granted submission expected from workers to physical movement standards and processes thought. They did not consider how workers felt and what was likely to motivate them, leaving a high degree of dissatisfaction of the job among the workers. General Motors happened to be the first company that was forced into recognition of United Auto Workers (UAW) union after a sit down strike closed its plants in Flint, Michigan 1937. Workers won more wages and benefits after a series of more battles.
On the other Hand, consider the proof of New United Motor Manufacturing Inc., in Fremont. Paul Adler had to say that it had succeeded in employment of Taylor’s time-and-motion study on the factory creating first class quality productivity and at the same time increasing worker satisfaction and motivation. Taylorist procedures promoted learning in the organisation leading to steady improvement (Down, 2012).

Carlton-Ford (2010:214), explains that waging systems that were non-incentive
Open Document