The book rigging the game outlines elements of inequality in America. In the book, the author (Michael Schwalbe) examines ways in which inequality is bred and multiplied in society in addition to illustrating how the same can be overcome. The book is an essential teaching tool in sociology since it investigates how gender, class and race inequalities are perpetuated in society. In line with this, the author examines the background of scientific management and how it impacted on Fordism.
Fordism derives its name from mass production units that were developed by Henry Fords. However, his idea is majorly identified by the fact that it inclined more on production units and division of labor among various companies. In addition, Fordism has other features such as good hierarchical control and in most cases employees in production sector are restricted to perform only one task at a time.
In some instances, workers comprise of both skilled and unskilled people with their areas of operations also restricted. However, scientific management was as a result of Fredrick Wilsow. In 1911, Wilsow described various ways in which work could be done with ease with an aim of improving either the methods or techniques applied by workers.
According to Schwalbe (38), comparison can be drawn from scientific management and fordism theories. For example, from specialization and fragmentation of work perspectives in addition to application of the two theories, it is noted that both skilled and unskilled labor results into optimum production in one way or another. Moreover, it can be noted that Fordism mass production mechanism put into use the popular beliefs of Taylor.
He too argued that management should be separated from both human emotions and affairs. Therefore, based on this fact, the theory purported that human beings should be manipulated by authority just like machines.
As per the statement, it can be argued that the theory does not seem to attach much value for workers and thus it is not fit to be implemented in modern labor force. Furthermore, in the theory, the author added and emphasized various scientific methods with an aim of making work done by Ford in production process to be successful. However, there are contrasts between Fordism and scientific management.
In line with the theories of Fordism, it is evident that the value of workers was not given equal importance as it was with scientific management. For instance, the scientific management theory convinced workers that due to the fact that their goals as well as those of the employer could be easily attained if they worked together.
In regard to this, it can be argued that Fordism theory was only suitable for industrial companies that involved themselves with mass production. However, the scientific management theory could be applied successfully in different types of organizations and not necessarily in industrial ones.
Consequently, the theories in one way or the other have influenced modern organizational management methods and treatment of workers. For instance, managers have discovered the importance of treating workers in a democratic manner. This has resulted into numerous changes both technology and market whereby producers and managers are being encouraged not only to use flexible production methods but also to apply wider product diversity.
On the element of efficiency of workforce, scientific management placed more emphasis on not only teaching and training of workers but also developing them. This is an essential aspect of increasing production level of any organization as workers will feel motivated and part of the organization. On the other hand, Fordism made use of semi-skilled workers in its mass production while workers were replaced with ease.
Therefore, in comparing the two theories, it is evident that workers are treated differently in various organizations depending on the theory being applied at that particular time. Those organizations that apply Fordism theory do not put into consideration the importance of workers cooperating and working as a team. This may compel workers to fail achieving the desired results as pointed out by Taylor in regard to scientific management theory (Schwalbe 40).
Moreover, in the modern world, business owners have tried to change both the production methods and the work places by applying flat hierarchies and productions systems that are lean instead of either the scientific management or Fordism system. This may be attributed to the fact that business owners believe that these kinds of alterations will enable business organizations to attain flexibility. In addition, owners are likely to devise strategies that may drive such business organizations towards competitive advantage against market rivals.
Furthermore, Fordism theory borrowed quite a number of elements from scientific management theory but later concentrated in producing new methods of management which included putting in place ethical control and hierarchical system of management. In addition, Fordism made it possible for business owners to safeguard and regulate the position held by managers in addition to ensuring that the managers meet the set criteria of running organisations.
In conclusion, it is imperative to note that both scientific management and Fordism share certain common elements alongside some differences. For example, both of them mainly concentrated on means of getting work done within the shortest time possible in addition to putting strict restrictions and setting job guidelines for workers.
However, in the modern world, businesses do perceive workers as multi-skilled individuals who should participate in production process not only through team work but also through empowerment and training. Nonetheless, it is evident that Fordism borrowed much from scientific theory. It is against this backdrop that scientific management was of great importance during the fordist era.
Works Cited
Schwalbe, Michael. Smoke Screen. In M. Schwalbe’s Rigging The Game: How Inequality Is Reproduced in Everyday Life. Oxford: oxford University Press, 2007.