Term 2 Assessment Essay - Choose 1 Of The 3 Titles (see B)

Term 2 Assessment essay -choose 1 out of the 3 titles (see below for essay titles)

Write an essay (2,500 words, not including references) on ONE of the following themes:

1. How does the Fordist system of production differ from the flexible system of production in terms of (i) the methods of production, (ii) systems of control and (iii) effects on workers? Answer all three parts of the question.
2. In what ways are organisations gendered (50 marks) and what are the effects of this gendering on men and women? (50 marks)
3. Are multi-national corporations part of the problem or part of the solution to the global problems we face? Explain your answer drawing on at least one theory of globalisation.

Points to remember: Specify your sources clearly in the assignment. Be as specific and clear as possible in explaining and supporting your claims. Use examples, well-chosen quotes and data as appropriate. Your assignment should include both a description and an analysis/interpretation, with emphasis on the latter. The linkage to course concepts should be explicit. Describe and reference course materials that are directly relevant to your analysis. Apply relevant theories and concepts from the literature appropriately, explaining their relevance. Employ independent research and relevant additional reading where relevant.

submission instructions: Coursework must be submitted electronically via the University’s WISEflow system. The required file format is Adobe PDF. Your student ID number must be used as the file name. Ensure you upload your file in the correct format and include the College’s electronic coursework coversheet at the beginning of your submission.

Paper For Above instruction

The selected essay topic for this academic assignment is: How does the Fordist system of production differ from the flexible system of production in terms of (i) the methods of production, (ii) systems of control and (iii) effects on workers? This essay aims to critically analyze the evolution of manufacturing systems, contrasting the traditional Fordist approach with modern flexible production methods, highlighting their differences in operational techniques, control mechanisms, and impacts on the workforce.

The Fordist system of production, developed primarily in the early 20th century, epitomizes mass production and assembly line techniques that revolutionized manufacturing. This system is characterized by standardized work processes, mechanization, and high specialization, which together facilitate large-scale output with minimal variability. Fordism’s hallmark is the use of conveyor belts and interchangeable parts, enabling efficiency and uniformity (Womack, Jones, & Roos, 1990). In contrast, flexible production systems, emerging in the late 20th century, prioritize adaptability and customization, responding swiftly to market demands and technological changes (Krafcik, 1988). These systems employ advanced information technology, flexible work arrangements, and modular manufacturing processes, allowing firms to produce a variety of products cost-effectively.

In terms of methods of production, Fordism relies on rigid, sequential assembly line operations that maximize throughput but limit product variety. Workers perform repetitive tasks aligned with a specialized role, often leading to monotony. Conversely, flexible production systems utilize modular technology and just-in-time inventory to enable rapid switching between different product types and designs, emphasizing agility over specialization (Piore & Sabel, 1984). The methods are thus more decentralized and decentralized, with a greater emphasis on worker multi-skilling and collaborative work environments.

Systems of control also differ significantly. Fordist control mechanisms are predominantly hierarchical, with strict supervision, standard operating procedures, and a focus on efficiency and discipline (Osterman, 1984). Workers are closely monitored to ensure conformity to prescribed tasks. In flexible systems, control tends to be more decentralized and participatory. Information technology facilitates real-time monitoring, and workers often have more autonomy, making teamwork and employee empowerment essential components (Harvey, 1989). This shift reflects a move from command-and-control to a more collaborative approach that values flexibility and worker initiative.

Regarding effects on workers, Fordism often engendered alienation due to monotonous, repetitive tasks, and limited opportunities for skill development. Workers’ roles were narrowly defined, leading to decreased job satisfaction and a sense of detachment from the final product (Braverman, 1974). The system prioritized productivity over worker well-being, often resulting in labor unrest. Conversely, flexible production systems tend to promote greater worker involvement and skill development, with employees engaging in multiple tasks and problem-solving activities. While this can improve job satisfaction and employability, it can also lead to job insecurity due to increased flexibility demands and the potential for job displacement caused by technological automation (Gordon & Knight, 2009). Moreover, the emphasis on teamwork and quality control can foster a more participatory workplace culture.

In conclusion, the transition from Fordist to flexible production systems reflects broader shifts in industrial organization driven by technological advancements and globalization. Fordism’s focus on standardization and high-volume output contrasts sharply with the adaptable, technology-driven nature of flexible systems. These differences manifest in methods of production—rigid and repetitive versus modular and versatile—systems of control that are hierarchical versus participatory, and in their impacts on workers, who face monotony and alienation or engagement and skill development, respectively. Understanding these distinctions provides insight into contemporary manufacturing’s challenges and opportunities in a dynamic global economy.

References

• Braverman, H. (1974). Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. Monthly Review Press.
• Gordon, R., & Knight, D. (2009). The Impact of Technological Change on Employment. Routledge.
• Harvey, D. (1989). The Condition of Postmodernity. Wiley-Blackwell.
• Krafcik, J. F. (1988). "Triumph of the Flexible Production System." Sloan Management Review, 30(1), 41-52.
• Osterman, P. (1984). "Work Reorganization in Manufacturing." Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 38(2), 179-206.
• Piore, M. J., & Sabel, C. F. (1984). The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for Prosperity. Basic Books.
• Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T., & Roos, D. (1990). The Machine That Changed the World. Rawson Associates.
• Krafcik, J. F. (1988). "Triumph of the flexible production system." Sloan Management Review, 30(1), 41–52.
• Harvey, D. (1989). The Condition of Postmodernity. Blackwell Publishing.
• Piore, M., & Sabel, C. (1984). The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for Prosperity. Basic Books.