Ford and Taylorism
The workers in Australia, America or Europe would not accept the Taylorism in its original form today. In today’s world the organizations do not directly apply the Taylorism in its original form, the modification others are combined before implementing these strategies in the organizations (Waring 2016). In contemporary Australia the practice Taylorism is largely discredited by most companies. However many researchers suggest that Taylorism still significantly exists in many areas of business. The engineers apply industrialized Taylorism in the business through their applicability. In businesses like retail, insurance or banks the simple work measurement process has transformed into a process that includes ergonomics or digital technology. The employers have a significant role in the origin of taylorist practice. However this was not predominantly adapted by the employers all over the world. They do not see this as the only way to control the labor process (Nyland, Bruce and Burns 2014). Taylorism is still in effect in contemporary world depending on the structure or product of the organization. Taylor’s idea is highly criticized because the concept treats money as the only important factor. There are millions organizations based on charity which will not adapt the Taylorist strategies. However, if the organizations are performing poorly or in cases of emergency, the management applies Taylorism as the best method in order to increase profit. Ford applied his assembly line approach with Taylor’s piece payment and labor division. The managers of today take some elements from Taylorism and combine theories of Maslow, Fayol or Herzberg and apply in the organizational activity (Parker 2016).
Taylorism principally focused on few managerial strategies that intensified manual labor. Taylor achieved that by rationalizing and reexamining the work process, monitoring and controlling the labor performance and by applying positive economic inducements. Few organizations apply Taylorism extensively in order to run the business effectively. Like in call centre business it is applied to instruct the call centre employees what exactly they need to do (Schermerhorn, 2013). The call centres in India use all the aspects of classic Taylorism from standardization to fragmentation and the management constantly keep monitoring the employee performance (Sinha and Gabriel 2016).
The employees lack of willingness to change created challenges for the application of Taylorism. Giant companies like Google does not apply Taylorism in their work force, instead they treat their work force as an organizational asset and encourages free environment (Coleman, 2016). This is more successful in expanding business and increasing productivity. The employees get desired time and freedom in their work place. Taylorism managed the workforce functionality and time-motion management in order to improve the organizational productivity. The fast food industry also follows the idea which is important part of Taylorism. Today large fast food company like McDonalds is effectively using Taylorism theory, as they follow the standard process of making the workers follow a direct instruction of making burger (Babajana and Webber 2015). This leading fast food and beverage company in the world has been successfully applying such principle of scientific management Taylor’s time and motion approach is extremely effective in businesses in countries like India or Dubai. The customers there are promised their orders within a minimum amount of time and Taylor’s theory is proves to be fruitful.
Dimensions by Hofstede
![]()
Figure: Geert Hofstede Country Comparison
(Source: Geert-hofstede.com 2017)
The following are the differences between Australia and Singapore based on the 6-D model.
Power distance
Any country’s power distance is defined by the inequality among the individual citizens. The weak members of the society accept the distributed power unequally and the stronger receives the power more. Australia scored 36 on this category which is lower than Singapore’s scoring 74. In Australian organizations hierarchy is not that rigid or power driven. Here the every employee is given importance and value by the management leadership. The employees and managers engage in a collaborative and participative working culture where communication is direct and information sharing is appreciated. On the other hand the Confucian philosophy plays a significant role in Malaysian society. The power driven relationship models developed by Confucian are largely followed by Malaysian people. The managers and leaderships are power oriented and act by certain specific set of rules. The information flow depends on the higher authority and the communication is mostly indirect.
Individualism
The individualism is the interdependency among the members within a society (Hagger, Rentzelas and Koch 2014). Singapore is a collectivist society, scoring 20 and Australia is predominantly individualistic society scoring 90. In Australia “I” is more important than “We”. The employees are self dependant and capable of making decisions. In the work culture of Singapore, working in groups or teams is important. The employees do their best to maintain the harmony.
Masculinity
Australia’s high score (61) proves that the society here is masculine and Singapore’s score (48) demonstrates that it is more inclined towards the feminine side. The employees are more focused on achieving success or promotion and resolve the conflicts that are hampering their goals on their own. In the business world of Singapore, the employees are more keen to avoid the conflicts than resolving.
Uncertainty Avoidance
In this category the members of a country feel threatened by unfamiliar situations. Australia is in middle position by scoring 51 in this category. Singapore scores very low (8).
Long Term Orientation
This dimension deals with how a society deals with present challenges keeping in mind the past. Singapore scores high (72) tells that it invests for the longer run and applies a pragmatic method. This results in great economic success and makes it one powerful dragon. Australia’s low score 21 tells that they are focused to get current quick result.
Indulgence
Australia proves to be an indulgent country as it scores 71. They possess a positive attitude towards work and life; give much importance to their leisure. Singapore scores 46 so it is difficult to determine its dimension.
Yes, I do agree with the survey result. The scores are reflecting the real situations of the society and business world of the country. Australia practices masculinity and individualism which is evident in everyday reality. Other dimensions shows the appropriate result which can be experienced in the organizational performance of the country in the business world.
Reference
Babajana, Z. and Webber, A., 2015. Organisational Behaviour.
Coleman, A. (2016). Is Google's model of the creative workplace the future of the office?. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/careers/2016/feb/11/is-googles-model-of-the-creative-workplace-the-future-of-the-office [Accessed 22 Aug. 2017].
Hagger, M.S., Rentzelas, P. and Koch, S., 2014. Evaluating group member behaviour under individualist and collectivist norms: A cross-cultural comparison. Small Group Research, 45(2), pp.217-228.
Nyland, C., Bruce, K. and Burns, P., 2014. Taylorism, the international labour organization, and the genesis and diffusion of codetermination. Organization Studies, 35(8), pp.1149-1169.
Parker, L.D., 2016. The global Fayol: contemporary management and accounting traces. Entreprises et histoire, (2), pp.51-63.
Schermerhorn, J.R., 2013. Management. John Wiley & Sons.
Sinha, S. and Gabriel, Y., 2016. 5 Call Centre Work: Taylorism with a Facelift. Re-Tayloring Management: Scientific Management a Century On, p.87.
Waring, S.P., 2016. Taylorism transformed: Scientific management theory since 1945. UNC Press Books.
