Taylorism vs. Fordism vs. Toyotism

Taylorism and Fordism

At the beginning of the twentieth century, philosophy taylorist it seeped into industries because of its superior profitability over the way factories were previously managed.

She was responsible for founding the foundations of the industry for decades, and can still be noticed in some companies that emphasize vigilance over employees and maximum output at the cost of each worker's effort. It is founded on the scientific positivism of the late 19th century.

O Fordism, is the adaptation of the same guidelines to end-of-life technologies second industrial revolution. The transition between one and the other was gradual and natural.

The most obvious difference between them is that, in Fordism, what moves the worker's effort is not the reprimand for low performance or the bonus for high efficiency, but the rhythm of the machine. Assembly lines allowed Ford to control decoupled from individual competence.

TAYLORISM	FORDISM
Work by tasks and hierarchical levels	Mass production
Long on-the-job training	Little or no training
time control	Rigid standardization of production
Establishment of minimum productivity levels	Assembly line

Taylorism and Fordism vs. Toyotism

O Toyotism of the second half of the 20th century represented a major break with the western model of production. Its adoption by the West was due to its superior profitability, since its philosophy foresees the reduction of costs; and also to the advance of neoliberalism. Toyotism was developed in post-war Japan, with a small consumer market and limited resources.

At the beginning of the century In the 20th century, the dominant conception of the market was classical liberalism, which envisaged a regulatory and welfare State, with control over the functioning of the market. Unions and government agencies vied for control over the work regime, wages, licenses and concessions, etc. Toyotism was one of those responsible for shifting emphasis to the financial and individual power of the public.

Comparison

In practice, a factory on the Fordist or Taylorist model mass-produced many of the same goods that flooded large inventories pushed to consumers, which were understood collectively. In toyotism, small batches of products “pulled” by individual consumer demand go straight to him, passing as little as possible through the stock.

While in Taylorism individual efficiency dictates when the product will be ready, in Fordism it depends on the pace of the machines. In toyotism, on the other hand, it is the buyers' demand that defines how much effort will be allocated at each stage so that the product comes out in the desired time. Unlike other systems, in toyotism workers have a macrocosmic understanding of production and can occupy more than one position.

This ability to perform more than one task was avoided under a classical liberal logic because there was constant fear on the part of bosses that employees and unions understood how to carry out the productive process alone and take over the means of production. In neoliberal logic, this fear is less because collectivization is less and individuality is rewarded: it is more It is likely that the worker wants to ascend socially by advancing in the company (raising a higher position) than by conflict.

This is also why repression of officials is very attenuated in toyotism. The control of employees takes place in a structural way, and not through authoritarian surveillance. This allows Toyotism greater mobility under adverse conditions, as employees occupy various roles depending on the situation. However, the neoliberal philosophy also meant the reduction of the welfare state and public guarantees from the 1970s onwards.