The Assembly Line and Manufacturing Model
Considering the fact that Ford follows the principle of One Ford, they have an assembly line where every employee is proficient in handling one tool. Their pricing structure gives us an idea that they want to keep the price of their products low. This is why they prefer to follow “just in case” manufacturing model. The current standards of the sustainability of an international business give us three above the line operations in the departments of Methodology, Raw materials, and inventory measurement. Working environment, management of the human-ware and the technology are three bottom-line operations for this manufacturing unit (LaForest, 2018).
This manufacturing matrix gives us eighteen fields that can be considered as the causative factors to support the downtime of the production unit. The case history of the Ford gives us an idea that sometimes they put pressure on the employees in order to meet the targets. This is why employee management can become the key result area for them. Ford has a great training culture where semi-skilled labor gets training for six months. This training can become their key asset in the terms of sustainability (Confino, 2017). This organization is rich enough to purchase the latest technology solutions. However, their track record gives us an idea that the management of the people can become a big task for them if they are seeking for an increase in the production with an intention to increase the volume to keep the prices low (Lombardo, 2017).
The past history of the Ford motor gives us an idea that their track record in the field of corporate ethics and social responsibility dwindled when they worked with inferior technology and released some faulty products in the market. The current closed loop is designed to keep a check on the quality issues under an effortless framework. The circle of Repeat business represents a brand loyalty. This circle also represents the after-sales services provided by the company as well.
The circle of the repeat customer also indicates the rollback related policy of the company as well. The case of the cost-benefit analysis of the Ford Pinto can be termed as the biggest dent in the history of the company. A human life is priceless, it cannot be judged on any scale of the cost-benefit analysis (Kird, 2012).
The factors that we depicted above the line of the production are more important and the factors that are present below the line can be compromised. Ford as a company has a glorious track record. They have a reputation in the market and this reputation in itself acts as a capital for the company. The brand loyalty earned by them always gives them an upper hand. This is why financial results and the capital are placed below the line.
Sustainability and Employee Management
The organizational goals are the goals set by the planning commission of an organization. In most of the cases, organizational goals refer to some inspirational words or the mission statements. In the case of Ford, their mission statement says that they want to become the number one company in the field of the automobiles.
After fixing the organizational goals, most of the organizations’ design an operation plan for the implementation of the processes as described by the planning documents. Operational planning is the next document where the heads of the divisions prepare short-term goals for their divisions (Reilly, 2015). The main organization goal can also be termed as the sum of these short-term goals or unit based goals. In the case of Ford the slogans like “one team” gives us an idea about the goals of the other department.
The assembly line at the Ford follows the organizational goals under the program that says “One Ford, One Goal.” Under this program, all the divisions of the Ford assembly line stay in touch with the main production goals fixed by the higher ranks. They know about their roles and contribute their bit in the process (Willems, 2018).
It has been observed that in general cases, organizational goals focus more on the profitability of the endeavor and other such aspects like cost leadership etc. However, in the case of the Ford, their focus is more on the credibility of the organization. Instead of cost-cutting, they prefer to maintain quality (Berdish, 2017). For this, they sometimes make a compromise with the profits that are coming out of each unit.
The presence of an organizational goal unites the entire team in a single thread of operation. It allows an individual or a department to understand their role in the setup. We can also say that an organizational goal presents a bigger picture in front of the employees (Henry, 2009). They figure out their own role in the picture and set some personal goals for themselves so that they can become a part of this bigger picture. The organizational goals also correspond to a loop like structure where a feedback chain can be maintained (Keytone, 2011). This feedback chain can work both the ways, it can work with the bottom-up approach where the failure or the success of short-term goals can force a company to revise their main goal. It can also follow a top-down approach where the planning heads can come up with some solutions and practice top-down approach (Fields, 2015).
Training Culture for Sustainability
The organizational culture and the climate have become an important issue in the global world because most of the companies are now running business operations in multiple countries (Alvesson, 2012). Organizational culture plays a very important role during this cross-cultural operation when a cosmopolitan team joins hand and work together. Organizational culture can create bridges among the employees and define various formal and interpersonal communication protocols.
The organizational culture mainly thrives on the propagation of the values, symbols from the past achievements and the failures. This culture further supports the communication protocols of organizations and creates a healthy working environment for the employees where they can have this feeling that they are working in a team under the guidance of certain principles (Kim S. Cameron, 2012).
Before we explore the other features of the organizational culture and climate we should have a look at the example of the Ford. During the previous slowdown in 2006 and 2007, Ford was among very few automobile companies that didn’t demand a bailout package. Their assembly lines were working normally and most of their brands met with the desired targets. It happened because they faced the same type of slowdown during the period of the great recession in 1920 to 1930 (Masoroka, 2012). During this period they had a tough time in sustaining their business. It was also the time when the learned the lesson of obsolescence. The principle of the obsolescence says that a company should kill its own brands in order to survive in the future markets. Since then they are improving their own brands and releasing them after short intervals. During the period of the current recession, they followed the same strategy and continued their business on a no-profit no loss basis. The lessons of the previous recessions became the guiding light for them in the latest turnaround of the events (Miroshink, 2013). Their understanding of the condition of the recession can be termed as the legacy of the organization.
This example brings us back to the definition of the organizational culture once again. The organizational culture is an output of the past history of an organization. It moves on simple phenomena like the creation of symbols and heroes. Military organizations present the best example of organizational culture (Schultz, 2012). They guard every success story or the stories of valor as heroics. They carry forward the legacy of war heroics in the form of celebrations and other means. In the definition of the organizational culture, we know them as the ceremonies and the rituals.
Corporate Ethics and Social Responsibility
The organization culture also imbibes an employee with the organization. Almost two decades ago when automobile giant Hyundai started its operations in India they were in need of local men power. Hyundai is a South Korean company (Steers, 2013). The working culture is very different in India when we compare it with South Korea. In South Korea, they believe in first name organizations. A first name organization is an informal organization type where employees can express their views without following any command lines. In a first name organization, any employee can break the command line and approach the senior most people without any problem. The traditional setups of the organizations strictly adhere to the command lines and reporting culture. Here the senior clan delegates the work to the junior class (Schein, 2010). Junior clan reports back to the senior clan. This reporting culture has its merits and demerits in an organization. It can create a claustrophobic environment and people at the higher ranks can take undue advantages of their posts.
The organizational culture of Hyundai became its important manifestation in India. Most of the South Korean companies believe in the working culture of self-service. It means that they don’t have a provision of hiring janitors for the working space of any individual. It was a new concept for Indian workforce, working in the Hyundai, however, the same thing became a reminder for Indian workforce that they are working in a different company (Barbera, 2014). Cleaning up their own desks became a ritual for them. Later on, the HR machinery of Hyundai used this ritual as a metaphor to launch the fact that it is a rare first name organization working in India. The culture of an organization sets the tone for the environment of work and this is where Hyundai scored in introducing their Indian employees to a new culture.
Organizational learning is a complex process. Most of the managers often find themselves at a difficult spot when they check the learning capacity of an organization and try to answer this question that whether an organization learning to learn or not. It also is known as the adaptive mode of an organization, the outcomes of this learning capacity are directly proportionate to the development of the organization (Argote, 2012). When we check this learning process on a single unit or a single employee then we find that the planning heads often dictate some espoused theories. However, an employee relies more on an implicit theory. The concept of implicit theories tells us that most the individuals prepare mental models of addressing a problem. Sometimes these models work well whereas sometimes these models become mental blocks crush the growth of an organization. The concept of the mental models is also known as the “theory in use” model (Dixon, 2017).
Organizational Goals and Operational Planning
In the case of Ford, we can clearly see that it is an organization which is ready to learn a few things all the time. The authorities at the Ford hesitated in rolling back the Pinto variant cars and tried to explain this stance. However, after a few years, the same company readily rolled back the tires of the car because experts were suspicious of an inferior quality product (Kenney, 2017).
This comparison shows that they are learning from their past. Another area is the area of employee wellbeing. The authorities at Ford are now adopting the industry best safety practices. They are constantly upgrading the machinery and technologies. Their concern for employee diversity programs and employee education programs also helps them in catering to the international markets in a global world. All these acts are an example of the adaptability ratio of Ford operations. Sometimes a lack of knowledge can force an employee to form some mental blocks connected the cross-cultural exchanges (Jacky Hong, 2017).
Here we would like to introduce another term which is connected with the tacit knowledge of an organization. We have already seen it in the case of the recession of 2006 and 2007 when the tacit knowledge of the organization helped them in sailing through the recession (Mark Easterby-Smith, 2011). As an organization, Ford is promoting this tacit knowledge with the help of organizational culture. This promotion is also working as an organizational learning and supporting the development of the Ford.
There are many ways to address a problem and come up with a decision. The principles of the system thinking introduce to these approaches and finally show us a path where we can evaluate various options and come up with a decision. Rational thinking gives us a platform where we are standing; here we can identify our position, for instance, our rational thinking can tell us that we are making a decision to score on an opportunity (Peter, 2015). In a similar fashion, we can also quantify the outputs of our decisions. For instance, rational thinking can give an indication of the possible results. In some cases, rational thinking can also bring a picture in front of us where we will not be able to make the best choice among some uncertain conditions (Gharajedaghi, 2011).
The systematic thinking also gives us a perspective about the condition in which we are making the deal. Under some conditions, we might have been making a deal to resolve a conflict. There can be some other conditions when we might be making the deals in accordance with rules (John Boardman, 2013). The systematic thinking gives us a framework where we can select the nature of the decision that we have to make. We can identify our position while making a decision and finally we can take the support of the rationales to make the right choices (Mella, 2012).
Organizational Culture and Climate
The systematic thinking process forces us to see the problem from an objective point of view. It allows us to draw some strategies of the negotiation. It also allows us to think differently about any given problem. For applying systematic thinking in our approach we need to collect the information from the right sources and then put them across the table where we can connect various pieces of the information and apply rational thinking for a decision support system (Ghosh, 2016).
In the case of Ford, we can see that they are making light vehicles to enjoy more fuel efficiency. They are compromising on the durability of the vehicles. Now let’s add a rationale to it, fuel charges are coming down across the world. A fuel efficient by expensive car may lose this battle of technology and it might end up as a costly yet inferior product (Dutta, 2017).
According to an initiative by the US government, they are planning to force the automobile companies to come up with some measures and increase the mileage of passenger cars to the limit of 54 miles per gallon. As a result, a big change in the car manufacturing methods is on the cards. Considering the fact that in the recent past Ford has adopted a proactive approach in adopting new technologies. This time once again they will perform well (Jung, 2014).
For this purpose, they need to take the support of some change management tactics. However, here they can also face some resistance while going for this change. For instance, the employees may find it difficult to adjust to the new machinery. Similarly, the stakeholders can also raise a question about it because gradually most of the developed countries are now discouraging the concept of gasoline engines in small and passenger vehicles (Little, 2014). The exercise of the change management demands a lot of preparation. Here a planner has to think about the change from two different perspectives. The first perspective is about the retention of the best elements of the existing system. The second perspective is connected to handling the mindset of the employees that are going through the phase of the change.
Change management tactics gives us a framework where we can apply the principles of the Johari Window and gradually drag all the employees in the known quadrant of the change (Bourne, 2012).
It is a general psychology that people are reluctant to change their existing systems. Most of the time they feel that the change is for something bad, they don’t want to come out of their comfort zones, for a caring organization like Ford, they should come up with a proper change management programs. These change management programs can help them in clearing up their minds and embrace the new technological breakthroughs more easily.
Ford’s Legacy, Symbols, and Heroes
The SUDA mesh Analysis allows us to see the problem from the central axis of the operations. In ordinary conditions, most of the organizational cultural norms tell us to follow a bottom-up or tow down approach to solve the problems. The vertical hierarchies of the organizations made it a lengthy process to handle. Ford is a big organization where many departments work in close quarters and complement each other’s efficiency by delivering the goods on time. A SUDA mesh analysis first dictates us to acquire a vantage view of the problem that we are facing (Roth, 2016).
In the case of Ford, their functional assembly line gives us the idea that they are in command of all four aspects of sustainability. Their past history gives us an idea that they are keen to come up with new technologies to increase their efficiency because they work on a model where more volume means lower cost of the products. Their assembly line promotes a centralized decision-making system. In general, they follow a line production unit where each department contributes its bit once the good reach on to a certain juncture of the production line (R, 2011).
We can also understand it with the help of an example; the unit which is making the wheelbase falls in the initial run of the assembly line, whereas the unit adding the wheels meets with the product at the penultimate levels. The quality check department meets with the product at the end of the assembly line. In the case of Ford Pinto, we have seen that company failed in meeting out with a fundamental error which resulted in one of the darkest spots in the history of the company (Huges, 2013). The SUDA mesh analysis gives us a circular structure. This structure allows the management to keep a check on the quality of various steps of the operation itself.
The modern concept of “touch it once” is also applicable here. The SUDA mesh analysis gives us a solution to support this problem. In order to keep a check on this situation, they can bend their assembly line into a circle and appoint quality control measures at the spooks of the circle. These quality control measures should directly report to the central authority in the case of a faulty delivery. This structure can minimize the distance between the departments of the assembly lines. Now let’s reexamine the same case of a faulty wheelbase under this new structure. If they will detect a faulty wheelbase right at the point of the installation then the production facility can be stopped until the next removal of the problem. This halt at the workstation will avoid the de-duplication of the work. In the above diagram, we can see that lines of the communication are two-way lines. It unifies the organization and fulfills the motto of the one Ford (Bourne, 2012).
Learning Capacity and Adaptive Mode
This is the control model that can support the operational facilities of Ford. In order to explain this model further, we can also add the concept of the locus of control in the same diagram.
The locus of control breaks down the control related exercises into two fractions, the first Fraction denotes the issues that are in our direct control. The cause and effect theory gives us a clear idea that with the help of the right kind of interventions we can bring the things that are out of our control into our control. For instance, we can see it in the case of the faulty rubber of the tires, things were under the locus of control when they were producing the tires inside the manufacturing units (Lefcourt, 2014). Things went of their control or out of their control locus when they sent these tires in the market. In order to bring them back in the control, they rolled back the tires and replaced them.
Any control diagram is null and void without setting up the boundaries of the locus of control. Any study based on the locus of control enables us to fix the key result areas of the operation where we can get maximum benefits and increase the locus of control over the areas that are not in our control. For instance, in the above-mentioned diagram, the happiness levels of the customers is an area which is out of the control locus, we can also give it the term of the external locus of the happiness. Let’s once again think about the debacle of the Ford Pinto, the company earned a bad name because they were not in a position to roll them back. However, they presented a data where they said that the number of accidents is minuscule in comparison with the cost of the rolling back of the goods (Fields, 2015).
Now think about the accidents that took place on the roads. They were out of the locus of the control for the Ford manufacturing unit once the vehicles were on the road.
The case study associated with Ford gives us a clear idea that they should focus more on the restructuring of their operations in order to practice better quality control. It is important for them for two reasons. In general when we use this term sustainability then we refer to the fact that an organization should manage between the three P’s of People, Profit, and Planet, Ford is already doing great in all the three regards (Gharajedaghi, 2011). They are keen on compromising on the profits. They have a healthy track record for the welfare of the people. However, they are lacking in the quality control department because the case of Ford Pinto depicts myopia in their quality control exercise and the efficiency of the designing department.
Alvesson, M. (2012). Understanding Organizational Culture. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Argote, L. (2012). Organizational Learning: Creating, Retaining and Transferring Knowledge. New York: Springer.
Barbera, K. M. (2014). The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Climate and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Berdish, D. (2017). THE ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING GOAL AT FORD’S EFHD. System Thinker, Accessd on 25th October 2018, https://thesystemsthinker.com/the-organizational-learning-goal-at-fords-efhd/.
Bourne, M. (2012). Change Management In A Week: Managing Change In Seven Simple Steps. London: Hachette.
Confino, J. (2017). Best practices in sustainability: Ford, Starbucks and more. The Guardian, Accessd on 25th October 2018, https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/blog/best-practices-sustainability-us-corporations-ceres.
Dixon, N. M. (2017). The Organizational Learning Cycle: How We Can Learn Collectively. Abingdon: Routledge.
Dutta, P. (2017). Systems Thinking for Effective Managers: The Road Less Travelled. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Fields, M. (2015). THE WAY FORWARD; FORD & ALAN MULALLY. Main Land Ford, Accessd on 25th October 2018,https://www.mainlandford.com/blog/the-way-forward/.
Gharajedaghi, J. (2011). Systems Thinking: Managing Chaos and Complexity. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Ghosh, A. (2016). Dynamic Systems for Everyone: Understanding How Our World Works. New York: Springer.
Henry, O. (2009). Organizational Conflict and its Effects on Organisational Performance. Science Alert, Accessd on 25th October, 2018https://scialert.net/fulltext/?doi=rjbm.2009.16.24.
Huges, J. W. (2013). Environmental Problem Solving: A How-to Guide. New Hampshire: UPNE.
Jacky Hong, R. S. (2017). Organizational Learning in Asia: Issues and Challenges. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
John Boardman, B. S. (2013). Systemic Thinking: Building Maps for Worlds of Systems. New Jersey: Wiley.
Jung, C. (2014). The Importance of Change Management in Organisations. Munich: Grin.
Kenney, M. (2017). Organizational Learning in the Global Context. Abingdon: Routledge.
Keytone, J. (2011). Communication and Organizational Culture. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Kim S. Cameron, R. E. (2012). Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture. New Jersey: Wiley.
Kird. (2012). 20 Ford Cars That Are Notorious Rust Buckets. Motor Hub, Accessd on 25th October 2018https://www.hotcars.com/ford-cars-that-are-rust-buckets/.
LaForest, A. (2018). Automakers, suppliers taking tiny steps toward big sustainability goals. Rubber & Plastic News, Accessd on 25th October 2018https://www.rubbernews.com/article/20180924/NEWS/180929973/auto-makers-suppliers-taking-tiny-steps-toward-big-sustainability-goals.
Lefcourt, H. M. (2014). Locus of Control: Current Trends in Theory & Research. London: Psychology Press.
Little, J. (2014). Lean Change Management: Innovative Practices for Managing Organizational Change. USA: Happy Melly.
Lombardo, J. (2017). Ford Motor Company’s Organizational Culture Analysis. Palmore, Accessd on 25th October 2018https://panmore.com/ford-motor-company-organizational-culture-analysis.
Mark Easterby-Smith, . A. (2011). Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management. New Jersey: Wiley.
Masoroka, M. (2012). Organizational Culture: Its Implications for Educational Institutions. Munich: GRIN.
Mella, P. (2012). Systems Thinking: Intelligence in Action. New York: Springer.
Miroshink, V. (2013). Organizational Culture and Commitment: Transmission in Multinationals. Springer: New York.
Peter, D. (2015). Systems Thinking For Social Change. Vermont: Accessd on 25th October 2018https://books.google.co.in/books?id=Fa2PCgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=System+thinking&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjIkZLBnaTeAhUVTn0KHbp3Dp4Q6AEILzAB#v=onepage&q=System%20thinking&f=false.
R, P. (2011). Group Problem Solving. Princeton University Press: Princeton.
Reilly, J. O. (2015). Growing a Culture of Sustainability. Inbound Logistics, Accessd on 25th October 2018https://www.inboundlogistics.com/cms/article/growing-a-culture-of-sustainability/.
Roth, G. (2016). Systemic Change Management: The Five Capabilities for Improving Enterprises. New York: Springer.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership. New Jersey: Wiley.
Schultz, M. (2012). On Studying Organizational Cultures: Diagnosis and Understanding. Boston: Walter De Gruyter.
Steers, R. M. (2013). Made in Korea: Chung Ju Yung and the Rise of Hyundai. Abingdon: Routledge.
Willems, S. (2018). White Collar, Pink Slip, There is Pain coming for Ford Employees. The Truth about Cars, Accessd on 25th October 2018, https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2018/10/white-collar-pink-slip-theres-pain-coming-to-fords-workforce/.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
