Reflecting theories of work place organization

WORK ORGANIZATION: ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAY
Name
Institution
Date

Differences in the way work were organized in a typical US-American car factory in the 1960s and the 2000s.
Work organization describes the division of labor and control of activities and processes involved in developing a product or service. Organization of work in a typical US-American factory in the 2000s was fundamentally different from the way it was in 1960s. The convergence of various factors, as well as advances in technology led to a steady change in the manner in which work was organized and performed in this industry (Ding and Akoorie, 2013, 89). One of the ways through which organization of work differs between the two periods was through constant disruption of organizational structures. Over the years, the structure of agencies in the auto industry has become more spatially distributed. Unlike in the 1960s, work in 2000s was no longer concentrated in an individual. Rather, collaborative activities and dedicated workspaces gained more prominence in the 2000s. Notably, dispersion of work has become a prominent feature in the organization of work in the 2000s. It is driven by the outsourcing of various functions to third party service providers, as well as the relocation of production facilities to low cost places.
Additionally, the need to simplify organizational hierarchies and the imperative to lower indirect costs have also led to the disruption of organizational structures in the auto factories.

Closely related to this development was the fact that the companies of the 2000s reduced staff levels significantly by outsourcing non-core function such as accounting, human resources, information technology, procurement and real estate management. The remaining core functions were being distributed among auto companies’ subsidiaries nationally and globally with the aim of taking advantage of lower labor costs in other countries (Beresteanu and Li, 2011, 166). The global distribution of functions was also motivated by the desire to establish production facilities close to the source of raw materials and also the market for end products. All these led to a situation where work was distributed across the world. As a result, employees had to relocate more frequently.
Another difference is that the auto factories of the 2000s pushed the decision-making authority to lower levels of the organization, thereby giving employees increased responsibilities. The auto manufacturers of 2000s could not just focus on cutting costs as did those of 1960s. Due to increased competition, the 2000s’ automobiles had to continually look for means of expanding into new markets while protecting existing competitive advantages (Govind and Manisha, 2011, 8). To do this, they had to enhance capacity for responding quickly to local conditions. Consequently, more decisions were being made by employees due to their closeness to customers. It means that employees of 1960s had limited decision-making authorities than those of 2000s.
The cumulative effect of technological advancements in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s significantly changed the organization of work in 2000s. Over the three decades, a variety communication and social collaboration technologies were developed and put into use in the auto factories (Beresteanu and Li, 2011, 164). New technologies were also developed for storing information and for sharing data in distributed work organizations. While some of these capabilities existed in the 1960s, advancements in the field of technology made it possible for them to be integrated with the universal, digital devices. In effect, auto workers of 2000s were able to access work materials and interact with workmates and supervisors remotely. Regarding customer service, the employees of 2000s replaced tedious face-to-face communications with digital communication technologies (Beresteanu and Li, 2011, 164). It made these employees more productive and essential strategic partners for auto companies. It can be noted that modern technological tools were being consolidated into interactive collaboration platforms to collaborate tasks synchronously as employees’ work schedules could allow. It became an important consideration as the work teams of the 2000s became more distributed across geographic regions and worked projects.
Since the year 2000, more advanced synchronous capabilities have been added to make work more efficient and enjoyable. These capabilities include audio and video conferencing, instant messaging, location detection, knowledge capture systems and data sharing. The collaborative technologies have risen to new levels of ubiquity, ease of use and fidelity as they converged to standard platforms (Haugh, Mourougane, and Chatal, 2010, 24). Among other benefits, the new technologies enabled workers to exchange knowledge and interact with management and customers. The arrival of Web 2.0 (social media) allowed the creation and sharing of information among workers in profound ways that were not possible in the 1960s. Most auto factories of the 2000s have experimented with Web 2.0 to connect their employees to the customers and the general public. Examples of the Web 2.0 platforms that were used to this end included weblogs, podcasts, emails, instant messaging, crowdsourcing, social bookmarking and music sharing among others.
The work organization of the 1960s also differed from that of 2000s regarding job flexibility. The auto factories of the 2000s had the opportunity of hiring employees with diverse skills. However, they had to focus on attractive compensation packages to attract and keep valued employees. They also had to be more sensitive to the changing preferences and needs of employees, particularly regarding work flexibility (the ability of workers to choose when, where and how to work). The workers of 2000s had more flexibility and autonomy than those of 1960s. The modern workplaces were increasingly being forged in the identities of employees (Ding and Akoorie, 2013, 89). Effectively, got a greater say on how work should be organized. As such, even though wages were significantly up, the issue of work flexibility remained paramount in employees’ consideration of work. The desire for increased workplace flexibility was also a response to the challenges of working in globally distributed workplaces. The implication for future organizations is that they will have to develop less traditional ways of executing tasks in the workplace and more flexibility to make employees more motivated and high performing.
According to Govind and Manisha (2011, 9-11), the auto factories of the 2000s were characterized by increased pressures for sustainable work and management styles than those of 1960s. As regulators, consumers and employees tirelessly worked to discourage adverse environmental practices; these factories were forced to reconsider the sustainability of their work practices, especially regarding how and where employees work. It resulted in renewed corporate attention on the issue of environmental sustainability. The attention was also driven by increased climate change with auto manufacturers being blamed for their huge environmental impact. In effect, workers of 2000s factories worked in organizations that put more emphasis on sustainability than did the firms of 1960s.
Globalization of markets appears to be one of the factors that caused the work group of the 2000s to differ from that of 1960s. Globalization has had a significant impact on the dynamics of the auto manufacturing industry. For US manufacturers, the international market for US automobiles shot up due to the liberalization of trade (Beresteanu and Li, 2011, 165). In other words, there was a greater global demand for US vehicles in the 2000s than in 1960s. To match with the increased demand, US-American auto manufacturers had to reconsider their work organizations with the objective of increasing efficiency, competitiveness and production capacity. It was one of the reasons that led to a sharp rise in foreign direct investments by US auto manufacturers in low-cost countries such as Mexico. Globalization also caused a sudden increase of cross-border strategic alliances between the United States and foreign car makers. Through these alliances, the vehicles exchanged ideas about best practices in different aspects of business operations including work organization.
The acceptance of flexible automation was another factor that contributed to the vast difference between work groups in the 1960s and 2000s. Although programmable technologies had been available since the 1960s, it was in 1980s that majority of auto manufacturers began making large-scale investments in flexible automation. It led to mass production in the automobile industry, which enabled companies to achieve economies of scale in unprecedented ways (Haugh, Mourougane, and Chatal, 2010, 19). With economies of scale came the need to change workplace settings and organization to allow for work to be done more efficiently. Sustained investments in flexible automation throughout the 1990s led to an entirely new work group in 2000s characterized by increased use of robotics to support core functions as opposed to human workers.
Given the differences between the 1960s auto factory and that of 2000s, it appears that employees in 2000s factory were more likely to be satisfied with their workplace. The 2000s warehouse were more organized and offered a fascinating working experience for employees. It creates touch-points that enabled employees to intermingle and collaborate with people from within and outside the organization (Ding and Akoorie, 2013, 94). Such a capability could make employees more satisfied with the workplace. By far, the most important aspect brought about by the 2000s work organization was the encouragement of external people to come into the factory to share knowledge. The majority of 2000s companies offered up space within their premises to start-ups and facilities, and in the process established strategic partnerships, which made the work of their employees more rewarding.
Moreover, the fact that 2000s factories emphasized workplace flexibility is another factor that contributed to increased job satisfaction among employees. The 1960s work organization was less flexible in that employees had less authority to decide how they could perform their jobs. It changed over the years, and by 2000, employees had more decision-making powers including choosing their work schedules. It led to the emergence of work-life balance programs across the auto industry. Through these programs, employees are given assistance to balance between work and domestic demands. In conclusion, the work was organized in fundamentally different ways in 2000s auto factories than it was in the 1960s companies. The variances were due to a combination of several factors such as globalization, and the need for increased efficiency and cost control.

References
Beresteanu, A and Li, S 2011, ‘Gasoline prices, government support, and the demand for hybrid vehicles in the United States’, International Economic Review, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 161-182.
Ding, Q and Akoorie, M E 2013, ‘The characteristics and historical development path of the globalizing Chinese automobile industry’, Journal of Technology Management in China, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 83-104.
Govind, P and Manisha, D 2011, ‘Automobile Industry and Performance of Key Players’, Asian Journal of Technology & Management Research, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 1-15.
Haugh, D, Mourougane A and Chatal O 2010, ‘The Automobile Industry in and Beyond the Crisis’, OECD Economics Department Working Papers, vol. 745, pp. 1-36.