Introduction
During the twentieth century, two distinct technologies may be said to have existed. The first one is the assembly line of the pre-1920s while the second one is the computer technology of the post-1920s. These technologies were different in terms of the way they influenced operations within the organization. For instance, in the assembly line, face-to-face communication was used as opposed to computer-mediated communication in the computer-technology era.
In most cases, differences between these two technologies are normally discussed in the context of a socio-technical debate that encompasses two opposing strands of thought: technological determinism and social determinism. Technological determinism is based on the view that the technology that exists in a society determines the history, social structure, and cultural values of that society. Supporters of this view argue that technology is the ultimate force that governs society, that technological innovation follows an inevitable path that ultimately drives social progress.
In contrast, social determinism is based on the view that technology as a product of the society in which it has been developed. Proponents of this theory oppose the claim by technological determinists that technology influences society; instead, they argue that the converse is true. The aim of this paper is to discuss and apply the ideas of technological determinism and social determinism on two technologies: the assembly line of the pre-1920s and the computer technology of the post-1920s.
The assembly line technology versus the computer technology
One of the most defining characteristics of the assembly line technology is that it was heavily dependent on manual labour. This is in sharp contrast with the computer technology, which relies on mental labour. Moreover, in the assembly line, workers would share information through face-to-face communicate. With the advent of computer technology, the concept of computer mediated communication has emerged. Another crucial distinction is the reliance on centralisation in the assembly line, which is often contrasted with the reliance on network in the computer age. Similarly, departmentalism was a crucial feature in the industrial organizations of the pre-1920s era. After the advent of computer technology, these departments and silos were replaced by geographically dispersed parties.
The context of the assembly line technology was one where emphasis was on direct control and supervision. Workers operate in a production where each was expected to make a contribution to the final product by creating and adding a clearly defined part. The conveyor belt technology was introduced because it not only brought tasks closer to workers but also dealt effectively with the problem “soldieringâ€. Soldiering is the tendency by employees to deliberately perform fewer tasks than expected. This way, the pace of work was effectively being prescribed by machines.
The concept of soldiering was introduced by Frederick Taylor in his 1911 book The Principles of Scientific Management. Today, Taylor is referred to as the father of scientific management or Taylorism. While developing ideas of scientific management, Taylor used to work in the steel industry as a mechanical engineer. He observed that three core problems needed to be solved in the industry. First, factory operators needed to devise ways of using material and immaterial resources more efficiently. Secondly, soldiering needed to be eliminated. Thirdly, multiple “rules of thumb†needed to be replaced with what is referred to today as “best practiceâ€. Best practice refers to a single best way in which a task can be executed.
During the rise of the computer technology in the 1940s and 1950s, there was limited business interest in computers mainly because of their sheer size and cost. To put this problem in context, it is worthwhile to point out that in 1949, computer engineers were targeting to produce computers weighing less than 1.5 tonnes in the future. Six years earlier, IBM’s chairman, Thomas Watson estimated that the world market could only accommodate at most five computers. Drastic changes that stakeholders in this technology anticipated during the mid-twentieth century have occurred. The mainframe computers of the 1960s have been replaced with ultra-small desktop computers, personal computers, laptops, and palmtops. Currently, most computer and phone manufacturers have already developed tablet computers and smartphones that are of greater utility than the “traditional†laptops and desktop computers.
The rise of the assembly line and the computer: Technological determinism or social determinism?
The theory of technological determinism is founded on the idea that technological change is inevitable. This theory also proposes that the inherent features of a technology are the ones that determine how it is going to be used in that society. The underlying idea in this theory is that new capabilities are impossible in society until technology makes them possible. In this regard, one may want to look at the rise of the assembly line. The assembly brought about a society-wide paradigm shift in the way work was done in virtually all industrial settings. Technological determinists would argue that the assembly line is the one that influenced society and not the other way round. They would argue the fact that technology revolutionized the workplace during the early 20th century is sufficient proof that society is governed by technology. The same argument may be extended to the issue of computer technology, where virtually all aspects of social life are today being influenced by the computer. For example, billions of people around the world rely on mobile phones, which are manufactured using computer-based technology for communication purposes.
In technological determinism, two main ideas have been propounded. The first one is that technology adheres to a predictable path that cannot be circumvented by any political or cultural influence. The second idea is that the impact of technology on societies is inherent and not socially conditioned. This means that once technology is introduced, society reorganizes itself and if need be to further develop a newly introduced technology.
When Taylor’s theory of scientific management gained popularity throughout the industrial world, many scholars started looking for solutions to the problems that it had identified. For example, Max Weber came up with the theory of bureaucracy. Weber’s objective was to introduce a new way through which institutions could be organized with a view to sustain and reproduce capitalism. Like Taylor, Weber identified training as one of the characteristics that would make institutions operate efficiently. Other characteristics of bureaucratic organizations include rules, specialization and departmentalism, documentation, rationality, and hierarchical relations. In many ways, the theory of bureaucracy provided solutions to the problems Taylor had identified in scientific management. Technological determinists would view this turn of events as proof that society was simply responding to the changes that had been brought about by the assembly line technology. In this case, proponents of bureaucracy were looking for new ways of improving the organizational platform through which the industrial developments of the capitalistic world could be sustained and reproduced.
Social determinism opposes the view that society is always at the mercy of technology (MacKenzie, 2004). Social determinists would argue that the assembly line was discovered simply because there was a perceived need for its existence in society. They would point out the fact that prior to the introduction of the production line in which a conveyor belt played a critical role, society was in the process of seeking new methods of enhancing, sustaining, and consolidating the capitalistic mode of creating wealth. From this argument, it seems that the assembly line emerged primarily because there was a need for it in society. Social determinists insist that if the pressures of ever-increasing production in the world of capitalism did not exist, society would not have embraced the idea of introducing the assembly line as the driving force behind contemporary industries.
A contrasting argument is often made by technological determinists who point out to the circumstances under which computer technology has emerged. During the 1940s, IBM’s chairman estimated that the global market could only take up five computers. Only half a century later, virtually any person who is old enough to attend school is a potential customer for computer companies. Computers are increasingly becoming essential day-to-day tools not only for adults but also young children. Based on this observation, technological determinists argue that technological change in the case of computers followed its own logic. Society may have welcomed it or protested; but it followed its own course anyway (Zammuto et al, 2007).
Technological determinists may want to give the example of Apple Inc., the company that takes most of the credit for the modern computing revolution. The company’s founder, Steve Jobs, was famous for his strong marketing skills. He spearheaded the development of three of the latest computer-technological wonders: the iPod, the iPhone, and the iPad. Those who marvelled at his strong innovative and marketing skills argue that he had a unique way of convincing consumers into believing that they needed to purchase the latest iPod, iPhone or iPad. The point that those people were trying to make is that the need for these computing gadgets did not exist in society until Jobs told them about their existence and how rapidly they would positively transform their lives.
To counter this view, proponents of social determinism argue that without a growing market for computers, innovators would lack an incentive to make improvements on the existing computer technology.
…
References
Ceruzzi, P (2005), ‘Moore’s Law and Technological Determinism: Reflections on the History of Technology’, Technology and Culture, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 584-593.
Harris, M (2006), ‘F. W. Taylor and the legacies of systemization’, Information, Communication & Society, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 109-120.
MacKenzie, D (2004), The social shaping of technology (3rd ed.), Routledge, London.
Mowschowitz, A (1994), ‘Virtual organization: A vision of management in the information age’, The Information Society, vol. 10, pp. 267-288.
Taylor, F (1911), The Principles of Scientific Management, Harper & Brothers, Detroit.
Zammuto, R, Griffith, T, Majchrzak, A, Dougherty, D & Faraj, S (2007), ‘Information Technology and the changing fabric of organization’, Organization Science, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 749-762.