Mr. Ford and British Industry
[The interview with Mr. Henry Ford which was printed in the Spectator last week has aroused considerable interest. We decided to invite comment from one or two leading British industrialists. We print below the conclusions of Mr. B. Seebohm Rowntree and of Sir Herbert Austin.—En. Spectator.] Mr. B. Seebohm Rowntree.
-I-MR. FORD, in the interview reported in your issue of last week, deals with two aspects of the question of unemployment in Britain, and with much of what he says progressive employers will be in agreement. Although we have in this country some factories which are as efficient as any to be found elsewhere, it cannot be disputed that the average level of efficiency in British factories is much lower than it ought to be. Far too many employers are satisfied with a low standard in this respect, and if they are not making profits they ask for Govern- ment help, or seek to lower wages. But there is no easy way out of our industrial difficulties. We shall only emerge from them as the result of really hard and system- atic thinking and strenuous work.
British industry needs to develop its technique along three lines (1) It is not enough to have a number of efficient separate factories if we want to compete successfully in the markets of the world. Each industry should be so organized as a whole as to render possible the attainment of the highest degree of efficiency. At present there is an enormous amount of overlapping and useless and waste- ful competition ; and it is utterly impossible to secure the full benefits of mass production. I suggest that every employers' federation should employ a first-rate economist and an accountant to survey the indiistry as a whole, and give expert advice as to its efficient organiz- ation. Once their report was in existence, employers could discuss together the necessary steps towards the fulfilment of its recommendations.
(2) Every employer should seek to achieve the highest standard of efficiency in his own factory. Endless waste of time and effort are the result of lack of organization. Every employee should know exactly where his responsi- bility begins and where it ends—to whom he is responsible and who is responsible to him. There may be no one method of organization that fits all factories, but every factory should work out and adopt its own ideal organ- ization. There is a vast literature on the subject to aid them in the task.
(3) Every employer should make the fullest possible use of science. To neglect its aid to-day is simply to court disaster. I am not thinking only of chemistry, or physics, or engineering, but of such comparatively new sciences as psychology. Nor must we forget hygiene. Endless waste is occurring in England to-day because work- rooms are badly lit or badly ventilated, and it is idle to have processes that are thoroughly up to date if the individuals-performing them are never up to the mark.
But all this means a very high standard of training on the part-of management. Here in Great Britain we have lagged behind the U.S.A., and we are only now trying to make up our leeway. It is a melancholy fact that we are the only industrial country in the world which has no institute existing solely in order to study problems of industrial administration and management and dissem- inate information on the most up-to-date methods. I am glad to know that a British Institute of Management is just being launched, and I hope it will be supported by every progressive employer. I might add that both the London School of Economics and the University of Hull are establishing excellent courses of training in industrial administration.
With regard to what Mr. Ford says about wages, I think few employers with a real knowledge of the state of in- dustry in this country would agree with him when he says, " I think the raising of wages in England would not only have an eventual effect, but would immediately improve your trade. Its result would be instantaneous."
But I am afraid that the result, though certainly instantaneous, would be similar to that of electrocution ! There is only one way to solve our many difficulties—it is to make the standard of efficiency in British industry com- pare favourably with that of every other country. And each employer should make it his duty to see that wages increase in proportion with the increasing efficiency of the factory. Every industry, every factory which pays low wages is a menace to the welfare of the community, because it is not providing its due share of purchasing power.
Previous page
