When Henry Ford was building up his famous management and production system for model T, he was also shaping his unique business ideology which is known as Fordism. This paper tries to examine the nature of his ideology, and its relations with the management organization of the Ford Motor Company. Although he advocated “service” as a business objective rather than “profit”, he actively engaged in profit making as far as it was earned through production. He accused bank-capitalists and inactive stockholders of carrying away a part of profit which should be retained for the reduction of production cost. Cost reduction could lead to the low price and high wage which would favor customers and laborers. Fordism as a business ideology could not help having an effect on the history of the Company. Henry Ford emphasized the importance of the mechanical aspect too much and did not applied his Ford System to the management organization as a whole. According to P.F. Drucker, the decline and confusion of the Company during 1930's might be caused by his failure to recognize the importance of the management organization. This paper also analizes the conflict between ideology and organization during reorganizing process of 1940's.
It is sometimes argued that the rapid industrialization in Japan owed much to the development of modern engineers which was attained by the introduction of western-type educational system into the early stage after Meiji Restoration. However, we have very few researches which support this argument with detailed data and an adequate framework to explain the relationship between economic development and educational system. This paper tries to explore the rise and development of modern engineers during the period from 1870's to 1920's, basing on the data of the “Survey of the Graduate from Eighteen Techinical Colleges”, which contains about 10, 000 cases and shows their occupational careers and geographical mobility. This paper adopts the framework of “flow approach” of technical manpower. This is a comprehensive approach which is comprised of five levels: the policy making, the development of educational agents, recruitment to employment market, utilization in industry and government, and geographical mobility.