Scientific management

Scientific management, Taylorism or the Classical Perspective is a method in management theory which determines changes to improve labour productivity. The idea first coined by Frederick Winslow Taylor in his The Principles of Scientific Management (Online version) who believed that decisions based upon tradition and rules of thumb should be replaced by precise procedures developed after careful study of an individual.

General approach, contributions and elements

General approach

• Standard method for performing each job
• Select workers with appropriate abilities for each job
• Training for standard task
• Planning work and eliminating interruptions
• Wage incentive for increase output

Contributions

• A systematic and measurable approach to process improvement
• Importance of compensation for performance
• Began the careful study of tasks and jobs
• Importance of selection and training

Elements

• Labour is defined and authority/responsibility is legitimised/official
• Positions placed in hierarchy and under authority of higher level
• Selection is based upon technical competence, training or experience
• Actions and decisions are recorded to allow continuity and memory
• Management is different from ownership of the organisation
• Managers follow rules/procedures to enable reliable/predictable behaviour

Mass production methods

Taylorism is often mentioned along with Fordism, because it was closely associated with mass production methods in manufacturing factories. Taylor's own name for his approach was scientific management. This sort of task-oriented optimization of work tasks is nearly ubiquitous today in menial industries, most notably in assembly lines and fast-food restaurants. His arguments began from his observation that, in general, workers in repetitive jobs work at the slowest rate that goes unpunished. This slow rate of work (which he called "soldiering", but might nowadays be termed "loafing" or "malingering" as a typical part of a day's work), he opined, was a combination of the inherent laziness of people and the observation that, when paid the same amount, workers will tend to do the amount of work the slowest among them does. He therefore proposed that the work practice that had been developed in most work environments was crafted, intentionally or unintentionally, to be very inefficient in its execution. From this he posited that there was one best method for performing a particular task, and that if it were taught to workers, their productivity would go up.

Taylor introduced many concepts that were not widely accepted at the time. For example, by observing workers, he decided that labor should include rest breaks so that the worker has time to recover from fatigue. He proved this with the task of unloading ore. Workers were taught to take rest during work and output went up. Today's armies use it during forced marches - the soldiers are ordered to take a break of 10 minutes for every hour of marching. This allows for a much longer forced march than continuous walking.

Division of labour

Taylor recognized that there is a certain suitability of certain people for particular jobs:

Now one of the very first requirements for a man who is fit to handle pig iron as a regular occupation is that he shall be so stupid and so phlegmatic that he more nearly resembles in his mental make-up the ox than any other type. The man who is mentally alert and intelligent is for this very reason entirely unsuited to what would, for him, be the grinding monotony of work of this character. Therefore the workman who is best suited to handling pig iron is unable to understand the real science of doing this class of work.

This view—match the worker to the job—has resurfaced time and time again in management theories.

Failings

While his principles have a certain logic, most applications of it fail to account for two inherent difficulties:

• It ignores individual differences: the most efficient way of working for one person may be inefficient for another;
• It ignores the fact that the economic interests of workers and management are rarely identical, so that both the measurement processes and the retraining required by Taylor's methods would frequently be resented and sometimes sabotaged by the workforce.

Both difficulties were recognized by Taylor, but are generally not fully addressed by managers who only see the potential improvements to efficiency. Taylor believed that scientific management cannot work unless the worker benefits. In his view management should arrange the work in such a way that one is able to produce more and get paid more, by teaching and implementing more efficient procedures for producing a product.

In general, pure Taylorism views workers simply as machines, to be made efficient by removing unnecessary or wasted effort. However, some would say that this approach ignores the complications introduced because workers are necessarily human: personal needs, interpersonal difficulties, and the very real difficulties introduced by making jobs so efficient that workers have no time to relax. As a result, workers worked harder, but became dissatisfied with the work environment. Some have argued that this discounting of worker personalities led to the rise of labor unions.

It can also be said that the rise in labor unions is leading to a push on the part of industry to accelerate the process of automation, a process that is undergoing a renaissance with the invention of a host of new technologies starting with the computer and the Internet. This shift in production to machines was clearly one of the goals of Taylorism, and represents a victory for his theories.

However, tactfully choosing to ignore the still controversial process of automating human work is also politically expedient, so many still say that practical problems caused by Taylorism led to its replacement by the human relations school of management in 1930.

However, Taylor's theories were clearly at the root of a global revival in theories of scientific management in the latter two decades of the 20th century, under the moniker of 'corporate reengineering'. So, as such, Taylor's ideas can be seen as the root of a very influential series of developments in the workplace, with the goal being the eventual elimination of industry's need for unskilled, and later perhaps, even most skilled labor in any form, directly following Taylor's recipe for deconstructing a process. This has come to be known as commoditization, and no skilled profession, even medicine, has proven to be immune from the efforts of Taylors followers, the 'reengineers' - who are often called derogatory names such as 'bean counters'.

J.C. Tipton BA, BSc, The Journal of Scientific Management Vol. 28 Page 127 (1992) - 'As aforementioned in my previous work, the blatant failings of scientific management stem from the monotony of repetitive tasks. It is also the presence of a plethora of hygiene factors (Herzberg 1918) that will ensure that this management structure will die a horrible death.

Scientific management and the Soviet Union

Historian Thomas Hughes (Hughes 2004) has detailed the way in which the Soviet Union in the 1920s and 1930s enthusiastically embraced Fordism and Taylorism, importing American experts in both fields as well as American engineering firms to build parts of its new industrial infrastructure. The concepts of the Five Year Plan and the centrally planned economy can be traced directly to the influence of Taylorism on Soviet thinking. Hughes quotes Stalin:

American efficiency is that indomitable force which neither knows nor recognises obstacles; which continues on a task once started until it is finished, even if it is a minor task; and without which serious constructive work is impossible . . . The combination of the Russian revolutionary sweep with American efficiency is the essence of Leninism. (Hughes 2004, 251)

(Stalin 1976: 115)

Stalin, J. V. (1976) Problems of Leninism, Lectures Delivered at the Sverdlov University Foreign Languages Press, Peking

link

Hughes offers this equation to describe what happened:

Taylorismus + Fordismus = Amerikanismus

Hughes describes how, as the Soviet Union developed and grew in power both sides, the Soviets and the Americans, chose to ignore or deny the contribution that American ideas and expertise had had, the Soviets because they wished to portray themselves as creators of their own destiny and not indebted to a rival and the Americans because they did not wish to acknowledge their part in creating a powerful rival.

See also

• Fordism
• Division of labour
• Hawthorne effect
• Benjamin S. Graham
• Lillian Moller Gilbreth, Frank Bunker Gilbreth. Wife and husband team of time and motion study engineers
• Pandora's Box by Adam Curtis
• The Secret Life of Machines: The Office by Tim Hunkin

References

• Hughes, Thomas P., 2004 American Genesis: A Century of Invention and Technological Enthusiasm 1870-1970. 2nd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Robert Kanigel, 1999 The One Best Way: Frederick Winslow Taylor and the Enigma of Efficiency Penguin ISBN 0-14-026080-3

External links

• Taylorism and Neo-Taylorism
• Principles of Scientific Management - Full text online