This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Taylor was a mechanical engineer who sought to improve industrial efficiency. Taylor is regarded as the father of scientific management, and was one of the first management consultants and director of a famous firm. In Peter Drucker's description, Frederick W. Taylor was the first man in recorded history who deemed work deserving of systematic observation and study. On Taylor's 'scientific management' rests, above all, the tremendous surge of affluence in the last seventy-five years which has lifted the working masses in the developed countries well above any level recorded before, even for the well-to-do. Taylor, though the Isaac Newton (or perhaps the Archimedes) of the science of work, laid only first foundations, however. Not much has been added to them since – even though he has been dead all of sixty years. Taylor was also an accomplished tennis player. He and Clarence Clark won the first doubles tournament in the 1881 U.S. National Championships, the precursor of the U.S. Open. Future U.S. Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis coined the term scientific management in the course of his argument for the Eastern Rate Case before the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1910. Brandeis debated that railroads, when governed according to the principles of Taylor, did not need to raise rates to increase wages. Taylor used Brandeis's term in the title of his monograph The Principles of Scientific Management, published in 1911. The Eastern Rate Case propelled Taylor's ideas to the forefront of the management agenda. Taylor wrote to Brandeis "I have rarely seen a new movement started with such great momentum as you have given this one." Taylor's approach is also often referred to as Taylor's Principles, or frequently disparagingly, as Taylorism. Taylor's scientific management consisted of four principles: 1. Replace rule-of-thumb work methods with methods based on a scientific study of the tasks. 2. Scientifically select, train, and develop each employee rather than passively leaving them to train themselves. 3. Provide "Detailed instruction and supervision of each worker in the performance of that worker's discrete task" (Montgomery 1997: 250). 4. Divide work nearly equally between managers and workers, so that the managers apply scientific management principles to planning the work and the workers actually perform the tasks.
 Managers and workers
Taylor had very precise ideas about how to introduce his system:
It is only through enforced standardization of methods, enforced adoption of the best implements and working conditions, and enforced cooperation that this faster work can be assured. And the duty of enforcing the adoption of standards and enforcing this cooperation rests with management alone. Workers were supposed to be incapable of understanding what they were doing. According to Taylor this was true even for rather simple tasks. 'I can say, without the slightest hesitation,' Taylor told a congressional committee, 'that the science of handling pig-iron is so great that the man who is ... physically able to handle pig-iron and is sufficiently phlegmatic and stupid to choose this for his occupation is rarely able to comprehend the science of handling pig-iron. The introduction of his system was often resented by workers and provoked numerous strikes. The strike at Watertown Arsenal led to the congressional investigation in 1912. Taylor believed the labourer was worthy of his hire, and pay was linked to productivity. His workers were able to earn substantially more than those under conventional management, and this earned him enemies among the owners of factories where scientific management was not in use.
 Propaganda techniques
Taylor promised to reconcile labor and capital. With the triumph of scientific management, unions would have nothing left to do, and they would have been cleansed of their most evil feature: the restriction of output. To underscore this idea, Taylor fashioned the myth that 'there has never been a strike of men working under scientific management', trying to give it credibility by constant repetition. In similar fashion he incessantly linked his proposals to shorter hours of work, without bothering to produce evidence of "Taylorized" firms that reduced working hours, and he revised his famous tale of Schmidt carrying pig iron at Bethlehem Steel at least three times, obscuring some aspects of his study and stressing others, so that each successive version made Schmidt's exertions more impressive, more voluntary and more rewarding to him than the last. Unlike [Harrington] Emerson, Taylor was not a charlatan, but his ideological message required the suppression of all evidence of worker's dissent, of coercion, or of any human motives or aspirations other than those his vision of progress could encompass.
 Management theory
Taylor thought that by analyzing work, the "One Best Way" to do it would be found. He is most remembered for developing the time and motion study. He would break a job into its component parts and measure each to the hundredth of a minute. One of his most famous studies involved shovels. He noticed that workers used the same shovel for all materials. He determined that the most effective load was 21½ lb, and found or designed shovels that for each material would scoop up that amount. He was generally
Alford was a critic of the Taylor system and the report was negative. The committee modified the report slightly. most of its themes are still important parts of industrial engineering and management today. The committee included Taylor allies such as James Mapes Dodge and Henry R. Alford. Taylor collected a number of his articles into a book-length manuscript which he submitted to the ASME for publication. Its development began with Frederick Winslow Taylor in the 1880s and 1890s within the manufacturing industries. he tried to implement his system into the management of the ASME but was met with much resistance. Moreover. especially labor productivity. but accepted Alford's recommendation not to publish Taylor's book. the book he wrote after parting company with Bethlehem Steel. The ASME formed an ad hoc committee to review the text. Scientific management. Nevertheless. He was only able to reorganize the publications department and then only partially. standardization of best practices.unsuccessful in getting his concepts applied and was dismissed from Bethlehem Steel. Although scientific management as a distinct theory or school of thought was obsolete by the 1930s. Taylor was able to convince workers who used shovels and whose compensation was tied to how much they produced to adopt his advice about the optimum way to shovel by breaking the movements down into their component elements and recommending better ways to perform these movements. work ethic. sold well. Gantt) that industry came to implement his ideas. rationality. synthesis. disdain for tradition preserved merely for its own sake or merely to protect the social status of particular workers with particular skill sets. Taylor angrily withdrew the book and published Principles without ASME approval.L. These include analysis. logic. His tenure as president was trouble-ridden and marked the beginning of a period of internal dissension within the ASME during the Progressive Age. Rice. Its peak of influence came in the 1910s. It was one of the earliest attempts to apply science to the engineering of processes and to management. Leon P. Towne. and replaced him with Calvin W.  Relations with ASME Taylor was president of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) from 1906 to 1907. In 1912. Morris L. Shop Management. empiricism. efficiency and elimination of waste. While president. it was still influential but had begun an era of competition and syncretism with opposing or complementary ideas. Its main objective was improving economic efficiency. the transformation of craft production into . also called Taylorism. by the 1920s. Cooke. The committee delegated the report to the editor of the American Machinist. He also forced out the ASME's long-time secretary. It was largely through the efforts of his disciples (most notably H. was a theory of management that analyzed and synthesized workflows.
mass production. Taylor is considered the father of scientific management.  Terminology and definitions The terms "scientific management" and "Taylorism" are near synonyms. Taylorism is sometimes called (or considered a subset of) the classical perspective (meaning a perspective that's still respected for its seminal influence although it is no longer state-of-the-art). While the terms "scientific management" and "Taylorism" are often treated as synonymous. including differences in talent. that is. Overview and context The core ideas of scientific management were developed by Taylor in the 1880s and 1890s. and documentation. including via time and motion studies. and knowledge transfer between workers and from workers into tools. When Louis Brandeis popularized the term . thus in today's management theory. Taylor noticed the natural differences in productivity between workers. and were first published in his monographs Shop Management (1903) and The Principles of Scientific Management (1911). which was followed by new iterations. The great difficulty in accurately differentiating any such intelligent. an alternative view considers Taylorism as the first form of scientific management. or motivations. He believed that decisions based upon tradition and rules of thumb should be replaced by precise procedures developed after careful study of an individual at work. While working as a lathe operator and foreman at Midvale Steel. The goal and promise was both an increase in productivity and reduction of effort. intelligence. Taylor's own early names for his approach included "shop management" and "process management". detail-oriented management from mere misguided micromanagement also caused interpersonal friction between workers and managers. processes. This necessitated a higher ratio of managerial workers to laborers than previous management methods. He was one of the first people to try to apply science to this application. then propagated to the other workers via standardization of process steps. and social tensions between the blue-collar and white-collar classes. Scientific management's application was contingent on a high level of managerial control over employee work practices. which would tend to discover or synthesize the "one best way" to do any given task. understanding why and how these differences existed and how best practices could be analyzed and synthesized. which were driven by various causes.
industrial engineering. other engineers and managers (such as Benjamin S. Fordism. It is compared and contrasted with other efforts. and there is often no mutual exclusiveness when discussing the details of any one of these topics. However. and he used it himself in his 1911 monograph. became obsolete by the 1930s. Today. logistics. It was a gradual process that began as soon as Taylor published (as evidenced by. many aspects of scientific management have never stopped being part of later management efforts called by other names. decreasing waste. including those of Henri Fayol and those of Frank Gilbreth. The field comprised the work of Taylor. Graham). and other theorists. Taylorism can be seen as the division of labor pushed to its logical extreme. manufacturing engineering. such as Max Weber. implying "no longer current. and by the 1960s the term "scientific management" had fallen out of favor for describing current management theories. business process reengineering. There is no simple dividing line demarcating the time when management as a modern profession (blending art. Hartness's motivation to publish his Human Factor. it is a late 19th and early 20th century instance of the larger recurring theme in human life of increasing efficiency. but still respected for its seminal value") in contrast to newer.  Legacy In management literature today. and each subsequent decade brought further evolution. including time and motion study. because it was closely associated with mass production methods in factories."scientific management" in 1910. and applied science) diverged from Taylorism proper. Thus it is a chapter in a larger narrative that includes many ideas and fields. the greatest use of the term "scientific management" is with reference to the work of Taylor and his disciples ("classical". operations research. and Six Sigma. operations management. Taylor recognized it as another good name for the concept. The theory behind it has . There is a fluid continuum linking scientific management by that name with the later fields. or the Gilbreths' work).  Larger theme of economic efficiency Scientific management is a variation on the theme of economic efficiency. business process management. his disciples (such as Henry Gantt). academic science. for example. Taylorism proper. rather than uncritically accepting pre-existing ideas of what matters. improved iterations of efficiency-seeking methods. In political and sociological terms. and Lillian Moller Gilbreth (whose views originally shared much with Taylor's but later evolved divergently in response to Taylorism's inadequate handling of human relations). and using empirical methods to decide what matters. Sr. the Efficiency Movement (which was the broader cultural echo of scientific management's impact on business managers specifically). which was its earliest application. from the folk wisdom of thrift to a profusion of applied-science successors. Taylorism is often mentioned along with Fordism. with a consequent deskilling of the worker and dehumanisation of the workers and the workplace. task-oriented optimization of work tasks is nearly ubiquitous in industry. lean manufacturing. in its strict sense.
when paid the same amount. Thus his compensation plans usually included piece rates. which was universal in his day and still prevalent even now. although in the wrong hands it is sometimes implemented poorly even now. most bulk materials handling was manual at the time. and as a result production "paradoxically" increased. This slow rate of work has been observed in many industries in many countries and has been called by various terms (some being slang confined to certain regions and eras).  Soldiering Taylor observed that some workers were more talented than others. the manual inspection of bearing balls. He therefore proposed that the work practice that had been developed in most work environments was crafted. This reflects the idea that workers have a vested interest in their own well-being. He posited that time and motion studies combined with rational analysis and synthesis could uncover one best method for performing any particular task. to be very inefficient in its execution. For example. "dogging it". Taylor used the term "soldiering" and observed that. by observing workers. were black arts that could not be analyzed and could only be performed by craft production methods. including manufacturing. of the secret magic of the craftsman—that the trades. He discovered many concepts that were not widely accepted at the time. either physical (as in shoveling or lifting) or mental (as in the ball inspection case). In the course of his empirical studies. (reflecting the way conscripts may approach following orders). and do not benefit from working above the defined rate of work when it will not increase their remuneration. and that even smart ones were often unmotivated. including "soldiering". Workers were taught to take more rests during work. He looked at shoveling in the unloading of railroad cars full of ore. and that prevailing methods were seldom equal to these best methods. reducing the ill effects. intentionally or unintentionally. their productivity would go up. Taylor examined various kinds of manual labor. For example. Crucially. "goldbricking". workers will tend to do the amount of work that the slowest among them does. Managers may call it by those names or "loafing" or "malingering". material handling equipment as we know it today was mostly not developed yet. "hanging it out". . and "ca canae". He rejected the notion. lifting and carrying in the moving of iron pigs at steel mills. and others. Taylor himself prominently acknowledged (although many white-collar imitators of his ideas would forget) that if each employee's compensation was linked to their output. workers may call it "getting through the day" or "preventing management from abusing us". He observed that most workers who are forced to perform repetitive tasks tend to work at the slowest rate that goes unpunished.evolved greatly since Taylor's day. he decided that labor should include rest breaks so that the worker has time to recover from fatigue.
Before digital computers existed. 1911. automation. somebody has to take care of administration. which is exactly what computers and unskilled people need to follow algorithms designed by others and to make valid decisions within their execution.A machinist at the Tabor Company. Therefore the workman who is best suited to handling pig iron is unable to understand the real science of doing this class of work. It is often said that computers are "smart" in terms of mathematic computation ability. because not only did the technological bridge to such a world not yet look plausible. and his goals did not include the extensive removal of humans from the production process. The man who is mentally alert and intelligent is for this very reason entirely unsuited to what would. 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. and were still embryonic. for him. but most people had not even considered that it could happen. (2) Taylor himself could not have known this. a firm where Frederick Taylor's consultancy was applied to practice. and offshoring Scientific management evolved in an era when mechanization and automation existed but had hardly gotten started. the very idea would have seemed like science fiction. —Frederick Winslow Taylor. because he was analyzing processes into discrete. historically speaking. such ideas were not just outlandish but also mostly unheard of. One of the tasks of administration is to select the right person for the right job: the labor should include rest breaks so that the worker has time to recover from fatigue. Two important corollaries flow from this fact: (1) The ideas and methods of scientific management were exactly what was needed to be added to the American system of manufacturing to extend the transformation from craft work (with humans as the only possible agents) to mechanization and automation. Nevertheless. and thus there is a division of work between workers and administrators. but .  Relationship to mechanization. During his lifetime. but also. Taylor (unbeknownst to himself) was laying the groundwork for automation and offshoring. unambiguous pieces. be the grinding monotony of work of this character. about 1905 Unless people manage themselves.
However. This engineering was the essence not only of scientific management but also of most industrial engineering since then. and how. today enterprises still find that talent is a scarce resource. With historical hindsight it is possible to see that Taylor was essentially inventing something like the highest-level programming for industrial process control and numerical control in the absence of any machines that could carry it out. people tend to revolt against). But Taylor could not see it that way at the time. but what about smart workers in years afterwards who would start out among the ranks of the drones? What opportunities would they have for career advancement or socioeconomic advancement? He also failed to properly consider the fate of the drone-ish workers themselves.  Effects on labor relations in market economies  Taylor's view of workers Taylor's view of workers was complex."dumb" because they must be told exactly what to calculate. In between craft production (with skilled workers) and full automation lies a natural middle ground of an engineered system of extensive mechanization and partial automation mixed with semiskilled and unskilled workers in carefully designed algorithmic workflows. Some of them would be duly utilized during the early phases (the studying and designing). In the case of computers. It is also the essence of (successful instances of) offshoring. the same process engineering that he pioneered also tends to build the skill into the equipment and processes. But he failed to leave room in his system for the workers who did have talent or intelligence. Maybe they did lack the ability for higher-level jobs. it was humans that would be the agents to execute the program. experimenting. they are not able (yet) to be "smart" (in that sense of the word). and (in the absence of any successful AI) they can never understand why. but what about keeping them satisfied or placated in their existing roles? . Anyone who manages a large team of workers sees from experience that Taylor was correct that some workers could not be relied upon for talent or intelligence. or suggestion-making. one of the common threads between his world and ours is that the agents of execution need not be "smart" to execute their tasks. they were often able but were not allowed. in the case of human workers under scientific management. Building and improving such systems requires knowledge transfer. The common theme in all these cases is that businesses engineer their way out of their need for large concentrations of skilled workers. unsurprisingly to students of human nature. which may seem simple on the surface but requires substantial engineering to succeed. having both insightful and obtuse elements. They were expected (and forced) to "play dumb" most of the time (which. and the high-wage environments that sustain them. in his world. Although Taylor's original inspiration for scientific management was simply to replace inferior work methods with smarter ones. when. Once the time-and-motion men had completed their studies of a particular task. the workers had very little opportunity for further thinking. removing most need for skill in the workers.
and human relations helping to adapt the workers to the new procedures.) Clearly a syncretism has occurred since Taylor's day. Taylor advocated frequent breaks and good pay). include respect for workers and fulfillment of their needs as inherent parts of the theory. these were the people who used the big words without any deep understanding of what they meant. such as Harry Braverman. They plugged along rockily and eventually were overturned.g. although its implementation has been uneven. as lean management in capable hands has produced good results for both managers and workers. Taylor knew that scientific management could not work (probably at all. Taylor himself. Link-Belt corporation.Taylorism took some steps toward addressing their needs (for example. published The Human Factor in Works Management in 1912. recognized these challenges and had some good ideas for meeting them. Midvale. in fact. (Workers slogging their way through workdays in the business world do encounter flawed implementations of these methods that make jobs unpleasant. Frank Gilbreth and Lillian Moller Gilbreth offered alternatives to Taylorism. Watertown Arsenal. certainly never enduringly) unless the workers benefited from the profit increases that it generated. And countless managers who later aped or worshiped Taylor did even worse jobs of implementation. for the dual purposes of owner/manager profit and worker profit. Today's efficiencyseeking methods. but Taylor nevertheless had a condescending view of less intelligent workers. Like bad managers even today. Typically they were less analytically talented managers who had latched onto scientific management as the latest fad for cutting the unit cost of production. James Hartness. Some scholars. realizing that the methods relied on both of those results in order to work correctly. Implementations of scientific management usually failed to account for several inherent challenges: • • Individuals are different from each other: the most efficient way of working for one person may be inefficient for another. his own implementations of his system (e. The economic interests of workers and management are rarely identical. But many owners . whom he sometimes compared to draft animals. so that both the measurement processes and the retraining required by Taylor's methods are frequently resented and sometimes sabotaged by the workforce. Nevertheless. but these implementations generally lack managerial competence in matching theory to execution. Many other thinkers soon stepped forward to offer better ideas on the roles that humans would play in mature industrial systems. but in incompetent hands has damaged enterprises. a fellow ASME member. And perhaps Taylor was so immersed in the vast work immediately in front of him (getting the world to understand and to implement scientific management's earliest phases) that he failed to strategize about the next steps (sustainability of the system after the early phases). The human relations school of management evolved in the 1930s.. such as lean manufacturing. insisted that human relations did not replace Taylorism but rather that both approaches were complementary—Taylorism determining the actual organisation of the work process. usually after Taylor had left. Bethlehem) were never really very successful. Taylor had developed a method for generating the increases.
Thus its net benefit to owners and management ended up being small or negative. House of Representatives committee. Jobs that once would have required craft work first transformed to semiskilled work. and so rigid that they have no permission to innovate. That outcome neutralized most or all of the benefit of any productivity gains that Taylorism had achieved. The conclusion was that scientific management did provide some useful techniques and offered valuable organisational suggestions.[Need quotation to verify] but it gave production managers a dangerously high level of uncontrolled power. a strike at the Watertown Arsenal led to an investigation of Taylor's methods by a U. Knowledge was transferred both to cheaper workers and from workers into tools. borrowing some ideas from Taylorism but mixing them with others.  Later decades: making jobs disappear To whatever extent scientific management caused the strengthening of labor unions by giving workers more to complain about than bad or greedy managers already gave them. Workers are necessarily human: they have personal needs and interpersonal friction. After an attitude survey of the workers revealed a high level of resentment and hostility towards scientific management. which frequently raged out of control between the mid-19th and mid-20th centuries. it also led to other pressures tending toward worker unhappiness: the erosion of employment in developed economies via both offshoring and automation. During one of Taylor's own implementations.  Early decades: making jobs unpleasant Under Taylorism. workers work effort increased in intensity.S. to produce more successful formulas. which was made possible by the knowledge transfer that scientific management achieved. It would take new efforts. then . At this point the labor had been commoditized. the net result from the perspective of developed-economy workers was that jobs started to pay less. which reported in 1912. Either way. Both were made possible by the deskilling of jobs. Certainly Taylorism's negative effects on worker morale only added more fuel to the fire of existing labor-management conflict. Jobs could be offshored (giving one human's tasks to others—which could be good for the new worker population but was bad for the old) or they could be rendered nonexistent through automation (giving a human's tasks to machines). Thus it inevitably contributed to the strengthening of labor unions and of labor-vs-management conflict (which was the opposite of any of Taylor's own hopes for labor relations).and managers seized upon the methods thinking (wrongly) that the profits could be reserved solely or mostly for themselves and the system could endure indefinitely merely through force of authority. then unskilled. Workers became dissatisfied with the work environment and angry. and thus the competition between workers (and worker populations) moved closer to pure than it had been. depressing wages and job security. and they face very real difficulties introduced when jobs become so efficient that they have no time to relax. the Senate banned Taylor's methods at the arsenal.
Successors such as 'corporate reengineering' or 'business process reengineering' brought into sight the distant goal of the eventual elimination of industry's need for unskilled. would John Parsons have been able to incubate the earliest development of numerical control if he were a worker in a red-tapeladen organization being told from above that the best way to mill a part had already been perfected.  Relationship to Fordism It is human nature to jump to a post hoc conclusion that Fordism borrowed ideas from Taylorism and expanded from there. preventing the next technological context from developing). A central assumption of Taylorism was that "the worker was taken for granted as a cog in the machinery. There is always a balance to be struck between scientific management's goal of formalizing the details of a process (which increases efficiency within the existing technological context) and the risk of fossilizing one moment's technological state into cultural inertia that stifles disruptive innovation (that is. perhaps even most skilled human workers in any form. Later methods such as lean manufacturing corrected this oversight by including ongoing innovation as part of their process and by recognizing the iterative nature of development. all stemming from the roots laid by Taylorism's recipe for deconstructing a process. it treated the context as constant (which it effectively was in a short-term sense) rather than as variable (which it always is in a long-term sense). As the resultant commodification of work advances. To give one example.disappear. "[… within the context of our current environment]".  Effects on disruptive innovation One of the traits of the era of applied science is that technology continually evolves. and later. and its logical successors then made them less remunerative and less secure. no skilled profession. The notion of a "one best way" failed to add the coda. then scarcer. hastening the onset of the later stages just described. whose mandate often comes from skewed motives among people referred to as 'bean counters' and 'PHBs'. But it . In fact it appears that Taylor himself did that when he visited the Ford Motor Company's Michigan plants not too long before he died. which sees that Taylorism made jobs unpleasant. even medicine. and therefore he had no business experimenting with his own preferred methods? Implementations of scientific management (often if not always) worked within the implicit context of a particular technological moment and thus did not account for the possibility of putting the "continuous" in "continuous improvement process". the 'reengineers'. has proven to be immune from the efforts of Taylorism's successors. The power of labor unions in the mid-twentieth century only led to a push on the part of management to accelerate the process of automation. and finally (in many cases) nonexistent." The chain of connections between his work and automation is visible in historical hindsight.
but historians can argue with them about the extent to which that was really true. where it was more than just Watt who was working toward a practical steam engine (others were struggling with it contemporarily). The same can be said about the development of the engineering of processes between the 1890s and the 1920s. the Ford team apparently did independently invent modern mass production techniques in the period of 1905-1915. and that any influence from Taylorism either was nil or at least was far enough removed to be very indirect.seems that the methods at Ford were in fact independently reinvented based on logic. Perhaps it is only possible with hindsight to see the overall cultural zeitgeist that (indirectly) connected the budding Fordism to the rest of the efficiency movement during the decade of 1905-1915. more than just he who was working toward a truly practical automobile in the 1890s (people all over North America and Europe were trying during that era. Henry Ford felt that he had succeeded in spite of. Taylor was an early pioneer in the field of process analysis and synthesis (which is why many people. and other topics). The world was ready for such development by the late 19th and early 20th centuries. nor I—was acquainted with the theories of the 'father of scientific management.' Frederick W.' To my mind this unconscious admission by an . sometimes independently. nearly a year after the moving assembly line had been installed at our Highland Park plant. Regardless. Taylor expressed surprise to find that Detroit industrialists 'had undertaken to install the principles of scientific management without the aid of experts. who reports a visit Taylor made to Detroit late in 1914. "One of the hardest-to-down myths about the evolution of mass production at Ford is one which credits much of the accomplishment to 'scientific management. experts. But he did not have the field to himself for long. production methods. business financing. more than just Edison who was working on electrical technology. Taylor. There was a climate at Ford at the time (which remained until Henry Ford II took over the company in 1945) that the world's "experts" were worthless. which he freely admitted). Wills. Sorensen did speak very highly of Walter Flanders and credits him with being the first driving force behind the efficient floorplan layout at Ford. Sorensen disclaimed any connection at all. Years later I ran across a quotation from a two-volume book about Taylor by Frank Barkley Copley. Pete Martin. tend to think that the whole field owes everything to him). because if Ford had listened to them. although not to its name. It is possible that Flanders (a New England machine tool whiz) had been exposed to the spirit of Taylorism elsewhere. who had tried to stop him in various ways (disagreeing about price points. This is not unlike other invention storylines. although the Ford team were not at all conscious of this at the time. Sorensen says that Flanders knew absolutely nothing about Taylor. sometimes with direct or indirect influence on each other. And in fact many people started to work on it. more than just Fulton who was working on steam boats. not because of. and they themselves were not aware of any borrowing from Taylorism. Charles E. Couzens.' No one at Ford— not Mr. car features. and the mention was only to lump him into the unneeded-so-called-expert category. its great successes would not exist. Flanders. Ford. They perceived themselves to be working in a vacuum in that respect. Therefore Sorensen spoke very dismissively (and briefly) of Taylor. but he did not cite it explicitly as he simply allowed logic to guide his production development. and had been (at least subconsciously) influenced by it. falling for the storytelling allure of the Great Man theory. and even regarding Henry Ford himself.
importing American experts in both fields as well as American engineering firms to build parts of its new industrial infrastructure. (Empirical experience has shown that both theories fail to accurately model reality all the time. Hughes has detailed the way in which the Soviet Union in the 1920s and 1930s enthusiastically embraced Fordism and Taylorism. the Soviets and the Americans. It found support in both Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky.  East Germany . Taylorism was advocated by Aleksei Gastev and nauchnaia organizatsia truda (the movement for the scientific organisation of labor).. Hughes quotes Joseph Stalin: American efficiency is that indomitable force which neither knows nor recognises obstacles. The combination of the Russian revolutionary sweep with American efficiency is the essence of Leninism. they precluded any admission by either side that technologies or ideas might be either freely shared or clandestinely stolen. The concepts of the Five Year Plan and the centrally planned economy can be traced directly to the influence of Taylorism on Soviet thinking. even if it is a minor task. Historian Thomas P. Sorensen. because central economic planning relies on the idea that the expenses that go into economic production can be precisely predicted and can be optimized by design. but after World War II. Hughes offers the equation "Taylorismus + Fordismus = Amerikanismus" to describe the Soviet view. which continues on a task once started until it is finished.  Influence on planned economies Scientific management was naturally appealing to managers of planned economies. before the Cold War made such exchanges unthinkable.. and the Americans because they did not wish to acknowledge their part in creating a powerful communist rival. Anti-communism had always enjoyed widespread popularity in America. and anti-capitalism in Russia.. chose to ignore or deny the contribution that American ideas and expertise had made: the Soviets because they wished to portray themselves as creators of their own destiny and not indebted to a rival.expert is expert testimony on the futility of too great reliance on experts and should forever dispose of the legend that Taylor's ideas had any influence at Ford. The opposite theoretical pole would be an extremist variant of laissez-faire thinking in which the invisible hand of free markets is the only possible "designer". Sorensen (1956) recounted his experience as one of the American consultants bringing Ford know-how (although he himself would not have called it Fordism) to the USSR during this brief era.)  Soviet Union In the Soviet Union." —Charles E. As the Soviet Union developed and grew in power. and without which serious constructive work is impossible. Gastev continued to promote this system of labor management until his arrest and execution in 1939. both sides. 1956.
In particular.East German machine tool builders. which is a concept that remains useful even today. Two corollaries of this primacy are that (1) scientific management became famous and (2) it was merely the first iteration of a long-developing way of thinking. This was a watershed insight in the history of corporate marketing. Shigeo Shingo. common elements unite them. but the goals and themes remained attractive and found new avatars. . because the aim of scientific management was to produce knowledge about how to improve work processes. in concert with other concepts. believed that this system and Japanese management culture in general should be seen as a kind of scientific management.  Legacy Scientific management was one of the first attempts to systematically treat management and process improvement as a scientific problem. workers discuss standards that have recently been created specifying how each task should be done and how long it should take. and management cybernetics. Nevertheless. including the management of universities and government. It was probably the first to do so in a "bottom-up" way. Although the typical application of scientific management was manufacturing. The German Federal Archives contain documentation created by the German Democratic Republic as it sought to increase efficiency in its industrial sectors. the body of knowledge for doing scientific management evolved into operations management. During the 1940s and 1950s. With the advancement of statistical methods. but they were essentially pursuing the same goals that were also contemporaneously pursued in the Free World by people like the developers of the Toyota Production System. although their evolutionary distance from the original is so great that the comparison might be misleading. Shortly after his death. and in the 1990s "re-engineering" went from a simple word to a mystique (a kind of evolution that. one of the originators of the Toyota Production System. Today's Six Sigma and lean manufacturing could be seen as new kinds of scientific management. Taylor's original form of scientific management (and the name "scientific management" itself) had grown dated. Person began to lecture corporate audiences on the possibility of using Taylorism for "sales engineering" [Person was talking about engineering the processes that salespeople use—not about sales engineering in the way that we use that term today]. and many iterations have come since. Taylor himself advocated scientific management for all sorts of work. By the 1950s. draws bad managers to jump on the bandwagon without understanding what the bandwagon is). In the 1980s total quality management became widely popular. 1953. quality assurance and quality control could begin in the 1920s and 1930s. In the accompanying photograph. his acolyte Harlow S. Taylor believed scientific management could be extended to "the work of our salesmen". The workers in the photograph were engaged in a state-planned instance of process improvement. Peter Drucker saw Frederick Taylor as the creator of knowledge management. For example. operations research. unfortunately.
Scientific management has had an important influence in sports. (Taylor himself enjoyed sports.Today's militaries employ all of the major goals and tactics of scientific management. He invented improved tennis racquets and improved golf clubs. Of the key points. if not under that name. although other players liked to tease him for his unorthodox designs. especially tennis and golf. and they did not catch on as replacements for the mainstream implements. where stop watches and motion studies rule the day. Wage incentives rather appear in the form of skill bonuses for enlistments. all but wage incentives for increased output are used by modern military organizations.) . He and a partner won a national championship in doubles tennis.
show as the classic approach of the administration and teach us that the particularity and proper integration of both theories depend on each organization and the context in which it operates. both are focused on increasing productivity of the company with the efficiency and rationalization of workforce. In conclusion. Fayol emphasized on the functionality and organizational structure.COMPARISON BETWEEN TAYLOR AND FAYOL The administrative thinking is characterized by its diversity of approaches and its current status is complex and dynamic. . Coordinating and Controlling. there are also differences between the theories of Taylor and Fayol. whereas. these two men and their theories in some ways opposing but complementary. And the most important similarity is that both made important contributions to the administrative thinking that today are used by the most of managers. Besides. both men wrote during the same time period. In addition. in this essay I will show you some differences and similarities between these two theories. at the beginning of the XX century. especially when it wants to respond the questions related to management organizations. implementing methods and techniques of engineering to replace empirical methods and increase worker productivity. Fayol's attention was directed toward the activities of all managers in general. Taylor and Henri Fayol’s theories. On the other hand. Organizing. so. dividing the work in functional areas and executing the general principles of any organization: Planning. such as. There are some similarities between the theories of Taylor and Fayol. Leading. Two of the most important administrative theories are the Frederick W. another difference is that Taylor emphasized on the tasks. both belonged to the same school of administrative thinking: The Classical Theory. while Taylor was concerned with first-line managers and the scientific method. For instance. so.
But Fayol concentrated on function of managers and on general principles of management wheel could be equally applied in all. while Fayol concentrated on managing director and work downwards. The contribution of these two pioneers in the field of science of management has been reviewed as “The work of Taylor & Fayol was. On the other hand. 4. Similarity .Considers them as machines. Ignores human requirements. Basis Human aspect Taylor Taylor disregards human elements and there is more stress on improving men. Ignores human factors . Espirit De’ Corps and Equity recognizes a need for human relations Status Efficiency & administration Approach Father of management principles Stressed on general administration It has micro-approach because it is It has macro-approach and discuses general . Psychologists View Point According to Psychologists. 3. Separation of Planning and Doing. Both applied scientific method to this problem that Taylor worked primarily from operative level. was merely a reflection of their very different careers”. Fayol analyzed management from level of top management downward. Dissatisfaction . Thus. 2. Taylor called his philosophy “Scientific Management” while Fayol described his approach as “A general theory of administration”.Both emphasized mutual co-operation between employment and employees. Main aim of Taylor . Taylor looked at management from supervisory viewpoint & tried to improve efficiency at operating level. 2. especially complementary.g. although Taylor’s philosophy has undergone a big change Under influence of modern development. of course. materials and methods Father of scientific management Stressed on efficiency Fayol Fayol pays due regards on human element.Both the persons have contributed to development of science of management. Taylor focused his attention on fact by management and his principles are applicable on shop floor. 4. want and aspirations. Fayol attempted to develop a universal theory of management and stressed upon need for teaching the theory of management. Fayol could afford a broader vision than Taylor. They both differ from each other in following aspects: 1. from bottom to upward. He moved upwards while formulating theory. They both realized that problem of personnel & its management at all levels is the key to individual success. Principle of initiative. No best way .Comparing performance with others. 3. E.to improve labor productivity & to eliminate all type of waste through standardization of work & tools. but Fayol’s principles of management have stood the test of time and are still being accepted as the core of management theory.Scientific management does not give one best way for solving problems. Spheres of Human Activity Fayol’s theory is more widely applicable than that of Taylor. Taylor's study had following drawbacks: 1.
along with which must go the 3. conflicting lines of command. 4. 8. Scalar chain refers to the number of levels in the hierarchy from the ultimate authority to the lowest level in the organization. Discipline. . 6. This is a matter of degree depending on the condition of the business and the quality of its personnel. 7. A hierarchy is necessary for unity of direction. But lateral communication is also fundamental. and to continuously improve his skills. Subordination of individual interest (to the general interest). Employees must obey. Unity of command does not exist without unity of direction but does not necessarily flows from it. but this is two-sided: employees will only obey orders if management play their part by providing good leadership.restricted to factory only principles of management which are applicable in every field of management. Fayol points out that there is no such thing as a perfect system. Remuneration. Unity of Direction. This is essential to ensure unity and coordination in the enterprise. It should not be over-stretched and consist of toomany levels. 2. balanced responsibility for its function. Payment is an important motivator although by analyzing a number of possibilities. Division of Work. Centralization (or Decentralization). as long as superiors know that such communication is taking place. Each worker should have only one boss with no other 5. Thereby he can be more productive. Scalar chain (Line of Authority). People engaged in the same kind of activities must have the same objectives in a single plan. Authority. Specialization allows the individual to build up experience. The right to issue commands. Unity of Command. Management must see that the goals of the firms are always paramount. These are applicable in all kinds of organization regarding their management affairs Administrative management Scope of principles These principles are restricted to production activities Achievement Scientific management FAYOLS PRINCIPLES OF MANAGEMENT The 14 Management Principles from Henri Fayol (1841-1925) are: 1. 9.
Build up the structure. Allowing all personnel to show their initiative in some way is a source of strength for the organization. Management must foster the morale of its employees. 13.” What is Management? Five elements Fayol's definition of management roles and actions distinguishes between Five Elements: 1. Employees work better if job security and career progress are assured to them. To command. He saw a manager's job as: • planning • organizing • commanding • coordinating activities . Equity. To organize. Initiative. The former 11. undertaking. unifying and harmonizing all activity and effort. An insecure tenure and a high rate of employee turnover will affect the organization adversely. 4. both material and human. Stability of Tenure of Personnel. Fayol was a key figure in the turn-of-the-century Classical School of management theory.10. minimizes lost time and useless handling of materials. The elements of strategy. He further suggests that: “real talent is needed to coordinate effort. Binding together. Treating employees well is important to achieve equity. use each person’s abilities. 2. The latter is achieved through organization and selection. 14. Even though it may well involve a sacrifice of ‘personal vanity’ on the part of many managers. encourage keenness. In running a business a ‘combination of kindliness and justice’ is needed. Examining the future and drawing up a plan of action. Maintain the activity among the personnel. Order. 12. Esprit de Corps. Prevoyance. and reward each one’s merit without arousing possible jealousies and disturbing harmonious relations. Seeing that everything occurs in conformity with established rule and expressed command. Both material order and social order are necessary. To coordinate. (Forecast & Plan). To control. 5. of the 3.
2. Comambault was in difficulty but Fayol turned the operation round. Decisions are made from the top. the most important elements are specialization. 6. This is very like. Employees receive fair payment for services. only work things should be pursued or thought about. Each employee has one and only one boss. Specializing encourages continuous improvement in skills and the development of improvements in methods.Subordination of Individual Interests. Thinking out a plan and do what it takes to make it happen.Centralization. Scalar Chain is the number of different levels of authority through which decisions are passed in the organization. Comambault as Director. 3.Remuneration. Consolidation of management functions. and they must remain there. Fayol's career began as a mining engineer. and. coordination by managers (an amalgam of authority and unity of direction Fayol (1841-1925) Functions and Principles of Management Henri Fayol. 8. 13. Lifetime employment for good workers. No slacking. like military.Equity. 11. rather than peopleoriented.Esprit de corps.a comprehensive theory of administration . Out of the 14. scalar chain. 10. Equality of treatment (but not necessarily identical treatment) 12.Authority. 7. He then moved into research geology and in 1888 joined. Formal chain of command running from top to bottom of the organization. On retirement he published his work .described and classified administrative management roles and processes then became recognized and referenced by others in the growing discourse about management.Discipline. 14. unity of command. cohesion among personnel. A single mind generates a single plan and all play their part in that plan.Specialization of labor.Unity of direction. The right to give orders and the power to exact obedience. not what the company can get away with. . bending of rules. Fayol laid down the following principles of organization (he called them principles of management): 1. 4.Order.Initiative.• controlling performance Notice that most of these activities are very task-oriented. When at work.Personnel Tenure. 9. Harmony. All materials and personnel have a prescribed place. early contributor to a classical or administrative management school of thought (even though he himself would never have recognized such a "school"). Limited turnover of personnel. He is frequently seen as a key.Scalar Chain (line of authority). was little unknown outside France until the late 40s when Constance Storrs published her translation of Fayol's 1916 “Administration Industrielle et Generale ". 5. a French engineer and director of mines.Unity of command.
• Authority with corresponding responsibility If responsibilities are allocated then the post holder needs the requisite authority to carry these out including the right to require others in the area of responsibility to undertake duties.in order to operate and be administered efficiently . Fayol's 14 principles are: • Specialization/division of labor A principle of work allocation and specialization in order to concentrate activities to enable specialization of skills and understandings.to organize build up the structure.purveyance examine the future and draw up plans of action 2.to co-ordinate bind together. F. His aspiration for an "administrative science" sought a consistent set of principles that all organizations must apply in order to run properly. Fayol's five functions are still relevant to discussion today about management roles and action. This type of assertion typifies a "one best way" approach to management thinking. measurement and simplification to secure efficiencies. Both referenced functional specialization.. Authority stems from: • that ascribed from the delegation process (the job holder is assigned to act as the agent of the high authority to whom they report . material and human of the undertaking 3.to command maintain activity among the personnel 4. Kanter and Handy to name but three management gurus. Taylor published "The Principles of Scientific Management" in the USA in 1911. and Fayol in 1916 examined the nature of management and administration on the basis of his French mining organization experiences. unify and harmonies activity and effort 5.hierarchy) • .to control see that everything occurs in conformity with policy and practice Fayol also synthesized 14 principles for organizational design and effective administration.to forecast and plan . 1. W. It is worthwhile reflecting on these are comparing the conclusions to contemporary utterances by Peters.His theorizing about administration was built on personal observation and experience of what worked well in terms of organization. Fayol synthesized various tenets or principles of organization and management and Taylor on work methods. more work focus and efficiency.could implement. Both Fayol and Taylor were arguing that principles existed which all organizations .
application.R = A enables accountability in the delegation process.. energy.even where we are involved with team and matrix structures which involve reporting to more than one boss .the person has the expertise to carry out the responsibilities and the personal qualities to win the support and confidence of others. therefore. The best safeguard against abuse of authority and weakness on the part of a higher manager is personal integrity and particularly high moral character of such a manager. • Discipline The generalization about discipline is that discipline is essential for the smooth running of a business and without it . and staff) to carry out the responsibilities.. One boss may want X. • Selection .no enterprise could prosper. • Unity of direction .or being accountable to several clients. "in an essence .. This generalization still holds . behavior and outward marks of respect observed in accordance with standing agreements between firms and its employees " 1916 • Unity of command The idea is that an employee should receive instructions from one superior only. TheR = A correspondence is important to understand. Who do we cope with situations whereR > A ? Are there work situations where our R< A? "Judgment demands high moral character. assets. “1916 A manager should never be given authority without responsibility--and also should never be given responsibility without the associated authority to get the work done. This integrity is conferred neither by election nor ownership. the other Y and the subordinate is caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.Allocation and permission to use the necessary resources needed (budgets.. adherence to rules and values .obedience. consistency of action. The basic concern is that tensions and dilemmas arise where we report to two or more bosses. a good leader should possess and infuse into those around him courage to accept responsibility.standards.
• Order The level of generalization becomes difficult with this principle. • Subordination of individual interest to the general interest Fayol's line was that one employee's interests or those of one group should not prevail over the organization as a whole.a unitary where the reasons for organizational activities and decisions are in some way neutral and reasonable. This would spark a lively debate about who decides that the interests of the organization as a whole are. This issue does not go away even where flatter. Ethical dilemmas and matters of corporate risk and the behavior of individual "chancres" are involved here. Decentralization .assumes a shared set of values by people in the organization . " 1916 The general principle is that levels of compensation should be "fair" and as far as possible afford satisfaction both to the staff and the firm (in terms of its cost structures and desire for profitability/surplus). clear and understood.who needs to see how their role fits into the organization and be confident. • Centralization Centralization for HF is essential to the organization and a natural consequence of organizing. • Equity Equity. Basically an organization "should" provide an orderly place for each individual member . cabinet consensus with agree purposes and objectives and one plan for a group of activities) is clear.The unity of command idea of having one head (chief executive. able to predict the organizations behavior towards them. instructions and actions should be understandable and understood. devolved organizations occur. Orderliness implies steady evolutionary movement rather than wild. Thus policies. Fayol's work . anxiety provoking. rules. • remuneration of staff “The price of services rendered. • Scalar chain/line of authority the scalar chain of command of reporting relationships from top executive to the ordinary shop operative or driver needs to be sensible.is frequently centralized-decentralization!!! The modes of control over the actions and results of devolved organizations are still matters requiring considerable attention. fairness and a sense of justice "should” pervade the . unpredictable movement.
in principle and practice. 7. Stability of tenure promotes loyalty to the organization. Specialization allows the individual to build up experience.Unity of Direction.Remuneration. Management must see that the goals of the firms are always paramount. and to continuously improve his skills. team work and sound interpersonal relationships. 5. In the same way that Alfred P Sloan.organization . the executive head of General Motors reorganized the company into semi-autonomous divisions in the 1920s.Subordination of individual interest (to the general interest). along with which must go the balanced responsibility for its function. This is essential to ensure unity and coordination in the enterprise.Discipline.Unity of Command. Each worker should have only one boss with no other conflicting lines of command. its purposes and values. enthusiasm and energy are enabled by people having the scope for personal initiative. Employees must obey. Thereby he can be more productive. 6. • Initiative At all levels of the organizational structure. 4. (Note: Tom Peters recommendations in respect of employee empowerment) • Esprit de corps Here Fayol emphasizes the need for building and maintaining of harmony among the work force.very much in line with Fayol's recommendations. zeal. but this is two-sided: employees will only obey orders if management play their part by providing good leadership. 2. People engaged in the same kind of activities must have the same objectives in a single plan. Payment is an important motivator although by analyzing a number of possibilities. Unity of command does not exist without unity of direction but does not necessarily flows from it.Authority. corporations undergoing reorganization still apply "classical organization" principles . The right to issue commands. 1. • Stability of tenure Time is needed for the employee to adapt to his/her work and perform it effectively. Fayol points out that there is no such thing as a perfect system. 3. .Division of Work.
as long as superiors know that such communication is taking place. and reward each one’s merit without arousing possible jealousies and disturbing harmonious relations. encourage keenness.” . Treating employees well is important to achieve equity. But lateral communication is also fundamental. In running a business a ‘combination of kindliness and justice’ is needed. Employees work better if job security and career progress are assured to them.Initiative. 9.Order. Both material order and social order are necessary. He further suggests that: “real talent is needed to coordinate effort.Esprit de Corps. This is a matter of degree depending on the condition of the business and the quality of its personnel.Centralization (or Decentralization). Even though it may well involve a sacrifice of ‘personal vanity’ on the part of many managers. Scalar chain refers to the number of levels in the hierarchy from the ultimate authority to the lowest level in the organization. 14. The latter is achieved through organization and selection. The former minimizes lost time and useless handling of materials. Management must foster the morale of its employees. A hierarchy is necessary for unity of direction. Allowing all personnel to show their initiative in some way is a source of strength for the organization. use each person’s abilities. 13. 12.Equity.Stability of Tenure of Personnel.Scalar chain (Line of Authority). 11. 10.8. It should not be over-stretched and consist of too-many levels. An insecure tenure and a high rate of employee turnover will affect the organization adversely.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?