P. 1
Scientific Management

Scientific Management

|Views: 62|Likes:
Published by green_iris

More info:

Published by: green_iris on Jun 14, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less






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.[8] 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.[1] 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.

[edit] 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.[9] 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.[10] 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,[11] and this earned him enemies among the owners of factories where scientific management was not in use.

[edit] 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.[12]

[edit] 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

empiricism. by the 1920s. synthesis. Rice. but accepted Alford's recommendation not to publish Taylor's book. sold well.[13] In 1912. It was one of the earliest attempts to apply science to the engineering of processes and to management. While president. His tenure as president was trouble-ridden and marked the beginning of a period of internal dissension within the ASME during the Progressive Age.unsuccessful in getting his concepts applied and was dismissed from Bethlehem Steel. especially labor productivity. rationality. [edit] Relations with ASME Taylor was president of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) from 1906 to 1907. and replaced him with Calvin W. 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.L. logic. The committee modified the report slightly. Gantt) that industry came to implement his ideas. the book he wrote after parting company with Bethlehem Steel. work ethic. Moreover. Cooke. Taylor collected a number of his articles into a book-length manuscript which he submitted to the ASME for publication. efficiency and elimination of waste. it was still influential but had begun an era of competition and syncretism with opposing or complementary ideas. Leon P. Alford was a critic of the Taylor system and the report was negative. The committee delegated the report to the editor of the American Machinist. These include analysis. Morris L. Its peak of influence came in the 1910s. most of its themes are still important parts of industrial engineering and management today. He also forced out the ASME's long-time secretary.[1] was a theory of management that analyzed and synthesized workflows. The committee included Taylor allies such as James Mapes Dodge and Henry R. Although scientific management as a distinct theory or school of thought was obsolete by the 1930s. It was largely through the efforts of his disciples (most notably H. Towne. The ASME formed an ad hoc committee to review the text. disdain for tradition preserved merely for its own sake or merely to protect the social status of particular workers with particular skill sets. Alford. Nevertheless. Taylor angrily withdrew the book and published Principles without ASME approval. the transformation of craft production into . 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. He was only able to reorganize the publications department and then only partially. Its main objective was improving economic efficiency.[14] Scientific management. also called Taylorism. standardization of best practices. Shop Management.

thus in today's management theory. an alternative view considers Taylorism as the first form of scientific management. 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). or motivations. Taylor noticed the natural differences in productivity between workers.[6] While the terms "scientific management" and "Taylorism" are often treated as synonymous. then propagated to the other workers via standardization of process steps. intelligence. detail-oriented management from mere misguided micromanagement also caused interpersonal friction between workers and managers. 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. including via time and motion studies. This necessitated a higher ratio of managerial workers to laborers than previous management methods. and social tensions between the blue-collar and white-collar classes. which was followed by new iterations.[3] While working as a lathe operator and foreman at Midvale Steel.[5] 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. When Louis Brandeis popularized the term .mass production. Taylor's own early names for his approach included "shop management" and "process management". The great difficulty in accurately differentiating any such intelligent.[4] The goal and promise was both an increase in productivity and reduction of effort.[1] Taylor is considered the father of scientific management. understanding why and how these differences existed and how best practices could be analyzed and synthesized. He was one of the first people to try to apply science to this application. including differences in talent. that is. processes. which were driven by various causes. [edit] Terminology and definitions The terms "scientific management" and "Taylorism" are near synonyms. and were first published in his monographs Shop Management (1903)[2] and The Principles of Scientific Management (1911). and knowledge transfer between workers and from workers into tools. Overview and context The core ideas of scientific management were developed by Taylor in the 1880s and 1890s. and documentation.

but still respected for its seminal value") in contrast to newer. There is no simple dividing line demarcating the time when management as a modern profession (blending art. Fordism. rather than uncritically accepting pre-existing ideas of what matters. academic science.[citation needed] In political and sociological terms. [edit] Legacy In management literature today. [edit] Larger theme of economic efficiency Scientific management is a variation on the theme of economic efficiency. and using empirical methods to decide what matters. which was its earliest application. other engineers and managers (such as Benjamin S.[7] Taylor recognized it as another good name for the concept. many aspects of scientific management have never stopped being part of later management efforts called by other names. including those of Henri Fayol and those of Frank Gilbreth. manufacturing engineering. Thus it is a chapter in a larger narrative that includes many ideas and fields. logistics. However. task-oriented optimization of work tasks is nearly ubiquitous in industry. implying "no longer current. operations research. in its strict sense. the greatest use of the term "scientific management" is with reference to the work of Taylor and his disciples ("classical". Taylorism can be seen as the division of labor pushed to its logical extreme. It is compared and contrasted with other efforts. including time and motion study. his disciples (such as Henry Gantt). with a consequent deskilling of the worker and dehumanisation of the workers and the workplace. 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). such as Max Weber. and applied science) diverged from Taylorism proper. Hartness's motivation to publish his Human Factor. and each subsequent decade brought further evolution. Taylorism proper. the Efficiency Movement (which was the broader cultural echo of scientific management's impact on business managers specifically). improved iterations of efficiency-seeking methods. decreasing waste. The theory behind it has . The field comprised the work of Taylor. and other theorists. business process management. industrial engineering. operations management. It was a gradual process that began as soon as Taylor published (as evidenced by. and there is often no mutual exclusiveness when discussing the details of any one of these topics. or the Gilbreths' work). There is a fluid continuum linking scientific management by that name with the later fields. Sr. and he used it himself in his 1911 monograph. Today. Graham). Taylorism is often mentioned along with Fordism. for example. business process reengineering. it is a late 19th and early 20th century instance of the larger recurring theme in human life of increasing efficiency. from the folk wisdom of thrift to a profusion of applied-science successors. and Six Sigma."scientific management" in 1910. and by the 1960s the term "scientific management" had fallen out of favor for describing current management theories. became obsolete by the 1930s. lean manufacturing. because it was closely associated with mass production methods in factories.

and that prevailing methods were seldom equal to these best methods. including "soldiering". He looked at shoveling in the unloading of railroad cars full of ore. material handling equipment as we know it today was mostly not developed yet. which was universal in his day and still prevalent even now. workers may call it "getting through the day" or "preventing management from abusing us".[8] and "ca canae". [edit] Soldiering Taylor observed that some workers were more talented than others. and others.[8][9] (reflecting the way conscripts may approach following orders). For example. and as a result production "paradoxically" increased. Taylor examined various kinds of manual labor. their productivity would go up. and that even smart ones were often unmotivated. including manufacturing. by observing workers.[citation needed] . Crucially.[13] This reflects the idea that workers have a vested interest in their own well-being. intentionally or unintentionally. reducing the ill effects. He observed that most workers who are forced to perform repetitive tasks tend to work at the slowest rate that goes unpunished. He discovered many concepts that were not widely accepted at the time.[8] Managers may call it by those names or "loafing"[12] or "malingering".[13] Thus his compensation plans usually included piece rates. For example. and do not benefit from working above the defined rate of work when it will not increase their remuneration. 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. most bulk materials handling was manual at the time. He therefore proposed that the work practice that had been developed in most work environments was crafted. to be very inefficient in its execution. Taylor used the term "soldiering" and observed that. Workers were taught to take more rests during work. of the secret magic of the craftsman—that the trades. lifting and carrying in the moving of iron pigs at steel mills.[11] "hanging it out".evolved greatly since Taylor's day. he decided that labor should include rest breaks so that the worker has time to recover from fatigue. workers will tend to do the amount of work that the slowest among them does. He posited that time and motion studies combined with rational analysis and synthesis could uncover one best method for performing any particular task. were black arts that could not be analyzed and could only be performed by craft production methods. when paid the same amount.[10] "goldbricking". "dogging it". either physical (as in shoveling or lifting) or mental (as in the ball inspection case). the manual inspection of bearing balls. He rejected the notion. although in the wrong hands it is sometimes implemented poorly even now. This slow rate of work has been observed in many industries in many countries[8] and has been called by various terms (some being slang confined to certain regions and eras).[citation needed] In the course of his empirical studies.

somebody has to take care of administration. It is often said that computers are "smart" in terms of mathematic computation ability. 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.[citation needed] 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. but . Before digital computers existed. and thus there is a division of work between workers and administrators. 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.[14] [edit] Relationship to mechanization. the very idea would have seemed like science fiction. but most people had not even considered that it could happen. because he was analyzing processes into discrete. 1911. —Frederick Winslow Taylor. which is exactly what computers and unskilled people need to follow algorithms designed by others and to make valid decisions within their execution. such ideas were not just outlandish but also mostly unheard of. Nevertheless.A machinist at the Tabor Company. a firm where Frederick Taylor's consultancy was applied to practice. and his goals did not include the extensive removal of humans from the production process. automation. and offshoring Scientific management evolved in an era when mechanization and automation existed but had hardly gotten started. The man who is mentally alert and intelligent is for this very reason entirely unsuited to what would. be the grinding monotony of work of this character. for him. Therefore the workman who is best suited to handling pig iron is unable to understand the real science of doing this class of work. (2) Taylor himself could not have known this. Taylor (unbeknownst to himself) was laying the groundwork for automation and offshoring. unambiguous pieces. but also. because not only did the technological bridge to such a world not yet look plausible. and were still embryonic. about 1905 Unless people manage themselves. During his lifetime. historically speaking.

[edit] Effects on labor relations in market economies [edit] Taylor's view of workers Taylor's view of workers was complex.[3] having both insightful and obtuse elements. However. today enterprises still find that talent is a scarce resource."dumb" because they must be told exactly what to calculate. one of the common threads between his world and ours is that the agents of execution need not be "smart" to execute their tasks. This engineering was the essence not only of scientific management but also of most industrial engineering since then. Building and improving such systems requires knowledge transfer. It is also the essence of (successful instances of) offshoring. people tend to revolt against). which may seem simple on the surface but requires substantial engineering to succeed. removing most need for skill in the workers. Maybe they did lack the ability for higher-level jobs. when. experimenting. Although Taylor's original inspiration for scientific management was simply to replace inferior work methods with smarter ones. or suggestion-making. 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. The common theme in all these cases is that businesses engineer their way out of their need for large concentrations of skilled workers. the workers had very little opportunity for further thinking. in the case of human workers under scientific management. They were expected (and forced) to "play dumb" most of the time (which. they were often able but were not allowed. In the case of computers. it was humans that would be the agents to execute the program. Once the time-and-motion men had completed their studies of a particular task. unsurprisingly to students of human nature. 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. and the high-wage environments that sustain them. 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. they are not able (yet) to be "smart" (in that sense of the word). But he failed to leave room in his system for the workers who did have talent or intelligence. the same process engineering that he pioneered also tends to build the skill into the equipment and processes. Some of them would be duly utilized during the early phases (the studying and designing). in his world. but what about keeping them satisfied or placated in their existing roles? . and (in the absence of any successful AI) they can never understand why. and how. 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. But Taylor could not see it that way at the time.

Taylor had developed a method for generating the increases. They plugged along rockily and eventually were overturned. recognized these challenges and had some good ideas for meeting them. Taylor knew that scientific management could not work (probably at all. such as lean manufacturing.g. so that both the measurement processes and the retraining required by Taylor's methods are frequently resented and sometimes sabotaged by the workforce. but in incompetent hands has damaged enterprises. as lean management in capable hands has produced good results for both managers and workers. Nevertheless. Taylor himself. include respect for workers and fulfillment of their needs as inherent parts of the theory. 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. published The Human Factor in Works Management[15] in 1912. a fellow ASME member. certainly never enduringly) unless the workers benefited from the profit increases that it generated. Typically they were less analytically talented managers who had latched onto scientific management as the latest fad for cutting the unit cost of production. Taylor advocated frequent breaks and good pay). Link-Belt corporation. usually after Taylor had left. but these implementations generally lack managerial competence in matching theory to execution. Bethlehem) were never really very successful. (Workers slogging their way through workdays in the business world do encounter flawed implementations of these methods that make jobs unpleasant. Many other thinkers soon stepped forward to offer better ideas on the roles that humans would play in mature industrial systems.[13] but Taylor nevertheless had a condescending view of less intelligent workers. realizing that the methods relied on both of those results in order to work correctly. Watertown Arsenal.. his own implementations of his system (e. The human relations school of management evolved in the 1930s. for the dual purposes of owner/manager profit and worker profit. such as Harry Braverman. and human relations helping to adapt the workers to the new procedures. Midvale.Taylorism took some steps toward addressing their needs (for example. James Hartness. And countless managers who later aped or worshiped Taylor did even worse jobs of implementation.[14] 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 economic interests of workers and management are rarely identical.[16] insisted that human relations did not replace Taylorism but rather that both approaches were complementary—Taylorism determining the actual organisation of the work process. Like bad managers even today. But many owners . in fact. Frank Gilbreth and Lillian Moller Gilbreth offered alternatives to Taylorism. these were the people who used the big words without any deep understanding of what they meant. Some scholars. whom he sometimes compared to draft animals. Today's efficiencyseeking methods.) Clearly a syncretism has occurred since Taylor's day. although its implementation has been uneven.

That outcome neutralized most or all of the benefit of any productivity gains that Taylorism had achieved. which was made possible by the knowledge transfer that scientific management achieved. borrowing some ideas from Taylorism but mixing them with others.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. Workers became dissatisfied with the work environment and angry. Knowledge was transferred both to cheaper workers and from workers into tools. workers work effort increased in intensity. which reported in 1912. and they face very real difficulties introduced when jobs become so efficient that they have no time to relax. the net result from the perspective of developed-economy workers was that jobs started to pay less. Workers are necessarily human: they have personal needs and interpersonal friction. 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. then unskilled. a strike at the Watertown Arsenal led to an investigation of Taylor's methods by a U. and thus the competition between workers (and worker populations) moved closer to pure than it had been. to produce more successful formulas. During one of Taylor's own implementations. Either way. depressing wages and job security.[Need quotation to verify] but it gave production managers a dangerously high level of uncontrolled power. It would take new efforts. [edit] 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. [edit] Early decades: making jobs unpleasant Under Taylorism. House of Representatives committee. 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[18]). At this point the labor had been commoditized.[17] Certainly Taylorism's negative effects on worker morale only added more fuel to the fire of existing labor-management conflict.[17] After an attitude survey of the workers revealed a high level of resentment and hostility towards scientific management. then . Both were made possible by the deskilling of jobs. The conclusion was that scientific management did provide some useful techniques and offered valuable organisational suggestions. and so rigid that they have no permission to innovate. Jobs that once would have required craft work first transformed to semiskilled work. 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 its net benefit to owners and management ended up being small or negative. the Senate banned Taylor's methods at the arsenal.S.

and later.[19] hastening the onset of the later stages just described. even medicine. 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. The notion of a "one best way" failed to add the coda. 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. 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). all stemming from the roots laid by Taylorism's recipe for deconstructing a process. perhaps even most skilled human workers in any form. To give one example. and finally (in many cases) nonexistent. 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.disappear. has proven to be immune from the efforts of Taylorism's successors. But it . which sees that Taylorism made jobs unpleasant. 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. As the resultant commodification of work advances. 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". 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. and its logical successors then made them less remunerative and less secure. preventing the next technological context from developing). whose mandate often comes from skewed motives among people referred to as 'bean counters' and 'PHBs'. then scarcer. the 'reengineers'. [edit] Relationship to Fordism It is human nature to jump to a post hoc conclusion that Fordism borrowed ideas from Taylorism and expanded from there."[6] The chain of connections between his work and automation is visible in historical hindsight. "[… within the context of our current environment]". no skilled profession. [edit] Effects on disruptive innovation One of the traits of the era of applied science is that technology continually evolves. 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.

sometimes independently. This is not unlike other invention storylines. Sorensen says that Flanders knew absolutely nothing about Taylor. production methods. and even regarding Henry Ford himself. who reports a visit Taylor made to Detroit late in 1914. Sorensen disclaimed any connection at all. and they themselves were not aware of any borrowing from Taylorism. and the mention was only to lump him into the unneeded-so-called-expert category. tend to think that the whole field owes everything to him).[20] Charles E. Pete Martin.seems that the methods at Ford were in fact independently reinvented based on logic. Regardless.' No one at Ford— not Mr. Couzens. But he did not have the field to himself for long.' Frederick W. but historians can argue with them about the extent to which that was really true.[21] 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. Therefore Sorensen spoke very dismissively (and briefly) of Taylor. the Ford team apparently did independently invent modern mass production techniques in the period of 1905-1915. not because of. nearly a year after the moving assembly line had been installed at our Highland Park plant. which he freely admitted). and had been (at least subconsciously) influenced by it. car features. sometimes with direct or indirect influence on each other.[21] Sorensen did speak very highly of Walter Flanders and credits him with being the first driving force behind the efficient floorplan layout at Ford. Taylor was an early pioneer in the field of process analysis and synthesis (which is why many people. nor I—was acquainted with the theories of the 'father of scientific management. falling for the storytelling allure of the Great Man theory.' To my mind this unconscious admission by an . and other topics). It is possible that Flanders (a New England machine tool whiz) had been exposed to the spirit of Taylorism elsewhere. experts. but he did not cite it explicitly as he simply allowed logic to guide his production development. and that any influence from Taylorism either was nil or at least was far enough removed to be very indirect. more than just Fulton who was working on steam boats. although the Ford team were not at all conscious of this at the time. Henry Ford felt that he had succeeded in spite of. "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. The same can be said about the development of the engineering of processes between the 1890s and the 1920s. where it was more than just Watt who was working toward a practical steam engine (others were struggling with it contemporarily). Years later I ran across a quotation from a two-volume book about Taylor by Frank Barkley Copley. Wills. its great successes would not exist. business financing. although not to its name. 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. Taylor. And in fact many people started to work on it. Ford. Flanders. Taylor expressed surprise to find that Detroit industrialists 'had undertaken to install the principles of scientific management without the aid of experts. more than just Edison who was working on electrical technology. who had tried to stop him in various ways (disagreeing about price points. They perceived themselves to be working in a vacuum in that respect. because if Ford had listened to them. The world was ready for such development by the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Gastev continued to promote this system of labor management until his arrest and execution in 1939. 1956. The concepts of the Five Year Plan and the centrally planned economy can be traced directly to the influence of Taylorism on Soviet thinking.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. importing American experts in both fields as well as American engineering firms to build parts of its new industrial infrastructure.[21] [edit] Influence on planned economies Scientific management was naturally appealing to managers of planned economies.[24] Hughes offers the equation "Taylorismus + Fordismus = Amerikanismus" to describe the Soviet view. before the Cold War made such exchanges unthinkable.. 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. Taylorism was advocated by Aleksei Gastev and nauchnaia organizatsia truda (the movement for the scientific organisation of labor). and anti-capitalism in Russia. Hughes[23] has detailed the way in which the Soviet Union in the 1920s and 1930s enthusiastically embraced Fordism and Taylorism." —Charles E. even if it is a minor task. which continues on a task once started until it is finished.. Hughes quotes Joseph Stalin: American efficiency is that indomitable force which neither knows nor recognises obstacles. As the Soviet Union developed and grew in power. 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". 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. and without which serious constructive work is impossible. Anti-communism had always enjoyed widespread popularity in America. [edit] East Germany . the Soviets and the Americans. The combination of the Russian revolutionary sweep with American efficiency is the essence of Leninism.[22] Historian Thomas P. Sorensen (1956)[25] 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. but after World War II. they precluded any admission by either side that technologies or ideas might be either freely shared or clandestinely stolen.. Sorensen. both sides. and the Americans because they did not wish to acknowledge their part in creating a powerful communist rival.) [edit] Soviet Union In the Soviet Union. (Empirical experience has shown that both theories fail to accurately model reality all the time. It found support in both Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky.

This was a watershed insight in the history of corporate marketing. although their evolutionary distance from the original is so great that the comparison might be misleading. For example. but the goals and themes remained attractive and found new avatars. It was probably the first to do so in a "bottom-up" way. Taylor's original form of scientific management (and the name "scientific management" itself) had grown dated. and management cybernetics. Taylor himself advocated scientific management for all sorts of work. in concert with other concepts. and in the 1990s "re-engineering" went from a simple word to a mystique (a kind of evolution that. Shigeo Shingo. Although the typical application of scientific management was manufacturing. Today's Six Sigma and lean manufacturing could be seen as new kinds of scientific management. With the advancement of statistical methods. During the 1940s and 1950s. the body of knowledge for doing scientific management evolved into operations management. workers discuss standards that have recently been created specifying how each task should be done and how long it should take. common elements unite them.East German machine tool builders. In the accompanying photograph. his acolyte Harlow S. [edit] Legacy Scientific management was one of the first attempts to systematically treat management and process improvement as a scientific problem. 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. 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. because the aim of scientific management was to produce knowledge about how to improve work processes. Nevertheless. Taylor believed scientific management could be extended to "the work of our salesmen". By the 1950s. operations research. quality assurance and quality control could begin in the 1920s and 1930s. . including the management of universities and government. unfortunately. draws bad managers to jump on the bandwagon without understanding what the bandwagon is). believed that this system and Japanese management culture in general should be seen as a kind of scientific management. In particular. Person began to lecture corporate audiences on the possibility of using Taylorism for "sales engineering"[26] [Person was talking about engineering the processes that salespeople use—not about sales engineering in the way that we use that term today]. Shortly after his death. and many iterations have come since. The German Federal Archives contain documentation created by the German Democratic Republic as it sought to increase efficiency in its industrial sectors. one of the originators of the Toyota Production System. In the 1980s total quality management became widely popular. which is a concept that remains useful even today. 1953.[citation needed] Peter Drucker saw Frederick Taylor as the creator of knowledge management. The workers in the photograph were engaged in a state-planned instance of process improvement.

He and a partner won a national championship in doubles tennis. He invented improved tennis racquets and improved golf clubs. especially tennis and golf. Scientific management has had an important influence in sports. and they did not catch on as replacements for the mainstream implements. (Taylor himself enjoyed sports.Today's militaries employ all of the major goals and tactics of scientific management. if not under that name. all but wage incentives for increased output are used by modern military organizations.) . although other players liked to tease him for his unorthodox designs. where stop watches and motion studies rule the day. Wage incentives rather appear in the form of skill bonuses for enlistments. Of the key points.

especially when it wants to respond the questions related to management organizations. In addition.COMPARISON BETWEEN TAYLOR AND FAYOL The administrative thinking is characterized by its diversity of approaches and its current status is complex and dynamic. Taylor and Henri Fayol’s theories. both are focused on increasing productivity of the company with the efficiency and rationalization of workforce. 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 belonged to the same school of administrative thinking: The Classical Theory. On the other hand. whereas. For instance. Fayol's attention was directed toward the activities of all managers in general. And the most important similarity is that both made important contributions to the administrative thinking that today are used by the most of managers. both men wrote during the same time period. in this essay I will show you some differences and similarities between these two theories. implementing methods and techniques of engineering to replace empirical methods and increase worker productivity. such as. at the beginning of the XX century. Two of the most important administrative theories are the Frederick W. Organizing. dividing the work in functional areas and executing the general principles of any organization: Planning. these two men and their theories in some ways opposing but complementary. so. so. Coordinating and Controlling. Leading. Besides. another difference is that Taylor emphasized on the tasks. There are some similarities between the theories of Taylor and Fayol. there are also differences between the theories of Taylor and Fayol. In conclusion. . while Taylor was concerned with first-line managers and the scientific method. Fayol emphasized on the functionality and organizational structure.

Principle of initiative. Taylor looked at management from supervisory viewpoint & tried to improve efficiency at operating level. On the other hand. while Fayol concentrated on managing director and work downwards. but Fayol’s principles of management have stood the test of time and are still being accepted as the core of management theory. Ignores human factors . He moved upwards while formulating theory. Spheres of Human Activity Fayol’s theory is more widely applicable than that of Taylor. Separation of Planning and Doing. Taylor's study had following drawbacks: 1. want and aspirations. Ignores human requirements. Taylor called his philosophy “Scientific Management” while Fayol described his approach as “A general theory of administration”. 3. The contribution of these two pioneers in the field of science of management has been reviewed as “The work of Taylor & Fayol was. 4. Basis Human aspect Taylor Taylor disregards human elements and there is more stress on improving men. 2.Both the persons have contributed to development of science of management. Fayol could afford a broader vision than Taylor. But Fayol concentrated on function of managers and on general principles of management wheel could be equally applied in all. E. of course. Similarity . Dissatisfaction . They both differ from each other in following aspects: 1. especially complementary. Main aim of Taylor .to improve labor productivity & to eliminate all type of waste through standardization of work & tools. Both applied scientific method to this problem that Taylor worked primarily from operative level. Psychologists View Point According to Psychologists.Comparing performance with others. from bottom to upward.Considers them as machines. 2. although Taylor’s philosophy has undergone a big change Under influence of modern development.g.Both emphasized mutual co-operation between employment and employees. 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 . No best way . Taylor focused his attention on fact by management and his principles are applicable on shop floor.Scientific management does not give one best way for solving problems. Thus. Fayol analyzed management from level of top management downward. Fayol attempted to develop a universal theory of management and stressed upon need for teaching the theory of management. 4. 3. was merely a reflection of their very different careers”. They both realized that problem of personnel & its management at all levels is the key to individual success. materials and methods Father of scientific management Stressed on efficiency Fayol Fayol pays due regards on human element.

8. Unity of Command. Thereby he can be more productive. Fayol points out that there is no such thing as a perfect system. A hierarchy is necessary for unity of direction. Subordination of individual interest (to the general interest). Unity of command does not exist without unity of direction but does not necessarily flows from it. Management must see that the goals of the firms are always paramount. But lateral communication is also fundamental. Discipline. Division of Work. Employees must obey. This is a matter of degree depending on the condition of the business and the quality of its personnel. This is essential to ensure unity and coordination in the enterprise. Authority. 6.restricted to factory only principles of management which are applicable in every field of management. 4. Remuneration. as long as superiors know that such communication is taking place. 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. but this is two-sided: employees will only obey orders if management play their part by providing good leadership. Centralization (or Decentralization). Unity of Direction. Scalar chain refers to the number of levels in the hierarchy from the ultimate authority to the lowest level in the organization. Scalar chain (Line of Authority). 9. balanced responsibility for its function. Specialization allows the individual to build up experience. and to continuously improve his skills. Each worker should have only one boss with no other 5. . It should not be over-stretched and consist of toomany levels. Payment is an important motivator although by analyzing a number of possibilities. 7. conflicting lines of command. The right to issue commands. 2. along with which must go the 3. People engaged in the same kind of activities must have the same objectives in a single plan.

Initiative. To coordinate.10. and reward each one’s merit without arousing possible jealousies and disturbing harmonious relations. encourage keenness. Both material order and social order are necessary. 5. Fayol was a key figure in the turn-of-the-century Classical School of management theory. To command. 4. The latter is achieved through organization and selection. Management must foster the morale of its employees. Equity.” What is Management? Five elements Fayol's definition of management roles and actions distinguishes between Five Elements: 1. To organize. Maintain the activity among the personnel. Employees work better if job security and career progress are assured to them. Order. 2. minimizes lost time and useless handling of materials. Prevoyance. He further suggests that: “real talent is needed to coordinate effort. both material and human. Examining the future and drawing up a plan of action. (Forecast & Plan). An insecure tenure and a high rate of employee turnover will affect the organization adversely. 14. He saw a manager's job as: • planning • organizing • commanding • coordinating activities . undertaking. Stability of Tenure of Personnel. Binding together. 12. use each person’s abilities. Treating employees well is important to achieve equity. To control. 13. Allowing all personnel to show their initiative in some way is a source of strength for the organization. In running a business a ‘combination of kindliness and justice’ is needed. The elements of strategy. unifying and harmonizing all activity and effort. Build up the structure. The former 11. Even though it may well involve a sacrifice of ‘personal vanity’ on the part of many managers. Esprit de Corps. Seeing that everything occurs in conformity with established rule and expressed command. of the 3.

When at work.Unity of command. Lifetime employment for good workers. Employees receive fair payment for services.Remuneration. 11.Discipline.a comprehensive theory of administration . 10. This is very like.Equity. Harmony.Centralization. Specializing encourages continuous improvement in skills and the development of improvements in methods. Limited turnover of personnel. Decisions are made from the top. On retirement he published his work . Consolidation of management functions. Out of the 14. Each employee has one and only one boss. Equality of treatment (but not necessarily identical treatment) 12. was little unknown outside France until the late 40s when Constance Storrs published her translation of Fayol's 1916 “Administration Industrielle et Generale ". like military. not what the company can get away with.Scalar Chain (line of authority). only work things should be pursued or thought about. Fayol's career began as a mining engineer. unity of command. Formal chain of command running from top to bottom of the organization. 5. Comambault was in difficulty but Fayol turned the operation round. Thinking out a plan and do what it takes to make it happen.Esprit de corps. A single mind generates a single plan and all play their part in that plan. 3. Comambault as Director.Initiative. 4. 6.Order.Authority. coordination by managers (an amalgam of authority and unity of direction Fayol (1841-1925) Functions and Principles of Management Henri Fayol. . the most important elements are specialization. 13. All materials and personnel have a prescribed place. cohesion among personnel.Subordination of Individual Interests. bending of rules. He then moved into research geology and in 1888 joined. Scalar Chain is the number of different levels of authority through which decisions are passed in the organization. 8. 9. 2. and they must remain there.Specialization of labor. No slacking. early contributor to a classical or administrative management school of thought (even though he himself would never have recognized such a "school"). 7. rather than peopleoriented. Fayol laid down the following principles of organization (he called them principles of management): 1. 14.• controlling performance Notice that most of these activities are very task-oriented. He is frequently seen as a key.described and classified administrative management roles and processes then became recognized and referenced by others in the growing discourse about management. a French engineer and director of mines. and. The right to give orders and the power to exact obedience.Personnel Tenure. scalar chain.Unity of direction.

Fayol synthesized various tenets or principles of organization and management and Taylor on work methods.to forecast and plan . • 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.His theorizing about administration was built on personal observation and experience of what worked well in terms of organization. This type of assertion typifies a "one best way" approach to management thinking. measurement and simplification to secure efficiencies. Taylor published "The Principles of Scientific Management" in the USA in 1911. W. It is worthwhile reflecting on these are comparing the conclusions to contemporary utterances by Peters.. 1. Both Fayol and Taylor were arguing that principles existed which all organizations . Fayol's five functions are still relevant to discussion today about management roles and action.in order to operate and be administered efficiently . 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 . more work focus and efficiency.to co-ordinate bind together.hierarchy) • . unify and harmonies activity and effort 5. Both referenced functional specialization.to control see that everything occurs in conformity with policy and practice Fayol also synthesized 14 principles for organizational design and effective administration.could implement.to command maintain activity among the personnel 4. Kanter and Handy to name but three management gurus. 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. His aspiration for an "administrative science" sought a consistent set of principles that all organizations must apply in order to run properly. F.to organize build up the structure.purveyance examine the future and draw up plans of action 2. material and human of the undertaking 3. and Fayol in 1916 examined the nature of management and administration on the basis of his French mining organization experiences.

One boss may want X.the person has the expertise to carry out the responsibilities and the personal qualities to win the support and confidence of others. Who do we cope with situations whereR > A ? Are there work situations where our R< A? "Judgment demands high moral character.or being accountable to several clients. The basic concern is that tensions and dilemmas arise where we report to two or more bosses. This generalization still holds . consistency of action. 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.no enterprise could prosper.. and staff) to carry out the responsibilities.. therefore..R = A enables accountability in the delegation process. TheR = A correspondence is important to understand. energy. • Unity of direction . 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. adherence to rules and values . a good leader should possess and infuse into those around him courage to accept responsibility. application.Allocation and permission to use the necessary resources needed (budgets. This integrity is conferred neither by election nor ownership. "in an essence .standards. • Discipline The generalization about discipline is that discipline is essential for the smooth running of a business and without it . • Selection . assets.even where we are involved with team and matrix structures which involve reporting to more than one boss . the other Y and the subordinate is caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.obedience.. “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.

able to predict the organizations behavior towards them. unpredictable movement. fairness and a sense of justice "should” pervade the .who needs to see how their role fits into the organization and be confident. 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.is frequently centralized-decentralization!!! The modes of control over the actions and results of devolved organizations are still matters requiring considerable attention. • Centralization Centralization for HF is essential to the organization and a natural consequence of organizing. Orderliness implies steady evolutionary movement rather than wild. This would spark a lively debate about who decides that the interests of the organization as a whole are.assumes a shared set of values by people in the organization . Fayol's work .a unitary where the reasons for organizational activities and decisions are in some way neutral and reasonable. • 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. rules. devolved organizations occur. • remuneration of staff “The price of services rendered. clear and understood. • Equity Equity.The unity of command idea of having one head (chief executive. cabinet consensus with agree purposes and objectives and one plan for a group of activities) is clear. Basically an organization "should" provide an orderly place for each individual member . • Order The level of generalization becomes difficult with this principle. anxiety provoking. Thus policies. " 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). Decentralization . • 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. instructions and actions should be understandable and understood.

along with which must go the balanced responsibility for its function. Management must see that the goals of the firms are always paramount.organization .Subordination of individual interest (to the general interest).Unity of Command. Unity of command does not exist without unity of direction but does not necessarily flows from it. 6. 1. (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. 7. the executive head of General Motors reorganized the company into semi-autonomous divisions in the 1920s. zeal. but this is two-sided: employees will only obey orders if management play their part by providing good leadership. 3. In the same way that Alfred P Sloan.Authority. • Initiative At all levels of the organizational structure. The right to issue commands.in principle and practice.Division of Work. 2.Remuneration.Unity of Direction. 4. 5. enthusiasm and energy are enabled by people having the scope for personal initiative.Discipline. This is essential to ensure unity and coordination in the enterprise. its purposes and values. Thereby he can be more productive.very much in line with Fayol's recommendations. and to continuously improve his skills. Payment is an important motivator although by analyzing a number of possibilities. People engaged in the same kind of activities must have the same objectives in a single plan. Stability of tenure promotes loyalty to the organization. • Stability of tenure Time is needed for the employee to adapt to his/her work and perform it effectively. corporations undergoing reorganization still apply "classical organization" principles . Fayol points out that there is no such thing as a perfect system. . team work and sound interpersonal relationships. Specialization allows the individual to build up experience. Each worker should have only one boss with no other conflicting lines of command. Employees must obey.

Both material order and social order are necessary. Scalar chain refers to the number of levels in the hierarchy from the ultimate authority to the lowest level in the organization. 11. Allowing all personnel to show their initiative in some way is a source of strength for the organization.Centralization (or Decentralization).Stability of Tenure of Personnel. Management must foster the morale of its employees. 14. 9. An insecure tenure and a high rate of employee turnover will affect the organization adversely.Initiative. 12.8. The latter is achieved through organization and selection. But lateral communication is also fundamental. Treating employees well is important to achieve equity. It should not be over-stretched and consist of too-many levels.Order.” . as long as superiors know that such communication is taking place. He further suggests that: “real talent is needed to coordinate effort. encourage keenness. use each person’s abilities. The former minimizes lost time and useless handling of materials. Even though it may well involve a sacrifice of ‘personal vanity’ on the part of many managers. and reward each one’s merit without arousing possible jealousies and disturbing harmonious relations. A hierarchy is necessary for unity of direction. 10. In running a business a ‘combination of kindliness and justice’ is needed.Esprit de Corps.Equity. Employees work better if job security and career progress are assured to them.Scalar chain (Line of Authority). 13. This is a matter of degree depending on the condition of the business and the quality of its personnel.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->