1/22/2021 Review Article

“Criticism on Scientific Management”

Duaa Zahra 70109323

Introduction
Scientific management requires setting standards (for
method, service, instruments, time & cost) for rigorous
analysis and review, systematic preparation, monitoring
whether or not standards are followed, and maintaining
collaboration in labor relations to meet organizational goals.
Frederick Winslow Taylor discarded such a rule of thumb
theory during the 1880s and 1890s, discovering inefficient
management procedure based on discretionary decision-
making, and undertook thorough research and analysis and,
based on his observations, developed standard rules and
regulations "the best way to do one's task"; this was
popularly known as science management. In 1910, it became
mature and influential. F.W. Taylor wrote his famous book,
"Principles of Scientific Management" in the United States
in 1911, in which the idea was brought to light in front of the
public. The standard scientific methods of Taylor remodeled
and redefined the factory method.
Scientific management is
based on these four
principles:-
 Scientifically
designing tasks
(replacing rule of
thumb)
 Scientific selection of personnel & scientifically
developing personnel
 Management-worker cooperation
 Equal division of work (among management &
workers)

Although, Taylor’s theory of scientific management played a

significant role in shaping the factory system, different
scholars have criticized this theory on different ground.

Criticism on Scientific Management

F.W. Taylor was correct in the sense that if both labor and
management follow the same purpose, he could appreciate the idea that there is a real
atmosphere for the implementation of empirical management; as a peaceful and prosperous
partnership in labor management, conflict will be prevented. "Criticism arises here because of
his mistake, because he thought there would be no dispute "over how to split the pie as long as
the pie was big enough (Taylor as cited in Locke, 1982).
John Commons and Robert Hoxie have suggested, in addition to Locke, that science leadership
would incite tension between workers and employers. The explanation for the dispute was well
explained by both the Commons and Hoxie. In the Commons results, extreme mechanism and
framework standardization is responsible for the dispute (Frey, 1913). "Commons also
questioned: "Could science administration interact with organizations as well as people
scientifically? “That “(Commons, 1911: 464).
Jobs have to work to meet expectations over hours and hours, weeks and weeks; they are substantially
impaired both physically and psychologically by rushing to reach standard performance within standard
time (Managementstudyguide.com, 2015). Quite frequently, due to such dehumanization, many
businesses face industrial injuries. In 2010, due to exhausting working conditions and an average of 120
extra hours per month, Foxconn, a major manufacturer of Apple products, had an epidemic of factory
worker suicides (Moore, 2010).
Scientific management describes encouragement very narrowly; it notes that only monetary rewards
will guarantee workers' productivity. In fact, however, employees care not only about money but also
about social well-being, their ability to improve (Priestley, 2005).
In his hierarchy of need theory, Maslow stated that after satisfying lower order needs,
individuals step toward achieving higher order needs. But in the case of science management,
employees have to work at the standard pace for the same job (standard position) according to
standard management instructions; here, while employees can satisfy their financial or
monetary needs, they struggle to gain confidence and self-actualization needs (hubpages.com,
2013).
Science administration is another critique that provides a forum for bigotry. While the
production was the product of workers' toil, they had very little or even no space for their
judgment and voice to be used; they had to do what they were told by management. (Hobson:
209, 1914). It was perceived to be "a loss or harm to the workers" (Hobson 1914: 212). A
forum for prejudice was obviously established by the separation of planning from action, as it
prevented staff from expressing ideas or views to facilitate the planning process and the effect
was quite dangerous: resentment (Robertson 1923: 97).
Science management often opposes authoritarianism. Alfred Marshall pointed out that whilst the
productivity-planning department was created, this department really proved awkward; the planning
department made all decisions and managers and staff had to enforce them without saying something.
Science management happens because there is a harmonious relationship between the mental
revolutions that is labor-management. Management, however, opts for tyranny in reality; they advise
managers, staff, who are bound to implement the orders. (1919 Marshal)

Therefore, empirical management explicitly assists autocracy; staff are bound to do what their
employers do, they have no ground to speak about pay policies, the workplace environment
and the essence of employment (Reich, 2007).

One supervisor had to accommodate vast numbers of staff in historically structured large
business companies and had to deal with them; other supervisors each had a narrow field in the
new science management system (they could handle particular narrow issue). A written order
form (Marshall 1919:366) replaced the informal interaction. Personal relationships, though,
offer employers and employees who can even provide computer good assets that are
confidence and esteem. (Marshall 1919: 351).
Standardization is one of the fundamental concepts of scientific administration. However,
standardization of the dynamic system or hierarchical structure is not necessarily a positive
indicator. Such systemic standardization distinguishes large firms, and most likely it is why
small firms will react and adapt to an evolving market and the environment, and large firms
can fail. Furthermore, in sectors where progress requires a high degree of participation,
standardization of the system tends to be unsuccessful (Marshall 1919: 243).
Standardization has another drawback to be a product leader, innovation is required (Marshal).
Managers are bosses rather than inborn leaders; so we should name managers leaders. The
performance of the manager cannot be measured by simply determining expectations, but
rather by how managers will respond to situational changes; how their decision-making affects
strategy and activity in the face of a changing situation. Standardization is also a weak
yardstick in this situation.
While it is believed that replacing the need for human handicraft with mechanical and semi-
automatic machines is a 'advanced system;' from a human point of view, it simply renders
human work simpler at the expense/price of destroying labor skills (Marshall 1919: 683).

In comparison to Marshall, other authors have also opposed scientific administration based on
"deskilling of labor." According to him, since work is broken down into smaller tasks and adequate
preparation and division of labor make it easier for employees to find tasks, there is no space for
workers to improve themselves (Priestley, 2005).
In the science management system, employees are treated as low ranking and treated with contempt.
Taylor stated that unless flow of instruction from experts of planning department towards the workers,
no worker can perform any task (1998). Experts deem workers very ill trained and too dull to work
without instructions.
In Taylor's terms, employees must obey the orders of their employers, and it is not important to justify
to workers why they have to comply, that is, "do as you are told." However, in today's world, businesses
communicate clearly to workers their strategy and purpose and priorities, that is, they know what they
are doing and why they are doing it (Peters & Waterman).
Science administration in the whole enterprise is complicated and unwise to implement. It may be
helpful in some agencies, but it may be unsuccessful for others.

Based on presenting criticism in the words of different authors the major

findings are-

• Science management stimulates tension between management and employees, which is

marked by self-government, dehumanization of labor, segregation and injustice.
• Scientific management does not respect human resources; it struggles to show that
internally engaged employees are automatically interested in the enterprise and work for the
production of corporate value.
• The protest breaks out due to the labor-management dispute.
• Science administration has a poor definition of inspiration and cannot completely
consider individual desires.
• Extreme self-government; workers are bound to abide by what managers and planners
suggest.
• Practical foremanship The principle of science management limits the likelihood of
direct personal relationships; 8 supervisors (foremen) have separate positions; they have been
involved in the execution of their roles, such that direct personal relationships with and and
every worker are not feasible.
• Empirical management is a tool to optimize the needs of managers and shareholders at
the cost of labour.
• Science administration creates inequality in society by establishing division in the
workplace as a boss.
• There is no room for professional advancement, since employees must obey the same
orders at all times; anyone who can go beyond fulfilling the same static tasks at all times can
improve their careers, and scientific management limits such opportunities.
• Science administration is unyielding to changes that could arise because of unexpected
environmental breakthroughs or changes; additionally, invention and imagination are not
feasible here. Businesses working based on mass customization could not be subject to
scientific management due to variance in demand. Moreover, the rigid and fixed pay rate is not
efficient in all cases, since it is important to change the wage rate during the slowdown or
economic crisis.
• Scientific management does not build a feeling of respect in the workplace; management regards
all employees as less educated and "too dull to decide what to do."
• Employees do not know why management orders are being followed; they just do what they are
told.
• Science management relies on individual performance; but most organizations now concentrate
on operating in teams and communities.
• The organization should decide to extend scientific management only to certain sections or units
to which it belongs; the entire organization cannot cooperate with scientific management.

Criticism considering present scenario of business world and workplace:

• Labor-management friction is commonly found in organizations today. Scientific
administration is the foundation of the new technological breakthrough.
• In today's world, collaboration is required to complete complicated projects and tasks;
thus, an individualistic approach to science management is not successful.
• Motivation and human needs are not limited to just capital. Moreover, workplaces are
highly competitive and offer high rewards (extending beyond money) to recruit skilled
employees; if workers do not obtain incentives beyond money, they abandon their existing
company and migrate to a new one.
• Many companies now educate staff outside their routine jobs by career enrichment and job
rotation; this would not be feasible if workers had no possibility of diversification.
• Today, in most organizations, all executive and lower-level priorities are set and shared; sharing
these goals allows formulating concrete goals. If only supervisors could engage in planning and lower
levels could not realize the intent and could not participate, many of today's existing prosperous
companies may have refused.
• Customers are now more sophisticated and increasingly changing; thus, demand for personalized
products is more than generic products.
Conclusion
Science management can be considered in a variety of forms. In the first place, certain
fundamental principles can be extended to public policy and corporate efficiency as a tacit theory
of institutional productivity: waste disposal; sound management basis; work standardization and
economic benefits. Second, research management, as a general business orientation, is a means of
doing things that are necessary and beneficial to all businesses, outside the original factory
environment. This will include the systematization of activities, pollution management and
analysis into new methods of doing this, and the use of production data to maintain interest. This
is consistent with "good practice of management" and is of great benefit to public bodies. Thirdly,
the opinion, with its implicit mistrust of human motives and its focus on orderliness and authority,
is more contentious as a prescriptive, value-added philosophy of governance. Some argue that, in
this light, research management eventually ruins the organization to the greatest benefit of its
intellectual resources and destroys its potential for improvement.

References:
Caldari, K. (2007). Alfred Marshall's critical analysis of scientific management. The European Journal of
the History of Economic Thought, 14(1), 55-78.

“Case studies in business”. (2009). Harvard Business Review, 4(1), p-108.

Kanigel, R. (2005). The one best way: Frederick Winslow Taylor and the enigma of efficiency. MIT
Press Books, 1.Ross, D. B., Matteson, R., & Exposito, J. (2014). Servant leadership to toxic
leadership: Power of influence over power of control.
Huang, K. P., Tung, J., Lo, S. C., & Chou, M. J. (2013). A review and critical analysis of the principles of
scientific management. International Journal of Organizational Innovation (Online), 5(4), 78.

Mindtools.com, (2015). Frederick Taylor and Scientific Management: Understanding

Taylorism and Early Management Theory.