The Application of Scientific Management in the 21st Century - Essay Example

?Question: Discuss to what extent the application of scientific management has been adapted in the 21st century, to overcome its limitations Introduction Scientific management is a management theory that examines and coordinates work flows, which enhances work efficiency. The main premises of the theory were formulated in the 1880s and 1890s by Frederick Winslow Taylor (Lewis, Goodman & Fandt 2000). In the current management literature, the best possible use of scientific management runs counter to the most recent, and better business model, such as human relation management; hence, scientific management has been largely criticised today. In the fields of sociology and politics, scientific management can be viewed as the division of labour shoved to its rational limit, with the resulting oppression of the workplace and devaluation of the labourer (Taksa 1992). Although the usefulness of scientific management in the 21st century has been largely criticised, some of its premises survive today in several major companies, such as McDonalds, Ford, and Toyota. This paper discusses the extent of the application of scientific management in the 21st century and how its limitations are turned into something productive. First, a presentation of an overview of Taylor’s scientific management is imperative. Frederick Taylor argued that actions rooted in traditional practice and established methods should be replaced by accurate processes formulated after thorough analysis of a person at work. Its use is dependent on a strengthened degree of managerial control over the labour practices and work routines of employees (Freeman 1996). According to Drucker (2007), Taylor’s scientific management, also referred to as ‘Taylorism’, is a deviation on the issue of efficiency. Basically, it means that Taylor’s scientific management is concerned with waste reduction, productivity or efficiency enhancement, and application of scientific methods in choosing what is really important. Moreover, scientific management involves, for instance, the traditional idea of time and motion study, frugality or saving, lean production, and Fordism. According to Taksa (1992), scientific management coincided greatly with the Efficiency Movement—a movement that tried to emphasise the application of economic theories of utility maximisation and efficiency and scientific study to make sure that industry and government functioned to their best ability—which was the larger cultural version of the influence of scientific management on managers in particular. Indeed, Scientific Management is all but a systematic philosophy of worker and work. Altogether it may well be the most powerful as well as the most lasting contribution that America has made to Western thought since the Federalist Papers (Maciariello & Linkletter 2011, 384). The words of Maciariello and Linkletter (2011,384) reflect the significant efforts of scientific management scholars’ contribution to the development of management theory leading to its adaptation in the 21st century. The scientific management scholars created the managerial expertise of job design or planning through specialisation and division of labour, and developed the original methods of mass production. They also raised the value of selection and training of employees. They pioneered the use of incentive and compensation packages to enhance work efficiency. They opened up the application of systematic and rational techniques to work out managerial issues (Mullins 2010). Ultimately, they placed emphasis to management as a legitimate area of scientific research. Nevertheless, there are several limitations to be taken into consideration. Primarily, as argued by Nankervis and colleagues (2005), the organised techniques of scientific management have been discovered to have their uses mostly in secure work settings and have less relevance in multifaceted and risk-inclined organisations. Also, they gave a great deal of importance on the alleged economic and rational essence of humans, exaggerating humans’ need for material things and downplaying the need for self-actualisation (Huczynski & Buchanan 2004). Ultimately, they attempted to employ general management assumptions in all work conditions, without understanding the distinctiveness of some work settings. Twenty-first century organisations have tried to minimise these limitations in a number of ways. Since scientific management, according to some critics, put too much importance on productivity and profitability managers tend to take advantage of customers and employees (Mullins 2010). Hence, in order to minimise exploitation in the workplace, present-day organisations adopt alternative management strategies, such as human relation management, total quality management (TQM), and Six Sigma. Twenty first-century organisations have used scientific management to realise goals and the management approach has been useful. It is not important if the fundamental process remains unchanged but these organisations are currently deviating a bit from the principle of scientific management. Many organisations only have a slight knowledge of scientific management and believe that the principle has turned out to be outmoded, yet they consciously or unconsciously struggle to put into practice scientific management in their organisations (Tsuitsui 2001). The assumptions of Taylor were used all over the world, especially in Japan, Russia, and France. Nowadays, scientific management, according to Lewis and colleagues (2000), has been combined with other principles and is applied by managers through time and motion studies to eliminate useless motions, compensation designs founded on performance and employing the most eligible employees for each job. Furthermore, organisations have to thoroughly examine people and businesses to determine whether there are features of scientific management being applied and if they are being helpful to the organisation or not. McDonalds is one of the most prominent advocates of scientific management. One of the major features of scientific management that the global fast-food company have applied to their business operations is the Fordist management approach, where everybody functions in accordance with an assembly line (Nankervis et al. 2005). McDonalds minimised the limitations of the Fordist management model in order to adopt it successfully. For instance, McDonalds has structured every single one of its food chain divisions in such a way that workers do not have to carry out more than two tasks (Nankervis et al. 2005) to accomplish their job. There are features of Gilbreth as well since he analysed the work motion and he discovered the principle of eliminating ‘needless’ activities. Gilbreth is related to Taylorism due to his support for Taylor’s argument that the major goal of scientific management was to aid employees in attaining their whole capability as human beings (Lewis et al. 2000). Taylorism has also been adopted by McDonalds. The primary goal of Taylor was to develop the most qualified individual for the job, and thus specialisation and division of labour (Mullins 2010). For instance, the process that McDonalds uses in making their hamburger is a type of division and devaluing of labour. This demonstrates that McDonalds today has effectively implemented scientific management and it can logically be concluded that without scientific management the company would not perhaps be a leader in the contemporary fast-food industry. However, in spite of the successful application of scientific management in McDonalds, there are still numerous criticisms of its technique. For example, people that have higher abilities are restricted to very simplified jobs; hence their abilities are put to waste (Nankervis et al. 2005). In addition, according to Drucker (2007), there are the more common limitations of McDonalds like the jobs are tedious and repetitive; therefore, workers are not stimulated to carry out the task dedicatedly. Similarly, Toyota another major multinational company developed its management approach from scientific management. Specifically, the company used scientific management with managers supervising the procedures. Per se, through competent supervision and leadership, the company was successful in reducing lead-time and cost while simultaneously improving quality control and management (Tsuitsui 2001). According to Tsuitsui (2001), the scientific feature of the manufacturing scheme of Toyota includes the relationships emerging between particular procedures and events that allow the company to control current production and obtain forecasts of upcoming production levels. Even though the cases of McDonalds and Toyota evidently prove that scientific management remains relevant nowadays, the weaknesses of the scientific model have to be dealt with and the difficulties in dealing with these weaknesses are discouraging or stopping businesses from adopting this management principle. Generally, it has to be argued that by devaluing labour workers are dehumanised and de-motivated considerably. In spite of the fact that it permits workers to focus on a particular task and eventually makes their work simpler, it does not give job satisfaction or contentment. This assumption has been effectively substantiated by Abraham Maslow and Frederick Herzberg. Maslow argued that material things, like money, are workers’ basic need and to effectively stimulate or encourage an individual other social aspects have to be considered (Huczynski & Buchanan 2004). Herzberg formulated a model that opposed the arguments of Taylor. It was argued by Herzberg that there are two aspects that can stimulate a person - ‘hygiene’ and ‘motivator’. He pointed out that ‘hygiene’ factors (e.g. salary, work conditions, company policy, etc), when satisfied, will get rid of job discontentment but will not give job satisfaction. Thus, the ‘motivator’ factors (e.g. recognition, growth, achievement, etc.) have to be satisfied because these are the factors that give job satisfaction (Huczynski & Buchanan 2004). This contradicts the argument of Taylor that employees are merely working for monetary returns. In the contemporary period, in order for organisations to occupy a strong position in the markets, they have to successfully deal with change and develop to improve continuously. Yet, in the 21st century, scientific management may lead to workers becoming ‘specialised’; consequently, it may turn out to be their standards. This can be a key limitation as it may lead them to be defiant to change, so when customers ask modifications to be made on one product and/or service to another, it can create a dilemma for managers (Witzel 2005). But these drawbacks can be minimised and strengths maximised, just like what McDonalds and Toyota have done. Conclusion In conclusion, the discussion has shown that there are several key aspects of scientific management that are at present being effectively adopted in the 21st century. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that in companies like McDonalds and Toyota scientific management fulfils a significant function and will continue to do so. However, in complex and dynamic markets, it will be hard to effectively apply the scientific central assumptions since it will make organisations defiant to change. References Drucker, P.F. (2007) Management challenges for the 21st century. New York: Elsevier. Freeman, M. (1996) ‘Scientific Management: 100 Years Old; Poised for the Next Century’ SAM Advanced Management Journal, 61(2), 35+ Huczynski, A. & Buchanan, D. (2004) Organisational Behaviour (5th edition). Harlow: Pearson. Lewis, P., Goodman, S., & Fandt, P. (2000) Management Challenges in the 21st Century. New York: Thomson Learning. Maciariello, J.A. & Linkletter, L. (2011) The Lost Art of Management: Peter Drucker’s Timeless Vision for Building Effective Organisations. New York: McGraw-Hill. Mullins, L. (2010) Management and Organisational Behaviour (9th edition). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. Nankervis, A. et al. (2005) Managing Services. Melbourne, Australia: Cambridge University Press. Taksa, L. (1992) ‘Scientific Management: Technique or Cultural Ideology?’ The Journal of Industrial Relations, 34, 3365-395. Tsutsui, W. (2001) Manufacturing Ideology: Scientific Management in Twentieth-Century Japan. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Witzel, M. (2005) ‘Where Scientific Management Went Awry?’ European Business Forum. Read More