Henry L. Gantt and Frederick Taylor: Reinventing Enterprise - Assignment Example

 Henry L. Gantt and Frederick Taylor: Reinventing Enterprise Organizations are moving from apparent success to failures because they focused on cost-cutting to enhance short-term profits. In the process they compromised on long-term benefits and did not change their business model. As the business environment changes companies failed to change their business model to enhance productivity (Bergstrand, 2009). The nature of work has changed and the nature of managing has changed. Managing people and project controls were pioneered by two mechanical engineers - Frederick. W. Taylor and Henry L. Gnatt. Both Taylor and Gnatt believed in actual experience as well as the data to develop the concept of what came to be known as ‘scientific management’ (Darmody, 2007). These two thinkers gave to the society and the industry techniques to enhance and improve efficiency at work. Even though Taylor’s and Gnatt’s contribution were considered controversial, they guide the organizations even today in making certain decisions (Darmody, 2007). They laid the foundations for methods of planning and execution of work. Taylor introduced the concept of studying and planning to improve upon the process. His theory of scientific management states that work should be divided and sun-divided into discrete tasks or activities. Such activities when closely monitored and measured can produce the most efficient performance from the activity. Reinventing requires a model change according to Peter Drucker (Bergstrand, 2009). The enterprise can be made more effective by realizing and identifying its potential and creating a different enterprise for a different future. Knowledge work productivity according to Drucker requires emphasis on structure to drive behaviours. Instead of cost-cutting the focus should be on reinventing the enterprise around the customers. According to Taylor workers often performed tasks in ways which were wasteful, hazardous and exhausting (Peck & Casey, 2004). He devised that the best way of getting the task done was to match the people with the task, what today is known as the P-O fit. In addition he emphasized that the work should be divided into small tasks and ways to optimize each step should be found. Taylor believed in standardization, mechanization and automation (Seddon, 2004). Certain thinkers argue that Taylor’s principles are not applicable in today’s because he asserted that decision making should be separated from work. He asserted that workers should just follow the instructions of the management and as the management has good ideas. Scientific management was basically associated with time and motion studies, incentive wage systems and it laid emphasis on efficiency at the expense of the humanity of the worker. However, it was a complex set of ideas and values. It was at the same time a focus on labor efficiency, product quality, technical training and education that emphasized cooperative harmony between labor and capital. These ideas demonstrated interest in worker welfare and public administration. According to Taylor, it was “a complete mental revolution” in work and social relations (Morgan, 2006). The Chinese managers found scientific management as the most advanced statement of management philosophy and practice. In fact with the permission of Mr. Taylor, The Principles of Scientific Management was also translated into Chinese. The Taylor Society in the USA and Ueno Yochi’s Industrial Efficiency Institute (Sangyo noritsukenkyuju) in Japan are evidence of the interest in managerial innovation and technical efficiency across the globe. Taylor believed that in order to follow his system a new mind set was required. Taylor did not agree that skill is essential for any work and that any work can be analyzed as a series of unskilled operations and then any kind of job could be achieved. Gnatt furthered the ideas of Taylor by inventing the concept of bar chart and developing the concept of incentive pay. Gantt’s tools are used even today in project management. Taylor ad Gnatt together studied the making and improving the production of steel for guns and ships for the US Navy. Taylor felt people were motivated solely by money so pay schemes would mutually benefit the employee and the employer. In the Piece Rate scheme he offered the workers a low wage per task completed till the worker reached the average productivity level but once they exceeded this level that pay would be increased (Wang, 2000). One who did not reached this level would barely receive a livable pay. Taoylorist principles gave rise to several criticisms such as that this principle failed to develop a case for shorter working hours as a form of managerial reform. The scientific managers opposed the demand for shorter working hours because work time reforms tend to unite workers (Nyland, 1995). A ‘high-priced man’ would feel distinctive from his fellow workers and this would serve as an incentive as he received premium pay. On the other hand if work hours were cut influence the entire department and bring the workers closer together. Scientific management did not rely on the psychology of the individual workers but on mechanics, deskilling, isolation and wage incentives to induce workers to labour at the prescribed pace. Again the contention that Taylor was not concerned with the working hours is not right. Much before Henry Ford adopted the nine hour day, Taylor had been arguing that both employers and employees could benefit from shorter hours. The organizational methods of Taylor achieved the objective of growth and enhanced production because they dealt with people that lacked industrial culture, technical training and apprenticeship. Peaucelle (2000) finds that even though post-Taylorism new and innovative ways of management have come up but all the strategies and techniques resemble the principles of Taylorism. While the Taylorism principle was to produce more goods at low cost, post-Taylorism, the objective of the enterprise became shorter delivery periods, quality, diversity and flexibility. While the Taylorian objectives were efficiency and increases in quantities produced, post-Taylorism did not abandon these objectives. In fact Taylor’s principle of high wages was based on scientific experiment. When workers refused to go into the workshops that he had organized, he offered them different wage rates. In doing so, he gave them the possibility to choose between working at old rates at the old workshop or work at a higher wage at the newly organized work shop. This experiment allowed him to determine the wage necessary to attract workers to the reorganized workshops. Three movements have influenced the companies over the last decade - just-in-time (JIT) strategy, business process re-engineering (BPR), and project-by-project management. The Kanban mehod applied the five “zeroes” objective – zero waiting time, zero stock, zero defects, zero paperwork and zero breakdowns. A study of these five objectives demonstrate the continuing importance of efficiency (productivity) objectives to which are added deadliness (Timeliness) and reduction of defects (quality) (Peaucelle, 2000). Whatever be the terminology used by any management thinker the main objective continues to be profit maximization. The BPR when applied to call centers enables the companies to respond to their clines in a very short period at a very low cost. These conditions resemble the Taylorian workshops where work rates are close to the maximum that workers can manage. Breaks between tasks are few and the deadlines create tension. As a result the employee turnover rates are high. Taylorism is actually a refinement of the management strategy of detailed division of labour (Pruijt, 2000). The first principle is the decoupling of the labor process from the skills of the workers. This can be done by simplifying the jobs and routine tasks. This would make the work process interesting for the workers and reduce the dependency of the organization on skilled labour (Darmody). The second principle is that brain work should be removed from the shop and centered in the planning or laying-out department (Pruijt). This responsibility should lie in the hands of the management. The third principle is that the management should not leave it to the workers to decide how to handle the tasks (Pruijt). The management should instruct how to perform the tasks. This implies that decision making should be centralized and every step of the labour process should be controlled through formal rules and procedures (Darmody). According to Darmody, Taylor recognized that a good team needs an informed, intelligent leader. Managers must have the quality of being able to motivate the workers. Chris Argyris challenged the theories of Taylor as he thought Taylor treated employees like robots who are not worthy of making contributions apart from their designated tasks. Contrary to Taylorism, Argyris’s principles were based on job enrichment, fundamental belief in people and belief in psychological motivations (Wang, 2005). To improve employee relations and inter-organisational communication, Argyris implemented the T-group and although the initial reaction was positive, the effects soon died down as employees slid back to the old system. However, Argyris did contribute the single-loop and double-loop learning which allowed the managers to question the underlying issues behind the problem and use their skills to implement changes or enhance the process. Charles handy, another management thinker proposed that organizations should become flatter which would enhance internal communications. In the process it would also cut costs and time associated with decision making. He also proposed that employees should have more control over the time they work which would increase motivation among them. This suggests that employee motivation is not connected just to money but other factors as well. It would also mean that employees are less stressed since their time management strategies were simplified. Skill level of the work force can be enhanced through training and development. Abraham Maslow, the great thinker of his time, has contributed to the work place management through his theories on motivation and the hierarchy of needs. Maslow too, like Handy believes that there is more to motivation than monetary compensation. The five distinct areas of employee’s needs include the basic physiological needs, the security needs, the social needs, the esteem needs and the self-actualization needs. The diagram below demonstrates the different levels of needs and how the next need arises only when the need below that has been fulfilled: Even Elton Maya and his Hawthorne Studies concluded that there is more to motivation than monetary benefits. While many thinkers have come with ideas of motivation and modern management, Taylor’s theories were based on the presence of a capitalist society and a money economy where profit maximization was the objective. Even though many thinkers have fruitfully contributed to management approaches, scientific management still holds importance and relevance. For instance, there still exists a planning department that plans the production on the shop floor and quality control is still a way of checking how employees work. Performance related pay was originated by Taylor even though today people have modified it to some extent. JIT control system ensures holding just enough stocks to avoid unnecessary blocking of funds. BPR can also be traced back to Taylor’s and the Gilbreth’s Time and Motion Studies. Human Resource Management has originated from Taylor’s original theories. While Taylor treated workers as mindless machines, Gantt relied on them to accomplish the speedup (Darmody). Gantt encouraged bonus pay to motivate workers and he also forced the individual worker to use his brains and faculties to the fullest extent. He believed that workers should be allowed to decide how to do their jobs. Gantt wanted to improve workers’ skills so that their willingness to learn ad adaptability increases. Thus it can be seen that Taylor and Gantt laid the foundation how modern society works and conducts businesses. Thereafter many other thinkers and strategists have come with newer theories but these are only modifications based on the theories and ideas of Taylor and Gantt. Both these thinkers had advanced principle although their principles were interpreted by people differently, based on individual perception. The business environment keeps evolving, the needs and requirements of people keep changing, and the management theories too keep evolving. However, there is a shift in the style of managing people and it is felt the engaging and involving people is necessary to get the best out of them. Taylor was not against involving people as he too experimented how to attract workers. Thus, management thinkers have contributed to the business world in different ways but Gantt and Taylor have laid the foundation for a modern work place. References Bergestrand, J. (2009). Reinventing Enterprise. Leadership Excellence, 26 (8), 9 Darmody, P. B. (2007). Henry L. Gantt and Frederick Taylor: The Pioneers of Scientific Management. AACE International Transactions. Accessed online 28 August 2009, from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=8&did=1466802601&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1251441923&clientId=45065 Morgan, S. L. (2006). Transfer of Taylorist ideas to China, 1910-1930s. Journal of Management History, 12 (4), 408-424 Nyland, C. (1995). Taylorism and hours of work. Journal of Management History, 1 (2), 8-25 Peaucelle, J. (2000). From Taylorism to post-Taylorism. Journal of Organizational Change Management. 13 (5), 452-467 Peck, W., & Casey, W. (2004). Detractors can't diminish worth of Skinner's, Taylor's innovations, Accessed online 28 August 2009, from http://denver.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2004/03/29/smallb6.html Pruijt, H. (2000). Repainting, modifying, smashing Taylorism. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 13 (5), 439-451 Seddan, J. (2004). The method and the madness, Accessed online 28 August 2009, from http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5013916-102271,00.html Wang, Y. (2000). Report: Scientific Management. Accessed online 28 August 2009, from http://www.lamp.ac.uk/mit/pdf/report4.pdf Read More