Gilbreths Contributions to Management History - Research Paper Example

Introduction Frank Gilbreth (1868–1924), a 19th century prominent contributor of management history, was born on July 7 1868. Together with his wife and partner Lillian Moller (1878–1972), a teacher who had a tough professional passion that equalled his, Gilbreth greatly contributed to management history, industrial psychology, as well as handicapped workers’ employment, among others. This paper looks into Gilbreth’s contrbutions to Management History. The Gilbreths’ contribution to management comes in several forms. To start with and most prominently, was their work on motion study and fatigue that became part of the core of scientific management in addition to contributing to ergonomics foundation. Secondly, Lillian Gilberth made major contributions to the psychology of management. Thirdly, both before and after the death of her husband, Lillian was an active teacher – she trained some of the most significant figures in the world of business. Additionally, she was a significant role model for women in management in her later years (Witzel, 145). After graduating from Boston English High School, Gilbreth later worked for Whidden and Company Construction as a bricklayer’s apprentice. Later, beginning 1895, he founded Frank Gilbreth construction and became its president until 1911. The company put up projects throughout the US. Beginning the year 1912, Gilbreth and his wife formed Gilbreth Consulting Incorporated. While he was working at Whidden Construction, Gilbreth did not find satisfaction with simply learning a skill but yearned to get to know the reason as to why his instructors used different motions as they taught him to lay a brick while when working alone, they used only one set of motion to lay a brick (Witzel, 209). He also realized that the bricklayers were using three dissimilar sets of motions – one for teaching bricklaying to others, a second while working at a slow speed, and a third while working at a quickly (Nelson.com, 9). These observations saw the start of Gilbreth’s groundbreaking work in the study of motion as well as ergonomics (the scientific workplace layout that reduces fatigue and improves work performance at the same time) and brought about his invention. While he was only 24, Gilbreth received the first of numerous patents for what he referred to as his “non-stooping scaffold”. He designed the scaffold with the aim of improving the rate at which workers laid bricks. As he observed bricklayer’s movements, Gilbreth came to the realization that it was possible to reduce the number of individual movements that workers made while moving every brick to the wall they were building from the pallet. This would culminate into a double impact of reducing the amount of energy that they would have to use in addition to accelerating the work (Witzel, 209 & Witzel, 144-145). He started studying the various approaches and started doing away with those motions that were not necessary. For instance, he designed a stand that workers could raise to waist height, which eliminated the motion of stooping to lift each brick (Nelson.com, 9). Witzel explains that before Gilbreth’s design, bricklayers used most of their time stooping to lift bricks and then mortar, which they kept beside their feet. Gilbreth’s invention added a second level at the waist height of the workers to aid in storing materials. The scaffold would be hoisted in such a way that the top of the wall that workers were building was even with their torsos at all times. Instead of bending down now and then, workers would only turn and grab the bricks and this was easier and faster (Nelson.com, 9). The most significant fact was that the design deliberately decreased the amount of fatigue as well as stress on the backs of the workers – they were able to lay more bricks daily, with less exhaustion, chiefly in terms of back strain (Witzel, 209). Additionally, by giving those workers whose salaries were low the duty of putting all the bricks with their most attractive side facing up, bricklayers did not have to turn the bricks over to find them, which saved time. Moreover, by mixing a more consistent mortar, bricklayers did not have to tap the brick numerous times in order to put it in the right position as they used to do earlier on. All together, through Gilbreth’s inventions, bricklayer’s output rose to 350 bricks per hour from an average of 125 bricks per hour and from one thousand to 2,700 bricks daily (Nelson.com, 9). Gilbreth abhorred those companies that used these timesaving techniques to benefit themselves by increasing their profits only to hide them from their employees. He liked contracting with companies that promised that they would raise wages with increased sales, for instance, Pierce Arrow, U.S. Rubber, and Eastman Kodak (Bookrags.com, 10). With little in the way of formal management training, the success of Gilbreth’s company emanated from what he refefered to as “field system”, a mounting system of acquired knowledge (Witzel, 209). Gilbreth and his wife carried on with their motion study and examination in other fields and led the way in the use of motion pictures for studying workers and work. The work of Gilbreth and his wife on the study of motion resembled that of Taylor’s studies on time - both scholars broke down each task into its component parts and studied the individual elements to establish the movements and efforts needed. The Gilbreths’ categorized motion/work into fundamental elements e.g. loading, turning, lifting, selecting, among others. They referred to these generic classifications as “therbligs” (obtained from Gilbreth spelled backwards) and they served as each task’s building blocks. They studied these elements using a motion-picture camera along with a device for timing that showed the time intermissions on the film as it was exposed (Ferguson, 4). Nelson and Price explain that the Therbligs split all work motions into sixteen categories, which they could identify and plot on concurrent cycle motion charts that showed the elapsed time on the vertical axis and the body parts on the horizontal axis. The chart revealed the motion of each body part over time, producing an apparent visualization of the correlations between the therbligs. The Gilbreths’ vision was that if they could use science to come up with the ‘one right way’ of performing tasks, all such tasks should then be standardized. This turned out to be part of the 1910s and 1920s’ standardization movement in different fields. Gilbreth and his wife could systematically re-engineer tasks in order to enhance productivity and save on labor. Some of the devices that a Gilbreth came up with to assist in the study of motion included the cyclegraph, a device consisting of small electric light bulbs strapped to the limbs of a worker. When filmed, limbs’ movement acceleration and deceleration was evident. This was done on a screen graphically. The approach resembled Taylor’s in that there was the scientific study of minutely divided labor. Like Taylor’s approach, it met great resistance from workers who had the feeling that managers were using it to ensure that they did more work without raising thaeir salaries. The Gilbreths relentlessly supported their approach and by the year 1915, their interest in fatigue problems as well as in attempting to re-engineer both workpalces ans tasks to reduce industrial illnesses, accidents and injuries had increased (Witzel, 144-145). It is not possible to talk about Gilbreth without mentioning his wife Lillian. Worthy to note is the fact that she was the force behind his change of career from construction to management (Bookrags.com, 6&8). Gilbreth’s scientific management career began in the year 1912 at the New England Butt Company, of Providence, Rhode Island. This firm had three-hundred employees producing braiding machines used in manufacturing dress trimmings, shoelaces, as well as electrical wire insulation. To him, New England Butt was his Tabor Company of Philadelphia version, wherein Taylor had promoted and demonstrated scientific management. Gilbreth promoted such orthodox scientific management principles as the re-organisation and improvements of the routing of work, introduction of planning departments and cost accounting (Nelson, 5-39). Haber also explains that he used movie camera in replacement of Taylor’s stopwatch. The husband and wife were leaders in the field of scientific industrial management. Despite having a great responsibility of raising twelve children, they were able to author articles and books, to teach as well as lecture. They used their management techniques to run their large household. As Gilbreth incorporated his work on the practicality of motion with his wife's attention on the psychology of the individual, he became less occupied with the construction industry. The couple started combining their efforts pursuing the relationship between management and psychology, and they established the fundamental place of education and psychology in effectual management. In the year 1913, the Gilbreths opened the Summer School of Scientific Management and industry and academic professionals from all over the globe attended it for a period of four years. The school led to the development of contacts and Gilbreth acquired an international consulting repute (Bookrags.com, 6&8). Witzel further points out the fact that Gilbreth was an ardent proponent of Frederick Taylor and his “shop management” system, which he later called “scientific management.” Prior to scientific management, organizational decision-making could best be expressed as ‘seat-of-the-pants.’ There was no systematic study and decision-making was haphazard without any thought, or information collection. Orders from customers were not written down – they were transmitted to shop floor supervisors from sales representatives verbally. There was little or no thought to motivating workers and managers could even decide that workers should forcefully work twice as fast. Resisting managers’ decisions frequently resulted in physical beatings forcing workers to work longer, faster and harder. Generally, incentives for workers to cooperate with managers and vice versa did not exist and each of the two parties gamed the system attempting to take advantage of the other systematically. In the same way, there were no procedures of standardizing operations – every worker used his/her own way to do the same job and used different tools and methods. Standards for determining whether performance was good or not and follow-up to judge whether quality or productivity really got better when changes were made did not exist either. The introduction of scientific management however changed all these. It studied and tested diverse work methods meticulously in order to establish the best, most efficient ways for job completion (Nelson.com, 6). Scientific management enthused Gilbreth as he believed to have found the epitome of his own endeavors to systemize his construction company’s operation through it. It even inspired him together with his wife to write their first books, the first one being Field system (Witzel, 210). In this book were ideas of Gilbreth’s workers – he had obtained information by asking the men that that he had employed to make records of what exactly they did in the course of the day along with recommendations for improvement. Written for employees, this book was the first of its type, detailling daily functional and organizational practices in construction (Bookrags.com, 7). Also among his first books were Concrete System and Bricklaying System. In the same way, Gilbreth’s work in making improvements in bricklaying fascinated Taylor and in his book entitled ‘Principles of Management’, he actually included a chapter on the work of Gilbreth. He also used Gilbreth's bricklaying accomplishments to illustrate the effectiveness of the stopwatch technique, which he referred to as the ‘keystone’ of scientific management (Witzel, 210). Nadworny notes that although the Gilbreths promoted/supported Taylor and his circle, they were competitors all together. Their competition resulted from their dissimilar views on work and workers. They also often conflicted because of disagreements over customers and fees, professional jealousies, as well as the Gilbreths' incredible facility as publicists. Personal hostility as well as Taylor circle’s fragmentation was the instantaneous results. However, the long-term effects were more positive and significant and they give a helpful guidepost to the development of the system of scientific management and to that system’s application on the shop floor. Competition in this field encouraged as well as criticism, bickering and innovation. In the year 1914, the Gilbreths broke with Taylor forming their own form of scientific management, whose focus was not only on the technical but also on the human element. Lillian received her doctorate in psychology in the year 1915 and integrated the new ideas she had acquired during her training into the family business in order to improve worker satisfaction. The two partners saw the requirement for worker satisfaction improvement, which would subsequently lead to general worker efficiency and job performance improvement. As discussed earlier, Frank devised systems for increasing productivity and reducing worker fatigue by studying a worker’s every movement. He called this process micro-motion study (Purdue.edu, 2). The micro-motion study consisted in part of filming the particulars of the activities and motions of a worker while recording the time. One of the purposes of the films was to train workers regarding the best way of performing their work processes. The other purpose was the visual record of the way in which a worker had done the work. Through studying these films, the Gilbreths along with their team saw numerous ways of making improvements. Therefore, the Gilbreths were able to make a comparison of working conditions and methods and submit the results to management as well as workers. They could develop these workflows’ best elements to create a standardized best practice (Nelson & Price, 249). Put differently, they used still filmstrips and photographs to study the movements of a worker with the purpose of devising the ‘One Best Way’ of carrying out a task. They were greatly concerned with improving a worker’s physical comfort and their office furniture design innovations were ahead of their time, showing the way to the study of ergonomics (Purdue.edu, 2). The Gilbreths also concentrated on scientific management consulting in several other industries/fields in their new professional environment. Their standardisation endeavours are evident in their articles entitled Hospital Efficiency from the Standpoint of the Efficiency Expert’ and ‘Scientific Management in the Hospital’ where they explained nurses’ improvement strategies. During that time, various areas including patient records, hospital design and medical equipment sought standardization. Gilbreth, for example, made the observation that surgical instrumentation and practices greatly differed all over the country. In the year 1916, he noted that surgeons could learn more from the industries regarding scientific management, time and motion study, and waste elimination compared to what the industries could learn from the hospitals (Berguer, 1011-1016). Another thing that the Gilbreths promoted was the implementation of operating rooms’ management practices. Through the study of surgical operations, they Gilbreths monitored physicians and the way they organised and executed procedures in the operating room. They used movies to perform motion studies in surgery since the year1910, analysing surgeons’ every movement to find out whether their work could be more effectual and consequently less tiring. Such detailed analysis of human motion enabled them to get ways of doing away with activities that were not necessary. One conclusion that the Gilbreths’ came up wit was that it was possible for nurses in the operating room to improve efficiency. They noted that rather than actually carrying out the operation, surgeons spent most of their time searching for their instruments when operating. Moreover, they suggested that nurses should organize and lay out surgical instruments in consistent and regular patterns (Gilbreth, 22–31). The Gilbreths’ new method led to a considerable reduction in operation times and improved the general quality of care. To date, nurses and physicians’ alignment of work plays a significant role in operating room processes’ efficiency. Taylor died in the year 1915 and Gilberth became the senior figure in the movement of scientific management. By the year 1920, Gilberth was prominent the world over because of his views on management. Additionally, in both Europe and USA, he was frequently sought after as a lecturer. In the year 1924, Gilberth received an invitation from Europe at the First International Management Congress to present a major paper. However, he died unexpectedly in Montclair, New Jersey from a heart attack on June 14 1924, only a few days prior to sailing. His wife had to represent him and deliver the paper at the conference. She boldly did not put a stop to what they had started but went on representing her husband and continuing with where he had left and became very prominent (Witzel, 143-144). Conclusion Apparently, Frank Gilbreth made numerous considerable contributions, and color, to management history. Together with his wife and business partner who played a significant role in his research, he developed lots of of the applications and concepts that are currently part of the techniques of modern management. They made an excellent team and worked towards the achievement of a common goal. People referred to Lillian Gilbreth as the first lady of management. Even after the death of her husband, she carried on with their work, contrary to many people’s expectations. Works Cited Berguer, Ramon. Surgery and ergonomics. Arch Surg, 134(1999):1011-16. Print. Bookrags.com. Frank Gilbreth. 2005. Web. Ferguson, David. The Gilbreth Network. 1996 . Web. Gilbreth, Frank B. Motion study in surgery. Canadian Journal of Medical Surgery, 40(1916): 22–31. Haber, Samuel. Efficiency and uplift. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1963. Print. Nadworny, Milton. Frederick Taylor and Frank Gilbreth: Competition in Scientific Management. Business History Review, 31 (Spring 1957): 23-34. Print. Nelson, Daniel & Price, Brian. Frank and Lilian Gilbreth and the motion study controversy. In: Nelson D, ed. A mental revolution: scientific management since Taylor. Columbus: Ohio State University Press. 1992: 249. Nelson, Daniel. Scientific Management in Retrospect. In Nelson, D. (Eds), A Mental Revolution: Scientific Management Since Taylor. Columbus: Ohio State University Press. 1992. Print. Nelson.com. The History of Management. N.d. Web. Purdue.edu. The Frank and Lillian Gilbreth Library of Management: The N-File. N.d. Web. Witzel, Morgen. Fifty key figures in management. London: Routledge. 2003. Print. Witzel, Morgen. The encyclopedia of the history of American management. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group. 2005. Print. Read More