Scientific Management as the Product of 19th Century Industrial Practices - Essay Example

The Relevance of Scientific Management in the Modern Era Introduction Work has been one of the most important inventions of man. It is one of the central aspects of humanity, due to it being the source of basic needs such as food, shelter and clothing. Whether they work in the fields or in the office, the involvement of people in working is the integral component of society growth, how law and politics developed, and how people actually continue to live (Watson, 2008, p. 1). However, because work is also an activity that entails the interaction and involvement with other people, this does not make it an individualised endeavour but rather a group-oriented action that brings the benefits to many (Pitsis, Clegg, and Kornberger, 2011, p. 7). Thus, work needs to become as organised and productive as it possibly can, due to the numerous people involved in it, and division of labour must be assigned properly in order to bring out the best results. However, it was not until the beginning of the 20th century when such needs were attended to. One of the earliest guiding principles that sprang out from the need for workers to become as productive as possible while helping the employer save money is by implementing new strategies that were scientifically-made and can be tested using scientific methods. This kind of workplace management known as is Scientific Management, was developed by Frederick Taylor around the turn of the 20th century in order to advance the methods used in work and make even workers of any skill level to become even more productive (Taylor, 1939, p. 280). While it was a big step in moving from highly-traditional work and management methods to a much more modern and scientific one, its beginnings were nevertheless controversial, and may even have reversed its original aims (Watson, 2008, p. 31). Also, Scientific Management is seen as one of the earliest blueprints of modernisation and automation of work, yet by somewhat dehumanising the workers and leaning towards the removal of jobs altogether like in automation of factories, and in a way cancels out one of its aims: making human workers even more efficient (Watson, 2008, p. 32). These, among many reasons were the cause of the abandonment of the use of scientific management, as well as deriving new ideas and disciplines out of it. Thus the evolution of the scientific management as the result of 19th century industrial practices may have no relevance to the present day needs of work places and organisations due to the changed needs, strategies and goals of management. Foundations and Goals of Scientific Management Frederick Taylor is the person credited for the creation of the principles of Scientific Management, which went out in public around the year 1911. He was able to come up with the ideas for changing traditional work methods into modernised and simplified actions that do not need additional efforts in skill-building, as opposed to craftsmen undergoing apprenticeship to learn the ropes (Pitsis, Clegg, and Kornberger, 2011, p. 25). Goals that aim for work and management simplification were made for the successful establishment of the principles of scientific management, and are enumerated as follows: Firstly, the old rule-of-thumb in the methods being used at work are replaced by scientifically-proven methods that bypass older ones, making the work a lot easier to finish and eventually increases overall output by workers (Taylor, 1939, p. 280; Watson, 2008, p. 32); Second, the most skilled or capable of the workforce are trained scientifically in learning, as well as teaching and developing the newer and better methods of work, as well as standardising these methods among all of the workforce to improve their efficiency (Taylor, 1939, p. 280); Thirdly, there is tight cooperation and coordination between the trainers or the management and the workforce in making sure that the principles are properly adhered to at all times; and (Taylor, 1939, p. 280) By doing the abovementioned principles, there would be an equal sharing of labour and responsibility between the management and the workforce, wherein the management would be handling the work that the labour force would not be adept in like analyses and computations, and the latter could put much more focus on their respective assigned tasks that are mostly physical labour to begin with (Pitsis, Clegg, and Kornberger, 2011, p. 26; (Taylor, 1939, p. 280). The goals were made by Taylor for the volunteer organisations to try and test whether or not their traditional methods of working were just enough or have possibilities of improvement. The basic goals of utilising a scientific approach in management were borne out of Taylor’s following hypothesis: 1) the principles of scientific management differ fundamentally from ordinary management in some ways; 2) better results are obtained under scientific management compared to other management methods; and 3) getting the right man at the head of the company is the most important problem, and the right man can successfully accomplish the work using the management type left to him (Taylor, 1939, p. 275). All of these were conceptualised in the hopes of changing previously skilled work into simpler sets of jobs that do not require rigorous and time-consuming training, while at the same time saving time and effort in the workers and management’s side because the workers need not to learn on their own, but can use the faster methods devised (Pitsis, Clegg, and Kornberger, 2011, p. 27). Such simplification of methods had various applications, not just during Taylor’s time, but beyond that as well. Applications of Scientific Management Initially, Taylor had certain jobs in mind when he first began his search for simplifying workplace methods, and among these jobs was the handling of pig iron, deemed as a menial job that require so much effort and time to be executed, yet produces satisfactory results, or less (Taylor, 1939, p. 286). After several computations, Taylor deducted that each man must be able to transport 47 tonnes per worker per day, as opposed to 12 ½ tonnes, and this can be accomplished by using scientific management. First, the workman that was able to transport the most amount of pig iron was observed from the lot, then tried to find out what makes this man different from the others like aspirations or personal goals, after which incentives such as wage increase were given as well as regular resting intervals and checked if the output would still be the same as before (Taylor, 1939, p. 287). This step was repeatedly done to each man capable of doing the job being asked of, and the most efficient methods of doing the job of transporting 47 tonnes of pig iron as well as the motivation for doing so were formulated and then assimilated to all of the members of the workforce. At present times, this kind of searching for the most efficient method of delivering the desired results is still used, despite the acknowledgement of the inapplicability of the full use of the scientific management methods. For example, companies that bank on the skills of their employees use methods such as reward or incentive systems as well as implementation of performance targets that are attainable by high-performing employees. In order to accomplish both the increased output of the workers as well as to keep them satisfied in their work, the employees are informed beforehand about what are expected from them as well as what they would get upon reaching or exceeded the set goals (Pitsis, Clegg, and Kornberger, 2011, p. 148). If the management finds out that the employees are not performing as expected, assessments on changing the incentives/rewards, the work methods or both are done in order to find the best combination that would motivate the employees to give out greater output again, or even customising the rewards for each person. Thus, while not being fully derived from the scientific management method, some of its basic components such as employee motivation are utilised for the benefit of both the management and its people. Problems Created by the Scientific Management While the scientific management seemed to be a promising method in producing a workforce capable of exceeding standards in each line of work, it also developed problems of its own due to some aspects of humanity that Taylor failed to address initially. One of these is the differences within people as a whole, including their own capabilities, values, beliefs, as well as personal goals (Brown, 1992, p. 223). In this aspect, Taylor forgot to put into account that while there can be a method which could be the solution in rapid-pacing of the jobs, not all members of the workforce can do it each and every time, much like human nature being erratic at times, which makes the method seem blind from human aspects of work. Also, it was unaccounted for that while the most efficient methods on work can be devised, it is possible that these are able to be utilised efficiently by all, if not most of the workforce, and some may even be less productive because of it (Watson, 2008, p. 36). In relation to these reasons, on the side of the managers, it is expected of them to know all of the best methods that were to be done within the workplace, and if they are not fully acquainted with the methods of finding those out, they could seriously jeopardise their productivity as well as employee morale by developing tendencies of either overworking or underpaying, or possibly combining the two in managing the workforce, and at the same time unable to find the best method of producing higher output (Pitsis, Clegg, and Kornberger, 2011, p. 89). These created strong divisions between the management and the labour force, which could cause serious dehumanisation of the workforce as well as the eventual fall of the company (Watson, 2008, p. 123). Thus, the increase in the disgruntled members of the workforce in being treated like draft animals, as well as frustrations of management from soldiering by their employees made the scientific management methods fall out of favour. The meek and compliant workforce that were initially the backbone of the industrial revolution were already gone, and more and more employees were starting to air their discontent in the output expected from them, as well as the money which was supposed to compensate for their additional work. This kind of restlessness resulted to the changing of the work methods from purely scientific to a new and much more humanistic approach. And in the process gave way to other types of work-related disciplines, such as the formation of the human resources management and the company employees' association groups or labour unions (Pitsis, Clegg, and Kornberger, 2011, p. 173). Reinvention of the Scientific Management Methods Due to the foreseen dehumanisation of the labour force, aside from abandoning the full use of the scientific management methods, only a few selected ideas and concepts were worked with in order to develop better strategies in harnessing the power of the workforce and at the same time still have efficient labour output. The human is accepted as an entity that is highly-capable of making self-decisions, very creative, as well possessing abilities to assess situations and act accordingly (Brown, 1992, p. 184; Watson, 2008, p. 125). It also became a well-known method of screening for larger numbers of workers in contrast with the original methods of lengthy individual observations and interviews Thus in some workplaces, while there are some generalised rules with regards to ethics in the workplace, the employees are given a certain degree of autonomy over their methods of working, so long as they could keep up with their targets for each line of work. In relation to the added autonomy within the workplace, a new discipline with regards to the allocation of workers in each unit within the company was developed out of the need to become increasingly humane in choosing who would and where an employee would be assigned to. This method of human resource allocation, later known to be human resources management (HRM) while being studied by anthropologists for a little over two centuries, has become the main discipline that branched out from the scientific management movements (Pitsis, Clegg, and Kornberger, 2011, p. 170). The human resources approach of hiring and job allocation of new hires sprung out from the need to give employees external and intrinsic motivators to commit to high-volume output. Such methods may have variable results in what the employees feel personally towards their job, and at the same time gives them time and resources to develop new sets of skills within the organisation, something that is not possible within a traditional model of scientific management (Watson, 2008, p. 155). Scientific Management Itself is Inapplicable and Irrelevant in the Modern Era Based on the initial findings of Taylor, he concluded that the use of the scientific management methods on the work procedures by the labour force could significantly increase the savings and the job output of a company (Taylor, 1939, p. 294). However, the methods themselves became stagnated as the result of many managers not having enough time or resources in changing their work methods to suit the needs of the organisation as well as checking for the abilities of most of their labour forces. While such problems were mitigated by the development of better methods of managing people based on their skills and abilities to adjust in changing times, there are some managers and companies that still try to cling to the traditional methods of management (scientific management), without being fully aware of the reasons why these methods were abandoned during the first quarter of the 20th century. Possible effects of reusing these out-dated methods are: overreliance to underdeveloped theories and out-dated management concepts which could have negative effects in all job levels; very unsatisfactory management; staff with low or even poor performance and output; inability to produce sound goals based on scientifically-proven models; ineffective appraisal and motivational systems, among others (Chen, 2011, p. 264). Not only would these be the possible cause for a company’s collapse, but also a source of demoralisation within the organisation, mimicking the effects of mishandled scientific management methods in the previous century. Conclusion In the previous century where people working as the labour force for large organisations were just starting to move out from their beginnings as craftsmen and being compliant workers, the implementation of scientific management made it possible for them to have a mind-set of doing far beyond what was originally expected from them, using standardised work procedures as well as the implementation of extrinsic motivators. However, there is a tendency for the management to abuse their authority in demanding output and giving pay-out from their workers, which mostly resulted in the dehumanisation of workers and just seeing them as a group of draft animals without feelings or intellectual capacity. This kind of thinking lead to the abandonment of the full concept of the scientific management method, and made it reborn into a new kind of discipline which is much more applicable to modern society: human resources management. By understanding that people are inherently talented, creative, and unique in their own ways, and at the same time are also trainable, this gives managers the edge of being able to relate to their employees as well as recognising their abilities as a whole, which in turn could help them become even more committed in achieving their goals in the company. In this light, due to the previous societal and working conditions of the previous century where it was originally conceptualised in, it is very unlikely that the inhumane treatment of workers using the scientific management method would still be able to bring its promise of productivity and cost-savings to employers. Aside from the recognition of workers as important people that not only need their salaries but also their esprit de corps to maintain the operations of the company, they are also central in the success of the whole group. By not recognising their roles and importance, it could pose as a threat not just to the wellbeing of other members of the organisation but to the stability of the company as well, especially when the people who are the driving force in the company’s accomplishment of goals would leave and disable its operations. Such are the implications of using traditional management methods such as scientific management methods, which were born from archaic ways of thinking and interacting with people from different backgrounds and social status. The inapplicability of the methods themselves due to their lack of human compassion are enough reasons why these should not be used under today’s modern management standards, and instead be used as guidelines on what must not be done to employees or subordinates inside an organisation that banks on the abilities and loyalty of its members. Bibliography Read More