Why Scientific Management Has No Relevance Today - Essay Example

SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT WAS THE PRODUCT OF 19TH CENTURY INDUSTRIAL PRACTICES AND HAS NO RELEVANCE TO THE PRESENT DAY Scientific Management Was the Product of 19th Century Industrial Practices and Has No Relevance to the Present Day Scientific management evaluates the connection between individuals and their tasks. The purpose of this analysis is to change the work process to increase effectiveness. This management approach was very useful in the 19th century. However, people criticize it because of the current advance management processes. Frederick Taylor introduced this management system. Even though some organizations still use the scientific management, it has many limitations that influence the work environment negatively. Additionally, its principles are not applicable in the contemporary organizations (Taylor 2003, p. 8). Why Scientific Management Has No Relevance Today Scientific management is irrelevant in the current society because unlike in the past, workers are more intelligent today. This is because they know their values in the work places. Consequently, they consider any processes that seem to challenge their worth as self-depreciating. When scientific management was still relevant, employees were offered the fiscal rewards only. This is because workers valued economic rewards during that time. However, most organizations increase their productivity by controlling all factors in the work places as well as maintaining the social health and development of the workers in today’s organizations (Lunenburg & Ornstein 2008, p. 5). Furthermore, this management approach is not applicable today because its principles are authoritarian. This is because they assumed that only managers were accountable for decision-making because organizations did not trust the employees’ competence in decision-making in the past. According to Taylor, the increase in the organizations’ productivity relied on the divisions between the workers and experts or managers. Additionally, he also believed that managers should always direct the workers. This method negatively influences the workers’ motivation and satisfaction in the work places. The modern organizations increase their productivity by involving all the organization’s participants including the employees in the decision making process. This motivates the workers because it makes them feel worthy in the organization. Additionally, it makes them feel respected by the organizations. Such respected workers usually work to their highest potential because they become loyal to the organization. Moreover, the piece rate payment systems used in the scientific management is not effective today because organizations center on superiority rather than capacity to increase the customers’ satisfaction and the organizations’ competency. The piece rate payment makes it hard for organizations to cheer workers to focus on quality. This is because workers believed that focusing on the quality of work would make them get low rewards because it was time wasting. This is because they valued quantity and not quality (Sandra 2000, p. 3). Additionally, scientific management is not effective today because many organizations can easily access technology and information. The current market is very competitive, making it difficult to apply the scientific management principles. The modern organizations process very high inputs and employees are very connected with organizations. However, employees often worked in isolation with the business in the scientific management system. Workers do not currently depend on the managers for information because all the necessary facts are obtainable on the Internet. This enables businesses to operate on an international scale. This is because businesses can deliver goods to consumers within a short time unlike before. Additionally, manufacturing processes are advanced technologically. This makes it easier and faster for corporations to react to factors that may influence performance. Managers are acknowledging that they can no longer control all the workers’ functions. This is attributable to the workers’ high information levels. The high competition levels require higher organizational flexibility. Indeed, the scientific management system is very rigid because it can make it difficult for the business to react to competition faster (J. Berk & S. Berk 2000, p. 91). The attachment of workers to organizations in the past was weak because of scientific management principles. The workers were assigned specific tasks without knowing how the tasks would affect the organization. Workers in organizations with modern systems know why they are performing certain tasks and how the tasks will influence the business profitability. Additionally, workers know the positions and progress of their organizations. They also acknowledge the effect of their performances on the entire business. Businesses encourage their workforces to know everything in the company and to work in more than one department. This is usually achievable through training to provide workers with various skills that enable them to work in different departments. Most organizations find this helpful because it reduces the expenses incurred when hiring many workers with different skills to work in specific departments. Organizations within the contemporary society encourage mixed and informal communication at all organizational levels. This ensures that workers in one department such as marketing, scientific, and manufacturing departments know what other departments are doing (John, Boyns & Matthews 2002, p. 22). The scientific management systems focus on the employees’ specialization. This makes it tricky to adapt to new situations. Most workers have suffered because such form of specialization is inappropriate. For instance, when organizations went online, several workers especially in the marketing departments lost their jobs because they were no longer effective in the businesses. If such workers had skills and knowledge to perform other tasks in other departments, they would move to the department instead of being redundant. Workers value flexibility and not just efficiency in the 21st century. Additionally, workers with many advanced skills fail to thrive within organizations with the scientific management systems. This is because they specialize in one area of the organization. Consequently, this reduces their job contentment. This makes the scientific management to be inappropriate in the current organizations (Taylor 2003, p. 48). Furthermore, the scientific management is irrelevant is modern organizations because it fails to encourage teamwork. This management focuses on individuals input rather than group input within the business. Additionally, it does not encourage teamwork because it focuses on the workers’ specialization. Workers are tied to performing specific tasks. Furthermore, the strictly formal communication can reduce the effectiveness of teamwork in organizations. Companies value teamwork because of its positive influence on work performances in the contemporary competitive business world. For example, teamwork increases the workers’ efficiency because significant proportions of work are achievable within short periods in teams. Additionally, teamwork enhances good relationship between workers because workers learn and understand each other through it (Dutt 2008, p. 21). The management system is also irrelevant because it does not enhance innovation and originality in the work places. This contributed to low productivity of the organizations in the past. Research outcomes prove that the modern organizations are more profitable than the organizations in the past century because of innovation. This is because workers were not encouraged to partake in decisions making. Additionally, there was little interaction among employees in the work environment. This implies that the system is not effective in creating a learning environment in the workplace. These limitations hinder the organizations from enjoying the benefits of a diverse work environment (Ghuman & Aswathappa 2010, p. 135). Innovation in the work places increases the organization competitiveness in the 21st century. Consequently, most organizations encourage innovation by rewarding innovative workers. The scientific management only rewards workers based on quantity. This hinders the workers from thinking about new ways of improving the quality of products or new ways of production because firms only concentrate on rewarding the employees based on quantity (Ghuman & Aswathappa 2010, p.135). Additionally, modern organizations encourage innovation by involving the employees in the decision-making processes. They also enhance innovations by encouraging the workers to know everything about the organizations. This enables them to know what contributes to the organizations’ success and failure. Consequently, they try to think creatively about approaches of eliminating the obstacles. Teamwork, though not emphasized in the scientific management, leads to innovation within organizations. Scientific management is also irrelevant in the 21st century because it focuses less on training. This approach only focuses on hiring workers with specialized skills instead of training workers to perform the introduced tasks in the organizations. The scientific management training method is not effective in the current organizations because workers are only trained in their fields of specialization. The modern organizations focus on training because of the new technologies that should be introduced in the work places. Workers need training to comprehend novel technologies. The modern organizations also have to train their employees because they have to change the organizations’ systems constantly to respond to the market alterations. Consequently, they do not spend more money hiring experts as in the scientific management. Training also increases the employees’ confidence while performing their tasks. Study outcomes show that confident workers perform higher than those who fail to comprehend their tasks. Workers have to undergo training whenever changes are introduced in organizations. Additionally, training enables the contemporary firms to retain its workers. Workers do not have to shift to other organizations to acquire different knowledge and skills because they can get them through training in one organization. This is because employees in the 21st century value modern skills apart from good pays (Ghuman & Aswathappa 2010, p. 135). The system is irrelevant because its principles require hiring of similar proportions of managers as workers. This system is costly because organizations spend more on supervision by employing managers. The modern organizations require fewer supervisors because they focus on hiring self-directed workers. These workers have personal goals that align with the organizations’ goals. Consequently, they are highly productive and can help the organization achieve its goals without or with little supervision. The modern organizations only require one manager in the whole business or one manager in each department, reducing costs (Monks & Minow 2008, p. 380). The 21st century organizations prefer the modern management because conflicts in the work places are few. The scientific management encourages the misuse and abuse of information by managers. This creates unreceptive work environments because workers have poor relationships with managers based on the tension in the workplaces. The high supervision created tensions because employees fear that any little mistake may lead to penalties. The conflict between workers and managers resulted in the low productivity within several organizations (Dutt 2008, p. 71). In the 21st century, employees are motivated when the organization owners value their skills by promoting them to the higher organizational levels. However, in the scientific management system, it is difficult for one to climb the managerial ladders. This is because it forces them to perform highly simplified task continuously. Additionally, the workers’ skills are ignored. Instead of promoting the workers, the organizations using the scientific system prefer hiring managers from outside. This implies that the system ignores the social and psychological well-being of the workforces. It assumes that employees only focus on fiscal gratification. However, research outcomes show that social status and achievements that are obtainable during the workers’ promotions are great motivators (John, Boyns & Matthews 2002, p. 34). Additionally, the scientific management is not applicable today because it is cumbersome and leads to boredom in the work places. This is because workers do the same job repetitively. If workers lose interest in their jobs because of boredom, they usually perform poorly. This affects the entire organization negatively because bored workers deal with customers poorly. This can lead to the reduction of the customer satisfaction, eventually reducing the company’s sales (John, Boyns & Matthews 2002, p. 45). Conclusion Scientific management focuses on labor specialization and hiring of many organizational managers. This management system is not applicable in the 21st century organizations because it does not encourage diversity and training of employees. The modern organizations value diversity and training because they increase the business profitability. Training is especially vital in the current marketing world where technology keeps changing. Such organizations have to change their systems to react to the market changes appropriately. Consequently, the organizations highly invest in training to familiarize their workers with the modern technology. Additionally, the scientific management is irrelevant in the modern market because it is costly. This is because it forces workers to work within the areas of specialization only. This is expensive because it forces organizations to hire many workers. In the modern organizations, workers can perform different tasks within various departments. Consequently, the organizations do not need to hire many workers. References Berk, J & Berk, S 2000, Quality management for the technology sector, Newnes, Boston. Dutt, R 2008, Krishna’s principles of management, Krishna Prakashan Media, Delhi. Ghuman, K & Aswathappa, K 2010, Management: concept, practice and cases, Tata McGraw Hill, New Delhi. John, R, Boyns, T & Matthews, M 2002, ‘Standard costing and budgetary control in the British iron and steel industry: a study of accounting change’, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 12–45, viewed November 21st, 2012, http://search.proquest.com/docview/211232620?accountid=45049. Lunenburg, F & Ornstein, A 2008, Educational administration: concepts and practices, Wadsworth, Belmont, CA. Monks, R & Minow, N 2008, Corporate governance, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, England. Sandra, M 2000, ‘Promises and pitfalls of contracting for public services: the LAWA case’. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 307–332, viewed November 21st, 2012, http://search.proquest.com/docview/205057490?accountid=45049. Taylor, F 1972, Scientific management: comprising: shop management; the principles of scientific management; testimony before the Special House Committee, Rutledge, London. Read More