Background of Taylorism or Scientific Management - Essay Example

Scientific Management Introduction Scientific Management is also called the Taylor system or simply Taylorism. It is a management theory that evaluates and synthesizes workflows, enhancing labor productivity. It is a term created in 1910 by Fredrick W. Taylor and his followers. Even though Taylor informally used the term to show his contributions to firm management, his friends intentionally chose the word “scientific” to endorse their argument that the methods used by Taylor were an option to railroad price increases where they were organizing for the Interstate Commerce Commission. This term was also used to refer to any organizational system that precisely brought out the functions of groups and individuals. Further, scientific management can be used to describe situations where jobs are categorized and people perform recurring tasks. Background of Taylorism In the 19th century, there were widespread unplanned companies, decentralized management, casual relations among workers and employers, and informally defined job assignments in factory systems. By the end of this century, increased completion, new technologies, demands from regimes and labor agencies, and a developing consciousness by the elites had motivated attempts to advance business and management. All these developments were aimed at initiating cautiously defined processes and risks, which were later referred to by historians as “systematic management” since they involved a careful study of individuals at work (Cumo 77). The key figure behind this innovation was an engineer based in America, who was also a management theorist and a discoverer, Fredrick W. Taylor. Taylor was born in 1856 in a Philadelphia family. He began his career in a machine shop in a steel Company in 1878 where he quickly gained experience and started initiating new methods. After approximately ten years, he invented several technical and organizational innovations such as a technique of timing employees with a stopwatch to work out best times. By the 1890s, Taylor had been recognized as the most determined and dynamic advocate of systematic management. He further introduced accounting systems that he became a consultant of the same. This system allowed the use of operating records by managers with greater efficiency, which later became production systems that enlightened managers more accurately on what was happening in the factory, control workers and their tasks, piece-rate models to motivate following of instructions by workers, and various other advancements. A couple of inventions played a big role in the creation of the scientific management theory. The invention of high-speed-steel enhanced the performance of metal-cutting tools, and attempts to initiate systematic techniques resulted in an incorporated view of innovation in management. By 1901, Taylor had styled systematic management to scientific management (Cumo 78). From the actions of Taylor’s career, it is evident that systematic management was closely related to scientific management. They shared origins, liked by similar people, and shared objectives. The distinctions between them also were clear. Systematic management was distributive and practical, some isolated approaches that did not make a larger whole (Sapru 92). On the other hand, scientific management contributed important details and an understandable point of view. Taylor decided to promote the two systems in 1902 when he got out of Bethlehem. The American Society journal first published Taylor’s first documentation on his vocation, “shop management” in 1903, which was ranked as an inclusive collection of systematic management techniques. In the year 1910, Traylor was involved in scandals with rough enemies of scientific management. In response to the controversies, Taylor came up with a new approach to his system, which he named “The Principles of Scientific Management.” In this account, he really embraced the term “Scientific Management” as used it to symbolize the whole system. He argued that he had found out global concepts of management; the replacement of scientific with traditional methods, the scientific assortment and training of employees, and a balanced division of work between workers and managers. To apply the ideas, both managers and workers had to revolve their mental attitudes. Taylor’s principles were immediately taken into account and they thrived unbelievably (Lewis, Goodman and Fandt 35). Readers liked the simplicity in the article, as well as the persistence of the aspects of firm management that could be applied in various other activities. By mid 1910, organizational leaders realized they gained more from the scientific management than they lost, and embraced the idea. With time, it was noted that supervisors were the main targets of this theory, rather than workers, and that the structured relations that distinguished scientifically managed firms were well matched with collective bargaining. After 1915, scientific management expanded at a fast rate in the U.S. Objectives of Scientific Management Taylor had some objectives in mind, which included: There was introduction and development of science for every element of workers in order to substitute the traditional rule-of-thumb technique. To achieve a spirit of cheerful cooperation between the managers and employees to ensure that their daily endeavors were carried out according to the scientifically formulated processes. There was need to develop a scientific selection, preparation, and growth of workers rather than permitting them to choose the tasks, they wished for and train themselves in the best way possible. To accomplish a division of work between the workers and managers in nearly equal shares, where each of these categories takes over the type of work that best fits it rather than the former method where the workers were responsible for almost everything. In this philosophy, firms were organized in a hierarchy, systems of conceptual rules and impersonal relations among staff. Importance of Scientific Management and its relevance to the present day Scientific Management was a product of the 19th century but has impacts on the 21st century. Its principles improved production and had a considerable impact on industry, as well as increasing the monotony of work. In industrial contexts, Taylor’s principles represented the evolution from the 19th century to the 20th century techniques in manufacturing. The most significant legacy that was because of the Scientific Management was industrial engineering. It is quite evident that present day Industrial engineers are still trained on the scientific management methods for example, motion and time studies, wage-incentive determination, job-tasks analysis, and thorough production planning. This is mostly taught in the field of management and operation research (Lewis, Goodman and Patricia 34). Taylor’s achievements had significance in ways directly relevant to today’s operations research. His work led to improved decisions than the once possibly thought of, and in most cases, essential than before. Taylorism had a great positive impact on management practices in the end of the 19th century and in the early 20th century. Even though it does not symbolize a whole management theory, it has contributed to studies of organizations and management in areas such as human resource, many of which still apply the principles to date. For instance, firms still adhere on the scientific management theory by emphasizing on the practice of reducing waste and cutting down inefficiencies in productivity (Kumar and Sharma 35). According to scientific theory, there is an absolute way of carrying out a specific task, which is the best in industry. Taylor went into lengths until he uncovered that efficient way. This principle is relevant in the 21st century where a manager may time an employee and closely assess features like body posture and emotions as the employee performs his or her tasks. This procedure is repeated severally, while changing the body postures and motions till the most effective way is accomplished, which then becomes typical. Just like scientific management helped pave way for mass production and advancements in technology in the 19th century, the impact is still felt in present day industries. For example, managers do adhere to the principles of the theory by taking time to understand the job knowledge of the workers, study how they perform their task, and look for ways to improve their performance in a quest to increase productivity. Taylorism is also the basis of how organizations hire and train workers, prioritizing more on their abilities and necessary skills (Landy and Conte 20). Taylor spent most of his working occupation in steel industry and analyzed each data and event concerned with the productivity of workers. Moreover, due to his belief that employees can be motivated to put in more effort than usual, Taylor pushed for greater efficiency in industries. He noticed that workers tend to work below individual capabilities. Hence, he named coexisting principles and events such as motions and time study, and soldiering. Essentially, Taylor argued that workers could work efficiently and effectively, who even though lack skills, can work within the range of scientific methodology and planned actions. Similarly, such management theories work marvelously in today’s organizational settings. Over time, from the 19th century through the 21st century, managers have applied and utilized this concept in managing employees specifically due to its timelessness. Taylorism, which have several principles of scientific management were behind the success of most of the industrial tasks. The three principles namely incorporation of scientific methods, division and cooperation of labor, development and training of workers, are all basic ideas that help greatly in the business arena. In the 21st century, corporate giants concentrate greatly on the task of planning teams, by putting more effort in examining particular business transactions and recognizing the suitable course of action to embark on. Outstandingly, organizations also invest in human resources by providing much required development and training to their workers so that they can utilize their maximum potentials. According to Hamel and Breen, the idea of scientific management’s division of labor is evident in businesses where corporate bureaucracy is applied. Existing work force and departments are allocated certain projects to be completed within a specific period. By so doing, such companies give equal chances to the employees and the management, thus giving employees a sense of accomplishment whenever a given project is completed successfully. This is so motivating to the employees as they will feel that they played a significant role in the huge success of the company, promoting friendship and goodwill within a business enterprise (Hamel & Breen12). Despite the fact that Taylorism was significant in the 19th century, it also had drawbacks, and the theory may be irrelevant to present day in some ways. Under Taylorism, the work efforts of the workers in the 19th century increased in strength, but they were angry of the working environment. After Taylor implemented some of his methods, the workers at Watertown Arsenal were unsatisfied with some of the elements of the policies and went on a strike. A U.S committee was formed to look into Taylor’s methods. The findings indicated that scientific management provided some essential methods as well as quality organizational proposals. However, it gave production managers a risky high standard of uncontrolled power. Taylor’s methods were consequently banned in Arsenal following the anger and hostility demonstrated by workers. These negative effects played a big role in the 19th century, as they were the building stone of the existing labor unions that help to look into the welfare of workers. Although it is reasonable to argue that Taylorism is still relevant in the 21st century, it is vital to note that scientific management has weaknesses that hinder its influence in modern working environments, and thus not all of its principles can be applied to contemporary organizations. Scientific management may be viewed as an incomplete system as evidenced in Bethlehem steel industry in 1911, and in most of McDonald’s restaurants in most parts of the world today (Wagner-Tsukamoto 354). The principle of division of labor is helpful in workers’ tasks but they become more of machines. When machines or scientific management is mostly applied, workers’ cognitive input is not necessary and their emotions are less required to develop them. Conclusion Fredrick W. Taylor formulated the scientific methods together with their applications in a workplace. From the discussion above, it is quite clear that this method has had more relevance in both the 19th century and the 21st century, more than its irrelevance. In contemporary society, the average intellect of workers has sharply increased; employees have been enlightened on their value as humans and any policy that challenges this status is regarded as self-depreciating. This is a specific way in which Taylorism may be irrelevant since he viewed workers only working for economic reward. Nonetheless, it has been noted that success and productivity is not solely achieved by controlling all aspects in the work place, rather by controlling of a personal employee and his or her social well-being. This is reasonably true and practical, but even up to date, the age of advancements in modern technologies in business and in other fields are related to the underlying concepts and principles of Taylorism. For example, the innovation of computers and related programs do extend Taylorism sensibilities. Computer programs exemplify linkage between thinking and doing, which is a characteristic of scientific management. Works Cited Cumo Christopher. Science and Technology in 20th-century American Life. New York: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2007. Print. Hamel, Gary and Breen, Bill. Future of Management. Harvard: Harvard Business Press, 2007. Print. Kumar, Arun and Sharma, Rachana. Principles of Business Management. Atlantic: Atlantic Publishers & Dist, 2000. Print. Landy J, Frank and Conte, Jeff. Work in the 21st Century: An Introduction to Industrial and Organizational Psychology. London: John Wiley & Sons, 2009. Print. Lewis, Pamela, Goodman H. Stephen, and Fandt, Patricia. Management: Changes for Tomorrow's Leaders. New York: Cengage Learning, 2006. Print. Sapru, R.K. Administrative Theories and Management Thought. New York: PHI Learning PVT. Ltd., 2006. Print. Wagner, Tsukamoto. “Scientific Management revisited. Did Taylorism fail because of a too positive image of human nature,” Journal of Management History, 14.4(200), 354. Read More