Theory of Scientific Management by Taylor - Essay Example

? Taylor’s Theory of Scientific Management and Its Applicability Scientific management theory, which is also known as the Taylorism is a theory of management that was developed by Fredrick Taylor to analyze and synthesis work flows (Tadajewski & Jones, 2012, p48). The main objective of this theory was to improve economic efficiency especially labour productivity. This theory was one of the original efforts to apply science to the engineering of procedures and management in the late 19th century and early 20th century. This paper will look at the scientific management theory 100 year later and the influence that it has on understanding work organizations in the present day. Scientific management theory is part of the wider aspect of economic efficiency that was recurring theme in the late 19th century and early 20th century aimed at increasing efficiency in the way humanity carried out its activities, decreasing waste from processes and using empirical methods to make decisions rather than accepting pre existing ways of doing things (Rowlinson, 1988, p378). In political and sociological terms, scientific management can be seen as division of labour that has been done logically with its consequences being deskilling of the worker and dehumanisation of the workers and the workplace (Peci, 2009, p294). In his work, Taylor noted that some workers were more talented than others and even the best of the workers in most cases remained unmotivated, he also noted that most of the workers who were coerced to perform repetitive tasks usually worked at a slow rate, he called this behaviour ‘soldering (Jones, 2000, p640). When given a similar pay, Taylor found out that the employees were likely to do the equal quantity of work as the laziest of them all. This behaviour showed that all workers were interested in their own self benefit and they were not willing to work harder if they were not guaranteed of an additional income. Taylor concluded that they way organizations had been set in relation to work ethics was such that it encouraged inefficiency among the workers. From this observation, Taylor posited that time and motion studies combined with rational analysis and synthesis could provide one of the nest methods to perform any particular task, which could not be done by the methods that were present during that particular time. Taylor argued that the amount of compensation that was given to the employees would only equal the amount of work that the employee was willing to perform. The scientific management theory started at a time when automation and mechanisation existed but they were not fully applied in the production process. This is was attributable to the fact that in those days’ people did not have any idea that the scientific management process was the required ingredient that would see the shift of production as being done only by humans to production that would be supported by machines. In his scientific management theory, Taylor had a complicated view on workers. At one time, he addressed some of their concerns in terms of the remuneration that they got as a result of their works, while at another time, he compared them, especially the less intelligent ones with draft animals (Ackroyd & Bolton, 1999, 372). However, with in relation to workers, Taylor’s scientific management theory had a few shortcomings. One is that the theory did not acknowledge individual differences among the workers in the sense that the most efficient way of working for one worker, may be the most inefficient for another worker. Secondly, the financial interests between the workers and the management are different therefore, the measurement process and the retraining of workers did not usually get support from the workers. Taylor argued that all tasks that an employee was assigned could be organised in such a way that the productivity of the worker would increase and that his scientific theory of management was more effective than the usual ‘initiative and incentive’ method, which was based on increasing productivity by placing responsibility on the worker to figure how to do it. In order to establish the most best possible way to carry out a job, Taylor carried out some experiments, which he labelled time studies or as time and motion studies. In these studies, he used a stopwatch to time a worker’s motions in order to determine the most effective way to carry out a job based on the way that took the least time. Some of the time and motion studies that he carried out include the pig iron experiment. Taylor argued that if workers transported 12 units of 500 kilograms of pig iron per day, they could be encouraged to transport 47 units of 500 kilograms of pig iron per day. This would be done by first carrying out an experiment that would determine the quantity of resting that would be required between the transportation shifts, and then the supervisor would determine the optimal timing for transportation and resting which would enable the workers to transport the 47 units. However, since not all workers can be able to transport those units in one day due to differences in their physique, the management should select only those individuals that are capable of reaching the set target. Taylor’s theory of scientific management is based on four principles, which are aimed at increasing the efficiency of the workers. The first principle states that in management, you should substitute the rule of the thumb work methods with methods based on systematic research of the jobs. This means that the methods that are to be used in performing certain work should not be based on approximations or assumption but rather on methods that have been proven to work. The second principle states that the management should scientifically pick, instruct and develop every employee to perform his work perfectly rather than inactively leaving them to coach themselves. The third principle of the scientific theory of management is that the managers should work together with the employees to make certain that the scientifically developed techniques are being followed. The fourth principle states that the work should be divided uniformly among managers and employees so that management can apply the scientific management principles in planning the job and the employees can then perform the job. Despite other theories that have come up after the Taylor’s theory of scientific management, the theory is still relevant in today’s work organization, 100 years later. One of the ways in which Taylor’s theory of scientific management lives on is through the performance standards. During the time Taylor was coming up with his theory, there were no performance standards and people did not know the amount of work that an individual could do in a day. The work allocated to employees was done through the use of thumb rule or rough approximations on the amount of work that a worker could do (Wilson, 2010, p105). Taylor brought his idea of time and motion studies, which was aimed at determining with accuracy the amount of work that an individual could do in a day or the highest quality possible output that the workers can give, this made it possible to compare the efficiency of one worker with another. This trend has persisted to date with organizations keen on determining the optimal levels of output that their employees can give and therefore putting in place measures to ensure that the workers reach those levels of performance. The differential piece wage system that was first brought up by Taylor in his scientific management theory has also found its place in modern business organisations (Mingers, & Willmott, 2012, p91). In his theory, Taylor found out that an efficient worker was not motivated to put extra effort in his work since he gained nothing from the extra effort, the differential piece wage system encouraged a standard output to be fixed which every employee is required to attain. After fixing the standard output, the managers then set two different wages where one is a low wage, which will be paid to workers who do not reach the required minimum output and a high output, which will be paid to individuals who exceed the minimum set standards. For instance, assuming that through scientific methods, the standard output has been set at 12 units, the management then sets a lower wage of individuals who do not achieve that amount at $6 per unit and a higher wage for individuals who exceed the set standard at $10. If a low performing individual manages to finish only 9 units per day, the amount that will be taken home is 9 * 6 =54 dollars. The high performing individual who produces 14 units will take home 14*10= 140 dollars. In the current business environment, this trend continues in form of commission and targets where in most corporate organisations, employees are hired on performance basis and the security of their tenure is based on their ability to produce results. In addition, the top performing employees are rewarded with promotions, educational grants or other forms of monetary rewards. This motivates other workers to put more effort in their work in order to meet the targets that have been set for them or to exceed them in order to receive the benefits that accrue to the high performing workers. In his theory, Taylor identified functional foremanship where 8 supervisors are supposed to supervise the workers since one supervisor cannot be an expert in all fields to supervise all the workers. These 8 supervisors are divided into two categories, planning level supervisors and the factory level supervisors. At the planning level, Taylor identified the following foremen; time and cost clerk who was the supervisor in charge of the using scientific methods to determine the standard time that is required to complete a certain amount of work and the cost that goes into completing that work. The route clerk is tasked with the responsibility of ensuring that the workers follow the exact route that a product is supposed to follow from when it is in form of raw materials to the finished product. The discipline clerk in the planning level of an organisation has the responsibility of ensuring discipline within the organisation and ensures problems of absenteeism in the organisations are dealt with. The instruction card clerk has the responsibility of giving instructions to workers regarding how a certain job need to done. On the doing level in an organisation, Taylor identified four supervisors. Gang boss is responsible for the setting up the machines and tools; in addition, he is also responsible for the direct supervision of the workers working with those machines. Speed boss is responsible for maintaining the tempo and speed of employees to ensure targets are met. Repair boss is the supervisor who is responsible for ensuring repair and maintenance of the machines that are used in the organisation; in addition, the repair boss is also responsible for the supervision of the people repairing those machines. Inspector boss is the supervisor who is tasked with the responsibility of ensuring the quality of the production process. These division of labour as put forward by Fredrick Taylor exist up to date although in a more diverse and complex manner. In the modern organizational setting, each part in the production process has someone who is in charge of it, for instance, quality assessment department in organisations which is headed by a quality assessment manager is responsible for ensuring the production process is up to the set standards and the products that are produced are of the highest quality possible. Another aspect of Taylorism that has been passed over in organisations is digital or new Taylorism. This aspect of Taylor’s scientific management theory is concerned with maximizing efficiency by standardizing and routinizing tools and methods that are necessary for performance of a specific job, it involves use of technology to supervise workers and make sure they are using the tools and techniques at optimal levels (Crowley, Tope, Chamberlain & Hodson, 2010, 433). Some of the distinguishing characteristics of digital Taylorism is that it is mechanistic, rigid, flexible and precise; this means that the management breaks down the whole process of production in to several parts and then standardizes the procedure that is to be followed in each of the parts (Kennedy & Nur, 2012, p2284). The workers are then required to follow the exact procedure as set out by the management in a machine-like manner. The strongest point of digital Taylorism is that it increases the level of precision since all the workers are operating in a predetermine way therefore increasing predictability and consistency while at the same time minimising chances of error (Au, 2011, p33). An example of digital Taylorism at work in the modern organizational environment is when the management in an organization uses surveillance to monitor employees and ensure they perform all the tasks in time. In as much as Taylorism is still being applied in many organisations, some of the ideologies behind the theory are not applicable in the modern day organizational setting. For instance, Taylorism ideology of improving an employee’s performance through time and motion studies cannot work in the present day environment where employee satisfaction has been found to be one of the key drivers of improving efficiency. Taylorism also insists on only one right way to do things, thing makes it conflict with current approaches such as management by objectives (MBO), continuous improvement initiative and business process reengineering (BPR) which promote individual responsibility and decision making through all levels of the organization (Lawrence, 2010, p414). In the current organizational setting, the idea that workers should follow controlled procedures may produce undesirable results since workers are more motivated when they are set free to perform a certain task using their own means rather than when the procedure is fixed for them. Another area that Taylorism is not relevant in the modern day organizational setting is that it insists on breakdown of a process in to small blocks and then focuses on how each individual contributes to the process. This is in contrast with the emphasis that is put on teamwork by modern methodologies that examine work systems more holistically in evaluating efficiency and maximizing productivity. References Ackroyd, S., & Bolton, S. 1999. It is not Taylorism: Mechanisms of Work Intensification in the Provision of Gynaecological Services in a NHS Hospital. Work, Employment & Society, 13(2): 369-387. Au, W. (2011). Teaching under the new Taylorism: high?stakes testing and the standardization of the 21st century curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(1), 25-45. Crowley, M., Tope, D., Chamberlain, L. J., & Hodson, R. 2010. Neo-Taylorism at work: Occupational change in the post-Fordist era. Social Problems, 57(3), 421-447. Jones, O. 2000. Scientific management, culture and control: A first-hand account of Taylorism in practice. Human Relations, 53(5): 631-653. Kennedy, D., & Nur, M. (2012, July). The rise of taylorism in knowledge management. In Technology Management for Emerging Technologies (PICMET), 2012 Proceedings of PICMET'12: (pp. 2283-2289). IEEE. Lawrence, P. R. (2010). The key job design problem is still Taylorism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(2?3), 412-421. Mingers, J., & Willmott, H. 2012. Taylorizing Business School Research: On The 'One Best Way' Performative Effects of Journal Ranking Lists. Human Relations. Peci, A. (2009). Taylorism in the Socialism that Really Existed. Organization, 16(2), 289-301. Rowlinson, M. 1988. The Early Application of Scientific Management by Cadbury. Business History, 30(4): 377-395. Tadajewski, M., & Jones, D. B. 2012. Scientific marketing management and the emergence of the ethical marketing concept. Journal of Marketing Management, 28(1-2), 37-61. Wilson, F. M. 2010. Organizational behaviour at work: A critical introduction (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Read More