The Principles of Scientific Management - Essay Example

The Principles of Scientific Management Introduction Over the past decades, the ways in which people are managed and motivated has become the primary field of interest in terms of assessing and improving organizational efficiency and marketability. The increasingly stiff competition forces modern businesses to pay much attention to the issue of attracting and retaining skilled and motivated personnel rather than focusing on the technological aspect of operations. Nowadays, the importance of effective Human Resource Management (HRM) practices has been recognised by virtually any serious company. If an organisation fails to properly and effectively manage its human resources in the right areas of the business, at the right time and at the right cost, serious inefficiencies are likely to ensue causing considerable operational difficulties and failures (Beardwell, Claydon & Holden 2003). However, the area of HRM is exceptionally complex and multilateral: there are many different theories and views on the nature, methods, and techniques of management described in the abundant organisational literature. Since the emergence of organizational science in the late 19th – early 20th century, the scholars have been sharing two dominant views on organizational culture. Apologists of one paradigm led by Frederick Taylor and Harrington Emerson (School of Scientific Management) believed that organizational culture was just one of the tools to ensure greater control over employees. Representatives of another approach such as Elton Mayo, Abraham Maslow, and Douglas McGregor (Human relations school) postulated that organizational culture was supposed to develop and motivate the employees without excessively rigid control (Schultz & Shultz 2002). Although each of these major paradigms has contributed significantly to development of contemporary HRM, they rely upon entirely different principles and assumptions. Discussion The process of industrialisation and sophistication of businesses that occurred during the last decade of the 19th century seriously changed the traditional managerial practices. Increasing the efficiency of labour became the key priority within the system of company-employee relationship. The concept of scientific management described by Frederick Taylor was the first systematic approach designed specifically to improve the labour efficiency of employees within the new system of work relationships (Taylor 1911). Taylor strongly believed that organizational culture was one of the most effective instruments to influence the employees and improve their performance and listed the most important elements of the ideal organisational culture. Taylor believed that the most effective approach in managing human resources should not be different from the approach used to manage other elements of the production process. Consequently, the Taylorian model of management relied on the assumption that the average employee was lazy, ignorant, passive, and lacked motivation to perform effectively. Such assumption implied that strict ceaseless control was the most effective method to improve performance efficiency (Drucker 1985). Taylor (1911) suggested the following basic principles of organizational control over the employees: Ceaseless control over the work of each employee through organization the system of supervisors, inspectors, quantity-surveyor, etc.; Control over the work of the workshops; Promotion of stimulating and competitive organizational culture which may provide excessive control over the employees Taylor’s ideas were further developed by Harrington Emerson (1912) who formulated twelve major principles of scientific human resource management. In particular, Emerson believed that: Discipline and permanent control over the employees are the key factors in organizational success; Norms and schedules are perfect instruments to ensure appropriate control over the employees; Organizational environment may provide perfect control over the employees guiding employees’ activity, forming employees’ dependency and commitment to a company, and punishment of the workers in case of failures (Emerson 1976). Taylor and other representatives of the scientific management paradigm truly believed that the most reliable and effective way to improve motivation, commitment, and other elements that affect performance efficiency was to ensure a strong comprehensive control to. However, the concept of scientific management relied upon the set of ideas and assumption popular approximately 100 years ago. Although some of those principles remained relevant up to date, many of them had been dismissed as misleading over the last decades. The view of strong organizational culture promoted by the scientific management school does not fit the modern competitive environment. Strict and rigid organizational culture diminishes ability of businesses to transform and change responding to the external and internal challenges. Strict culture and excessive control also reduces creativity of the employees, their eagerness to innovate and accept new ideas and perspectives. As Collins and Porras (1994) believe that the idea of strict organisational culture is not absolutely irrelevant to modern organisations: moreover, it may sometimes be beneficial. However, today’s organizations operate in a rapidly changing environment and their organizational cultures must apparently be less pervasive, instructive and controlling. In 1970s – 1980s, competitive successes of Japanese companies have emphasized the role of team-work, loyalty, group-consciousness, and involvement of employees in decision-making in competitive success of contemporary organisations (Ouchi 1981). As a result, hard side has been dispersedly shifted by participative management strategies emphasizing the value of the employees and insisting on less control over their functions. It has been identified that participatory work strategies better fit the demands of the global economy as they provide the optimal way to create essential flexibility and worker commitment (Markowitz 1996). The essence of modern business is a competition of ideas, creativity and human resources. Since such situation is absolutely unique it is essential revise the very idea of organisational control. As briefly mentioned before, excessive and all-pervading control diminishes people’s initiative, their level of creativity as well as openness to the new ideas and tendencies. However, as human resources are believed now to be the major assets and competitive advantages of each company, lack of employees’ initiative and people’s poor adaptation to the demands of environment may result in bankruptcy of a company. Hence, unconstrained demands on people, act as barriers to organizational and personal adaptation and change. Therewith, only human resource management incorporating the principles of development, stimulation, adaptation and promotion of people (the “soft side” culture) is the warranty of success in the modern marketplace. Over the second half of the last century psychologists have substantially transformed the understanding of human nature. Organizational psychologists have convincingly demonstrated that humans are not the same elements of organizational process as machines (one of the key ideas expressed by the founding fathers of scientific management). As the role of human personality became apparent to the organisational theorists, the notion that employees should not be excessively controlled gained popularity as well (McGregor 1960). Evidently, such turn also contradicted the basic principles of scientific management. In the first half of the last century, when the scientific management paradigm was the most popular alternative in managing human resources investments in the machines were more profitable than investments in human resources. However, by 1960s-1970s this principle had ceased as investments in employees became 5 to 10 times more effective than investments in machine-tools (Quinn 1988). Evidently, such dramatic change suggests that the principles that were relevant prior to it might turn irrelevant after. French organizational psychologist Bolle de Bal (1992) brilliantly summarises the key reasons for the shift from the scientific management paradigm to more flexible managerial practices that rely on a different set of assumptions: Taylorian “hard side” model provides unnecessary organizational hierarchy, stimulates organizational conflicts and narrows employees’ outlooks and creativity; Emphasis on employees’ personalities and human resource management has resulted in the changes of organizational control and supervision based on authority. It has been replaced by supervision based on competency where organizational culture promoted small-group human relations and leadership instead of strict managerial control; All-round development of the employees has become more important function in the raise of productivity than strict control and the system based on punishment. Investments into the human resources raise production goals, improve product quality and working conditions; Shift from people’s technical capacities to their personalities and creativity has become one more argument in the changes of organizational control; Empowerment and decision making are now required not only from top management but also from the average employees. Leaving many questions open to negotiations at lower organizational levels has resulted in reduction or abolishing of strict control over the employees; Control through organizational culture is changed from managerial control to control of small and often informal groups responsible for task setting, productivity and decision-making (Bolle de Bal 1992). Conclusions Deep changes in the organizational practices which occurred during the last five decades led to serious reconsideration of the traditional principles of management. The most noticeable result of that reconsideration was replacement of the scientific management characterised by the strict and rigid control over the employees and mechanistic perception of human resources by the model emphasising the role of organizational culture in development and motivation of employees via participation and group control. The businesses that relied on the principles of strict organizational control appeared to be less accommodated to the rapidly changing and highly competitive environment than the organisations utilising more flexible and less restrictive approach. Although the principles of scientific management are still beneficial in some specific organisations (for example, army, police, etc) the softer more versatile models seem to better fit the demands of modern organizations and organizational environment. References Beardwell, I., Claydon, T., & Holden, L. 2003, Human Resource Management: A Contemporary Approach, 4th Edition, Financial Times Management. Bolle De Bal, M. 1992, ‘Participation’, in Széll, G. Ed., Concise Encyclopedia of Participation and Co-Management, New York: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 603-610. Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. 1994, Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies, New York: Harper-Business. Drucker, P. 1985, Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices, New York: Harper-Business. Emerson, H. 1912, The Twelve Principles of Efficiency, New York. Emerson, H. 1976, The Twelve Principles of Efficiency, Hive Publishing Company. Markowitz, L. 1996, ‘Employee Participation at the Workplace: Capitalist Control or Worker Freedom?’, Critical Sociology, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 89-103. McGregor, D. 1960, The Human Side of Enterprise, New York: McGraw-Hill. Ouchi, W. G. 1981, Theory “Z”: How American Business Can Meet the Japanese Challenge, Reading MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. Quinn, R. E. 1988, Beyond Rational Management: Mastering the Paradoxes and Competing Demands of High Performance, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schultz, D & Schultz, S. 2002, Psychology and Work Today: An Introduction to Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Eighth Edition), New York, Prentice Hall. Taylor, F. W. 1911, The Principles of Scientific Management, New York: Harper and Row. Read More