Principles of Scientific Management - Assignment Example

Running Head: Principles Principles of Scientific Management by Taylor and My Life and Work by Ford: A Comparative Study and Program> Principles of Scientific Management by Taylor and My Life and Work by Ford: A Comparative Study Oftentimes, textbook discussions on organization management and operations or productions management view Taylor’s Scientific Management and Ford’s assembly line principles jointly within the same category of management theory. Frederick Winslow Taylor wrote his monumental “Principles of Scientific Management” in 1911, while Henry Ford authored his autobiography “My Life and Work” in 1922. In these selections, the authors discuss not only their particular theories on production, but their outlook on the broader area of human behaviour and production methods, and how they happen to arrive at these views. Despite the similarities between Taylorism and Fordism, at their core they are different philosophies and espouse different approaches to controlling, leading, organizing, planning and coordinating. Before embarking on a discussion of each author’s approach to the tasks of management, it is worth devoting some attention to the background and setting under which each selection was written. Taylor wrote “Principles of Scientific Management,” during the time of President Roosevelt, and was born of a perceived need to preserve the country’s natural resources. Its objective was to contribute towards improving the national efficiency, in order to avoid unnecessary wastage. Taylor’s view was that this efficiency cannot be attained by relying on extraordinary people who may happen by chance. The solution, according to his theory, lay in the institution of a scientific system that will ensure this efficiency, even if ordinary people implemented it. Taylor viewed fundamental principles of scientific management as applicable to any organization and undertaking. Ford’s autobiography, however, was written after the First World War and close to the advent of the Second, and thus dealt at length with the issues of the times – war, socialism, labor and capital. These matters shall provide a useful context within which to view the selections. Controlling is the manner by which management directs workers to achieve company objectives within the time allotted and using the resources allocated. Management imposes control by using its authority, and for this reason it is responsible for any undue lapses in control. Under scientific management, control is integrated in the design of the management system rather than commanded from above. Control over the employee is exercised by motivating him to perform well, not only because of the lure of higher wages, but moreso because of the realization that maximum prosperity for the employee is attainable with the maximum prosperity for the employer. The interests of management and employee are viewed as one and the same, rather than at odds with each other. The key to effective control lay in the creation of definite, measurable and accepted standards of performance by which management assesses individual performance. This is done by such techniques as the use of time and motion studies. The example provided is that of Mr. Frank B. Gilbreth’s study on bricklaying. Gilbreth broke down the traditional procedure of bricklaying into its most fundamental motions, timed and streamlined each step, and devised the most efficient technique for laying down bricks. He also custom designed the tools and equipment appropriate to the technique thus developed. Through such carefully prepared methods, and with due attention to the employees’ comfort and ability, management is able to arrive at clear standards for control of employee behaviour. Like Taylor, Ford also believed that control should be reposed in every worker, and that education is the key to control, because “true education is gained through the discipline of life.” For him, the use of title and position in business is a hindrance to effective control and responsibility because people tended to hide behind their titles and pass the buck when things go out of control. The division of responsibility according to titles results in the removal altogether of responsibility. Ford stresses in his autobiography that the work and the work alone is the controlling factor in the business. But as to which interests should exercise control over business, it should be that the business should control money, not money controlling business, because “It is control by finance that breaks up service because it looks to the immediate dollar.” However, while he downplays the interests of the capitalist in relation to production, ultimately Ford distances himself from the socialist mindset and upholds the importance of economics and morality in business: “It does not matter whether industry is privately managed or socially controlled; it does not matter whether you call the workers share "wages" or "dividends"; it does not matter whether you regimentalize the people as to food, clothing, and shelter, or whether you allow them to eat, dress, and live as they like. Those are mere matters of detail. The incapacity of the Bolshevist leaders is indicated by the fuss they made over such details. Bolshevism failed because it was both unnatural and immoral. Our system stands. Is it wrong? Of course it is wrong, at a thousand points! Is it clumsy? Of course it is clumsy. By all right and reason it ought to break down. But it does not--because it is instinct with certain economic and moral fundamentals.” (Ford, 1922) Comparing the two source documents, Taylor discusses control from the viewpoint of the technician or, as it stated, for the purpose of the engineers and production. Ford proposes a more profound viewpoint in seeing control from the point of view of the interests exerting influence over the business. For both authors, it is important that the key to control lies in the individual and his initiative, and the role of management is to engage the individual worker’s commitment to the company’s goals. They also agree that the focus of control should be the creation of the product which, after all, is the reason for the existence of the business. Aside from controlling, leading is a managerial task that requires the enlightened exercise of prerogative. For Taylor, the aim of leadership is to obtain the best “initiative” of every workman, used in the broadest sense. While initiative means the total commitment of the individual to attaining the goals of the organization, this commitment cannot be all in favor of the firm. Management must also ensure that its good workers are accorded monetary incentives or benefits commensurate to their achievements, coupled with personal consideration and friendly contact. This is the management of “initiative and incentive”, which, according to Taylor, is the best type of management in ordinary use. Other than those leadership directions conveyed by company policy, Taylor also prescribes some personal traits that a leader must possess, foremost of which is patience and industry. A leader cannot be respected if he is not hard-working, and if he is not willing to assist and guide his members towards adopting the scientific techniques. The leader must also pay attention to the “personal coefficient” of his workers, which is the ability to learn new methods and function according to the established standards. Workers whose personal coefficients are truly inadequate for the work must be considered for transfer if possible, or termination. In this regard, the leader must also be able to effect a complete change in mental attitude of the workers, towards their work and towards their employers. This can only be brought about slowly, and through a long series of object-lessons, in order that the old habits (such as working by “rule-of-thumb” and “soldiering”) may be supplanted with new ones. The purpose of the lessons is to demonstrate how each worker could take advantage of the higher pay, better hours and possible promotion by cooperating with the new method. A leader should also ensure that rewards are given promptly, because a reward, to be effective, must be accorded to the worker soon after he has accomplished the job for which he is being rewarded. The work accomplished must be measurable, and proper encouragement should constantly be given as the work is being done. In Ford’s autobiography, he expressed his opinions on leadership with a stern and pointed emphasis on the necessity of possessing capabilities deserving of the distinction. Not all men are leaders. Although every man can work hard, not everyone has the capacity to think, more especially to think quickly. For Ford, this is the mark of true leadership. Leadership should go hand in hand with the responsibility of seeing that those who work for him (the leader) must have an opportunity to earn a decent living. Between lowering wages and abolishing dividends, Ford would rather abolish dividends, because there is no charity in proper wages. A stable company should be one that is so well managed that it can afford its employees an opportunity to do enough work to earn a good wage. Like Taylor, Ford believed that a leader must also possess certain personal qualities. A good leader should always have an open mind and not be offended by suggestions for improvement. “If they regard all suggestions of betterment as a personal slap, then they are taking the part which proves more than anything else could their unfitness to continue in their leadership.” He also stressed that persons who put great importance solely on position and title are not fit to be leaders. Title bearers are not always real leaders. A real leader is one who is fit to plan and command. “And when you find a real leader who bears a title, you will have to inquire of someone else what his title is. He doesnt boast about it.” (Ford, 1922) Aside from describing what a leaders should be in an organization, Ford takes it further and discusses the concept of leadership in the context of the greater community, and its negation of equality in both socialism and democracy. It bears reproducing his words here to appreciate the idea of leadership as conceived by Ford: “There can be no greater absurdity and no greater disservice to humanity in general than to insist that all men are equal. Most certainly all men are not equal, and any democratic conception which strives to make men equal is only an effort to block progress. Men cannot be of equal service. The men of larger ability are less numerous than the men of smaller ability; it is possible for a mass of the smaller men to pull the larger ones down--but in so doing they pull themselves down. It is the larger men who give the leadership to the community and enable the smaller men to live with less effort.” In comparing the viewpoints of the two authors, it is clear that Taylor speaks within the context of organizational leadership, the ultimate aim of which is to secure individual initiative to attain company goals. In contrast, the ideas of Ford go beyond organizational leadership into essential leadership, the possession of talents and capabilities beyond those generally found among the greater majority. For both authors, it is interesting to note that they agree essentially that leadership should serve the men under the leader, more than the need to turn a profit quickly. Taylor emphasized the need to introduce scientific management gradually and at a pace comfortable to the worker for its acceptance. Ford stressed that wages must not be sacrificed to serve the interest of creating dividends for capital. For both men, wages must not only be minimally sufficient, but must be adequate for the worker and his family to live comfortably, and must reflect the value of good work done by the worker so that he may be motivated to continue working well. The third managerial function, organizing, deals with the structuring of elements in the organization (manpower, machinery, money and materials) so that they work together to yield the desired result. For Taylor’s scientific management, organizing the business undergoes four steps, namely: (1) developing a scientific procedure for each task to replace the old rule-of-thumb method; (2) scientifically selecting and training, teaching, and developing the workman, whereas in the past he chose his own work and trained himself; (3) cooperating with the men to ensure all of the work is being done in compliance with the scientific procedure developed; and (4) observing equal division of the work and the responsibility between the management and the workmen. It is incumbent upon management to take over all work for which they are better fitted than the workmen, in contrast to past tradition when almost all of the work and a great part of the responsibility were imposed upon the men. In order that this type of organization will work, management must ensure that it scientifically chooses the right man. The example the work gives is the selection process of “Schmidt,” the ideal man for the job of pig iron handler. Without the proper manpower, the adoption of scientific management principles could very well fail. Organization, for Ford, deserves a no-nonsense, pragmatic approach with the creation of the product as the core consideration. He believed that the effective organization will shape itself, together with the factory, the selling and financial plans, according to the product. “Rushing into manufacturing without being certain of the product is the unrecognized cause of many business failures.” Designing the organization according to traditional theories of hierarchy and rank serves only to bring about excess organization and, consequently, the red tape that comes with bureaucracy. Ford emphatically writes: “To my mind there is no bent of mind more dangerous than that which is sometimes described as the "genius for organization." This usually results in the birth of a great big chart showing, after the fashion of a family tree, how authority ramifies. The tree is heavy with nice round berries, each of which bears the name of a man or of an office. Every man has a title and certain duties which are strictly limited by the circumference of his berry.” This is the reason why Ford factories and enterprises have no rigid organizational structure, no fixed duties attaching to any position, no line of succession or of authority, very few titles, and no conferences. Ford particularly abhorred meetings and conferences, or the deluge of written memoranda common in other organizations. He reasons that a business is not a machine but a collection of people “who are brought together to do work and not to write letters to one another…We have only the clerical help that is absolutely required; we have no elaborate records of any kind, and consequently no red tape.” His policy is that men should never be hired on the basis of their past experience, or for any position other than the lowest, upon which he could prove his ability in order to be promoted. Comparing between Taylor and Ford on the matter of organizing, it is evident that both authors agree that organization should serve the creation of the product. Organization should not be undertaken for its own sake, neither does organization define the business. As Taylor stated, without the product there is no business and, consequently, no organization. Ford said the organization will be defined and grow out of the need to produce the item. Both authors caution strongly against excess organization as costly and inefficient, and emphasize that organization must only be undertaken when it aids in the improvement of production. The fourth managerial task is planning, which encompasses the use of information, foresight and sound decision-making in charting the strategic goals, tactical objectives, and operational targets that the business will strive for. Taylor focuses on planning for production. He states that while he believes that management by “initiative and incentive” is outstanding for linking remuneration to work accomplishment, its drawback is that it leaves the planning in the hands of individual workmen. This is where scientific management excels beyond “initiative and incentive,” in that the planning is carried out to the minutest detail at the level of management, saving the worker the time it takes to decide what to do, to concentrate merely on the doing. The operational plan is worked out one day in advance and instructions are disseminated to the worker in writing. The task the worker is to accomplish is described in detail, including what is to be done, the exact time allowed for doing it, and the materials to be used. This effectively eliminates the “rule of thumb” or “word of mouth” methods universally used in trades, which are wasteful and unscientific. For Taylor, the planner cannot be the executor, and vice-versa. Planning involves rules, laws and formulae that replace the individual workman’s judgement. With the use of scientific data, a new system must be thought out and then implemented by training the workers involved. Under this regime, subdivision of labor is necessary. The work planned in advance is collaboratively undertaken by management and worker. However, the worker should in no case be called to perform tasks that are injurious to his health. The workers’ hours should be planned so that they (the workers) “work while they work” and “play while they play” and not mix the two. Times should be provided for rest as well as specified for productive work. Taylor’s work uses the example of women whose job is to examine the product output, ball bearings, in order to separate defects. After time-and-motion analyses, management decided to space the workers apart so they could not converse with each other while working, and to impose ten-minute rest periods every one-and-a-quarter hours at which the workers are required to move out of their stations, walk around or converse with each other. The new system resulted in significant increase not only in the quantity but the quality of production, reduction of work time for the women workers by two hours, and substantial increase in wages for the workers and lower production costs for management. The overall workday can thus be shortened without sacrificing productivity, and induces the workers to truly work steadily rather than merely pretending to do so. Finally, Taylor stresses that all planning should be done with the third great party – the people – in mind. The rights of the people are greater than the rights of either employer or employee. They should be given their proper share of the gain of the business, in forms of the benefits of a new invention or design. Ford’s view of planning is just as intricate as Taylor’s but in a different manner. Focusing on the demands of continuous mass production requires a continuous turnover of money and materials; thus planning must be done with extreme care. Production plans are worked out very carefully each month between the sales and production departments, “with the object of producing enough cars so that those in transit will take care of the orders in hand. Formerly, when we assembled and shipped cars, this was of the highest importance because we had no place in which to store finished cars.” The planning is undertaken with the schedules of the production stream and order stream balanced; otherwise, the business will find itself either jammed with unsold parts, or backlogged in its orders. “When you are turning out the parts to make 4,000 cars a day, just a very little carelessness in overestimating orders will pile up a finished inventory running into the millions. That makes the balancing of operations an exceedingly delicate matter.” (Ford, 1922) Like Taylor, Ford believed that people should work when they are supposed to work, and play when they ought to play. He acknowledges that such will result in the benefit of better wages, working hours, and favourable working conditions for the workers. The major importance to the business, however, is the reduction in costs of production. Ford strongly believed that a business must plan for mass production as low cost, in order to benefit the majority of people who wish to avail of the product. Ford’s philosophy, as embodied in the production of the Model-T, the first commercially mass-produced automobile, is that it is better to sell a large volume of articles at a small profit than a few at a large profit. This allows a large number of customers to buy the product, and give a large number of men employment. It permits the planning of production, eliminates the slow seasons, and the inefficiencies of plant shutdown. Planning should thus be based on the universal, that product that possesses the best features of what 95 percent of the people want. According to Ford, universality is different from standardization. For him, “standardizing” implies freezing the design of the product and method of production, and the manufacturer sells the articles that are readily available or which he can most easily make, at the highest possible profit. The public is not considered either in the design or the price. Finally, Ford puts greater reliance on the wisdom of the main in the production line rather than on people who are specialized, whom he avers to as “experts.” His discourse on this reveals something of his character, and is thus reproduced here: “None of our men are "experts." We have most unfortunately found it necessary to get rid of a man as soon as he thinks himself an expert--because no one ever considers himself expert if he really knows his job. A man who knows a job sees so much more to be done than he has done, that he is always pressing forward and never gives up an instant of thought to how good and how efficient he is. Thinking always ahead, thinking always of trying to do more, brings a state of mind in which nothing is impossible. The moment one gets into the "expert" state of mind a great number of things become impossible.” (Ford, 1922) While Ford never mentioned that the expert is the one dedicated solely to the planning of the job, he nevertheless differentiates between the “expert” and the man who actually does the job, implying that the expert is one whose state of mind has distanced itself from the execution of the job. This possibly runs counter to Taylor’s opinion that the executor and the planner should never be one and the same person. It is interesting to compare Taylor’s and Ford’s views on planning because they show different perspectives. Taylor focuses on the operational aspect from the production supervisor’s point of view, thus emphasizes the minute detailing of tasks and one day’s lead time in the preparation of the plans. On the other hand, Ford looks at the tactical aspect from the system’s point of view, recommending monthly planning and balancing of the production and order streams. Taylor’s view promotes standardization, while Ford would prefer to emphasize universality, which illustrates that Taylor adopts the strict viewpoint of production while Ford considers adaptability to the market and how it may provide the needed direction for production. Furthermore, Taylor believes that the worker should be differentiated from the planner, in that the worker may not exercise his personal judgment but just do as the planner tells him to do. Ford differs in that he believes the person actually doing the job has insight on how the job is done that escapes one who is not actually doing the job. The two agree, however, that work should be planned such that there is time for dedicated work and time for rest. They also agree that in planning the design of the product, the paramount interest to consider is that of the “third great party,” the people who buy the product. The fifth and final managerial function to consider is the task of coordinating, which involves fostering a system of communication and execution among and between the different departments or personnel, to ensure smooth implementation of the designated plans. For Taylor, it is only through the development of standard methods and the adoption of best implements and working conditions, and enforced cooperation, that work can be made faster and more systematic. The duty of enforcing standardization of methods rests solely with management, which must supply one or more teachers to show each worker the standard methods. Further, all those who, after proper training, either will not or cannot work with the new system will have to be discharged by management. Commensurate incentive (pay or benefits) must be given those who are able to comply. And while compliance is enforced, management must nevertheless work closely with the workers in teaching the new methods. The changes should be implemented slowly, until after one-fourth to one-third of the men have been so introduced to the new system, at which time very rapid progress should be made. Ford believes that coordination is the business of those who prepared the planning for the entire organization to ensure that all the departments are coordinating with each other. He frowns at the propensity to hold meetings in the guise of coordinating, and insists that coordinating is not a matter of collusion. “It is not necessary to have meetings to establish good feeling between individuals or departments. It is not necessary for people to love each other in order to work together. Too much good fellowship may indeed be a very bad thing, for it may lead to one man trying to cover up the faults of another. That is bad for both men.” (Ford, 1922) Concerning the task of coordinating, as with the task of organization, there exists a high level of consensus between the two viewpoints.Taylor believes that coordination is scientifically worked into the plans by the plan’s designer; Ford thinks likewise that the planners are responsible for coordinating among departments. Ford believes that coordinating should not be made to rely on person-to-person camaraderie and company socials; Taylor likewise believes that personal collaboration is not the key to effective coordination, though he stresses the importance of relationship between those teaching the new scientific method, and the workers learning it. In concluding, Taylor showed the benefits of employing the principles of scientific management in a business, while Ford expressed his fundamental philosophy that business is shaped by the product. As to controlling: Taylor adopts the viewpoint of the technician and concentrates on the production aspect, while Ford sees control as an interplay of various interests that bear on the business. Both authors agree that the key to control lies in individual initiative, and management’s role is to engage the individual worker’s commitment to the company’s goals. They also agree that the nature of the product determines the degree and manner of control appropriate for the firm. As to leading: Taylor dwells on leadership within the firm, while Ford expounds on the more universal scope of essential leadership. Both authors agree that leadership should serve the worker or employee, more than the profit motive. For both men, wages must be more than minimal, but must reflect the value of good work done by the worker. Quality work should be valued and recognized with the award of tangible and equally valuable incentives. As to organizing: Both authors agree that organization should serve the creation of the product, not undertaken for its own sake. As Taylor stated, without the product there is no business and, consequently, no organization. Ford said the organization will be defined and grow out of the need to produce the item. Both authors caution strongly against excess organization as costly and inefficient. As to planning: Taylor focuses on the operational aspect, emphasizes the minute detailing of daily tasks. Ford looks at the tactical aspect from the system’s point of view, recommending monthly planning and balancing of the production and order streams. Taylor promotes standardization, while Ford prefers universality. Taylor believes that the worker may not exercise his personal judgment, whereas Ford believes the person actually doing the job develops insights that make his judgments valuable. The two agree that work should be planning should allocate for work and rest, and that in planning the design of the product, the paramount interest is that of the customer, before the employee or the employer. As to coordinating: Both Taylor and Ford believe that coordination is the responsibility of the planners. They concur that coordinating should not be made to rely merely on personal camaraderie, although smooth personal relations are desirable for those who collaborate at work. Coordinating should be systematically addressed during the planning phase, not purportedly fostered meetings and company socials. It will be recalled that this study set out to prove that despite the similarities between Taylorism and Fordism, at their core they are different philosophies and espouse different approaches to controlling, leading, organizing, planning and coordinating. From the foregoing conclusion, it is evident that many views are commonly held by both authors, particularly in the managerial functions of coordinating and organizing. They differ diametrically in the aspect of planning, while the ideas they entertain on controlling and leading, while not necessarily divergent, are of different perspectives and scope. The thesis statement, which acknowledges similarities but asserts fundamental differences, is thus sufficiently confirmed. In light of the foregoing conclusion, it is recommended that in the interest of improving their businesses, managers and proprietors should consider the following: As to controlling, management should recognize the value of the individual as a driver of progress, and commit their role to engage the individual worker’s initiative rather than impose authoritative sanctions to ensure his cooperation. As to leading, managers should serve the welfare of worker or employee, rewarding quality work with tangible and valuable remuneration. As to organizing, management should organize no more than is required to efficiently produce the product and get it to the intended customers. As to planning, foresight should govern the setting of goals, balancing centralized decision-making with the workers’ insight concerning their jobs. Finally, coordinating should be systematically incorporated into the plans and monitored by the planners, rather than be made to rely solely on the congeniality personal relations. Read More