Overview of Scientific Management, Taylorism - Essay Example

Overview of Scientific Management Scientific management refers to the ideology developed by Frederick W. Taylor. The ideology is about the improvement of productivity in labor by creating standard workflow for workers to follow. He conceived the ideology near at the end of the 19th century and he believed that there is only one best way to do a job and this could be achieved by using scientific methods in examining work processes (Scientific Management 2008). The ideology is also often referred to as Taylorism which does not have a positive connotation. According to Greco (1999) to many, Taylorism is an amusing and handy way to describe a sort of ruthless and quasi-Victorian efficiency that melds man with machine, often to mans disadvantage. However, Taylor did not intend it to be this way. He developed scientific management with good intentions to lighten the load of manual workers. Taylor also wishes to minimize waste in time, energy and abilities of worker as well as assuage poverty. But if his rigid methods fall into the hands of a brutal employer the results are often not to be desired and are contradictory to what his real intentions are. Thus the word Taylorism was born (Scientific Management 2008). In Taylor (2004, pp.3-4) own words “The art of management has been defined ‘as knowing exactly what you want men to do and then seeing that they do it in the best and cheapest way’; also, ‘the principal object of management should be to secure the maximum prosperity for the employer coupled with the maximum prosperity for each employee’. He adds that ‘scientific management has for its very foundation the firm conviction that the true interests of the two are one of the same; that prosperity for the employer cannot exist through a long term of years unless it is accompanied by prosperity for the employee, and vice versa; and that it is possible to give the worker what he most wants – high wages – and the employer what he wants – a low labor cost – for his manufactures”. Taking this definition the original objective of Taylor with scientific management is to benefit not only the employer but the employee as well. From his book it is clear that he view both the employee and employer as two entities that need to work hand in hand to be able to achieve the main goal of profiting from the business. Not only that but also need each other to accomplish their individual goals of high wages and low cost of production. Whether his principles were used properly or erroneously his impact in management were long-lasting. Since ideals from his work became inspiration for more modern philosophies like balances scorecard, just-in-time, six sigma and business process reengineering. Also if we look into modem fast food chains like McDonalds or Burger King. All these companies operate in different parts of the world but the quality of the products remain the same. This is because these companies already formulated the proper way of doing every step of the job. Try to notice the person preparing the hamburger: the patties used are already prepared by a central commissary also the other ingredients are measured carefully using a weighing scale, all of the steps are dictated by the company all the service crew needs to do are follow instructions. And as these companies boast their service remain the same wherever they are due to careful selection and rigid training of their employees (Buchanan & Huczynski 2006). This kind of application is not only present in fast food chains but to restaurants as well where chefs have their own “stations” where they concentrate on a specific task like grilling, steaming, meat processing or making dessert. It can be noticed that scientific management is more inclined on the management side. Although Taylorism did less to directly benefit workers during its peak, subsequent modernization of the theory resulted to concepts that benefit modern employees and consumers alike. These are the formation of new departments like industrial engineering and quality control. These departments make sure that manufacturing plants operate at efficient rates to be able to properly supply the demand of the market not only that but products with quality. Due to scientific management organizations now have middle management where the planning is separate from operations. This resulted to better management of any organization. While the standardization of procedures make it possible for companies to operate globally (Pruijt, 1997). Unfortunately by the time of his death Taylor already created a reputation as the “enemy of the working man”. He was even summoned to the House of Representatives in 1911 to defend his findings. All the hatred was born from the short comings of his ideals when it comes to the human element of work. One is the “deskilling” as jobs are broken down the workers cognitive input or thinking is not required and it makes them like machines. Workers become highly specialized therefore hindering their adaptability to new situations. The motivation of the worker dies (Buchanan & Huczynski 2006). However, it has already been proven by human relation theories that workers are best motivated not by money but by the feeling of self worth. Meaning that when employees feel they are important to the company they are motivated more. Another is the outlook of his system towards workers as not capable of productive thinking and cannot be trusted. Scientific management has the tendency of being authoritarian since decision-making is solely held by the upper management. Leaving the employee de-motivated due to lack of trust from the management. This is approach has already evolved since companies nowadays are transparent to some extent to their employees (Pruijt, 1997). Despite its flaws it cannot be denied that scientific management or Taylorism brought about change in the way we look into work design. In Taylor’s defense it is important to note the era that he lived in and the circumstances that happen before highly influence his works. His life was very different from today there was a lot of depression and methods in production are very uneconomical (Scientific Management 2008). Greco (1999) plainly put it that today, we may have abandoned stopwatches, but in this ever-ringing, overly programmed, multi-tasking millennium world, its pretty obvious that weve all become Taylorists, at least to some extent. His ideals about quality control, scientific analysis of work, monetary incentive, and use of experts like industrial engineers to formulate standards are already proven to raise efficiency at work. These concepts still have a place in the modern manufacturing plants and organizations although only used to some degree it cannot be denied that he was a misunderstood and highly critized organization theorist but the most influential (Morgan 2006). Benefits of Scientific Management Through scientific management a harmonized mutual relationship between employer and employee could be achieved. The theory provides a company with the focus to organize its structure in order to meet the objectives of both the employer and employee. During its prime Taylor discovered that companies who use and follow the principle by the letter became successful in meticulously organizing their corporations (Buchanan & Huczynski 2006). Also with scientific management economies of scale within the company can be attained. This is because the theory stresses efficiency and the need to eliminate waste. Managers are assigned to isolate which costs can be accounted for precisely, this produce division of labor and a specialization amongst staff, therefore making each employee to become highly effective at carrying out their limited task. As a result, firms will have in place efficient production methods and techniques (McHugh & Thompson 2003). In addition, scientific management could bring a company a means to take full control of its labor force. This is due to the piece rate payment system, where in the company can lay down the desired minimum output to be produced and employees are guaranteed to meet the required amount (Knights & Willmott 2007). Other practical benefits of the theory are described in Scientific Management (2008): it was the basis or inspiration for many later management philosophies, including Management by Objectives, Operations Research, CSF’s and KPI’s and Balanced Scorecard, Just-in-Time and Lean Manufacturing, Total Quality Management, Six Sigma and Business Process Reengineering. It can also be used as a contrast to modern business or management methods. Old fashioned, inefficient industrial environments could use the principles of scientific management. Antithesis of Scientific Management What could be considered as an antithesis of scientific management will the human relations approach to management where ideas was brought about by the Hawthorne experiments. The experiments was carried out between 1924 and 1932 in the Hawthorne Works Plant of the Western Electric Company. It was conducted by Elton Mayo and other researchers from Harvard University. They intend to find out whether physical conditions like noise and lighting will affect productivity of employees (Gardiner et al 2000). The study shows how productivity rises due to mutual support between work groups and effective resistance to management schemes. It is a common held belief of scientific management advocates that money is the only motivator for workers but Mayo and colleagues found out that workers were also interested in other form of rewards. For example being treated properly and being appreciated. The study helped the management theorist to see that there are socio-psychological factors in the workplace that cannot be explained by scientific management or other classical theories. Thus the school of human relations management though was born where organization is seen as more than a formal arrangement of functions but is also a social system (Armstrong & Iverson 2006). It argues that assisting, supporting, and giving confidence to workers is more effective that using fear or money, as Taylor believe, to motivate them (Gardiner et al 2000). The study paved way for the study of intangible attributes that could affect work like human behavior. It brings back the human element of management because as famously known scientific management tend to treat the human worker as a machine. These two schools of thought differ in a lot of ways. First classical theory like Taylorism sees the economic need is the only need a worker tries to satisfy at work on the other hand human relations sees other needs like emotional need and social need of the worker. Another point of scientific management is that there is no conflict of interest between the company and the worker. As mentioned above both the company and the employee actually aim for the same thing, financial success. Human relations theories see otherwise, according to advocates of it there is no correlation between the individual and organizational needs. This is because humans are not always logical (Silverman, 1996). And as illustrated by the Maslow hierarchy of needs, another human relation theory, there are five groups of needs and financial security is one of the bottom needs. This theory sees that there are far more important need like love, self-esteem and self-actualization (Knights & Willmott 2007). Lastly, classical theories say that we act individually to satisfy individual needs. But common knowledge will say that no man is an island. Humans are social beings that are motivated by various needs and that we are interdependent with each other. This can be observed with our behaviors which are most of the time shaped by the society or the environment we are in. This is clearly evident in the Hawthorne studies as the productivity of the workers change just by simply being treated nicely (Silverman, 1996). Critics of Taylorism often point out that his methods reduce workers to mere machines due to highly specialized work that leave no room for improvements. However, a supporter of Taylor pointed out what Taylor did acknowledge that encouragement of an employee could empower them. As per Taylor’s (2004 p.72) book ‘Every encouragement, however, should be given him to suggest improvements, both in methods and in implements. And whenever the new method is found to be markedly superior to the old, it should be adopted as the new standard for the whole establishment. The workmen should be give dull credit for the improvement, and should be paid a cash premium as a reward of his ingenuity.’ Levinson (2004 p.10) pointed out that this paragraph shows clearly the concepts of empowering the worker to look for ways to improve his job, the use of controlled experiments to verify a change’s effectiveness, standardization of the improvement, and recognition of the worker. Taylor was therefore well ahead of his times in worker empowerment. As mentioned initially in this paper Taylor did create scientific management with good intentions in mind for both the company and its employees. He most probably did not want the workers to be treated like machines. However companies who only partially implementing his principles produce the persona of the theory that seems to only benefit the company. It is also interesting to note that others see both schools of thought as complementing each other. Taylorism determine the proper process needed to complete work through its scientific methods while human relations prepare employees to adapt to the new processes brought about by optimizing work (Silverman, 1996) Taylorism and Fordism One of the philosophies that is deeply rooted in Taylor’s ideals is Fordism after the name of Henry Ford. He adopted the techniques of Taylor which are time and motion studies and scientific management methods, and combined them with his own synchronized methods of mass production. Taylorism increased production without increasing the individual workload, but depended on a piecework – it rewards per work done rather than skill level – and bonuses system to achieve this. While Fordism, incorporating Taylorism, resulted in a greater division of labor and the de-skilling of manual labor. (Giddens & Griffiths 2006). In his manufacturing plant workers are designated to a single task that was designed by the management to be at its optimal production as long as the employees follow the standard working procedures. Which is the application of scientific management further more scientific management can grant control to the employer, Ford implemented this through the conveyor belt that bring the car to the workers thus letting Ford control the speed of the production. Also the assembly line created a radical expansion of division of labor since workers are bound to a single job causing the de-skilling or workers. (Grint 2005). As mentioned the relationship and the complement between Taylorism and Fordism occur in the division of work. In Taylorism an obsession with production management and control, such as time-and-motion studies and functional supervision can be noticed. Whereas Ford looked at the production line then reinvented it thus producing the mass production concept. However, the two ideals agree on the continuous improvement of the production line, high productivity and rationalization of human work (Smyth, 1993). From a similar point of view, Armstrong & Iversen (2006 p. 123) said Fordism is characterized by organization and management practices traditional to manufacturing firms, such as well-defined authority structures, closed systems of control and centralized decision making. They have added that Fordist firms also often implement a version of the “scientific management” techniques that Taylor promoted with the emphasis on task fragmentation monitoring of task completion time, and deskilling, all toward greater efficiency and cost reduction. It was elaborated by Grint (2005 p.300) that as far as Taylor and Ford were concerned the system appeared to be a virtuous circle: first, as long as consumers wanted , or more probably could be persuaded, to buy invariant products, like the Ford Model-T, then assembly line are ideal. Second, the assumption was that since were only really motivated by high wages then providing startlingly high wages would solve all labor problems. Third , as long as a scientific approach to work organization was adopted gigantic improvements in technical efficiency were feasible. However, as Grint continue to explain Ford found to his own cost that the division of labor, and what his employees regarded as the alienating conditions with such production method, took a heavy tool on employee morale. Both these ideals may have caused a lot of anguish to employees before. But through the thinking of these two men new ways in managing work and increasing production came about giving us the manufacturing industry that we have now in modern times. Not only that but these classical ways of thinking give birth to the modem thinking that is being applied to any corporation where most of us work. We might not know it but the ideals of Taylor and Ford has been shaping our daily lives. Conclusion In any organization management is very important since through management order is placed and disarray is avoided. Through the ages great thinkers had developed different schools of thinking about how an organization should be managed. Theories they have developed became the guiding principles of how modern companies run their organization. As mentioned above one of the theories that influence some modern management strategies, like business process reengineering or BPR, is the scientific management theory developed by Frederick Winslow Taylor also called Taylorism. Scientific management theory promotes that through scientifically studying the processes of an organization the only best way to increase efficiency and productivity can be found. Although Taylor’s work was developed during the 19th century his thoughts about management became the rudiment for modern philosophies about management that are used today (Wood 2002). Taylorism might not fit with the modern organizations that we have today since this approach was developed during a time of depression and where production methods are disorganized. If used today this approach will conflict with the mindset of modern workers since Taylorism have the tendency to treat workers as machines. This concept is not acceptable with the modern labor unions since everyone demands to be treated and compensated properly. Also the deskilling attribute inherent to scientific management is not in touch with the modern worker. Workers nowadays are aware of their value as human beings and through education even the low level laborer have high intelligence compared to workers that Taylor worked with. In addition monetary reward is no longer enough since employees seek to be recognized and need to be acknowledged an important part of the organization. However, these negative aspects did not stop Taylor as his ideals contributed immense knowledge about having standards, being systematic and also having measurements for improvements. If the classical theories like Taylorism are concerned with standardization and the processes of organization the neoclassical theories take into account the human element of management. One example is the behavioral theory that propagates that money is not the only motivator for employees. Behavioral theorist believes that workers are not machines and are motivated by sense of importance. This mantra is still being applied in any companies today. Not only employees receive substantial benefits like insurance, monetary bonuses but also awards like employee of the month and accolades in the form of certificates. These gestures from the management give employee a sense of belonging to the company motivating them more to perform better. Behaviorists consider workers as social beings and not machines. It takes into account the feelings and attitudes of workers towards work and how it can affect productivity. As the new era ushers in new development in management theories also catches up with time. Modern organizational theories now evolve from the only best way into an integrative approach. Under the modern theories approach to management is situational. It is saying that a highly effective management approach to one situation might not work in another. This is true for companies that take their business to foreign countries. Management style being implemented in their local country will have a probability of failing in another due to some factors like culture. Neglecting to take into account the situation in the target country could mean severe loss for the organization. References Armstrong, A & Iversen, R, 2006, Jobs Arent Enough, Temple University Press, Philedelphia, PA Buchanan, D & Huczynski, A, 2006, Organizational Behaviour: An Introductory Text, 6th edn, Financial Times/ Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ Gardiner, G, Heffes, E & Pohlman, R, 2000, Value Driven Management, AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn, New York, NY Giddens, A & Griffiths, S, 2006, Sociology, Polity Press, Malden, MA Gorman, T, 2003, The Complete Idiots Guide to MBA Basics, Alpha Books, New York, NY Greco, J, 1999, “Frederick Winslow Taylor(1856-1915): The Science of Business”, Journal of Business Strategy, ITEM99270011 Grint, K, 2005, The Sociology of Work, Polity Press, Malden, MA Kaliski, B, 2000, Encyclopedia of Business and Finance, MacMillan Reference Books, Farmington Hills, MI Knights, D & Willmott, H, 2007, Introducing Organizational Behaviour and Management, Thomson Learning, London, UK Levinson, B, 2004, ‘False perception of Taylor’, Industrial Engineer, vol 36, no 11, p.10 McHugh, D & Thompson, P, 2003, Work Organisations: Critical introduction, 3rd edn, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, Hampshire Morgan, G, 2006, Images of Organization, Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA Pruijt, H, 1997, Job Design and Technology: Taylorism Vs. Anti-Taylorism, Routledge London, UK Scientific Management (Taylorism), 2008, 12manage – The Executive Fast Track, Available From: < http://www.12manage.com/methods_taylor_scientific_management.html> [13 October 2008] Silverman, M, 1996, The Technical Managers Handbook, Springer, Berkeley, CA Smyth, J, 1993, A Socially Critical View of the Self-managing School, Routledge, London, UK Taylor, FW, 2004, The principles of scientific management, re-print, Kessinger Publishing, Whitefish, MT Wood, JC, 2002, F. W. Taylor, Routledge, London, UK Read More