Scientific Management: History and Introduction - Essay Example

?SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT IN A WORK SETTING Scientific management: History and introduction The concept of scientific management was first introduced byFrederick Winslow Taylor during the latter half of 1980’s. Lillian Gillbreth and Henry Grant associated Taylor in this task. Prior to this concept, there was no such idea or approach which aimed at maximization of production. The concept also came into existence as a result of large scale exploitations suffered by the workers. Scientific management is nothing but a concept which has some pre-formulated and standard norms to improve productivity and work- place environment. It includes setting definite parameters for evaluating performances of employees, selection of skilled workers according to the nature and necessity of industry, trainings to make workers acquire necessary skills, planning, and standard rate of wage, incentives, leaves, compensations and allocation of tasks. It was inferred by Taylor that with the help of synchronized movements, sequencing and appropriate tools, each worker could deliver more than what he usually does. Introduction of scientific management was the first approach which aimed at increasing overall gain by focusing not at the production but management. It brought a change by replacing ‘labor- centric’ attitude by ‘system- centric’ one. It was first put into practice by Bethlehem Steel plant in the year 1988 (Daft and Marcic 2010, p. 25 -27). The term ‘scientific management’ and ‘Taylorism’ are synonymous, though some often associate the term Taylorism only with the concept of reducing conflict within an organization’s managers and supervisors with its workers. This paper deals with aspects of scientific management, prevalent theories, terms and practices associated with scientific management, their implications and also the merits and demerits. At the same time, evolution, modification and adaptability of the theory of scientific management or Taylorism in modern corporate business world is also being discussed in this paper. Literature review Rationalism and Reductionism: Since the advent of Taylorism or scientific management, the ideas are largely put into practice. Over time, the original concept got modified according to expansion and necessities of industries. It got modified several times before assuming the present shape. It has been assumed that the idea had its origins in philosophy, and can be broadly divided into- rationalism and irrationalism. Rationalism, became popular in Europe during 17th and 18th century and got converted first into experience rationalism, then into mechanical rationalism and finally into reductionism. Reductionism holds that only those basic elements must be considered which remains unaffected by external factors and that advanced movements must be reduced. Reductionism in management involves adoption of analytic approach. Thus, implication of rational theory in management practice involves scientific management as well as Webber’s theory. Irrationalism deals with psychological aspects within an organization like aspiration, ambitions, desires and emotions (Dai 2011, p. 27). Work segmentation and capitalist labor: Due to flexible nature of scientific management, it was used for adjusting the problems of efficiency and waste. Human nature, natural tendencies and aspirations were identified as the key elements besides machinery and raw materials. It was believed by Taylor that workers would definitely be lazy as it is the natural to human beings, if they are continuously given monotonous or same works every day. Thus, the key to manage them effectively is division of work among workers. That is, each worker must be given those types of work in which he excels. A single task could be divided into smaller segments or sub- units so that they could be allocated easily among the workers, according to their suitability and adaptability. Thus, jobs requiring more innovation or which are complicated and versatile might be given to brighter workers. Thus, the theory of scientific management evaluates the workers in economic terms. Their value was analyzed in similar way as machines were configured. Efforts of workers were economized and workers were trained to cope up with modern and changing requirements. This theory was criticized in later times on the ground that this theory supported a craze for efficiency. At the same time, it also supported adoption of extreme means to maximize efficiency and production, often leading to dehumanized conditions. As has been observed by Montgomery, workforce had come under pressure due to application of scientific management. This is because the workers constantly fear of performing poorly and getting sacked (Roh 2012, p. 85- 87). Race management American workplaces displayed a close relationship between labor management and race during the early days of twentieth century. The strategy of pitting the races against each other was first applied during this time. Racial discrimination was made between “Anglo- Saxon, Irish, German, Italian, Chinese, Polish and Black” workers. Apart from these, distinctions were also made between the ‘natives’ and ‘immigrant races’. The supervisors and managers, at every cost, prevented them from getting united. With the introduction of scientific management, these workers were threat with the fear of losing their jobs and consequent social exclusion. Thus, ‘racial development’ which induced racial competition within the industries increased the overall production. This phenomenon still exists in organizational work culture of present times (Esch and Roediger 2009, p. 3-4). In this respect, it can be inferred that management of races went alongside scientific management. Industrial capitalism promoted racial biasness and scientific management in its earlier phrase simply made it worse and cruder. It was believed that each race or groups are fit for one particular type of work only. Thus, division and allocation of jobs was made more on the basis of class and race rather than skills. For instance, the Blacks were associated with ‘loyalty’ and were good at following orders. Thus, they were put into jobs where more manual strength was required, and the Italians and Hungarians were allocated the task of ‘dirt handling’. Scientific management supported personnel management which ultimately turned out to be race management and had huge impacts in society. Contradictory conclusions, preference and prejudices of the supervisors about different groups influenced their salary structures, thereby influencing the socio-economic structure directly or indirectly. Scientific management is credited with introduction of ‘drive system’ which triggered the lower- level managers’ liberty to bully, abuse and threat the workers. These aspects of Taylorism are still very much prevalent in today’s organizations, irrespective of size and place (Esch and Roediger 2009, p. 32- 35). Taylorism: Scientific discourse The practice of considering an organization as a ‘scientific discourse’ became popular after the Second World War. Prior to that scientific management or Taylorism was adopted in its simple form for- dividing works among workers, employing workers with skills in specialized fields, redefining the role played by supervisors, effective management of problems in production process, optimization of human resource, etc. It created a system which was referred to as ‘industrial culture’. After the Second World War, the concept of scientific management was modified and its validity was traced in science. In this regard, this became ‘scientific management’ which combined general and universal reasons, logical thinking as well as empirical data. Thus, after associating itself with ideas from science, the discourse of scientific management was changed into ‘scientific discourse’. As a consequence, more and more general issues got linked with scientific management. These issues were basically ideas from science which rose within organizations, thereby making the original concept mould into two trajectories or divisions. The first of them is that that scientific discourse operated within work organization and its premises. The other one is theorization of every possible aspect in work organization. However, this mode of application of scientific management is not perfect and contains some drawbacks. This is because; the theory of scientific discourse does not contain provisions for the universal truths that are valid regarding the practice of organizing people at workplaces (Ennals and Gustavsen 1999, p. 16-18). Division of labor: argument This paper will trace the compatibility of the concept of scientific management in organizational policies and practices in today’s time. When the theory of scientific management was invented almost a century ago, it was a success. It is even effective at present age of technologies. But here the question arises that is the concept applied in its original form or modification is necessary. It is beyond any doubt that with changing times, requirement of industries also differed. In earlier days, industrialists’ only concern was maximization of profit and employing the right worker to specific jobs. But lately, industries have to look after financing, marketing, human resource management and accounting with equal emphasis. Added to these, are concerns about issues related to ethics, environment and government of respective nations. Management of all these aspects was not possible with a simple concept like scientific management. It required application of theories which deals with specific management problems. Some of the most- applicable theories are strategic human resource management, sustainability and corporate social responsibility, business ecosystem, cross functionalism, reengineering and reinvention, diversity learning. Psychological sciences are also stressed upon. With the advent of modernity, industrialization expanded and became the most important basis for socio- economic development. Introduction of newer types of technology and machinery required co-ordination on a large scale and specialized functioning. There bears little resemblance with the factory system that existed before the Great Wars. But the changing systems could not ensure lasting profitability, especially by adopting policies formulated by traditional industrial strategies. Thus, to increase profitability, industries turned on to minimize labor costs, thereby focusing on acquisition of skills and human creativity so as to reap every possible benefits of human resource. Therefore, ‘scientific management’ started including provisions for “tacit skills, energy and motivation”. Economic rationality was the driving force behind creating this ‘human capital’. This clearly implies the old practice of labor – division propounded by scientific management, the only difference being in application within broader aspects. Another clear influence of the concept of scientific management is observed in ‘market liberalization” and “labor market deregulation”. Presently these two aspects are employed within functioning of a singular organization and also among numerous organizations as well. Thus, scientific management is equally effective in modern with little modification in some cases (Littek and Charles 1995, p. 3-7). Analysis - Terms and Concepts Scientific discourse: this term refers to the procedure of ideas and concepts scientific during the discourse of scientific management. Thus, the discourse of Taylorism becomes scientific discourse. It generally deals with general ideas in workplaces that are legitimated by science. Hence scientific discourse takes the original concept of scientific management beyond intuitive reasonableness (Ennals and Gustavsen 1999, p. 17-18). Taylorism: This term is also known as ‘scientific management’ and was coined after the name of its creator, Frederick Taylor. It refers to the practice of systemizing organizational activities with the sole aim of organizational gain (Taylor 2003, p. n.d.). Race- management: This term is indicative of the practices of preventing unity among different groups of workers. Discrimination was made on the basis of race, religion, place, age, and gender. The races were made to play against each other by introducing hatred, competition, and hostile feelings. Race management also gave rise to a new class of volatile hierarchical managers and supervisors who adopted extreme means to extract productivity from ‘machinated- labor’, a concept supported by scientific management (Esch and Roediger 2009, p 3- 4). Rationalism as well as Reductionism deals with those basic aspects within an organization which are not affected by external forces or elements. Also known as ‘new managerialism’, the term Neo– Taylorism holds that the central control must be in the hands of bureaucracy which must be “unwieldy, counterproductive and repressive” in nature. It is a ‘people- centered’ model which supports the system of motivating people so that the people, by themselves, strive to enhance ‘quality’ and achieve ‘excellence’. It is a new- wave management which has less faith in the practice of putting constant pressure on employees (Clarke, Cochrane and McLaughlin 1994, p 15). In modern high- tech companies, scientific management is “re–packaged” by means such as providing incentives to workers, worker welfare, and flexible policies for women workers, uncompromised qualitative productivity, total managerial control over strategies and company politics, etc (Mills, Pyrch and Sawchuk 2003, p.20-22). In case of mass production, the principles of scientific management is put to use by rigidly defining the tasks, minimizing risk of errors as an effort to lessen production cost and time, increased automation, and finally involving minimum number of workers in organization’s decisions. Moreover, the managerial goals are set by productive goals and job allocation is carried on basis of age and physical layout, type of technology adopted, interpersonal relationships and relation between management and employees, etc. (Computerized manufacturing automation : employment, education, and the workplace, n.d. p. 181). Scientific management had played a pivotal role in strengthening the popularity of industrial revolution. Industrialization required involvement of large number of workforce, machines and raw material. Absence of management was creating chaos, commotion and confusion at workplaces. Moreover, it also redefined central control, policies and execution and efficient methods of production. At the same time, it also introduced new practices like collection of data and analysis and interpretation of collected data. All these made this concept, not only acceptable but also widely practiced even in present times. One of the demerits of scientific management is that that it more effective in achieving short term goals and lacks the precision and directness of modern management practices. While the former rushes to optimize productivity of workers, modern theories support a slower approach at first, advancing in a methodical manner. This phenomenon further indicates the risk involved wt scientific management- organizational policies and executions might be wrong in the long run and might incur loss in terms of finance and market position (Taylor 2003, p. 68). In spite of its initial success during 1990’s, the concept of scientific management created another type of anxiety and aversion among the workforce. As performances were constantly judged or evaluated, large sections of workers feared that they would lose their jobs, as discriminations were made based on their productivity. However, this resulted in creation of a separate board other than production, which looked after selection, performance, time management, etc. (Grobler et al 2005, p. 3-4). Another demerit of scientific management is that it contained no provision for ‘self- interest’ within an individual worker and defects of managerial insight. Conclusion Scientific management is applied in modern day workplaces by setting some definite managerial ideologies. This includes allocation of specific work even within groups of worker’s with specific skills, simplification of reporting system, and other formal control mechanisms. Moreover, scientific management has further promoted a humane approach towards the workers and the approach is much softer compared to earlier crude and brutal ones. Though scientific management systematized the otherwise chaotic process of labor management and job distribution, labor management, optimization of human and capital resources and productivity maximization, it has its own limitations too. It introduced mental pressures on workers which hampered both professional and personal lives of workers. This can also be found in present times. With technologies and demand- supply mechanism changing at faster pace, employees are bowed down not only with work pressures but also with fear of losing job and socio- cultural exclusion. This implies that the concept of scientific management is equally utilized in today’s workplaces. However, in case of manual works, the practices of scientific management are made more lucid and flexible. Thus, by over- viewing different aspects of scientific management, it can be inferred that the concept is indispensible in today’s concept of organizations and their business operations. Nature and attributes of business functioning have gone through drastic change and is still changing. Management of organizations has become vast and complicated. Thus, the original concept of scientific management gave rise to numerous modified theories which individually suited to a wide range of problems or situations. References 1. Clarke, J, Cochrane, A and McLaughlin, E (1994), Managing Social Policy, SAGE, California. 2. Daft, R L and Marcic, D (2010), Understanding Management, Cengage Learning, US. 3. Dai, M 2011, ‘Innovative Computing and Information: International Conference’, Proceedings of the ICCIC 2011 Held in Wuhan, China, September 17-18, 2011, Springer, US. 4. Ennals, J R and Gustavsen, B (1999), Work Organisation and Europe As a Development Coalition, John Benjamins Publishing, Netherlands. 5. Esch, E and Roediger, D (2009), ‘One Symptom of Originality: Race and the Management of Labour in the History of the United States’, Historical Materialism: Research in Critical Marxist. Vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 3-43. 6. Grobbler, P. et al (2005) Human Res Mangmt in Sth Africa E3, Cengage Learning EMEA, US. 7. Littek, W and Charles, T (1995), The New Division of Labour: Emerging Forms of Work Organization in International Perspective, Walter de Gruyter, Germany. 8. Mills, J H, Pyrch, T. and Sawchuk, P. (2003), Workplace Learning: A Critical Introduction, University of Toronto Press, Canada. 9. Roh D S (2012), ‘Scienti?c Management in East Goes West : The Japanese and American Construction of Korean Labor’, MELUS, Spring 2012, Old Dominion University, US. 10. Taylor, F W (2003), Scientific Management, London: Routledge 11. United States, Office of Technology Assessment, Congress (n.d.). ‘Computerized manufacturing automation: employment, education, and the workplace’, Proceedings by United States, Office of Technology Assessment, Congress, US: DIANE Publishing Read More