The contrast between Taylorism in America and Japan

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction – Taylorism, the history
Taylorism outside the USA
The contrast between Japan and America
Conclusion
Reference List

Introduction – Taylorism, the history

Taylorism, as the principle of scientific business managements is commonly known, is an industrial management practice that has proven to be more productive that any other form of business management (Fisher and Sirianni 1984). F W Taylor, an American industrialist and business magnate came up with this method in the early 1900’s.

Taylor noted that Americans were inefficient in their every day life. This inefficiency was transferred to their working places and as such, affected the productivity of American firms and thus their revenues were effectively reduced. As such, he noted that there was need to improve the efficiency in American industries and thus conducted a series of scientific researches.

The researches revealed that efficiency in industrial management could be improved through scientific methods (Montemurro n.d.). He thus theorized the scientific management method, which was based on breaking down of job tasks and roles into small and manageable fragments and identifying the most effective way of accomplishing these tasks. These was followed by the standardization of every fragment of work and determine the least amount of time necessary and the most effective way to do that task.

This was intended to ensure that every fragment of task was completed within the least time possible thus reducing time wasting and increasing profits. Scientific management clearly defined the roles of both the worker and the manager: the worker was the executioner while the manager was the planner and supervisor (Slattery 2003). Taylorism, thus become a key idea in business management and was adopted in many countries including Britain, Russia and Japan.

However, the idea has come under criticism from many sociologists for its mechanization of the worker. As such, it has undergone numerous changes in recent times to fit into each context well. This paper endeavors to contrast the application of Taylorism in America and Japan as well as showing how successful it was in Japan.

Taylorism outside the USA

Taylor’s principle of fragmenting and standardizing of industrial process was seen as the best way to enhance industrial efficiency. It streamlined activities through very close and controlled supervision and ensuring the quality was met at every level of production. Other than this, it created a system of production that facilitated the mass production concept of industrial goods.

As a result of this, it soon spread to many parts of the world, in which industrial managers were struggling with efficiency and wanted to improve the manufacturing process. The scientific management was adopted in many European industries as it had a very significant impact on the assembly line.

The method gave European industrial managers the much-needed justification for reigning control of the production process. In Russia Lenin claimed that it was “a necessary means for having massive production of goods needed in a socialist economy” (Slattery 2003). In Britain, the idea was received with criticism and was initially rejected and modified, while the Japanese reception of the idea was openly received. The full implication of Taylorism was however evident after the Second World War (Tsutsui 2001).

The contrast between Japan and America

Taylorism in Japan

There is contrasting evidence on the time the full implementation of scientific management in Japan. Some scholars argue that it occurred somewhere between World War 1 and World War 2. These theorists argue that it at this time it was only limited to fragmentation of industrial labor and that the monetary reward scheme for the Japanese work was not implemented at all.

The scientific model of systematizing industrial labor greatly limited the skills of the worker, a notion that was largely unpopular with the Japanese. As such, the Taylorism was almost abandoned in the period between the two Word Wars (Grint 2005).

Tsutsui explain that the Japanese scientific management method was more concerned with the welfare of the employee, the task, the organization and the state over profitable enterprise (1998). This was realized through the formation of small working groups at the work place. This social psychology method meant that industries were seen as communities’ in terms of labor and management.

Thus, each of this two was meant to benefit from the organization. The Japanese worker as part of the organizations community thus had a stake in decision-making and could own part of the stock in the organization. This meant that there was no mechanization of the employee.

Like their American counterpart, the Japanese industrial scientific management method was seriously concerned with reducing costs. However, the two countries differed on the way of reducing costs.

While the American chose to incorporate Fordism (a theory of line production formulated by Henry Ford), the Japanese opted for Lean Production a method that focused on managing waste rather than abundant production (Tsutsui 1998). Lean Production required that the Japanese worker be totally faithful to the organizations rules of controlled production.

Tsutsui (1998) continues to explain that there were further differences between the practices in the two countries. The Japanese scientific management theory emphasized the need for a strong Japanese identity of exceptionalism and a strong spiritual devotion to work. The Japanese industrial manager thus opted to incorporate the Japanese culture of spiritual guidance and inspiration. Appealing to the workers spirituality became a core foundation for boasting and motivating production.

Spiritualization of the Japanese industrial working environment involves the use of the small working groups that would employ the social psychology as the means to devotion to duty by the Japanese worker. Thus, the incorporation of the Japanese culture of exceptionality and spiritualization resulted to a Japanese styled scientific management practice that differed significantly to Taylor’s original approach.

Taylorism in America

As stated earlier Taylorism emerged from the American industrial revolution. The American model theorizes that enhancing efficiency can only be measured if there is a great number of goods produced as such the mass production system was implemented. Taylor theorized that industries had to produce the greatest number of goods such that there would not be any problems sharing the goods.

This resulted in excessive wastage. The mass production mentality saw the birth of big cooperation and multinational who implemented Henry Ford’s idea of production line, a concept that generated mass products. This was in great contrast to the Japanese lean production (Slattery 2003).

Taylorism also saw the American worker as demotivated and that to realize the greatest production from the worker, the worker had top be motivated. Taylor out of research theorized that the best motivation for any worker was money. Therefore, Taylor introduced the concept of paying the worker for work done rather than for time spent in the works place. Thus, the industry was interested in the profits it made from the worker rather than welfare of the worker (Grint 2005)

Taylor theorized that the best way to ensure efficiency in American industries was through fragmentation of labor and determining the minimum time that would be profitable in doing a task. To determine the profitable optimal time for every action Taylor undertook a series of test to determine that best way to accomplish that task. This resulted in strict routine instructions for every task, which the worker had to strictly adhere to.

The result is that it reduced the worker to level of “cogs and gears” (Slattery 2003). Fragmentation of labor also meant that the planning and the planner were isolated from the execution and the executioner of the action.

Thus, the worker (the executioner) was just seen as a machine to complete a given task and therefore did not have any voice in organizations management (Grint 2005). Grint also adds that the American brand of Taylorism totally removed the power and skill of production from the worker to the supervisor and manager (2005).

Conclusion

Taylorism has gained massive support since its inception because of its production potential. It is a method of production that is focused on production and all factors that enhance it.

It quickly spread from American where it originated to other parts of the world. However, due to the dynamism of world societies some of the countries had to revise to fit into their unique needs. These revised standards brought abut interesting contrasts to the idea. However, it is worth noting that these contrasts are superficial as the revised methods still borrows heavily from Taylor’s original model.

Reference List

Fisher, F., Sirianni, C. 1984. Critical studies in organization and Bureaucracy.

Philadelphia: Temple University Press, Grint, K., 2005. The sociology of work. Cambridge: Polity Press, Montemurro, V., n.d. Fredrick Taylor’s principles of scientific management and the multiple frames fro viewing work organizations offered by Bolman & Deal, Carlson, and peter. Prof. Frank Smith Ed. [Online]Available at http://www.vicmont.org/sjuweb/Coursework%20Web/EDU%205571/PDF/Taylor/Taylor%20Essay.pdf

Slattery, M., 2003. Key ideas in sociology. Cheltenham: Nelson Thomas Ltd,

Tsutsui, W., 1998. Manufacturing ideology: Scientific Management in Twentieth-Century Japan. Princeton: Princeton University Press

Click Here To Order Now!