Category: Scientific Management

Old thumb rule is the process which was developed by trial and error methods which don’t have any scientific base. These methods don’t have any scientific base. Also these processes were not transferrable to any new worker. Taylor’s scientific and rational attitude challenged the conventional processes (Oberoi, p.3). Soldering of work was there because of no standard of work were followed aand it results into restricted output (Gull, 2017,p.68).

According to Gull (2017,p.68) often workmen don’t used to have proper clarity on of responsibilities because there was no any division of work. Workmen/ workwomen were given tasks without considering their skills, expertise. That’s why in second principle of Taylorism the role of managers come into picture. They should identify the strengths/ weaknesses of each worker and identify at which element he/she is good at. After that they should be given training of the scientifically developed method from the first stage of Taylorism.

Taylor observed that “unless the science of work and scientifically selected men is brought together all work will be lost”. The trained workers should be given the work at what they are best at and they should follow the standard method. According to Taylor it is extremely important that managers to observe as well as work in coherence with employee.

Turan (2015) argued that management should take over all the work in which they are good at. Worker should to do specific work which has been assigned by their managers. In earlier time workmen were expected to major work. There was no equal share of work. Management should take responsibility of developing, designing the processes, technology. Supervising is also an important duty of the management. On the other hand, workmen/employees should focus on their specific duties and they should follow standardised process (Oberoi, p.5). Equal division of work was highlighted in the fourth stage of Taylorism(Huang et al., 2013).

Challenges in Implementing Taylorism

According to (Jorge & Santos, 2015) challenges in implementing the Scientific management theory:

• The lank of education workers makes them unaware of benefits of scintific management. To tackle this issue taylor proposed ‘seperation of powers’ i.e. according ones educational level different powers are allocated to them. Ultimately it leads into two part process which planning and execution.
• Task allocation is one of the stages of taylorism. To run the whole process according to scientific management principles, it created some extra positions like supervisors, line leader. Which ultimately makes the scientific management costly? Also it is not at all flexible for each age group of workers because of systems are standardised and time allocated is fixed.
• Dehuminitization of workers. One of the demotivating assumptions of Taylorism for workmen is that workers can’t think on their own. According to (Huang et al., 2013) Taylorism motivates the workforce by giving extra money/ incentives. And it is assumed that this is the only way to motivate a worker.

In Pennsylvania, Taylor showed example of Schmidt. Normally, workmen used to 12.5 tons of pig iron per day. Taylor observed that maybe there is soldering of work due to that they will be redundancy of work by workmen. So he decided to apply scientific management to this industry. He studied all the processes. He then implemented taylorism. He gave proper rest periods to Schmidt and also he increased his wages to 1.85$/day which was 60% more than what average men used to get. Then there was significant increase in the output of the workmen, it increased to 47.5 Tons/day. Hence, Taylor successfully demonstrated his theory (Bell & Martin, 2012).

Criticism

Taylor believed that Taylorism will be successful only if worker gets advantages. Two obstacles were there according to Oberoi:

1. He considered every individual is exactly same in nature; he completely ignored individual attitude towards work.
2. Also economic interest of every workmen can be different.

On these points this theory was criticized many times. Huang, Tung, Lo and Chou (2013, p.79) criticized that, “Taylorism includes division of labour at extremes.where task is evaluated in seconds. It widens and promotes low trust relationship between employee and employer”.

Conclusion

Taylorism consists of mainly four principles. But some organization changed these in compliance with their set of process. Till now Taylorism is valid in many organizations/ industries (Huang et al., 2013). Also Taylor’s scientific management faces many criticism. And Taylor tried to overcome upon them but these were can not be completely removed. Challenges in the implementing this theory were also rise (Jorge & Santos, 2015).

In my opinon, Taylorism was a big success in the world of management, which completely revolutionised the modern management world. It also gave birth to many modern concepts like Time and Motion study, Operation excellence etc. Although it faced some challenges, issues and criticism, it is still valid in many organization by one way or another.

Scientific management is also widely recognised as Taylorism. Taylorism was used in industrial firm to solve the complex problem about increasing the labour productivity. Scientific management allows absolute uniformity to a greater extent within the labour’s working in an industry. this eventually enforced great deal of burden, responsibilities, duties to the managers which never took place in the past.

Frederick W. Taylor an American Engineer developed the scientific management theory in United States during the late 19th century. After working as an employee in a middle steel company he realized the company was greatly affected by the employees as well as lack of compliance between the employees and employers. This observation made him build advanced ideas which eventually helped industries to enhance their productivity (Livvarçin & Kurt, 2012).

In 1885, after joining the American Mechanical Engineers association (ASME) Taylor presented two articles, ‘Piece Rate’ and ‘Shop-Management’. The first article suggested changing of waging system to motivate the people who work with full dedication. The second article mainly focused on management philosophy, highlighted the importance of high wages, incentives and also mass production. The importance of relationship between managers and workers was also pointed out (Hodgetts, 1990).

By observation, the definition of scientific management can be easily understood. Scientific means involves the use of techniques based on facts or experimental analysis against general assumptions while management can be simply described as process of dealing things for others. Therefore it can be rightly said to be the “art of knowing exactly what is to be done and the best way of doing it” (Bose, 2012). Techniques given by were widely used in different groups like governmental departments, families, universities etc. and showed great success in various organizational situations (Taylor, 1911).

Taylor conveyed management is fully responsible for understanding the scientific methods and also to fulfill some experiments to which they were not at all familiar. He announced these missions and responsibilities as ‘scientific management principles’. These principles are as follows:

• Scientific methods were used, rather than using the old thumb rule.
• Workers were made capable for the job by using scientific procedures.
• The employers and employees should maintain healthy relationships whereas the company wants all the staff to follow the rules and regulations laid by the company.
• Equal distribution of work, management and workers should concentrate on their part without hindering in each other’s work.

Taking these scientific management principles into account, it can be easily said that they significantly contributed to the modern management. Instead of the rule of thumb method which is the first principle, new scientific methods which are more accurate were invented. The second principle mainly focused on workers, to make each worker capable for performing the tasks. Workers were selected through a certain process . To achieve smooth workflow in an industry there should be good understanding between the management and workmen is described in third principle. The fourth principle focuses on Division of responsibility. So basically equal amount of work is distributed between management and the workers which they have to carry out without interfering each other.

Taylor developed a technique called ‘Soldiering’ for encouraging the workers. Taylor studied few people for around 3-4 days, to find a suitable person for the job. Four people who appeared suitable were picked and each of the people was studied. Taylor found out that on the salary of $1.15 he was able to buy a small piece of land and was working on it before and after the work for building a house (Taylor, 1998).

Taylor’s theory was further pursued and simplified by Henry Ford. Some interesting techniques were implemented by ford. The fabrication line was transformed into an automatic process, where the workers were stationary i.e. they performed their tasks without moving, and as automatic process was used it was easy for managers to look after employees as well as pace of the work. The next idea was that every single worker should get same amount of money because not much skills was required for performing tasks on automatic production line. Ford also said that incentives were not needed in spite of that he would increase the salaries. With this ideas, Ford increased the salaries and was able to predict all his costs, since each workers had fixed and equal salary, managers were able to control the pace of manufacturing, therefore controlling every stage of production, what he called mass production (Hoffmane, 2009).

Introduction

The need for Scientific Management arose when the evolution and evolvement of the world. Life always evolving so are new theories and perspectives in the world of Management, Business and the world of work revolutionized. Long ago at the bartering stages of life where people would trade crops and livestock we had more small farms and farming, now it evolves where the small farms turns into Factories, small shops where in Trinidad we would call “Parlor/ Snacket ” to Groceries and Companies this is where we moved to a new era of the Stage of Industrialization. From here we now need the supporting machinery, Power-Steam engine and Hydro-power. So therefor Machine innovations steps in.

The Distribution and Transportation of goods or raw materials now needed new intervention so the evolvement kept growing and growing. From this Intervention, came innovation of Transport access way, and efficient transport, railroads, systematic road systems, steam-boats, aircraft and so on. Lines of Communication is so evolved where it was the telegraph, to telephone to pager, to cell phones, computers and real time conversation through technology. Now you can have a business meeting sitting in your office with others around the world via internet.

From revolutionary changes from farm era to factories the issues that arises was people working alongside machinery, large groups of people working together with no structure. The industries were growing at a rapid state. This however now stems the need of an intervention to create structure and standards. The companies have a strive to grow big but it rises questions of help to grow and get there. This help needed includes how to manage all their employees, organizing managerial structure, training employees (where many of them are non- English speaking immigrants), scheduling complex manufacturing operations, dealing with increased labour dissatisfaction and resulting strikes, needs a new approach to coordination and control of large complex companies. This is where The Classical Management Theories of the founding fathers came about. Max Weber (1864-1920) – The Theory Bureaucracy; Fredrick W. Taylor (1856-1915)- Scientific Management; Henri Fayol (1841-1925).

These Theories and Perspectives evolved since the late 1800’s, which is chunked into three major perspective of Management. They are, The Classical, The Humanistic and The Management Science Perspectives. http://polaris.umuc.edu/tgrodsky/admn601/managethought.html

a. Discuss the principles of scientific management and its contribution to the work environment also at the end discussed its pros and cons

The Principles of Scientific Management

“Scientific management emphasizes scientifically determined jobs and management practices as the way to improve efficiency and labor productivity.” Richard L. Daft, Management Twelfth Edition, (Vanderbilt University 2014), 74

The Scientific Management Theory by Fredrick W. Taylor (1856-1915) is a Theory which arose not only to increase the need of productivity but a way to grow and broaden productivity by having a series of principles to increase the efficiency of workers. The Scientific Management Theory was developed apart from Fredrick W Taylor, input from Henry L. Gantt, and Frank and Lillian Gilbreth.

“Fredrick W. Taylor (1856-1915) deals with his philosophy on four basic principles:

1. The development of true science of Management, so that the best method for performing each task could be determined. For Example, A Bakery (Kiss Baking Company Limited), the time taken to bake 1000 cakes.
2. The scientific selection of workers, so that each worker would be given responsibility for the task for which he or she was best suited. Same Example as above, (Kiss Baking Company Limited) The workers that mix the batter, the workers that batches the batter, the workers at Filling cream station, Baking or oven area, packaging.
3. The scientific education and development of the worker Here is where it involves training the workers for their specified tasks, the increase in knowledge of the tasks of the worker the faster it is for them to perform.
4. Intimate, friendly co-operation between management and labour.” The more pressured and stressed environment the workers are in the less production management would receive as inversely to the more relaxed but focused the environment, the company will benefit from better production. http://polaris.umuc.edu/tgrodsky/admn601/managethought.html

Fredrick. W. Taylor, bases his beliefs on the emphasis on increasing production than fussing over profits. He believed that when there is an increase in production there will be an increase in profits and that both Management and labour has the responsibility and must have common interest to accomplish increase productivity.

His scientific management method was studied and developed from a manufacturing type company view more specific production-line studies. He analysed and studied work methods and time taken to do each component. He dissected each job specifics then designed the quickest and best methods of performing each task. In this way he established how much workers can have produced and how much productivity will be resulted. He also endorses that employers pays their productive workers at a higher rate than others a motivation incentive which would benefit both the company and employee.

In society today this method is the foundation, the godfather to all different job specifics and projects. Form production-line factories, oil and gas, construction and many more. These principles still apply today. In Project Management many of the scientific approaches is used still today.

This modern production by Fredrick W. Taylor is just one legacy of Scientific Management. The techniques have been applied to many tasks in non- industrial organizations ranging from fast food service to training of doctors.

Here are some limitations of The Scientific Management Theory; Workers and Unions began to opposed this approach because they feared that working harder or faster would shorten their work available causing possible layoffs. Have too little motivational impact. It puts the employee undue pressure to perform faster and faster increasing productivity into profitability. As a result, more workers joined unions and reinforced mistrust that shaded labour-management relations for decades.

The Principles of Bureaucracy “Bureaucracy in Formal Organisations informationparlor.com”

b. Discuss the principles of bureaucracy and its contribution to contemporary management also at the end discuss its pros and cons

“A systematic approach developed in Europe that looked at the organization as a whole is the bureaucratic organizations approach, a subfield within the classical perspective. Max Weber (1864–1920), a German theorist, introduced most of the concepts on bureaucratic organizations.

During the late 1800s, many European organizations were managed on a personal, family-like basis. Employees were loyal to a single individual rather than to the organization or its mission. The dysfunctional consequence of this management practice was that resources were used to realize individual desires rather than organizational goals. Weber envisioned organizations that would be managed on an impersonal, rational basis. This form of organization was called a bureaucracy.

This type of management stresses the need for strict hierarchical controls which governs by clear defined regulations and functional lines of authority. This type of management is needed for large organisation where the specified divisions of labour were defined and whose objectives and activities were totally thought out. “Max Weber (1864-1920) believed that technical competence should be emphasized and that performance evaluation should be made entirely on the basis of merit”. http://polaris.umuc.edu/tgrodsky/admn601/managethought.html

Bureaucracy lays the foundations for contemporary management which envisions organizations and manage on a rational basis that involves planning, leading, organizing and controlling operations to achieve organizational goals. Managers at their functions at each level of an organization are responsible for using resources effectively. Building skills in making decisions, monitoring information and supervising personnel are essential to achieving success. Challenges include managing a diverse workforce, maintaining a competitive edge, behaving ethically and using emerging technologies. By: Tara Duggan, “Contemporary Management & Building Management Skills,” Updated September 26,2017

The advantages of Bureaucracy in an organization are as follows; There are specialized division of work. Rules and Regulations are designed to ensure the consistency in performance. Hierarchical authority, clear lines of authority not confusion of answering to two and three bosses. Proper Record keeping of each function. Overall this type of management give structure to company and organizations. Many Companies uses this type of management especially government. As much as it has structure and the benefits listed above there are some disadvantages to it where the organization becomes rigid and inflexible. The Creativity and innovation for new ideas are suppressed. The Organizational rules and regulations are given priority over an individual’s need and emotions. The paperwork and procedures may be long complex and frustrated. This can lead to the lack of motivation throughout the organization.

c. Based on your experience at work or school, describe some ways in which the principles of scientific management and bureaucracy are still used in organizations[image: ]

In today’s society the functions in the working world, bureaucracy is used and still governs organizations weather it may be a school or public or private sector organization. We use what is called the organization structure which set the clear lines, functional authority and standards of an organization. There are the Functional Organization where the line of Authority come from the functional managers in their respective department. Another spectrum is the Projectized Organization here the firm’s administrative support groups (HR, Legal, Finance, Controller, IT, Communications etc.) reports to the president or CEO as staff operation though it may have functional members serve on more than two projects. The Matrixed Organization is the combination of both projectized and functional. This type of organization can take on a wide variety of specific forms, depending on which of the two extremes. In Project Management It should be emphasized that the PM controls when and what these people will do, while the functional managers control who will be assigned to the project and how the work will be done, including the technology used. “A firm, if successful, tends to grow, adding resources and people, developing an organisational structure. Commonly, the focus of the structure is specialization of the human elements of the group. As long as its organizational structure is sufficient to the tasks imposed on it, the structure tends to persist”. Jack R Meredith & Samuel J. Mantel,Jr.(Project Management A Managerial Approach, Eight Edition), 176

In my experience the principles of bureaucracy and scientific management still are being used in organizations. There is a structure and line authority to follow. In Government offices and some private sector in Trinidad and Tobago this type of management is clearly used likewise, in my organization there is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Then The Chief Financial Officer, General Manager, The Functional Managers to name a few are; Human Resource, Accounts, Communications, Administrative, and so on in its respective departments, supervisors and then lower level working or floor staff. The differential rate system, Taylor (1856-1915) is still being used where, when the employee passes their previous performance to earn and incentive.

The Principles of Bureaucracy and scientific management, will it ever cease to be part of organizational life?

d. Do you believe these characteristics will ever cease to be part of organizational life? This requires a discussion and support for your answer.

This plan is still being used today and is still strongly influenced on organizations. Pioneers uses these form of management to govern their empire, governments have been using these forms as foundations for the structure of running the government in a systematic way. These characteristics will not cease to be part of organizational life because it is too rooted and intertwined into the foundations of the leading management style which govern and runs the operations no matter what style of management is used. People have been shaping and reshaping organizations for many centuries. Through world history, we can trace the stories of people in formal organizations such as the Greek and Roman armies or The Roman

Catholic Church. People also have been long writing how to make organizations efficient and effective long before such terms as “management” came into common usage.

References

1. Richard L. Daft, Management Twelfth Edition, (Vanderbilt University 2014), 74
2. http://polaris.umuc.edu/tgrodsky/admn601/managethought.html
3. By: Tara Duggan, “Contemporary Management & Building Management Skills,” Updated September 26, 2017
4. https://www.managementstudyhq.com/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-bureaucracy.html
5. Jack R Meredith & Samuel J. Mantel, Jr. (Project Management A Managerial Approach, Eight Edition), 176

Explain and critically discuss the main tenets of the following Theoretical approaches in the field of public administration: (a) Classical/ Orthodox Public Administration approach, (b) Human Relations approach.

The study of public administration provides many paradigms on administration, yet the Classical Public Administration approach and Human Relations approach stand out due to their striking contrast. Understanding the tenets of approaches provide us with context for making decisions pertaining to the structure and management of the organizations. I will explain the tenants and their context followed by critically discuss their deficiencies.

(a) Classical Public Administration stems from the “classical approaches of Weber and Taylor” (Rosenbloom, Kravchuk, & Clerkin, 2009, p. 178). Classical or often referred to as orthodoxy public administration holds maximizing efficiency, effectiveness, and economy, as its core tenants. Wilson is credited for identifying the need to study administration under the microscope of its own science and the departure from the study of politics. “The Study of Administration” (1887) When Wilson wrote, “Administration lies outside the proper sphere of politics. Administrative questions are not political questions. Although politics sets the tasks for administration it should not be suffered to manipulate its offices” advocating for a politics-administration dichotomy. The focus to maximize efficiency and effectiveness can also be seen in Max Weber’s “ideal type” of bureaucracy. Weber took look at administration with a big picture perspective on structure and organization. He theorized that the best form of organization is the “ideal type” of Bureaucracy and could be accomplished with Module 3 pg 3 Presentation specialization or division of labor and authority, hierarchy of authority to coordinate activities, Career structure based on merit and seniority, permanent and stable bureaucratic structures, and political neutrality. Notably, Weber also believed bureaucracy needed to be “impersonal and dehumanizing. This was considered by weber to be bureaucracy’s special virtue because it eliminated irrational emotional elements from the performance of the individual bureaucrats and the organization as a whole” (Rosenbloom, Kravchuk, & Clerkin, 2009, p. 152). Frederick Taylor built upon the “ideal type” to develop the theory of Scientific Management. Using a smaller perspective, he took a scientific approach to efficiency and tasks. Viewing people as cogs in a machine (initiated by Weber’s impersonal view) “Taylor embraced this transformation as a prerequisite for scientifically finding the most efficient way of accomplishing any given task” (Rosenbloom, Kravchuk, & Clerkin, 2009, p. 154). Taylor famously demonstrated Scientific Management in a study of bricklayers. He conducted time and motion studies on workers having to bend down to pick up bricks, restructured the task by adding a table to stage bricks at waist height resulting in a 300% increase in efficiency. Taylor suggested management should scientifically study and develop tasks to find the “one best way”, carefully select workers to appropriately perform tasks, motivate workers with pay for production, provide authority to management to redesign processes and workflow. If these four scientific principles were followed, he believed organizations would see an increase in productivity and efficiency. Luther Gulick is celebrated for codifying the principles of the classical approach and developing prescriptions for the accomplishment of the classical principles of economy, efficiency, and economy. Additionally identifying the work of executives “consisting of POSDCORB, an acronym that may well continue to describe the core curriculum of many public administration master’s degree programs: planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting, and budgeting” (Rosenbloom, Kravchuk, & Clerkin, 2009, p. 178).

(b) Human Relations Approach is a response to the Classical approach and the dehumanizing consequences of its principles. “Proponents of the human relations approach work to develop ways of making organizations less socially and psychologically demeaning to employees. This approach accepts efficiency and productivity as legitimate values but seeks to maximize them by eliminating the dysfunctions” (Rosenbloom, Kravchuk, & Clerkin, 2009, p. 156). In Dr. Andrew’s presentation he lays out how proponents sought to accomplish this with three tenants to the Human relations approach. Module 5 Presentation Simon (1)Emphasizes to make organizations less socially and psychologically demeaning to employees, (2)Aims to eliminate organizational dysfunctions caused by over specialization, hierarchical, and dehumanization of employees, and (3)Suggests that good leadership will lead to greater motivation which subsequently will result in better productivity/ performance. Elton Mayo, Fritz Roethlisberger observed what is known as the Hawthorne Effect, from their studies at the Hawthorne Works of the Western Electric Company. Mayo and Roethlisberger conducted tests focused on understanding the environmental and physical impact on productivity. They discovered the increased productivity observed was caused by the attention given by means of the study. The study concluded that the workers were motivated by the increased attention. Essentially dealing a major blow to the Classical Approach, because it “was a radical departure from the Weberian and Taylorist traditions emphasizing dehumanization because it asserted that human factors are key contributors to organizational efficiency.” (Rosenbloom, Kravchuk, & Clerkin, 2009, p. 156). The Hawthorne Effect, supports the tenants of Human Relations Approach in that humane treatment and leadership can result in increased productivity and efficiency. As Herbert Simon wrote pg64“the individual is limited by his values and those conceptions of purpose which influence him in making his decisions.” Chester Barnard’s insight highlighted the argument for better leadership and human relations. “In Barnard’s view, there was a “zone of indifference” in which workers would follow the directives of management without question. But orders beyond this zone would be questioned and perhaps opposed, subverted, or circumvented. A key to effective management was to expand the zone of indifference” (Rosenbloom, Kravchuk, & Clerkin, 2009, p. 157).Barnard’s view recognized workers ability to refuse to participate in work and the Hawthorne studies observation that workers also influence each other and form “informal organizations”, reminding me of the proverb “one bad apple spoils the bunch!”

Criticisms

Simon pg63 content plays a greater role in the application of administrative principles than is allowed for in the formal administrative theory of the present time.

Simon pg64 A fundamental principle of administration, which follows almost immediately from the rational character of ‘good’ administration, is that among several alternatives involving the same expenditure that one should always be selected which leads to the greatest accomplishment of administrative objectives; and among several alternatives that lead to the same accomplishment that one should be selected which involves the least expendi- ture.

Simon pg 64 These limits include (a)limits on his ability to perform and (b) limits on his ability to make correct decisions.

Taylor’s scientific management has traditionally been vilified within public administration. Briefly discuss the major tenets of scientific management and its origins. Examine the criticisms against scientific management and explain how scientific management, if at all, is still relevant in public administration today.

Frederick Taylor’s scientific management has been a staple in our history and understanding of administration. Theorized during a time ripe for its conception, and complementary to other train of thoughts during the time. Counter theorists have greatly criticized scientific management, yet organizations around the world are still influenced by these principles. I will briefly discuss the origin scientific management and it’s tenants, followed by an examination of its criticisms and its relevance today.

In order to understand the origin of Taylor’s scientific management, we must acknowledge the historical context and paradigm created by Woodrow Wilson and Max Weber which would later be known as the classical or orthodox approach to public administration. Wilson and Weber set the stage for Taylor by initiating the acceptance for the scientific study of administration. Wilson stated “the science of administration is the latest fruit of that study of the science of politics.” Theorists of the time accepted the need for a politics-administration dichotomy, hierarchical organizational structures reliant on position classification, division of labor, and management legitimized by authority for the coordination and control of labor. Weber’s idea of impersonal or dehumanizing treatment of workers was the key foundation for Taylor to build his theory upon. “Taylor embraced this transformation as a prerequisite for scientifically finding the most efficient way of accomplishing any given task” (Rosenbloom, Kravchuk, & Clerkin, 2009, p. 154). As Scientific management focused on maximizing efficiency by identifying the “one best way” to accomplish highly specialized tasks. “Frederick Taylor developed and advocated the premise that effective, efficient management, could be reduced to a set of scientific principles” (Rosenbloom, Kravchuk, & Clerkin, 2009, p. 16). The scientific principles included: Module 3 slide 6

Management should systematically study how tasks are performed using “time-and motion” studies –develop “one best way” of performing work.

Workers are carefully selected to perform specific task (physical, psychological).

Workers are motivated by money, i.e., piece-rate pay plan. Workers are paid based on how much is produced. Punishments (effective sanction) can also be used to increase productivity.

Work is re-divided (re-engineering) so that management can have more responsibility to design work processes and workflow (“science” of efficiency engineering).

Taylor’s scientific management gained traction, by demonstrating its principles in various time and motion studies. In these studies he would breakdown work into its most basic of tasks and study the movements and time requirements of each worker conducting these tasks. He then restructured or adjust the tasks further in order to increase productivity and efficiency.

Criticizers of Scientific management attacked scientific management’s legitimacy as scientific, prioritization of efficiency, and it’s dehumanizing nature. Herbert Simon in Proverbs of Administration (1946) explained how many of the propositions in scientific management were nothing more than proverbs. This meant that, because these propositions couldn’t be falsified and both sides could be argued as true, then they couldn’t be considered scientific. “Herbert Simon pg 53 proverbs of administration 1946 A scientific theory should tell what is true but also what is false.” After critical analysis of four administrative principles Simon writes: pg 62 “None of the four survived in very good shape, for in each case there was found, instead of an unequivocal principle, a set of two or more mutually incompatible principles apparently equally applicable to the administrative situation.” Dwight Waldo dealt a blow to scientific management’s goal of maximizing efficiency. Explaining how public administration’s priorities do not align with the goal of efficiency like private businesses, instead it’s priority is providing service to the public. What I believe to be the largest upset to scientific management was the Hawthorne effect in which Elton Mayo, Fritz Roethlisberger’s study concluded that workers could be motivated by human relations and dehumanizing behavior isn’t necessary to increase productivity and effectiveness. The Hawthorne effect “was a radical departure from the Weberian and Taylorist traditions emphasizing dehumanization because it asserted that human factors are key contributors to organizational efficiency” (Rosenbloom, Kravchuk, & Clerkin, 2009, p. 156). The critical review of the scientific principles demonstrated the impact that human concerns have on administration and should also be studied more so than the narrow view of maximizing efficiency. As Simon also stated “pg65 the principles of administration must be concerned with the determinants of loyalty and morale, with leadership and initiative, and with the influences that determine where the individual’s organizational loyalties will be attached.”

Today we still see the principles of scientific management utilized in practice in organizations across the world. Lessons have been learned about the dehumanization of the workforce, but the principles and “scientific approach” for evaluating and improving tasks has given way to the science of “process improvement.” The breaking down of work into its most basic tasks can also be seen in manufacturing and farming all over the world.

Some scholars have argued that leading public administration theorists have failed to provide an intellectual consensus about the field, which is necessary to move the field from a profession to a discipline. Briefly explain the arguments presented by Dwight Waldo and Herbert Simon about the field of Public Administration, i.e., fact versus value, science versus profession. On which side of the debate do you come down? Why? In other words, should the field of Public Administration strive to be art, science, or engineering?

Dwight Waldo and Herbert Simon sought to further the consensus of the direction the field of public administration should seek. Robert Behn uses these arguments and the principles of administration in order to ask the question: should Public Administration should be considered an art, science, or engineering? I argue that Public Administration falls within the realm of engineering, reasons of which I will expand on later.

Herbert Simon, broke down the scientific legitimacy of public administration. Claiming the principles are nothing more than proverbs. Essentially, infallible and untestable. Herbert Simon pg 53 proverbs of administration 1946 “It is not that the propositions expressed by the proverbs are insufficient; it is rather that they prove too much. A scientific theory should tell what is true but also what is false.” He continued to argue that these proverbs shouldn’t be treated as principles but “criteria for describing and diagnosing administrative situations” Simon pg 62 instead of using these proverbs as strict rules for decisions administrators should be using facts and values in making decisions of how to conduct public administration this is due to our failure to know all the facts. Administration is handicaped to truly become efficient and scientific do to our “limited” rationality when making decisions. Individuals are limited by three factors which affect public administration’s ability to make decisions. (Simon)

“the individual is limited by those skills, habits, and reflexes which are no longer in the realm of the conscious.”Simon 64

“the individual is limited by his values and those conceptions of purpose which influence him in making his decisions.”Simon 64

“the individual is limited by the extent of his knowledge of things relevant to his job. This applies both to the basic knowledge required in decision-mak- ing-a bridge designer must know the fun- damentals of mechanics-and to the in-formation that is required to make his decisions appropriate to the given situation.”Simon 65

What he describes by these factors of limited rationality becomes known as “bounded” rationality. Meaning our decisions are limited to our capacity or knowledge. Simon hoped to push public administration to become more scientific, but due to the limits of its principles and rationality he concludes “It may be objected that administration cannot aspire to be a ‘science’; that by the nature of its subject it cannot be more than an ‘art.’ Whether true or false, this objection is irrelevant to the present discussion. The question of how ‘exact’ the principles of administration can be made is one that only experience can answer. But as to whether they should be logical or illogical there can be no debate. Even an ‘art’ cannot be founded on proverbs.” Simon 67

Dwight Waldo argues due to public administration’s duty to professional and political bureaucracies, and the decisions administrators must make without democratic process, exposes the inexistence of a politic-administration dichotomy. According to Waldo, public administration is “not the practice of a single discipline, but utilizes many. It is not united by a single theory, and is justified and given direction by a broad social purpose” (Andrew, 2019 Module 4). Therefore, supporting the idea that due to the broad nature and the importance of related “normative and empirical theories” (Andrew, 2019 Module 4) of public administration it should attempt to pursue professionalism. Waldo also argues that the scientific management values of efficiency and effectiveness are misaligned with public administrative values. The purpose of bureaucracy and public administration is to serve the public within its constitutional bounds. Module 3 slide 14 “Scientific management and efficiency is not the core idea of government bureaucracy; service to the public is.” Due to public administration being beholden to government, bureaucracy, and public service, “he suggested that public administration ought to be pursued from a ‘professional perspective’ Raadschelders 283.

I must agree with Robert Behn, the idea of public administration being solely rooted in science is romantic and appealing. As Behn 1996 pg 121 “all professionals, regardless of their fields, would like to declare that in their work they strictly employ the science of their professions. Indeed, many do make this claim. Yet, the analysis of the real work of any profession reveals a variety of decisions that can only be called judgments.” As Simon demonstrated our bounded rationality prevents us from being perfectly scientific, yet we shouldn’t be discouraged from scientifically evaluating and improving administrative processes. Additionally, we must also recognize the undemocratic decisions we impose on public administration as well as our duty to professional and public bureaucracies, as suggested by Waldo. Therefore, I’ve concluded that public administration cannot rely on being science or art alone, instead public administration requires expertise in both, as seen in engineering. Principles of public administration in practice cannot be blatantly executed without human sentiment. This sentiment is my basis that public administration falls within the realm of engineering. Behn pg 121 “Good public managers like good engineers have to be both scientists and artists. Effective public managers are both creative and analytical. They can be serious and methodical but also inventive and spontaneous. In our haste to make public management more scientific, we ought not to get rid of the art.”

Illustrating your analysis with examples, discuss the influence of the theory of Scientific Management on the design of work in the modern organisatin, making reference to both its strengths and weaknesses in relation to its impact on organizational design.

This essay will discuss the influence that Taylors’ Scientific management has had on the design of modern organisations, specifically looking at the strengths and weaknesses it has had on organisational design and illustrating this by defining scientific management, as well as the background. It will also demonstrate the positive and negative impacts scientific management has had on modern organisations by referring to the Education system and McDonald’s and whether it remains visible in modern work life.

What is Scientific Management?

As (User, 2019) explains, scientific management (also referred to as Taylorism after its creator Frederick Winslow Taylor) is a theory of management that analyses workflow by using a set of scientific principles to create a more efficient way to complete a task. Taylor, who was one of the earliest theorists to study management is now famously recognised as the father of Scientific management thanks to his contributions to the studying of work processes, focusing on how work is performed and how worker productivity was affected. His philosophy focused on finding the one best way of doing a job and institutionalising this one best way with the use of his systematic observations. F W Taylor believed that by optimising and simplifying jobs, productivity would increase. However, it was not just with this that productivity would maximise; he also thought that managers and workers needed to cooperate to achieve better efficiency in the workplace. In 1911 F W Taylor published his book ‘The Principles of Scientific Management’ in which he stated that scientific management consisted of four principles:

1. ‘Replace rule of thumb work methods with methods based on a scientific study of the tasks and determine the most efficient way to perform specific tasks.
2. Rather than simply assign workers to just any job, scientifically select, train and develop each employee rather than passively leaving them to train themselves. Match workers to their jobs based on capability and motivation, and train them to work at maximum efficiency.
3. Provide detailed instruction and supervision of each worker in the performance of that worker’s discrete task. Monitor worker performance and provide instructions and supervision to ensure that the most efficient ways of working are being used.
4. Divide work nearly equally between managers and workers, so that the managers apply scientific management principles to planning the work and training the workers and the workers perform the tasks.’ (User, 2019)

Before this approach, there was no standardisation in businesses, and traditionally work was done very differently, factory managers and workers had little to no contact. They were left to their own accord to produce a product.

Scientific management in the education system

Firstly, educational administrators widely adopted the Principles of scientific management in the early 20th century, and their impact remains apparent in 21st-century schools (Ross, 2009). For example, one of Taylor’s main principles is to observe worker performance and provide coaching and supervision. This sort of procedure ensures that workers are using the most productive ways of working and maintaining efficient levels of output. Policies such as the one above can also be associated to Max Weber’s management theory, also known as the bureaucratic management approach. His theory was based on authority structures, distinguishing between the powers that managers have which allows them to make orders and workers carrying out those orders. (Pugh and Hickson, 2007). Weber’s theory can be closely associated with the bureaucratic styles the education system adheres to today with the use of a governing body that teachers must obey. As (Trujillo, 2014) explains ”monitoring, testing, and competition soon permeated public education, and the practice of hiring ‘efficiency experts’ to collect data on schools’ operations, evaluate performance, and make recommendations to maximise productivity became commonplace’. The education system has normalised the surveillance like style that students are under, monitoring students’ abilities by completing high-stake standardised tests and complying with rules and regulations. (Ross, 2009) Metaphorically describes ‘students as the ‘raw material’ of schools, controlling the movement of teachers and students via bells; conceiving of the curriculum as a product; dividing students into grade level or dividing curriculum content into units and individual lessons; describing the school facilities as a ‘plant’ which are a result of a ‘factory model’ of schooling that has its roots in the adoption of scientific management principles by educational administrators.’

However, it is not just students that are affected; the system also has a demotivating approach towards teachers. In the modern education system, teachers are made to stick to rigid guidelines and a mandated curriculum, thus restricting the employee’s imagination and creativity. This style of teaching not only devalues and deskills the teachers, but it has the potential of leaving them feeling unfulfilled in their careers. ‘In the process, students and teachers are literally objectified and turned into abstract numbers’. (Wayne, 2011)

Furthermore, Taylorism had similar criticisms regarding the loss of workers’ ambition due to the standardised operations and methods they had to follow. Workers had to act by following instructions and could not take the initiative to propose better arrangements of work, which adversely affected the drive of workers to separate the thinking from doing. (Chand, 2017).

Scientific Management in McDonald’s

In contrast to the influence Scientific management has had on the education system, the fast-food industry has positively benefited from its methods. This paragraph will focus on McDonald’s and the way that scientific management has revolutionised the organisation with specialised training, incentives and their use of the time and motion study. McDonald’s is the world’s number 1 biggest food chain (Based on data provided by QSR Magazine), serving on average 3.5 million customers per day and 75 hamburgers a minute. To achieve the most efficient levels of output, Frederick Winslow Taylor proposed that by selecting and matching workers to particular jobs based on capability, then training them to work in a well organised and competent way which would achieve maximum productivity. McDonald’s integrates this system by investing £43 million every year on training and development, offering staff progression, with 9 out of 10 restaurant managers and 1 in 5 franchises starting as restaurant crew members. (McDonald’s website).

Additionally, McDonald’s opened its ‘Hamburger University’ in 1961, which allows managers to gain not only managerial knowledge/experience but also a degree. Staff at McDonald’s, in every chain and franchise, are taught to follow a uniformed method to achieve efficient output and customer satisfaction. Not only has the use of Taylor’s theory of training workers for their jobs been embraced, but throughout their career, staff receive a competitive salary. They can receive regular increases and benefits when completing different steps of their training. Recognising and rewarding hard work allows the employee to know that they are doing their job correctly while improving their job satisfaction, morale, and respect for the company. Frederick Taylor emphasised ‘ in order to have any hope of obtaining the initiative of his workmen, the manager must give some special incentive to his men beyond that which is given to the average of the trade. The incentive can be given in several different ways, as, for example, the hope of rapid promotion or advancement; higher wages, either in the form of generous piece-work prices or of a premium or bonus of some kind for good and rapid work; shorter hours of labour; better surroundings and worker conditions that are ordinarily given, etc’ (Taylor, 1911).

Moreover, while F W Taylor was carrying out his studies, Frank and Lillian Gilbreth were creating their studies on ‘time and motion’ to follow Taylors methods. (Pugh and Hickson, 2007). These studies established that the sequence of movements taken by employees if done correctly could eliminate wasteful motion. McDonald’s have successfully utilised the process of delivering services to their customers while eliminating waste, demonstrating this in the production line of food where ingredients are strategically placed to reduce the extra time for excess motion. McDonald’s also incorporate this system in the service line where workers are enforced to follow a rigid script when offering services to a customer.

Overall analysis

In conclusion, although Scientific management has not fully integrated into today’s modern society, aspects of it are still very much part of any organisation in the 21st century. Examples of the influence of Scientific Management in modern organisations include the importance of job analysis in HR, departmentalisation, incentives, a university credit system which allows students to study for a degree based on past exam results, and many more. We can see these examples along with the the divide between management and workers in all levels and industries globally. Organisations have become more efficient with the use of systematic approaches such as planning, quality control, and process design. The rule of thumb method has been replaced with scientific facts and the strengthening and developing of employees, thus allowing the organisation to improve efficiency and productivity, which was Frederick Taylor’s primary goal in his studies of management in organisations. However, from my perspective, it is more beneficial to employees that the scientific management theory has not been completely adopted in its original form today. Instead, organisations in today’s modern society have used different components from other theories that base upon Taylorism, such as Maslow’s hierarchy and Herzberg’s theory on job satisfaction.

References

1. Pugh, D. and Hickson, D. (2007). Writers on organizations. 6th ed. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
2. Ross, E. (2009). Clockwork: Taylorism and its Continuing Influence on Work and Schooling. [e-journal] Social Studies and Diversity Teacher Education: What We Do and Why We Do It, p.33. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/4778995/Clockwork_Taylorism_and_its_Continuing_Influence_on_Work_and_Schooling [Accessed 21 Oct. 2019].
3. Ross, E. (2009). Clockwork: Taylorism and its Continuing Influence on Work and Schooling. [e-journal] Social Studies and Diversity Teacher Education: What We Do and Why We Do It, p.35. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/4778995/Clockwork_Taylorism_and_its_Continuing_Influence_on_Work_and_Schooling [Accessed 21 Oct. 2019].
4. Taylor, F. (1911). The Principles of Scientific Management. 1st ed. [e-book] New York: Harper & Brothers, p.36. Available at: https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewBook?id=501276645 [Accessed 26 Oct. 2019].
5. Trujillo, T. (2014). The Modern Cult of Efficiency. Educational Policy, [e-journal] 28(2), pp.207-232. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/6596447/Trujillo_T._2014_._The_modern_cult_of_efficiency_Intermediary_organizations_and_the_new_scientific_management._Educational_Policy_28_2_pp._207-232?auto=download [Accessed 31 Oct. 2019]
6. User, S. (2019). TechnoFunc – Scientific Management Theory. [online] Technofunc.com. Available at: http://www.technofunc.com/index.php/leadership-skills-2/leadership-theories/item/scientific-management-theory [Accessed 6 Nov. 2019].
7. Wayne, A. (2011). Teaching under the new Taylorism: high-stakes testing and the standardization of the 21st century curriculum. [e-journal] Washington: Routledge, p.37. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254225399_Teaching_Under_the_New_Taylorism_High-stakes_Testing_and_the_Standardization_of_the_21st_Century_Curriculum [Accessed 3 Nov. 2019].

1. Introduction

“In the past, the man has been first; in the future, the system must be first…The first object of any good system must be that of developing first-class men.” by Frederick Winslow Taylor (Pg. No.7, Taylor, 1919).

The experience of Taylor at the Midvale Steel Company led to the beginning of the scientific approach in management. When employed there, he admitted that the efficiency of labours was essentially insufficient due to a workforce that operated by “rules of thumb”. He started experiments at his workplace in order to replace the traditional “rules of thumb” by factual scientific knowledge (UKEssays.com, 2016). This led to a rise in the scientific approach in the management field.

The main goal of management should be to ensure maximum employer prosperity,

combined with the maximum prosperity for each employee, said Taylor (Caramela, 2018). The ideology of Frederick Taylor’s theory of scientific management was the biggest breakdown in the traditional approach to the management process. When the management theory started evolving Taylor’s theory was criticized due to its concept of maximum efficiency and profit for the owners and did not give a maximum interest towards the employee. So, this caused loss of scope to Taylor’s theory.

Aim of this research is to know about what the main principles of Taylor’s theory were as well as to know whether the industries are still using this approach and are, they successful. Also, to know about what fields of management have been influenced by Taylor’s theory.

2. Definition of Scientific Management

Scientific management is a management theory where the workflows are analyzed and synthesized. Its main objective is improving economic efficiency, especially labour productivity (Taylor, 1919). Scientific management is sometimes known as Taylorism (Eyr, 2010).

3. Principles of Scientific Management

The four principles of scientific management can be described as follows (Taylor, 1919; Eyr, 2010)

• Replace work with ‘thumb rule’ or simple habit and common sense, and use the scientific method instead to study work and determine how to perform specific task most effectively (Taylor, 1919; Eyr, 2010).
• Rather than simply assigning employees to any task, matching employees to their skill and motivation, and teaching them to maximize efficiency (Taylor, 1919; Eyr, 2010).
• Monitor worker performance and provide instructions and supervision to ensure that they’re using the most efficient ways of working (Taylor, 1919; Eyr, 2010).
• Allocate the job between managers and employees so that managers can spend their time planning and prepare on the other hand employees can perform their tasks efficiently (Taylor, 1919; Eyr, 2010).

4. Outcomes on Implementation

After accepting and implementing the principles of scientific management theory there were few outcomes.

4.1 Positive outcome

On implementation of scientific management theory, both the company and the works were benefitted in many ways which are stated below (Nyanchama, 2019).

• Encouraging teamwork proper coordination was established between the workers.
• Distribution of work gave rise to better planning and decision making.
• The companies could achieve good profits and improve work efficiency.
• Labours were trained for free into skilled labour.
• Better utilization of the resource which leads to increased productivity.
• Reduce inaccuracy by better planning, supervision, and implementation leads to the minimisation of the error.
• Quick decision making.

4.2 Negative outcome

There were many negative impacts on workers by the principles of scientific management theory. They are

• Labours were under great pressure due to
• Demotivation of workers.
• There was no space for innovation.
• Labours had no freedom of opinion.

5. The Business Still Implementing Taylorism

Taylorism still widely used by managers today, which is evident in McDonald’s, who use one standardised process e.g. to make a burger, which workers must follow. This standardized process and the principles of scientific management put together have been used and proved to be the best way for such organisations to reach their ultimate productivity as they are the world-leading fast-food chain. In locations such as Dubai or India, consumers are guarantee their order within 60 sec and this assurance can only be given by implementing Taylor’s Time and Motion study. Taylor’s experiment led him to think, workers are motivated solely by money and he promoted the idea of “A fair days pay for a fair day’s work” (UKEssays.com, 2016).

During my work time in the manufacturing industry, Toyota industries engine India private limited use the Taylorism in their production line which uses a set of code being executed by the machine and quality check being done by the workers in between the production line in a standardised process. To reach their target without compromising on their quality. In this case here the workload is distributed between machines as well as the workers but both of them are following a set of rules here we can see the usage of Taylorism evidently where both machine and workers are Monitor worker performance and provide instructions and supervision to ensure that they’re using the most efficient ways of working. Allocate the work between machines and workers so that the machine spends their time on executing the codes and allowing the workers to perform their tasks efficiently.

6. Other Managements theories influenced by the Taylorism.

The effect of scientific management techniques on the management of today’s human resource on the staff selection process.

A workplace’s productivity is primarily determined by the quality of its workers. After developing management a sicence, Taylor gave priority to the recruited staff, since according to Taylor, employee performance is crucial to the productivty of the workplace (Turan, 2015). Hence the Human Resources management uses Taylor’s Principle of assigning the workers based on their skill assessment, capability, motivation and also by providing extra training.

Table 1. The state of Taylor’s insight and techniques in modern management (Turan, 2015)

7. Conclusion

Winslow Taylor is the father of the scientific management had to face many criticisms due to its concept of maximum efficiency and profit for the owners and did not give a maximum interest towards the welfare of an employee. But this method is still being used in many developing countries where there are more manpower and need for employment. Even though the theory was criticised, but it still has been influencing many business theories mentioned above. Although he had no idea about the process’s automation, his ideas regarding scientific methods are used to automate the process to maximum efficiency (Henshall, 2018).

8. Reference

1. Caramela, S. (2018). The Management Theory of Frederick Taylor – business.com. [online] business.com. Available at: https://www.business.com/articles/management-theory-of-frederick-taylor/ [Accessed 15 Nov. 2019].
2. UKEssays.com. (2019). To what extent is Taylor’s theory of scientific management still useful in today‘s business. [online] Available at: https://www.ukessays.com/essays/business/is-taylors-theory-of-scientific-management-still-useful-today-business-essay.php#citethis [Accessed 15 Nov. 2019].
3. Taylor, F. (1919). The Principles of Scientific Management. New York: Harper.
4. Eyr, E. (2019). Frederick Taylor and Scientific Management: Understanding Taylorism and Early Management Theory. [online] Mindtools.com. Available at: https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTMM_Taylor.htm [Accessed 15 Nov. 2019].
5. Nyanchama, V. (2019). Scientific Management Theory definition, advantages and disadvantages. [online] Tuko.co.ke – Kenya news. Available at: https://www.tuko.co.ke/287488-scientific-management-theory-definition-advantages-disadvantages.html [Accessed 28 Dec. 2019].
6. Turan, H. (2015). Taylor’s “Scientific Management Principles”: Contemporary Issues in Personnel Selection Period. [online] Available at: https://www.academia.edu/35181959/Taylors_Scientific_Management_principles [Accessed 15 Nov. 2019
7. Turan, H. (2015). Table 1. Taylor’s “Scientific Management Principles”: Contemporary Issues in Personnel Selection Period. [online] Available at: https://www.academia.edu/35181959/Taylors_Scientific_Management_principles [Accessed 15 Nov. 2019
8. Henshall, A. (2018). Taylorism and The History of Processes: 6 Key Thinkers You Should Know | Process Street | Checklist, Workflow and SOP Software. [online] Process Street. Available at: https://www.process.st/taylorism/ [Accessed 28 Dec. 2019].

Task:

Despite the strong critics of scientific management, in the right circumstances the four [4] underlying principles still have relevance and much to offer to contemporary organizations. It is just that many reviewers appear reluctant to openly admit that this is the case’! What are your views? Where scientific management could be applied for the best overall effect?

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Theoretical Analysis (Scientific Management and its Principles)

The late 19th C was known by the increasing of industrial organizations in different areas in most parts of the world especially in western countries, the facts which made it more difficult to organise human effort efficiently and effectively (Rollinson, 2005: 9). As a result to contemporary trends, a systematic management movement was formed, which consisted of attempts by managers with engineering backgrounds to apply the principles of their discipline to the organization of production, with the objective of solving the problems of the industry with rational methods of managing (Barley & Kunda, 1992: 369).

In this context, the Scientific Management theory was born, based on the work performed by Frederick Winslow Taylor during the latter part of the 19th century and further developed in the early 20th century (McKinnon, 2003: 1). Scientific Management “supplied the systematic management movement with coherent ideological foundation” (Barley & Kunda, 1992: 369) and it has become the most widely used set of general principles for organising production (Rollinson, 2005: 10). In addition, job analysis and design have its roots in Scientific Management and are now a common human resources practice in most of the world’s largest corporations (Bell & Martin, 2012: 107).

Scientific Management can be defined as “an organizational ideology and a set of techniques conceived to deal with such problems as soldiering by workers, resource waste, and disorder, as well as management’s arbitrariness, greed, and lack of control” (Guillen, 1994: 75). It consists of a series of tools, methods and organizational arrangements to increase the efficiency and speed of machine shop production, which involves, among others, a timing work system to establish a scientific measure of “what constitutes a fair day’s work” (Taylor, 1911:49), bookkeeping and accounting tools, and techniques to measure work input, as well as a managerial bonus plan devised by Gantt, a rule for the calculation of machine speeds by Barth and the “science” of motion study and all its branches developed by Frank and Lilian Gilbreth (Merkle, 1980: 2). It pretends to organise or reorganise work methods to give managers greater control over the labour process, that is, the exchange of effort for rewards (Rollinson, 2005: 9-10).

Taylor’s theory rests on the assumptions that “high pay is the main and perhaps the only thing that people seek to obtain for work” (Rollinson, 2005: 10), “people are primarily rational” (Barley & Kunda, 1992: 372) and a “belief in the utility and morality of scientific reasoning” (ibid). Following Rollinson (2005:10), Taylor was convinced that since both parties (workers and managers) obtained what they wanted (higher pay and maximum effort from workers), Scientific Management would lead to cooperation, “prosperity and a greater surplus for the organization” (Bell & Martin, 2012: 109). However, as Wagner-Tsukamoto (2007: 106) stated, opportunistic managers used the system to abuse and mistreat workers, and, after its last peak of fame in the 1920s, Scientific Management popularity decreased due to its consideration as the “science of exploitation” (Bakan, 2004: 76). After that time, an era of criticism and competition for the movement, characterised for willingness to collaborate with the labour (Hawthorne Studies, Human Relations Movement, etc) began (Barley & Kunda, 1992: 372).

I will now deal with the four Principles of Scientific Management and discuss the relevance of each in current management practices.

3.0 1. “The development of laws and scientific principles for work tasks to replace old-fashioned or traditional methods” (Boone and Bowden, 1987: 126).

With this Principle, Taylor wanted to “use scientific techniques to determine the most efficient way of doing work” (Morgan, 2006: 23), replacing the “role of thumb” method (Taylor, 1911: 36), that means, the one that is not accurate or reliable for every situation, and to simplify jobs by describing each worker’s task in detail, specifying how it should be done and the amount of time necessary to do it (ibid: 38-39). In essence, he arrogated that managers could find the “one best method” to perform a task that would guarantee maximum efficiency (Freedman, 1992: 27). Yet this point of view is nowadays rejected, because there is no “managerial best practice”, it all depends on the circumstances of the country, industry, and culture in which organizations operate (there are three eclectic models of management, and every new managerial practice seems to be a mixture of them) (Guillen, 1994: 75) and the organization’s world appears to be “unpredictable, uncertain and even uncontrollable” (Freedman, 1992: 26).

However, adapted to new technologies and modern practices, Taylor’s specialization of tasks, standardization and scientific improvement of processes are still alive in modern organizations, as it will be now exposed.

Firstly, big companies are often divided into several departments to focus on specialization, since the change in structure “allows them to divide the tasks of the whole organization into manageable sub-tasks and allocates them to organisational units that are responsible for their completion” (Rollinson, 2005: 461). However, when the organization’s structure does not include specialized jobs concerned with analysing the environment, the companies usually fail to adapt to changing circumstances (ibid: 463). So, scientific management works better with small companies which do not usually need to react to change (Caldari, 2007: 74). This lack of flexibility, the main defect attributed to the Fordism model (which adopted Taylorism’s Principles with just a different philosophy during 1960-1970) was the key word for the development of Post-Fordism (Caldari, 2007: 72).

Although it may seem that Post-Fordism, which emerged from the crisis of Fordism (Amin, 2008: 18), surged to challenge Fordism tenets, core principles of scientific management neglected under Fordism were implemented through the search of flexibility, applying rationalist ideas like standardization and efficiency (Crowley et al, 2010: 423). Thus, this movement is “perhaps more aptly termed Neo-Taylorist than Post-Fordist management” (Crowley et al, 2010: 422), which shows Taylorism still influences it a lot.

Secondly, every “standard operating procedure” has its basis in Scientific Management (Kanigel, 1996: 45). Many employees are trained to become machines in certain parts of their jobs to improve efficiency and profitability (Bell, 2012: 106) and standardization of tasks plays a big role in it. Two examples of this can be seen, as Bell and Martin (ibid: 107) indicated, when workers cook a hamburger at McDonald’s or when a technical support representative answers a call under pressure from a 90/10 protocol (which is a set of procedures that demands 90 percent of all calls to be answered within 10 seconds and 90 percent of all problems to be resolved within 10 minutes). Another one is Customer Service Representatives jobs, which for some are an “expression of an advanced form of Taylorism” (Holman et al, 2005: 116, citing Bain et al., 2002; Knights & McCabe, 1998; Taylor & Bain, 1999), because jobs are unskilled, repetitive and monotonous, and calls are of a short duration and required to be completed within a specified time (ibid).

Finally, about scientific improvement of processes in current organizations, we can see Post- Taylorism (another trend which was originated after the Scientific Management crisis and resembles its predecessor in many ways) companies not only look for cost, but also for efficiency, short delivery times and increased output (Peaucelle, 2000: 452). For that purpose, new organizational techniques, such as Just-In Time, Process Reengineering and Call Centres, have been created (ibid). The second one, for instance, involves rethinking and radical redesigning of processes to improve performance dramatically (Rollinson, 2005: 54).

4.0 2. “Scientifically select workpeople and progressively train, teach and develop them to achieve their maximum level of efficiency and prosperity in the jobs that are required” (Taylor, 1911: 36).

Taylor assumed everyone is “first-class at something” (Rollinson, 2005:10), which means there should always be a person who best suits a job and just has to be found. Because extracting the maximum effort of a worker resulted in boring and repetitive tasks, careful selection of operators (people who did not have aspirations for performing more “mentally-challenging” works) was required (Rollinson, 2005: 10).

Since World War I, personnel selection’s influence has grown enormously, and it has become a science in its own right (Locke, 1982: 17). In addition, most contemporary managers fully accept the notion that training new employees is their responsibility (Locke, 1982: 17). Taylor’s emphasis on scientific selection was an impetus to the development of the fields of industrial psychology and personnel management (ibid), being one of the sources of theories like Contemporary Human Resource Management (CHRM) (Price, 2011: 8-9), one of the most dominant approaches to people management throughout the world (ibid: 3). CHRM´s responsibilities involve, among others, job design, staff selection, training and motivation and job performance criteria, all of which were Taylor’s contributions (Bell and Martin, 2012: 107).

Thus, following Taylor’s ideas, organizations in our days make huge efforts to “hire the right people to a position” and to train them to develop their skills (Mckinnon, 2010: 1). One example could be human resources policies in consulting firms, which focus on hiring unexperienced workers with great potential and, then, train and develop their skills so that they can make very valuable workers for a low cost (Babío et al, 2007: 50).

5.0 3. “Bringing the scientifically designed job and the scientifically designed workers together” (Rollinson, 2005: 9).

This Principle translates into ensuring that all work is done in accordance to the principles of the developed science. Even though the basic job of a manager is to guarantee that an organization achieves its goals, a key aspect to take into account is making sure that employees are performing their tasks so that they contribute to the accomplishment of organization’s goals (Certo, 2003: 3-4), and this involves monitoring performance and making the necessary corrections (ibid: 11).

Seeing that we cannot assure everything is done as it should be just by establishing an efficient way to do it, supervision seems basic and crucial to modern organizations, as it is performance appraisal, which also has its roots in Scientific Management (Bell & Martin, 2012: 107).

6.0 4. “Divide up the actual work of the organisation between management and workers” (Rollinson, 2005: 9).

Here, Taylor wanted to separate the “thinking” (planning and controlling tasks, performed by the managers, the superior part of the organisation) from the “doing” (the more menial physical tasks, carried out by workers) (Rollinson, 2005: 10). By that way, soldiering, “the practice of working as a much slower pace than the one of which a person is capable of” (ibid), will be tackled, since workers would carry out their tasks efficiently because the responsibility of “thinking” would have been removed (ibid).

However, following this thoughts, organizations were viewed as a machine in which processes were considered important, whereas workers were treated as passive elements of them (Burrell & Morgan, 1979: 127.). This resulted in dehumanizing employees (Morgan, 2006: 28), which led to discouragement of workers, a decline in job satisfaction and numerous strikes (Rollinson, 2005: 10). Consequently, efficiency decreased and workers were “denigrated” and “deskilled” (Nyland, 1996: 985).

Nevertheless, this separation somehow happens in modern organizations, since usually, in large businesses, the head (directors) attends to general strategic matters such as setting the direction of the organization (“thinking”) while all the remaining work is attended to by the other departments (“working”) (Caldari, 2007: 67). Furthermore, scientific managers of today must behave a bit like Taylor, studying their own organizations and designing processes to make their workers effective perform in our times of rapid change (Freedman, 1992: 37, citing Senge, 1990).

Beyond the four principles, there are other trends related to the matter and important to mention. These are Total-Quality Management (TQM), Knowledge Management (KM), Lean Production (LP) and Management By Objectives (MBO). The first and the second can be described, respectively, as “a comprehensive, organisation-wide effort that is an integrated and interfunctional mean of improving the quality of products and services and of sustaining competitive advantage” (Holmann et al, 2005: 2), and a “the use of practices, particularly IT-based technologies and community and network-based practices to centralise, collectivise and create knowledge so that it can be exploited to increase organisational performance and to develop new opportunities” (ibid). The third and the last can be defined as “an integrated system of production with a single production flow that is pulled by the customer and emphasis on small batch manufacture, just-in-time, team-based work and participation, to eliminate non-value-adding activities and variabilities” (ibid) and “a process whereby the superior and subordinate managers of an organization jointly identify its common goals, define each individual’s major area of responsibility in terms of result expected, and use these measurements as guides for operating the unit and assessing the contribution each of its members” (Kondrasuk, 1981, citing Odiorne, 1979).

TQM is notably influenced by Taylorism, since its work is sometimes designed and deliberaly organized to put pressure on employees to produce every second (Rollinson, 2005: 32), reduces worker’s autonomy (ibid) and incorporates many Scientific Management ideas related to process management and structural reorganization (Guillen, 1975: 75). KM, employed as a strategy of consultancy companies like Accenture or Deloitte (Willson, 2002: 1), has its roots in Taylor’s Scientific Management (ibid), although it encompasses a wide range of different approaches and it is a much broader-based movement than Taylor’s theory (Holmann et al, 2005: 134). LP includes the “practice of the organizational principles of Fordism under conditions in which management prerogatives are largely unlimited”, and represents “an extension of the sphere of influence of scientific management.” (Guillen, 1994: 75, citing Dohse et al., 1985). Finally, MBO “did not go beyond the principles of Scientific Management, because managers who applied it were unwilling to reverse Taylorism, surrender power and synthesize planning and performing” (Waring, 1992: 235). Yet this author went beyond that and portrayed MBO as a “reborn and transformed Taylorism” (ibid: 236).

1. List of References.

1. Boone, L. E., and Bowen, D. D. (1987). The great writings in management and organizational behavior. New York: Mcgraw-Hill, Inc.
2. Caldari, K. (2007). Alfred Marshall’s critical analysis of scientific management. History of Economic Thought, 14(1), 55-78.
3. Crowley, M., Tope, D., Chamberlain, L. J., and Hodson, R. (2010). Neo-Taylorism at work: Occupational change in the post-Fordist era. Social Problems, 57, 421–447.
4. Freedman, D. H. (1992). Is management still a science?. Harvard Business Review, 70(6), 26-33; 36-37.
5. Locke, E. A. (1982). The ideas of Frederick W. Taylor: an evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 7(1), 14-24.
6. McKinnon, A. (2003). The impact of scientific management on contemporary New Zealand business. . [Unpublished]. Retrieved Oct. 18, 2014, from http://homepages.inspire.net.nz/~jamckinnon/business/The%20Impact%20of%20Scientific%20Management%20in%20Contemporary%20New%20Zealand%20Business.pdf
7. Merkle, J. A. (1980). Management and ideology: The legacy of the international scientific management movement. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
8. Nyland, C. (1996). Taylorism, John R. Commons, and the Hoxie Report. Journal of Economic Issues, 30, 985-1016.
9. Rollinson, D. (2005). Organisational behaviour and analysis: An integrated approach. Essex, UK: Pearson Education.
10. Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York: Harper and Brothers