| Taylorism |
Website Links For Scientific |
Information AboutTaylorism |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT | |
| production and manufacturing | |
| organizational studies and human resource management | |
| management | |
|
In management literature today, the greatest use of the concept of Taylorism is as a contrast to a new, improved way of doing business. In political and Sociological terms, Taylorism can be seen as the division of labour pushed to its logical extreme, with a consequent de-skilling of the worker and dehumanisation of the workplace. OVERVIEW General approach
Contributions
Elements
MASS PRODUCTION METHODS Taylorism is often mentioned along with would go up. Taylor introduced many concepts that were not widely accepted at the time. For example, by observing workers, he decided that labour should include rest breaks so that the worker has time to recover from fatigue. He proved this with the task of unloading Ore : workers were taught to take rest during work and output went up. Today's Armies employ scientific management. Of the key points listed; a standard method for performing each job, select workers with appropriate abilities for each job, training for standard task, planning work and eliminating interruptions and wage incentive for increase output. All but wage incentives for increased output are used by modern military organizations. Wage incentives rather appear in the form of skill bonuses for enlistments. Division of labour Unless people manage themselves, somebody has to take care of administration, and thus there is a division of work between workers and administrators. One of the tasks of administration is to select the right person for the right job:
This view – match the worker to the job – has resurfaced time and time again in management theories. CRITICISM Applications of scientific management sometimes fail to account for two inherent difficulties:
Both difficulties were recognised by Taylor, but are generally not fully addressed by managers who only see the potential improvements to efficiency. Taylor believed that scientific management cannot work unless the worker benefits. In his view management should arrange the work in such a way that one is able to produce more and get paid more, by teaching and implementing more efficient procedures for producing a product. Although Taylor did not compare workers with . It can also be said that the rise in labour unions is leading to a push on the part of industry to accelerate the process of Automation , a process that is undergoing a renaissance with the invention of a host of new technologies starting with the computer and the Internet. This shift in production to machines was clearly one of the goals of Taylorism, and represents a victory for his theories. However, tactfully choosing to ignore the still controversial process of automating human work is also politically expedient, so many still say that practical problems caused by Taylorism led to its replacement by the Human Relations school of management in 1930. Others (Braverman 1974) insisted that human relations did ''not'' replace Taylorism but that both approaches are rather complementary: Taylorism determining the actual organisation of the work process and human relations helping to adapt the workers to the new procedures. However, Taylor's theories were clearly at the root of a global revival in theories of scientific management in the last two decades of the 20th century, under the moniker of 'corporate s'. LEGACY Scientific management was the first attempt to systematically treat management and process improvement as a scientific problem. With the advancement of statistical methods, the approach was improved and referred to as Quality Control in 1920s and 1930s. During the 1940s and 1950s, the body of knowledge for doing scientific management evolved into Operations Research and management Cybernetics . In the 1980s we had Total Quality Management , in the 1990s reengineering. Today's Six Sigma and Lean Manufacturing could be seen as new names for scientific management. In particular, Shigeo Shingo , one of the creators of Lean Management who devoted his life to scientific management, says that the Toyota Production System and Japanese Management Culture in general should be seen as scientific management. Peter Drucker sees Frederick Taylor as the creator of Knowledge Management , as the aim of scientific management is to produce knowledge about how to improve work processes. Although some have questioned whether scientific management is suitable only for manufacturing, Taylor himself advocated scientific management for all sorts of work, including the management of universities and government. Scientific management has had an important influence in sports, where stop watches and motion studies rule the day. (Taylor himself enjoyed sports –especially tennis and golf – and he invented improved tennis racquets and improved golf clubs, although other players liked to tease him for his unorthodox designs, and they did not catch on as replacements for the mainstream implements.) SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT AND THE SOVIET UNION Historian Thomas Hughes (Hughes 2004) has detailed the way in which the Soviet Union in the 1920s and 1930s enthusiastically embraced Fordism and Taylorism, importing American experts in both fields as well as American engineering firms to build parts of its new industrial infrastructure. The concepts of the Five Year Plan and the centrally planned economy can be traced directly to the influence of Taylorism on Soviet thinking. Hughes quotes Stalin : American efficiency is that indomitable force which neither knows nor recognises obstacles; which continues on a task once started until it is finished, even if it is a minor task; and without which serious constructive work is impossible . . . The combination of the Russian revolutionary sweep with American efficiency is the essence of Leninism . Hughes offers this equation to describe what happened: ;;Taylorismus + Fordismus = Amerikanismus Hughes describes how, as the Soviet Union developed and grew in power, both sides, the Soviets and the Americans, chose to ignore or deny the contribution that American ideas and expertise had had – the Soviets because they wished to portray themselves as creators of their own destiny and not indebted to a rival, and the Americans because they did not wish to acknowledge their part in creating a powerful rival. SEE ALSO
REFERENCES
EXTERNAL LINKS
|
|
|