Taylors Scientific Management Approach Management Essay

Published Date: 23 Mar 2015

All organisations today, have their specific structure and practices geared towards achieving their business objectives. Although some of these practices look natural and familiar, it is interesting to discover their theories came into being about a hundred years ago. These theories are ideas and thoughts propounded by prominent individuals based on their observations and/or experiences.

This paper would consider Frederick Taylor (1856) as a major proponent of the scientific management school of thought. It would discuss his main ideas and principles about the functions of management and their responsibility to employees. Some constructive criticisms and limitations, as observed by some authors, would also be considered. The paper would conclude by evaluating how Taylor's principles have influenced the current organisational practices and its subsequent benefits.

Introduction

Management is the handling and regulation of a transformation process (Griffith, 2011), that is, inputs are brought together and managed through a process of conversion to become output. It basically involves, harnessing all processes within an organisation to achieve its objectives, which could be a product, service or sometimes both. Management focuses on the functions of an organisation directed towards delivering its business outputs. These functions can include: Planning, Organising, Staffing, Leading, Directing, Controlling and Motivation. Management plays a key role in setting goals and deciding how best to achieve them. The structure and configuration of an organisation are established through management. The importance of management to the current organisational practices cannot be overemphasized. It ensures the efficient utilization and coordination of resources available. The ability of organisations to be adaptable to change is subject to its management system.

On the other hand, management thoughts could mean 'coherent theories or systems of management' or ideas about the meaning, purpose, functions and tasks of management which are important and relevant but do not necessarily amount to coherent overall theory (Witzel, 2012). Most concepts, principles, theories and practices within the confines of management have been products of the thinking and philosophies of prominent and experienced individuals in their respective schools of thought. Although, contrasting views do emerge, they have predominantly formed the basis which most organisations, within the last century, have been structured and organised.

Checkland (1985) as quoted in Cole and Kelly (2011, p xvii) expressed that "in any subject concerned with rational intervention in human affairs, theory must lead to practice; but practice is the source of theory: neither theory nor practice is prime". This buttresses the fact that theories influences how organisations functions either in planning, organising, or controlling; likewise these theories are also derived from the observations made during these practices. None surpasses the other; rather they are dependent on each other.

The scientific management school of thought

The scientific management school perhaps can be referred to as the most indigenous school of thought. Witzel (2012) in 'A History of Management Thought' described it as the most influential work of management thinking of all time.

The pioneers of the management body of knowledge were mostly practising managers and social scientists, which predominantly influenced their thinking, by basing their theories on the personal experiences they encounter while working. Examples of these theorists are Taylor (1856) and Fayol (1841) who were mostly practising managers, while the likes of Mayo (1949) and McGregor (1906) were social scientists.

Taylor's thoughts were largely task-oriented. His theory was more concerned about how best the tasks could be executed, with the aim of saving time and cost. Efficiency was his major concern when configuring the organisation, thus enabling him to be called a 'Classical' or 'Scientific' Manager.

Taylor, born in 1856, in Boston, Massachusetts was widely known as a mechanical engineer. He acquired a degree from the Stevens Institute of Technology. He worked at the Midvale Steel Works in Philadelphia as a foreman, before rising to the role of a chief engineer. However, most of his ideas were implemented in Bethlehem Steel Company through various labour productivity experiments.

Taylor's Scientific Management Approach

Taylor's scientific methods were focused on industrial engineering and the principles of management (Alan Griffith, 2011). He believed human-based work can best be attempted by breaking down into its component tasks. The phrase 'work smarter, not harder' was a way of saying the tasks are better completed by the use of scientific approach otherwise known as the study approach. This can be generalised as the 'Taylor System' or 'Taylorism'.

His period was characterised by a sudden growth in economic and scientific advancement in the United States of America, notable through industrial expansions. There was a need for a new way of thinking, a new way of production and ultimately new management techniques. Taylor's methods of carrying out tasks was by studying and planning these tasks to develop efficient ways of performing them using data (such as sampling and timing), unlike the medieval ways which were wasteful in terms of resources and time. Simply put, he believed that 'in order to carry out an effective management of tasks, managers need to have a proper measure of such tasks- you cannot direct people to carry out a job which you don't have a proper knowledge of (Dermody, 2007).

From his experience, he discovered that workers do not put in the much needed efforts towards their task(s). This, he described as 'Slow-working' or 'Soldering' and subsequently ascribed three causes. These causes are described in Cole (2004) as;

The fear of unemployment:

In his words (Taylor, 1911), he described this as 'a fallacy, which has from time memorial, been almost universal among the workmen, that a material increase in the output of each man or each machine in the trade, would result in the end, in throwing a large number of men out of work'. But Taylor felt it was just a misunderstanding. It seems to him that, in the actual sense, any increase in productivity due to the invention of a new machine or from better work methods, would reduce the costs of goods, increase the demand for such good and enhance the capacity of the workmen rather than make them irrelevant in their job (Cole and Kelly 2011).

The fluctuations in earnings from piece rate systems:

He believed the piece rate system of pay adopted by the management also influenced how the workmen performed their tasks. On the other hand, employees felt, if they work harder and productivity increased, the management might fix that productive level as a new standard, thereby compelling them to overwork.

The rule of thumb methods permitted by management:

Taylor felt the low productivity was experienced because workmen were doing their jobs solely based on their discretions rather than the management outlining to them, what to do. He believed the work would be done faster, if an initial scientific study of the task has been done before embarking on it. This, he described as the management's responsibility to the workforce.

In finding solutions to these challenges, Taylor developed the following principles. They are, in (Taylor 1911);

The planning phase of the work should be separated from the execution phase. The management should be responsible for conceptualising the production process and work planning, leaving for the labour the execution of the proposed plans, rather than the old 'rule of thumb' method, where the work is done based on the worker's initiatives. This, he called - the scientific design of tasks.

By separating the labour process from the skills of workers and simplifying jobs and routing tasks, the work process would be made amendable to a less skilled workforce and, to that extent; management would be less dependent on skilled labour. This simply implies that, the appropriate body should be doing the work that suits its skills and interest. This is called - the scientific selection of workers.

The workers should be developed scientifically through training rather than being left to choose their work. He believed that old method slows down the pace and efficiency of the workers. Also, the managerial level should monopolize productive knowledge and use this knowledge to centralize authority. He called this the scientific approach to authority and labour development.

There should be a willing cooperation between employees and management. He believed it is quite impossible to manage scientifically without the cooperation of the employees. Most critics of the Taylor's scientific management ideas often use this particular view. They believed he often drives at the efficiency and effectiveness of the production process at the expense of the employee's welfare and motivation.

Taylor's Implementation of his ideas

Taylor performed experiments he titled 'Time and Motion Studies' to prove his thoughts, that the scientific study of a task before its being attempted is more productive than the 'rule of thumb' method or the incentive pay system. This essay would briefly describe one of them he termed 'The Science of Shovelling'.

From his studies, he discovered that the optimal weight of any material a shovel should carry is 21 pounds, for productivity to increase. Specific shovels were then designed for each worker depending on the type of material he worked with. The management was then required to provide these shovels for each worker rather than the worker using his own shovel. With this new approach, productivity increased by four times.

From his shovel experiment, it can be deduced that innovations improves the efficiency of outputs. Providing a new way of thinking and job execution, can influence the outcome of the task positively. Also, he expresses the need for the management body to provide their employees with the right tools and environment, in order to get the best out of them. It helps the employee work comfortably, with more interest and good speed. Other Time- Motion Studies performed to buttress his principles were the Pig Iron Experiment and The Gilbreths Bricklaying.

Criticisms and Limitations of Taylor's Scientific Management

Taylor's ideas were not embraced by everyone. He received criticism from his workers and his employers/the trade union. Also, certain limitations were discovered regarding the application of his methods. Some of these are;

Exploitation of workers: Since increasing productivity was the key to Taylor's scientific management, workers were forced to perform more than their capacity, in terms of strength and pace. Workers also felt they were being exploited as their wages didn't rise as the productivity increased. These feelings resulted in frictions between the management and workers.

Unemployment: Taylor's methods encouraged the use of machines rather than men. From his studies, he proposed that certain tasks required fewer men than usual, rather than employing numerous workers performing at their own discretion and pace. Workers felt this new approach reduces their employment opportunities in the industries or resulting in some employed workers losing their jobs.

Mechanical in approach: There were standards attached to every action to be taken. Standards for time, speed, resting, quantity and quality of outputs etc. Due to this much emphasis on efficiency, workers were regarded as malleable machines, just to speed up work at any cost (Akrani, 2011).

Monotonous and Individualistic in approach: Taylor was also concerned about the efficiency of a sole worker. Emphasis was placed on the performance of the individual rather than that of the gang. Some of these workers felt he was picking on them, hereby resulting in loss of work enthusiasm. Also, since the individual was working based on predetermined methods and less of his initiative, interests and satisfaction began to decline.

His employers and the trade union also viewed some limitations to his techniques as being;

Expensive and time consuming: Scientific management fragments all activities into its components. It differentiates between planning, standards, work study and training of workers, therefore requiring lots of time. It would also require the establishment of various departments for each operation, which might result in huge investments, especially for an industry like construction which is dominated by Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs).

Narrow in its application: Taylor's techniques can only be applied in scenarios where the productivity of the worker can be assessed quantitatively, limiting its application to production industries. Service industries might find it difficult to adopt some of his methods, as there is no 'one best' practice applicable to all services.

Differentiation of planning from execution: Taylor's methods highly differentiated the planner from the executioner. In modern day organisations, the planner is also essential during the execution stage. As in the construction industry, the architect is an important stakeholder during the building process, as he makes the important decisions as regards the project.

Absence of unity of command: Taylor's approach negates one of the main principles of management, where employees are subject to one superior. Rather, Taylor was functional in approach, where workers reports to several functional managers. This leads to clashes and confusion within the organisation.

Taylor's contribution to current organisational practices

Without any doubt, it is understood that the foundation of today's management theories and practices were laid by Taylor's scientific methods. Even though it had its own lapses, most organisational functions today, are based on the application of his ideas.

Every organisation structure today, has a management body which is the center of authority and responsible for planning and decision making. As a reflection on his second principle, current management systems are seen as the responsible party for the employee's wellbeing, wages, work environment and also as the main body of knowledge. The company is also responsible for providing its workers the right tools to perform their jobs.

Another widely acceptable product of Taylor's management is the 'sub-division and selection of labour'. This requires that every task is decomposed into its smaller parts. According to Taylor (1998) in Priestley (2005), the scientific manager does not only specify what is to be done, but how it's done, the exact time allowed for doing it and who is fit to do it. This phenomenon is visible in our everyday organisational practice. Each task is allocated to the right individual, in order to keep the chain of production taut, without lapses or leakages. For instance, a module in chemistry is taught by a lecturer with an educational background in chemistry and not architecture.

Nonetheless, the piece rate payment method was another influence from Taylor's work. Even though other proponents like Henry Gantt modified it into incentive pay methods. The piece rate method was largely based on efficiency of each worker. The more efficient the worker is, the more reward he receives. While the incentive system proposed that all worker should be placed on a minimum wage but would receive reward for any output above the required standard. However, both systems encouraged reward for enhanced productivity in form of a percentage, which seems to motivate the workers and also gives the staff of control to the employer. Most organisations today adopt this method to motivate their workers however; the challenge is drawing the line between the employers showing a weakness as being too sympathetic or being too task oriented and regarded as psychopathic.

One path which the scientific management theory provides the companies today is the means to achieve 'Economies of Scale'. His theory and experiments emphasized on accountability, efficiency and the need to reduce unnecessary costs or wastes. All these are issues the current organisational practices consider in their everyday business.

Finally, with reference to his fourth principle, today's management body believes in creating a cordial relationship between workers and employees in order to achieve the desired goals. This also explains Fayol's principle called 'Unity of Direction'. Taylor's theory tried describing a company with the focus to organise its structure to meet the objectives of both the employer and employee (Priestley, 2005). This is a fundamental truth, as every organisation wants a team headed in the same direction.