How the Scientific Management Theory improves on Labor Productivity in the workplace
Abstract
This paper includes an abridged review of several kinds of literature on the topic of scientific management theory. It looks at some of the key definitions of the concept of management and with a special focus on the approach that Frederick Winslow Taylor came up with in the 1880s. It looks into the tenets that made the method applicable in the industrial sector, its effectiveness, and how it promoted the productivity in the companies that applied it. The literature shall also highlight the instances and cases where the theory received more criticisms and the reasons behind such. The writer shall then pay attention to the cases when the theory has been successful and how the victory promoted its use into the twenty-first century. It shall highlight the current companies that still apply its principles and how it has survived the critics and became integral to specific sectors. The work shall then conclude with an overview of recommendations into strategic management solutions that could apply to complex situations.
Keywords: Scientific management theory (Taylorism), efficiency, productivity.
Introduction
Scientific management is a theory of management that ensures effective and efficient workflow leading to higher productivity rates. Frederick Winslow Taylor came up with the theory in a bid to improve the rate of work at his company. He included principles such as a focus on science and not the rule of thumb, working in harmony with others, cooperating through processes, and ensuring maximum output. The theory also advocated for breaking down the work into simpler components, studying and researching each before finally bringing them together. Taylorism, as it came to be known, is, therefore, one of the several instances of management that has developed over time. It contains crucial factors that any organization would have to consider to ensure optimum output. The goal of this literature review is to analyze and highlight some of the instances where various authors have looked into the effectiveness of the scientific management theory.
Literature Review
The development of Taylorism
Most businesses exist to not only provide individual products and services but also to make a profit and a statement in the business world. Every method and approach that a business implements includes a slow process of analyzing its effectiveness, trial, and error experimentations before its final acceptance and use. The scientific management theory did not begin overnight. It included a series of gradual processes, testing, and training before its implementation and adoption by several organizations. According to Kulli (2019), there were several legitimacy phases before Taylorism became a full-blown approach with society to support it. The theory emerged as a result of managerial problems that American railways and heavy manufacturing factories were experiencing in the late nineteenth century. The Taylor Society developed to become the primary platform for discussions, arguments, and interactions between the American Railways and other manufacturing industries. It developed to encompass management conferences and congress, including states in North America and other European countries. The work includes definitions of terminologies such as management art and management science. It is a useful and elaborate article that covers the progressive nature with which Taylorism moved for adoption into the various industries. The paper also offers an answer to Witzel & Warner by highlighting the many countries that were present at each of the management meetings. These included European countries such as Romania, Czech Republic, Poland, and Belgium, among others.
Hamid et al. (2019) present an interesting analysis of the development and changes that quality management has undergone from the past centuries to the present. It looks into such developments from the time of such philosophers as Frederick Taylor and the gradual development that the processes have undergone. It highlights the focus of management over time, such as a move from an emphasis on product quality to the process. The change then moved to concentrate on the quality of the system and then moved to the current century that focuses on people. Because of this current focus, Taylorism received a lot of criticisms for failing in this area. Several writers disapproved of his approach stating that it promoted mechanization and made the employees appear as machines that could increase their work outputs with the ideal incentives.
The need to uphold Taylorism
While Taylorism developed and flourished in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, many authors still view and look into its application today. Witzel & Warner (2015) look into the influence that Taylorism had on the culture of an organization. It also tries to find a connection between the same approach and aspects within an organization, such as the corporate culture, human resource management, and relations. The authors intimate that Taylorism emerged and affected organizational processes resulting in paradigm shifts. Their primary question is how culture could impact on an organization’s management theory. It delves further into an analysis of how the paradigm came about by looking at the emergence of the approach in North America and the next wave of changes it brought about. The authors question why the theory emerged fastest in North America and not anywhere else and what could have influenced its quick rise to adoption. Although the authors eventually discuss the reasons behind the quick rise of Taylorism, they fail to point out that despite the quick application, they were instances of resistance and inapplicability of the theory (Palla & Billy, 2018). The authors highlight that future research should focus on the ghost of scientific management, especially the balance on the extremes of hard and soft people management.
Kelly (2016) offers another deeper analysis into the tenets and application of the scientific management theory. The article seeks to dismiss unfounded beliefs that the approach was antiworker and dispel bias against the same. It uses the standing of the Marxist and socialist Walter Polakov to support this view. The work uses the original accounts of several historical personalities supporting the fact that Taylorism may have focused on increasing productivity in the workplace but it also considered the rights and needs of the employees. This point discredits most critics of the theory that pointed out the aspects of the theory that considered the people were machinelike and only focused on financial incentives. Kelly breaks down the context under which the definition of the theory included aspects of diskilled and degrading work that did less for employee motivation. Similar to Witzler & Warner (2015), Kelly revisits the theory to highlight the perceptions of the Taylor Society members especially the Russian immigrant and engineer, Walter Polakov. The work, therefore, proves the need to reconsider assumptions that the scientific management theory presented a cold front that only focused on increasing outputs and making more profits.
Taylorism includes certain characteristics such as the introduction of time and motion studies that set the performance standard, time and work quality. It comprises of aspects such as the differential piece-rate system, functional foremanship including at the planning and the execution levels, and also harmony and cooperation. It also included individual tasks when it came to the production of goods and services. According to Lanz, Miroudot, & Nordås (2015), the method of breaking down the production process to individual task is crucial to increasing productivity and gains. One company that successfully adopted this approach was Ford in 1914. It used job fragmentation to minimize skill requirements ensuring mass production to a massive market where there was a shortage in skills. The authors analyzed Taylorism, focusing on breaking down production to standardized tasks, versus Toyotism, that made use of multi-tasked teams overseeing the production unit. In Toyotism, such workers were skilled, therefore, ideal for innovative and job descriptions that require faultless processes.
Apart from the manufacturing facets of society, Taylorism has found use into other areas of life including education, the service industry, and even governments. It has proved essential in instances where organization intends to increase their general output levels while ensuring maximum productivity. According to Whitfield (2015) the association between management and science is similar to science and medicine trying to cure the ills that the world suffers. The work analyzes Taylorism hand in hand with the work of Alexis Carrel. It states that one of the misconceptions about Taylorism relates to the idea that standardization results in deskilling of works, a concept that seems to be opposites with the Carrel-Dakin model that promoted demands in skills. Despite the differences in the fields that each method focused on, that is Taylorism in the industrial sector and the Carrel-Dakin approach in the surgical treatment of wounds, they found common ground in some instances. These include being scientifically-based, requiring highly trained personnel, and the need to standardize routines across the board. This case presents the application of Taylorism in the medical field showing its expansion into various areas of life.
Against the idea of Taylorism
While most scholars and writers support the idea behind Taylorism citing the benefits it brought to the manufacturing areas, it also brought about a number of dissatisfactions within some groups. Among some of the most renown critics and opposers of Taylorism include Elton Mayo, Oliver Sheldon, Peter Drucker, Miss Mary Parker Follet, and Sam Lewisohn. Elton Mayo is known for his Hawthorn experiments in which the research came to the conclusion that employees needed more than financial incentives to become more productive. They also needed to have and form working and social relationships in the workplace and became more involved in the decision-making processes. These would ensure job satisfaction and more productivity in the workplace (Őnday, 2016). Price (2017) writes an interesting view in his analysis of the work of curricularist Joao Paraskeva in his article that he wrote in 2011 titled, Conflicts in Curriculum Theory: Challenging Hegemonic Epistemologies. He uses such imagery and descriptive words such as the river being alive and fluid. The work highlights Paraskeva’s points against Taylorism and resounding the need to destroy the its stretched tendons towards education and curricula. The work sheds light on the concept of ‘new Taylorism’ arising including such aspects as the introduction of the middle management level.
Middle management techniques have been in existence for a long time. It comprises the oversight level that exists between junior and senior levels. Such management methods have proved most effective in large organizations where prompt decision-making is needed. However, this management level has been the focus of several critics who are against its existence. The reasons for this range from their tendency to add to bureaucracy thus slowing down processes to increasing corporate hierarchy. Most organizations in the twenty-first century have adopted a flat structure where the employees have more freedom and leeway and are more involved in decision making processes. Companies such as Nike have adopted a flat structure to give the employees more space for coming up with innovative ideas and implementing the same. According to George (2016), a flat organization increases trusty relations, commitment, and organizational effectiveness. Taylorism, does not support this end as it highlights the distinction of the relationship between the management and the workers. It advocates for the delineation of the management and employee jobs where while the workers carry out their specifically assigned duties, the managers carry out an oversight to ensure efficiency and maximum output.
Palla & Billy (2018) also carried out another critique of the scientific management theory relying on several claims. These include the arguments between management and labor unions expanding beyond production and the phenomenon known as soldiering and also the introduction of machines in the current century to focus on manual labor while people take more knowledge-required jobs. Although it is true that Taylorism focused very much on productivity and ensuring a rise in outputs, several authors have defended the belief that it did not engage the employees in the processes. Palla & Billy criticize it and state that Taylorism may have been applicable when Taylor introduced it in the 1880s because of several reasons. These include the issues between management and unions where the unions encouraged soldiering, that is working less hard. The other issue was lack of proper management. The industries at the time also needed to complement machine work with human labor. Finally, there was also less emphasis on knowledge-based work and more on manual labor. In the twenty-first century, none of the above is an issue necessitating the need for the implementation of Taylorism. The authors, therefore, point out the fruitlessness of the continued application of Taylorism and the possibility of them become counterproductive in the long run.
New Thoughts
Organizations normally go through a lot of ups and downs in the course of their subsistence. In some cases, it may undergo changes that may present an array of complications in the business. A company may undergo some changes that would also lead to the general deviation from their original corporate culture. This instance may become a challenge when the workforce proves rigid and do not accept the change. In the Bible, Psalms 95: 8-9 (NIV) advices Christians against hardening their hearts but also leaving room for the word of God. One of the strategic solutions that I would suggest is ensuring transparent and open communication between the management and the employees. James 1:19 encourages Christians to allow communication by being better listeners and speaking less. Communication would open the doorway and facilitate the change as the workers would become aware of what is gong on, their contribution and also air out their views. From such feedback, the organization would be able to forge a way forward including changing their visions and facilitating the same.
Conclusion
The scientific management theory has been in existence since the 1880s. Frederick Winslow Taylor propounded the theory in a bid to improve the productivity levels within the manufacturing industry. The approach has accrued support from various areas and its application in areas beyond the manufacturing industry. It carries advantages such as a increase in the efficiency of production, reduction in inaccuracy rates, quick decision-making, and a reduced cost of production. However, despite all these, it also received criticisms and carries disadvantageous points such as being capital intensive, having a demotivating aspect, increased bureaucracy, and its mechanistic stance. Despite all these, the scientific management theory has continued to withstand the changing times and is still in use in industries such as services like McDonald.
References
George, D. (2016). Trust & Growth in the Workplace: an Analysis of Leadership in Flat Organizations.
Hamid, S. R., Isa, S., Chew, B. C., & Altun, A. (2019). Quality Management Evolution from the Past to Present: Challenges for Tomorrow. Organizacija, 52(3), 157-186. https://content.sciendo.com/view/journals/orga/52/3/article-p157.xml
Kelly, D. (2016). Perceptions of Taylorism and a Marxist scientific manager. Journal of Management History.
Kulli, B. (2019). Factory and Production Problems to Scientific Management Societies: Legitimacy of the Scientific Management Movement. Institute of Business Administration-Management Journal / Isletme Iktisadi Enstitüsü Yönetim Dergisi, 87, 159–177. https://doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.26650/imj.2019.87.0007
Lanz, R., Miroudot, S., & Nordås, H. K. (2015). Offshoring of Tasks: Taylorism Versus Toyotism. World Economy, 36(2), 194–212. https://doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1111/twec.12024
Őnday, Ő. (2016). Human resource theory: From Hawthorne experiments of Mayo to groupthink of Janis. Global Journal of Human Resource Management, 4(1), 95-110.
Palla, A. K., & Billy, I. (2018). Scientific management: its inapplicability to contemporary management challenges. The Business & Management Review, 9(3), 459-463.
Price, T. A. (2017). Welcome to the New Taylorism! Teacher Education Meets Itinerant Curriculum Theory. Journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Curriculum Studies (JAAACS), 12(1).
Whitfield, N. (2015). Surgical skills beyond scientific management. Medical history, 59(3), 421-442.
Witzel, M., & Warner, M. (2015). Taylorism revisited: Culture, management theory and paradigm-shift. Journal of General Management, 40(3), 55-70