Contemporary Management And Employee Employer

J. Hough and M. White, “Using Stories to Create Change: The Object Lesson of Frederick Taylor’s ‘Pig-Tale,’” Journal of Management 27 (2001): 585–601; E. Locke, “The Ideas of Frederick W. Taylor: An Evaluation,” Academy of Management Review 7 (1982): 14–24; F. W. Taylor, The Principles of Scientific Management (New York: Harper, 1911); C. Wrege and R. Hodgetts, “Frederick W. Taylor’s 1899 Pig Iron Observations: Examining Fact, Fiction, and Lessons for the New Millennium,” Academy of Management Journal 43 (2000): 1283–1291; D. Wren, The History of Management Thought, 5th ed. (New York: Wiley, 2005).

Adams, S. (2013, October 11). The 10 skills employers most want in 20-something employees. Retrieved from Forbes: www.forbs.com/sites/susanadams/2013/10/11/the-10-skills-employers-most-want-in-20-something-employees/#252174cI752d

1. Given Bandag Auto’s size, and anything else you know about it, explain why and how the human resource management function should be reorganized.

“The principle object of management should be to secure maximum prosperity for the employer, coupled with the maximum prosperity for the employee…” (Taylor, 1911, p.9)

Frederick Winslow Taylor and Max Weber are two men associated with business management. Frederick Taylor famous for scientific management and max weber the father of bureaucracy. Taylor born in Philadelphia in 1856 was an engineer by trade. Taylor was focused on the one best way of getting a task done through scientific method. Taylor published a book in 1911 ‘The principles of management’ in which he discussed the four principles of Taylorism. His four principles included the development of a true science of work, the scientific selection and development of workers, the co-operation of workers and management in studying the science of work and finally the division of work between management and workforce. Whereas on the other hand weber was born in Erfurt. Weber a German sociologist had the idea of structuring businesses or organisations properly and successfully. He named this idea bureaucracy. The six main elements of bureaucracy are division of labour, hierarchy, selection, career orientation, formalisation and impersonality. Weber and Taylor have some similar ideas including Taylor’s idea of division of work between management and the workforce and Weber’s idea of hierarchy. Weber’s

The two management theorists that I have chosen are Frederick Winslow Taylor and Elton Mayo. I chose these two theorists due to their very different ways of approaching their craft. Frederick Winslow Taylor and Elton Mayo both came from very different schools of thought and social and economic times that are bound to affect what theories they make. Taylor came from a mind-set of pure scientific thought. He saw success in management through making it a more measurable commodity. He went down the thought that everything had a definite and optimal answer. Elton came from a mind-set of human relations. He focused more on the human aspects of management. He had the mind-set of focusing on the employees and their work space above all else. These are very differing mind-sets for two theorists to have. In the piece that follows I will compare and contrast these two theorists and see what overlap they had and how these two radically different mind-sets lead to the creation of radically different practices.

The year 1911 saw Frederick Winslow Taylor publish a book titled ‘The principles of scientific management’ in which he aimed to prove that the scientific method could be used in producing profits for an organization through the improvement of an employee’s efficiency. During that decade, management practice was focused on initiative and incentives which gave autonomy to the workman. He thus argued that one half of the problem was up to management, and both the worker and manager needed to cooperate in order to produce the greatest prosperity.

Considered the father of management thought, Frederick Taylor was one of the earliest theorists credited with developing and defining the theory of scientific management in the late 1800’s. His theories were designed to improve the efficiency of a factory system and worker-manager relations and to prevent soldiering, which was the tendency of workers to only complete enough work to avoid being penalized or reprimanded (Biscontini, 2015). Taylor’s theory stressed the importance of strict time-and-motion studies of the industrial process. With the development of the assembly line, such time-and-motion studies seemed appropriate for breaking large industrial processes down into their smallest components and then training workers to perform only one small part of the manufacturing process (Wilson, 2016).

Frederick Taylor and Mary Parker Follet’s theories are just two of the few people who had altered management landscape. Taylor believed that management and employees should work together to get things done while Follett views management as an “art getting things done through people.” Their perspectives on how managers should manage are different but it still led to a similar concept: an organization needs strong leaders who are the decision makers that can manage a group of people to work toward the goal of the organization. They both believed in objective facts, the logic of the situation, and a scientific method of approach. This paper compares and investigates the work of each and illustrates the flow from the top-down management style

There was not only Weber’s theories about management style, there were also Taylorism by Fredrick

Taylor had trained to be a mechanical engineer, and in his opinion he believed that management wasn’t as professional as it should be, in its “approach and those academic principles could be deployed to improve firm performance through co-operation between qualified, trained managers and a carefully selected and trained workforce. Particular emphasis was placed on job analysis, time and motion studies, and the creation of incentive bonus schemes, thus extending the work of the emerging HR function.” (Human Resource Management in Ireland-Gunnigle, Heraty, and Morley, 2011 pg. 3)

There are a number of management theories that have changed the management business environment in the twentieth century. The theories have assisted managers to come up with better ways of management and organization of people. Managers have been able to increase profits, reduce costs and maximize efficiency. The purpose of this essay is to compare and contrast the contributions of scientific management and the human relations movement to the modern management. This essay will use Frederick Winslow Taylor’s theory on scientific management and Elton Mayo’s human relations theory. These two movements have been proven to increase productivity in the workplace (Mullins, 2005).

The innovation of the world today is towards its deal of materialistic presence of flow of nature. This era of modernization and innovation of the world as at its present view of today has given a chance and has helped to promote organizations whom seek to improve their businesses through efficiency and effectiveness with the help of the classical management theory which is Taylor’s management. Before getting into the depths about Taylor’s Management, let’s get a glimpse about the idea of management. Management is elaborated as an individual or a group of people that can take and follow the responsibilities to run a business or an organization in order to achieve the objectives and goals (Kaylan city life, 2011). The concept of management

Research into the effective management of the relationship between employers and employees has yielded many management theories that have helped shaped the present business landscape. These different theories have allowed managers to organise and manage people the way they best see fit. Two enduring management approaches are based off the Human Relations Management Theory and the Scientific Management Theory. Both theories address the issue of workplace optimisation with eminently different focuses.

Frederick W. Taylor is one of the more widely recognized names in the management literature. Far more rare, however, is an accurate