Scientific Management, a 19th Century Concept: No Relevance to Present Circumstances

Scientific Management was first described by Frederick Taylor in the late 19th century. Its relevance to modern day management is widely debated in academic circles. In this essay, I will address the question of whether Scientific Management has a place today, in a 21st Century Knowledge Economy, or whether it belongs to a ‘different time and place. I will argue that much of modern management practice is derived from Taylor’s theories and that in this sense his work is very relevant. Next, I will examine the context in which Taylor developed his principles and contrast this with the contemporary context. Then I will evaluate the relevance of each of Taylor’s 4 Principles to today, with help from a

The concept of managerial thought is one of modern times. In previous years, people in management positions had one end goal - increase profits. The greater the profits their company was making the better they were doing their job. In doing so, they focused on many aspects of the business, for example, efficiency and productivity. They aimed to draw as much from their employees as possible while giving as little as possible back in return. Employee’s were viewed as nothing more than workers who performed tasks in return for a pay check. However, as time went by, managers began to realise something - employees were motivated by more than just money. This concept was not brought into the equation of managerial practice until the late nineteenth

Frederick Taylor’s fundamental thoughts on scientific management dated back to early 1880s when he was employed at Midvale Steel Company and observed his coworkers “soldiering” at work. In the following two decades, he moved around different companies while developing his management theory

The aim of this essay is to describe and evaluate the application of Taylors Scientific Management approach by the chosen manager in his organization and in the 21st century and to discuss about the relevancy of this management approach with the manager. Taylor’s Scientific Management method marked the beginning of modern management in 1911. Taylor came up with this management approach to reduce the inefficiency in the workplace. Taylor’s Scientific Management Theory involves the implementation of scientific methods to illustrate the “one best way” of doing a specific job. According to Nawaz (2011), “Frederick Taylor thought that there was one and only one method of work that maximized the competence or efficiency” (p. 5542). Many managers

The principal object of management should be to secure the maximum prosperity for the employer, coupled with the maximum prosperity for each employee. It would seem to be so self-evident that maximum prosperity for the employer, coupled with maximum prosperity for the employee, ought to be the two leading objects of management, that even to state this fact should be unnecessary. No one can be found who will deny that in the case of any single individual the greatest prosperity can exist only when that individual has reached his highest state of efficiency; that is, when he is turning out his largest daily output.

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.

Frederick Winslow Taylor (1865 - 1915) define Scientific Management or Taylorism with 4 principles as explained in appendix A.

(3) Scientific management relatively paid more attention to object, not to people. Though it emphasized that people should match with posts, but in fact it didn 't focus on people, instead, it stressed standard and institution. As long as the workers are trained, and then can use standardized instruments, do their works in a standardized manner to achieve the highest efficiency. Workers repeat same work every day, which is apparently not consistent with the high standard requirement nowadays.(4) Scientific management highlighted the scale of the enterprise and the quantity of products, since it was seller 's market at that time. But nowadays it is buyer 's market, which demands personalized and high quality products, so scientific management may not be pretty appropriate in today’s management.

However, when it comes to the spirit of innovation, it is seem that this rationalized rigidity of roles and functions form a barrier to carry out the plan on higher level. (Marshall, 1919cite in Maqbool, Zakariya & Paracha, 2011 ). Marshall (1919) argued that the specialized engineers were controlled by the managers and plans and they pay most attention to the operation and the immediate outcome instead of the strategic perspectives. Secondly, Locke (1982) agreed with Taylor that money is what the worker wants most was not entirely misguided. However, Oswald (2000) mentioned that the reason of shopfloor recalcitrance in the form is not simply of his tropical interest. Moreover, bonus systems grabbed the attention of human beings and lead them to be Materialistic. (Maqbool, Zakariya & Paracha, 2011cited in Florence, 1924)Therefore, the problem about job-hopping of competent employees is not uncommon. As result, "Employees who are only there for the paycheck are likely to “jump ship” more often than employees who actually enjoy their work"(Skylergreene ,2012).Lastly, with respect to authoritarianism, Taylor considered that the role of manager will not control by someone who is uneducated, unskilled that the Taylor

Frederick Taylor is the originator of the system labeled scientific management. In his book, The Principles of Scientific Management (1911) Taylor examines the struggle between management and labor for the control of production. To control production, he developed techniques for the measure and design of machining methods as part of a general plan for increasing the planning functions of management. Taylor's fundamental concept and guiding principle was to design a production system that would involve both men and machines and that would be as efficient as a well-designed, well-oiled machine. Time studies were used to allow management to take control of the operations, thereby controlling production methods, and, by default, production. This system required that management take an active role in the factory and through engineers and salaried foremen take greater control over operations (Backer, 1998).

For a long time the process of Administrative Management has been ignored up until 1911, when Frederick Taylor, also known as the “father of scientific management, provided the stepping stones for management processes. His movement, also known as Taylorism, provided a basis of work methods that improved efficiency within the workplace, as it helped managers train workers and provide work procedures in order to make businesses more productive. Taylor’s method of management addresses four main points: Replace old work methods with methods based on a scientific study of tasks, scientifically train workers, fuse work procedures and specialized training, and dividing responsibilities between managers and workers (Holzer and Schwester, 2016, 46). However, it wasn’t until the 1930’s that scholars such as Henri Fayol and Lyndall Urwick improved on Frederick Taylor’s The Principles of Scientific Management. Unlike Taylor’s principles, which solely addresses how to cultivate ground floor workers and their managers, Henri Fayol and Lyndall Urwick provided steps to improve the organization of a company as a whole. Their principles of management aim to improve upper floor managers and supervisors so that the organization as a whole would run efficiently. This approach would later be known as “Administrative Management.’ This essay aims to compare and contrast Henri Fayol’s Fourteen

According to Fredrick Taylor (1911), “The management of science means knowing exactly what you want workers or employees to do and seeing that they do it in the best and the cheapest way.”

Frederic Winslow Taylor (1865-1915) was an engineer and most importantly an innovator who affects the way many organizations function even today. In his time he introduced the term of scientific management which refers to a system where leaders are capable of managing and workers are able to execute the tasks given by the managers in the most efficient and productive way in a mass production environment with the basic element of job specialization (McKenna, 2012, p.7). According to Taylor, scientific management should include the selection of the best qualified people to work in a company, the incentives to work harder and as a result more efficient by awarding them with higher salaries as well as the authority given to the managers to control

One drawback is that distinction of planning and doing has a negative impact especially on companies with numerous and specialized human resources. In this case, neither people have the ability to be creative and constructive nor have the opportunity to take an initiative (Ghuman and Aswathappa, 2010, p.135). Another drawback is that Taylor’ system can be described as an environment in which workforce is treated as a machine and not as individuals who can influence the production of the firm (Dutt, 2008, p.21).Finally, scientific management was largely criticized by the workers themselves due to the fact that the efficiency which has a central role in company’s productivity lead to a decrease in demand for employees and made them insecure because there was a strong possibility to lose their jobs (Singla, 2009-2010,

Frederick W.Taylor was known to be the father of scientific management. He was the published of “The Principles of Scientific Management” in 1909. In this he proposed that by simplifying jobs, productivity would be increased. He also encouraged the idea that workers and managers needed to cooperate with each other. This was very different in which the way work was done previously to this.