Taylorism and Hours of Work

9432 Words Nov 1st, 2012 38 Pages
Journal of Management History (Archive)
Emerald Article: Taylorism and hours of work
Chris Nyl

Article information:
To cite this document: Chris Nyl, (1995),"Taylorism and hours of work", Journal of Management History (Archive), Vol. 1 Iss: 2 pp. 8 - 25
Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13552529510088295 Downloaded on: 26-10-2012
References: This document contains references to 34 other documents
Citations: This document has been cited by 2 other documents
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: *
Sigmund Wagner-Tsukamoto, (2008),"Scientific Management revisited: Did Taylorism fail because of a too positive image of human
nature?",
…show more content…
The reason the scientific managers are said to have opposed the demand for shorter hours was because worktime reform tends to unite workers:
Taylor’s ideal of a “high-priced man”, set apart from his fellows by the desire for premium pay, translated easily into managerial practice regarding wages. Cuts in hours, in contrast, would have had to influence whole departments, producing the kind of group feeling that was anathema to Taylor[3, pp. 136-7].

Journal of Management History
Vol. 1 No. 2, 1995, pp. 8-25.
© MCB University Press,
1355-252X

Finally, Roediger asserts that Taylor had little concern with worker physiology and that the scientific managers denied that the psychology of individual workers played a complex part in the determination of how hard they laboured.
Rather, it is claimed, Taylorism relied on mechanics, deskilling, isolation and wage incentives to induce workers to labour at the prescribed pace:
Thus Taylorism undercut the older rationales for securing cooperation from a healthy workforce through reduction in hours. The standard guidebook of the Taylorists, published in

1911, featured a daily time clock, calibrated to the hundredth of an hour. It was a ten-hour clock[3, p. 137].

Indicative of the ease with which many analysts accept that they can vilify the scientific management movement, Roediger does not offer any evidence
Open Document