The Role Of Scientific Background On Managerial Work

Classical management theory or scientific management came to prominence in the early 1900 hundreds and Fredrick Taylor’s work was pioneering in this area of management theory (Taneja, 2011). One definition of scientific management that Taylor endorsed was that it is “a system devised by industrial engineers for the purpose of serving the common interests of employers, workmen and society at large through the elimination of avoidable wastes, the general improvement of the processes and methods of production, and the just and scientific distribution of the product” (Hoxie, 1915:140). Delving deeper into classical management theory, this paper looks at two more recent proponents of management theory, namely Henri Fayol and Henry Mintzberg. Both had their theories on classical management theories which will be critically analysed. It will also be shown how these theories apply to modern day organisations.

'Federic Taylor 's Scientific Management reflects an approach to managing that is no longer appropriate for today’s managers '.

Frederik Winslow Taylor, one of the most famous pioneers of management gave the theory of Scientific management or what is now referred to as Taylorism. Scientific management or Taylorism refers to “a form of job design which stresses short, repetitive work cycles; detailed, prescribed task sequences; a separation of task conception from task execution; and motivation based on economic rewards.” (Huczynski & Buchanan, 2013). The applicability of Scientific management to this day is a controversial topic as there is still debate whether scientific management is beneficial to apply to organizations for smooth functioning or not. This paper discusses his theory of scientific management. While it highlights the strengths and weaknesses of this theory, it mainly expands on the criticisms of this theory and the reasons as to why the theory is not highly relevant now. This paper does this by using theorists like Abraham Maslow, Elton Mayo & Douglas Mcgregor and by stating modern day examples of companies with different principles of management as compared to Taylorism.

If Scientific Management is as outdated and inhuman as many organizational theorists believe, why is it so prevalent in contemporary organizations?

In todays modern era of business, with its exploding technological advances, easier access to materials and a much more skilled and specialized labor force the ideology behind using scientific management is fast becoming as dated a method as the industries that still heavily rely upon its principles to function efficiently. Considering that the fundamental principles of scientific management consist of breaking down manufacturing into its constituent parts allowing unskilled, simple minded, untrained workers to do any one of the multiple tasks that produce a product. This method functions in a manner that maximizes laborers potential and thus company profits by using an assembly line type system. Under this system only management however

According to Miller (2010) Scientific management (Taylorism) was devised by Frederick Taylor to improve economic efficiency especially labor productivity by analyzing and establishing workflows. It was one of the earliest attempts to apply science to the engineering of processes and to management. Taylor’s scientific management was based on four principles. The first is replacing the “rule of thumb” work methods with methods based on a scientific study. The second is selecting, training and developing the most suitable person for the job. The third principle is managers should give out detailed instructions on how to do the job scientifically and supervise workers. The last principle is dividing the tasks between managers and workers. This paper will discuss if these scientific management principles are outdated in the study of organizations. I will present the principles and explain their relevance in current organizations.

When Fayol as a manager wrote his concepts the era and the way of managing was very different in contrast with nowadays. Fayol developed a strategy based on the way he was managing, for instance he was the only one who had to make the plan, to organise everything, to command and get involve in situations where it was necessary, co-ordinate and synchronize all the activities take place in the organization, and last control everything. In few words he was the only main head of the organization. It does not mean that he was alone but in compare with the present most of the organizations operate with the bureaucratic structure of Max Weber’s theory that “organizations are managed on an impersonal, rational authority basis and they are not depend on to a particular person who may leave or die”(Weber, 1997, p.45). Today all the organizations have been divided in many departments and all these departments with the help of the assistant managers have been undertake by one Fayol’s element. These departments make all the work and then introduce their work to the manager. So the only thing that managers have to do is consider ready information and reports that the units of the organization have done, and then just take a decision. And this is what exactly Mintzberg observes in his research. As a fact that Fayol’s elements are widely used not exactly by the managers but rather from the whole organization. “Luthans and others believe that

The purpose of this essay is to research, analyse and assess the theory of scientific management, which was revolutionised by Frederick Winslow Taylor in 1887 (A.Huczynski, 2010) and to critically evaluate the benefits and pitfalls of his theory. This theory Taylor developed is known as Taylorism and has been used commonly in various structures of organisation. Comparisons shall be drawn to other theories and advancements of this theory, such as Fordism and Toyotism, which was extremely popular in Japan (Cheng, 2009). Using these variations of Taylorism, we can therefore further and deepen the evaluation of his original theory. This essay aims to show that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages due to changes in culture and worker’s mentality.

The paper will explore different theories of Management, include Henri Fayol and Henry Mintzberg. This section of this paper provides an overview of functions, roles and skills required of a manager. What is Management? Management can define as the process of reaching organisational goals by working with and through people and other organisational resources. (Management Innovation, 2008).

Although published over a century ago, Frederick Winslow Taylor’s renowned work The Principles of Scientific Management set forth a theory that to this day is subjected to a similar degree of critique and debate to that in the early 20th century. While Taylor’s ideas were evidently influenced by the works of earlier researchers, it is he who is credited as the “father” of the scientific management movement (Jeacle, 2004, p. 1164). As such, scientific management itself is synonymous with Taylor to the extent that it is commonly referred to as “Taylorism.” Nevertheless, this view can be misleading – key principles of the theory are generally perceived as applicable only in the manufacturing sector where Taylor’s research was directed, whereas in reality they can be applied quite effectively to the service sector. While the model is plagued by flaws in both industries, it can nevertheless still be regarded as a valuable framework for managing organisations and their human resources.

It is necessary to understand where the organization of work is headed. Through specialization, subordinate can upgrade their abilities or professions and there was a concerted effort to identify key aspects of work and organization which could be used to achieve efficiency through immutable principles. Taylor thinks management should merge with science to enhance the effectiveness.

Early management theories adopted by such proponents as Henri Fayol, Mary Parker Follett and Max Weber are relevant in todays’ world. In this essay I am going to discuss about all three theorists and how their theories are still relevant for managers in the 21st century in meeting the challenges. In the classical approach to management there are three branches under it. They are, scientific management, administrative principles and bureaucratic organisation. Henry Fayol and Mary Parker Follett developed theories for administrative principles and Max Weber developed a theory for bureaucratic organisation (Schermerhorn et al. 2014, p.36). First we will be going through Henri Fayol and then Mary Parker Follett as they both made theories

The famous concept of Scientific Management was originated by Frederick W. Taylor few centuries ago. Scientific management is a way of organizing and administrating the industry with its own system involving rules, methods and policies (Thompson, 1916). His goal was to standardize and connect all the current improvements in industrial organization and to push it further according to his concept (Thompson, 1914). His work later gave inspiration to many researches from other fields (Wren, 2011). On the other hand, Elton Mayo research later on the Hawthorne Experiment has deviated the industrial psychology from what relates the worker’s relationship to his job instead to workers prioritizing work relations and attitude (Cubbon, 1969). Elton Mayo then develops the concept of Human Relations by studying the workers in groups instead of how Taylor did by studying workers as individual. Through this, he noticed workers prefer working in groups and it even increases the productivity of the work place. (Ionescu & Negrusa, 2013).

This study aims to analyze and discuss both industrial benefits and social implications of Frederick Taylor’s scientific management approach. A brief biography of the “Father of Efficiency” will be outlined, followed by an overview of Frederick Taylor’s framework for Scientific Management. Discussions within will focus on positive effects of production with the aid of scientific management and the negative social

Modern management principals are still based upon Fayol’s functions, Mintzberg’s roles and Katz ‘s skills even though they have been around for a long time in our dynamic environment. This is evident if you firstly understand what Fayol’s functions, Minzberg’s roles and Katz’s skills actually are and you look into new management texts and businesses.