The Scientific Model And Human Relations Model

Frederick W. Taylor worked across the United States in the first 15 years of the 20th century looking to solve production problems (Owens & Valesky, 2011, p. 67). He was an engineer in steel manufacturing and studied developed what what is now known as the four principles of scientific management. These principles spell out what both managers and workers are to do. Two important principles include having the management set goals, plan, and supervise workers, and the workers perform the work, and that organizations should establish the standard where management “sets the objectives and the workers cooperate in achieving them” (p. 67). Taylor’s principles are still used today by some organizational leaders who fight the movement that management should work as a team with the workers (pp. 67-68). Taylor’s principles have led to things such as strict discipline, the idea that workers must focus on their task with little or no interaction with colleagues, and the idea of incentive

Let’s begin by analyzing F. W. Taylor. Taylor’s scientific method can be summed up as a systematic study of relationships between people and tasks to increase efficiency (Jones and George 2015). There are four principles involved in this method: (1) Study the way workers perform their tasks, gather all the informal job knowledge that workers possess, and experiment with ways of improving the ways that tasks are performed. This step has the similar attributes of the organizing and controlling tasks discussed earlier in that the controlling task also involves evaluating the division of labor. (2) Codify the new methods of performing tasks into written rules and standard operating procedures. This step is very much about the organizing task. Although there are written rules, this aspect diverges from the leading

Frederick W. Taylor was ahead of his time for his concept of Scientific management. It was a revolutionary way of running a business, that swept all over the globe, and his ideas were applicable to many different industries. Substituting disorder and conflict for a new untested method of control, cooperation, and science. Taylor understood there were no incentives for working harder. Knowing this, he payed workers based on output, allowing workers to make more money on any given day. It seemed like everyone would enjoy and prosper under this system, but that was not the case. Workers liked the opportunity to make more money in this system but many of them resisted this new idea. Being under constant supervision made work much harder for them.

Scientific Management Theory by Frederick W. Taylor – Throughout the industrial world employees are the large part of the organisation and Fundamental interests of employees are necessarily aggressive. So as a manager it is necessary to arrange mutual relations with employees so their interests become identical. In case of any single individual the greatest prosperity can exist only when that individual has reached his highest state of efficiency and that is, when he is turning out his largest daily output (Frederick Winslow Taylor, 2007).

Taylorism denies the fact that managers can chose from a variety of strategies and in many cases can be flexible in their approach to the workforce. This methodology will also be changed and an improvement will be arranged from my end.

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).

Taylorism is a management system which was popular in the late 19th century. It was designed to increase efficiency by breaking down and specialising repetitive tasks. This is exhibited as mentioned in ‘Selection and Development: A new perspective on some old problems’ that several jobs presently no longer consist of clusters of similar tasks, but are now process based collections of activities (Harrington, Hill & Linley 2005). According to Weber’s foundation of organisation theory; bureaucracy was portrayed as an “instrument or tool of unrivalled technical superiority which entailed charismatic, traditional and rational authority” (1978, cited in Clegg 1994). Thereafter, other theories derived based on the instrument being used as a form of manipulation. This is evident in Knights & Roberts’ (1982) concept of human resource management and staff misunderstanding the nature of power, treating it as if it were an individual possession, as opposed to a relationship between people (Knights & Roberts 1982). Subsequently, this led to the establishment of unions and increasing cooperative resistance in the workplace as employees seek change in the occupational structure (Courpasson & Clegg 2012). The change in this occupational structure was based around the ‘superior-inferior’ concept where managers prioritise their own success

Throughout history, there have been many different approaches of management theories. Some theories longer exist because they are no longer relevant in today’s environment, but some theories are still implemented like Scientific Management and Human Relations. Scientific management emphasizes on efficiency productivity by motivating workers with monetary rewards. Human relations emphasize on motivation of workers by both financial rewards and a range of social factors (e.g. praise, a sense of belonging, feelings of achievement and pride in one’s work).

Taylor's own name for his approach was scientific management. This sort of task-oriented optimization of work tasks is nearly ubiquitous today in industry, and has made most industrial work menial, repetitive, tedious and depressing; this can be noted, for instance, in assembly lines and fast-food restaurants. Ford's arguments began from his observation that, in general, workers forced to perform repetitive tasks work at the slowest rate that goes unpunished. This slow rate of work (which he called "soldiering", but might nowadays be termed by those in charge as "loafing" or "malingering" or by those on the assembly line as "getting through the day"), he opined, was based on the observation that, when paid the same amount, workers will tend to do the amount of work the slowest among them does: this reflects the idea that workers have a vested interest in their own well-being, and do not benefit from working above the defined rate of work when it will not increase their compensation. He therefore proposed that the work practice that had been developed in most work environments was crafted, intentionally or unintentionally, to be very inefficient in its execution. From this he posited that there was one best method for performing a particular task, and that if it were taught to workers, their productivity would go up.

Managers today have many different options when choosing a managerial theory to implement for their organizations. Knowledgeable managers must be aware of the different historical approaches and also able to determine which approach would be most effective for their unit. The established work structure of my unit currently utilizes elements of classical organizational theory, more specifically scientific management and bureaucratic theory. More recent theories, such as those that focus on human relations, are not applied as frequently. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the historical management theories utilized by my organization and determine whether they are appropriate. When areas in which my organization could be improved upon are identified, the recommendations of other management theories are considered for their possible effectiveness.

The human relations movement came about because businesses wanted to understand how groups of people behaved in a workplace and how the unions advocated for their workers. With poor working conditions, low pay, and no benefits, something needed to be done. Frederick Winslow Taylor’s idea of scientific management gives you the perspective of a company, his philosophy sought to increase productivity, and make the work easier by scientifically studying work methods and establishing standards (A Brief History of Management, pg. 37). These are principles of early management. By examining the efficiency of workers you were able to increase production and get the product or services on the market faster. Working with employees in regards to steady hours, good pay, and getting benefits like days off and retirement were details that the unions dealt with. Here this paper explores how the human relations movement expanded into management styles, which theories impacted the industry, and how management

Employee motivation is a hugely important factor regarding the efficiency and productivity of any organization. Though there are many management theories regarding how employees are best motivated, the majority of these specific theories fall under two broad categories. On the one hand, there is the scientific management theory, or classical approach, in which employees are treated as mechanical components of an organization and motivated purely by economic incentive (Almusaileem, 2012). On the other is the human relations approach, which theorizes that employees are best motivated through group dynamics, human relations and the meeting of social needs (Almusaileem, 2012). However, management theory is significantly more complicated. Each individual responds to motivation differently, and often, the grouping of all employees under one motivating factor or another is ineffective. Personally, I find the human relations approach to be significantly better motivator through the focus on psychological and social needs of the individual (Almusaileem, 2012). Additionally, I find that the human relations approach leaves room for creativity and entrepreneurship, which classical management theory lacks. Most importantly, the human relations approach provides significantly more reward than classical production incentives. Taylor’s theory of scientific management may have made sense in the early part of the twentieth century, in which most employees worked in the industrial

Scientific management is a management theory developed by Frederick W Taylor. Its main purpose is to improve an organization’s efficiency in production through analyzing workflow systematically using quantitative analysis to improve task completion efficiency. Reducing waste, increasing methods of production and create a just distribution of goods are goals of the scientific management theory. On the other hand, human relations theory attributed by Elton Mayo counteracts with scientific management theory that ignored human issues of behavior. In human relations theory, a worker is treated as an individual and what motivates and cultivates them in their achievement is analyzed. Both scientific management and human relation theory aims to improve efficiency in the workplace and it still applies to the workforce in the modern days despite the opposing ideas of both theories.

It is clear to see that today’s management practices have stemmed from the studies and theories that have evolved over the past centuries. Scientific Management Theory and the Human Relations Movement are only two of many theories that have amalgamated over the past years to form current management trends and applications. There is no one theory that is preferred or more advantageous than the other, as we have learnt from the Scientific Management Theory and the Human Relations Movement, each have their positive and negative aspects. While these theories have their unique aspects, they also share similar themes and philosophies as discussed earlier.

The scientific management came into existence to focus on behavioural aspects of management. Failure of scientific management gave birth to human relation movement. It was founded on more emphasis on workers cooperation and moral. The study of human relations is not a new phenomenon. It got recognition in business, production still continued to claim dominating