Scientific_Management

INTRODUCTION It is not difficult to find examples of Scientific Management in today’s society; the car and computer manufacturing plants, the work environments we go to everyday, the hospitals we are treated in and even some of the restaurants we might eat in, - almost all of them function more efficiently due to the application of Scientific Management. In fact, these methods of working seem so commonplace and so logical to a citizen of the modern world that it is almost impossible to accept that they were revolutionary only 100 years ago. Technically Scientific Management is the Management thought concerned primarily with the physical efficiency of an individual worker (Bratton: 2000). According to Taylor (1998), "Scientific Management is an art of knowing exactly what you want your men to do and seeing that they do it in the best and cheapest way". In Taylors view, if work is analyzed scientifically it will be possible to find one best way to do it. Taylor held the belief that traditional decisions and guidelines should be replaced by accurate procedures that are developed after careful research and study of an individual’s work. The need for scientific management is propelled by the fact that the demand of the competent man surpasses the supply. Countries and organizations are always on the look out for a man who has already been trained. There is a seeming lack of opportunity and contribution towards systematically training and making a man competent. However, George Ritzer(2000) defined Scientific Management as a procedure that produced non human technology that exerted great control over workers. In his statement Ritzer refers to the effect of scientific management. Before the study by Taylor and most businesses followed the old Rule of Thumb management procedure in which the worker had initiative and control and therefore, it was only his hard work that resulted in the business success or failure. Taylor studied his place of work, The Bethlehem steel Company, and came to the conclusion that the “Old Rule of Thumb’ was very inefficient. His time and motion studies were aimed at replacing the unproductive rule of thumb and replace it by the “one best way"(Adler: 1993). He believed that there was one perfect method which could be adopted by employees to carry out a task and this would generate the best job. In effect Taylor wanted to deskill workers i.e. create division of labour and wanted employees to be specialised in one segment of production and repeat this task constantly. Hence logic would tell you that constant repetition of a task would result in better productivity output and ultimately higher quality. Taylor’s approach to creating an efficient structure for an organisation was ‘bottom up’ in which he concentrated on improving efficiency and motivation of staff on the bottom of the structure i.e. the shop floor. This was a different view of structure improvement compared to organisation structure designers such as Max Weber and Henri Fayol who were ‘top down’ and aimed at improving the management or top section of the hierarchy of an organisation. Structure This essay will attempt to explain why Scientific Management is blamed for many ills in societies around the world including Zambia through examination of its application in several modern organizations. Historical background Scientific management was originally developed in the 1800s by an economist, Adam Smith(Nelson:1980). He was interested in a factory that operated and produced pins, and through the breaking down of tasks; for example, division of labour, he increased output from 20 pins per employee per day to 4,800 pins (Nelson: 1980). However the greatest break through in scientific management came in the 1900s during the peak of the industrial revolution, and due to the emergence of the factory system more attention was being given to methods or factors that could contribute towards increasing output levels. It was here that Frederick Taylor began his studies into this field and his ideas were later furthered by individuals such as Gilbreth and Gantt (Nelson: 1980). Despite each individual having a significant input into the study of scientific management Taylor was widely regarded as the ‘Father of Scientific Management’ and hence the term ‘Taylorism’ being introduced. One of the time and motion experiments that Taylor redesigned was the loading of pigs of iron into an open railroad car. By redesigning and breaking down the workers movements Taylor managed to improve the employee’s efficiency and loading from 12.5 long tons a day to 47.5 long tons a day(Adler:1993). During his study Taylor also described workers as people who are motivated by nothing else but money and he devised the idea of a fair days wage based on a fair days work’, which simply means that employees were paid extra according to their level of output and paid bonuses for reaching targets. This idea was then furthered by Douglas McGregor in the 1900s and was known as Theory X (Branton: 1999). During this time of scientific study Taylor’s ideas were furthered developed by Frank Gilbreth, who like Taylor was a practicing engineer and manager. Gilbreth’s area of expertise was in the construction area and he conducted his experiments on bricklayers. Unlike Taylor who focused most of his attention on time and no as much as motion, Gilbreth decided to look at how the study of motion could simplify jobs and break them down. By using electric lamps he photographed workers actions and from this he developed wire models of the actions of the workers and redesigned these movements to make them more efficient and quicker. Once this was put into practice it resulted in output increasing from 120 bricks an hour to 350(Adler: 1993) Another individual, alongside Gilbreth, who furthered Taylor’s initial ideas, was Henry Gantt. He took the negative aspects of Taylor’s ideas and decided to ‘humanize’ scientific management taking into consideration the physiological needs of an employee. He made three major contributions to scientific management. The first one was: Best known way at present- in this method he used Taylor’s idea of ‘one best way’ for a task but didn’t go into too much detail and hence not deskilling employees as much; Task and bonus- this was Gantt’s alternative to Taylor’s piece rate payment scheme and Gantt insisted that each worker was to be given a standard days wage and additional bonuses; Gantt chart- he developed a plan that could be used by employees and managers to co-ordinate tasks(Elred:2001). Another individual that adopted and furthered the major principles of scientific management was Henry Ford. He was the owner of the world renowned car plant known as ‘Ford’ even today. The movement of ford was given the name of fordism which according to John Bratton in the Work and organisational Behaviour book is defined as the “mass production using assembly line technology that allowed greater division of labour. This was very different to post fordism. Before fordism craftsmen were very limited and hence it took a very long time for individuals to learn the trade of car manufacturing, and hence it was batch production. However Henry Ford introduced the ‘single purpose’ machine tool which had many different effects. For example by breaking down the tasks using the moving assembly line it destroyed crafts men. By deskilling employees Ford financially benefited as it meant that employees didn’t have to be highly skilled. During this period immigrants were entering the country and this meant that Ford could employ staff for as cheap as possible and yet keep quality and efficiency at a satisfactory level. In the Fordist method of management, all products were mass produced as the moving assembly line meant that workers were working according to the speed of the assembly line. This was different from Taylor’s idea as Taylor invested in the differentiated piece rate system to motivate workers however Ford invested in technology (e.g. moving assembly line). Mcdonaldization is a thesis that was originally derived from the Braverman thesis. However, before Braverman it was Robert Merton in 1947 who stated that technological advancements had social effects for example deskilling of workers hence making them specialized in one task, took skills and identity from work and increased discipline in work(citation). Braverman in the 1970s brought up this argument again and hence came the name of ‘Braverman thesis’. However by the year 1990 this idea of Braverman was rephrased as Mcdonaldization. In his book of Mcdonaldization in society Braverman defines this as the process by which principles of the fast food restaurants are coming to dominate more and more sectors of society as well as the rest of the world. However, one of the biggest users of scientific management in the world today is McDonalds. This is an American fast food restaurant that has spread its businesses successfully worldwide. One of the aspects of scientific management the McDonalds have implemented into their business is the Fordist management style where everyone works according to an assembly line(Ritzer: 2000) For example the company has designed all of its food chain braches in such a style that employees don’t have to take more than two steps to complete their task. Hence they are like in an assembly but instead of using car parts it is food. Taylor’s ideas have also been implemented The method in which McDonalds for example create their hamburger is a form of deskilling and division of labour. For example they have simplified the job by firstly grilling the burger, putting in lettuce and tomatoes, adding sauce etc, putting onto rolls and then wrapping it up(Ritzer: 2000). As you can see that this is a break down of the job and by having individuals do each task it not only improves efficiency but also creates specialised personnel. Other aspects such as cooking times, drinks dispensers, French fries machines, and programmed cash registers are all methods that are used to limit time that is needed to complete the task and hence showing that aspects of Taylor, Ford and Gilbreth have been adapted(Ritzer: 2000) Fundamentals of Scientific Management: The principal goal of scientific management is to successfully acquire maximum prosperity for the employer as well as the maximum prosperity of each employee. (Melbecon, 2001) The term prosperity here not only refers to the net profits or dividends of the company as a whole or its owner for that matter. It encompasses the successful development of every branch of the particular business that functions at peak efficiency, thereby retaining the prosperity on a permanent basis (Melbecon, 2001). Similarly, for each employee of the company, maximum prosperity not only implies higher salaries but enhancing and developing their state of maximum efficiency. This in turn would increase and produce the highest grade of work that perfectly befits the capabilities of a particular individual. When an individual reaches a peak of efficiency, he is in turn producing largest daily output. In Taylor's (1998) book, The Principles of Scientific Management, he has discussed what he called a struggle for control of production between management and labour. The guiding principal behind Taylor’s concept was to design a production system comprising of both men as well as machines in order to enhance efficiency. He believed that this design would function as good as a well-oiled machine. F.W. Taylor was a pragmatist and a perfectionist, always looking for the "one best way." He hated "soldiering," the term in those days for workers just doing what the informal workgroup had established as a fair days work (no rate-busting). Taylor wanted everybody to be a rate-buster, and he thought unions were unnecessary. According to his book of Principles of Scientific Management, his methods and principles were as follows: Create a time study rate system -- Taylor would find the fastest worker in the organization, the fastest "rate-buster" whom, of course, everybody else in the organization hated. If one didn't exist, he would "scientifically" go out, recruit, hire, and train somebody. He then examined that person's movements on the job, suggested the elimination of unnecessary movements, and took the speediest rate at which this "first class person" could work to hold the other workers accountable to it (with minor adjustments for newness at the job, rest periods, and unavoidable delays). Create functional foremen -- Taylor fought against using the military model in organizations. No manager was to have disciplinary powers; that was the job of a special disciplinarian office" which are known today as Personnel Offices. The notion of functional means supervision over some aspect of work, not supervision over people. This notion essentially meant the creation of specialized clerks with oversight over some aspect of the production, which today we call expediters or quality control/assurance clerks. These clerks had the authority and were known as functional foremen while the regular foremen practiced the exception principle where only big problems come to their attention. Because most assembly-line productions involve 8 major steps to a finished product, Taylor advocated a span of control of eight (8). Establish cost accounting -- also known as task management, this approach involved the use of instruction and routing cards and a timekeeping system where workers punched a clock when they finished a job. Labor variance could then be analyzed, and management had the reporting tools they needed to identify bottlenecks. Rewards and punishments would be doled out by how the numbers looked on paper. Unions would not be allowed to stand in the way. Pay the person and not the position -- end-of-year bonuses were considered too late by Taylor, who instituted a system of inequitable pay for workers. Those that looked good on paper (via the Accounting Office) were paid more (a system of high salary rate and low salary rate), and they were supposed to keep their salaries secret, especially from the union (which the unions didn't like). There were no attempts under Taylorism at job rotation; each worker was expected to specialize in a particular task they did well. Benefits of scientific Management The benefits of scientific management lie within its ability to coordinate a mutual relationship between employers and workers. The theory provides a company with the focus to organize its structure in order to meet the objectives of both the employer and employee. At the time of its inception, Taylor found that the firms who introduced scientific management as he prescribed it became the worlds’ most meticulously organized corporations (Nelson, 1980). Scientific management also provides a company with the means to achieve economies of scale. This phenomenon occurs because the theory stresses efficiency and the need to eliminate waste. Managers are given the duty to identify ways in which costs can be accounted for precisely, which leads to a division of labor and a specialization amongst staff, thus allowing each employee to become highly effective at carrying out their limited task (citation). Consequently, firms will have in place efficient production methods and techniques. Another benefit of scientific management for a company adopting it is that it will obtain full control of its workforce. Management can dictate the desired minimum output to be produced and, with a piece rate payment system in place, can be guaranteed workers will produce the required amount. The entire concept of Scientific Management gained more popularity after World War I. Taylor’s theory and views met much resistance from the labour. He held the belief that by adopting methods of management control and a systemized method of production, increases prosperity per se. The general approach of Scientific Management includes selection of work force with appropriate abilities for specific tasks, training, planning, wage incentives for increasing output and standard method of performing each job. Criticisms of Scientific Management Although Scientific Management does play an important role in today’s work environment, it is necessary to note that this method of management contains weaknesses that limit its influence in current work environments, and consequently not all of its tenets are applicable to modern organizations. Scientific Management is perhaps best seen as an evolutionary stage in management ever developing history Scientific Management, however, is an incomplete system. What is seen in both the Bethlehem Steel plant under Taylor’s management in 1911, and in every McDonald’s restaurant in the World now is a deskilling of labor. As jobs are broken down into their constituent elements, and workers tasks are made easier, humans become little more than machines in the chain. Their cognitive input is not required and their motions do little to develop themselves. For example, individuals that have advanced skills are limited to highly simplified tasks and hence their skills are wasted. There is also the fact that by denying them the opportunity to present their skills it is denying them their human rights (Sheldrake: 2003). In today’s’ society the average intelligence of employees has sharply risen; people have been made aware of their value as human beings and any process by which this status is challenged is considered self-depreciating. People are no longer content to receive only fiscal reward for their tasks. Under Taylors’ Scientific Management system workers were viewed as working solely for economic reward. In current organizations, on the other hand, it has been recognized that productivity and success is not just obtained by controlling all factors in the work place, but by contributing to the social well-being and development of the individual employee. Another example, of scientific management being implemented is in supermarkets such as Shoprite, Spar and Pick and Pay. This is a more extreme form of deskilling as supermarkets have different employees to stack shelves, scan products, handle queries and hence this is all adapting some aspects of Taylors in terms of division of labour. On a general scale it has to be said that by deskilling employees are de-motivated drastically. Despite the fact that it allows employees to specialise in a certain task and hence in the long term it makes there job easier, it doesn’t provide any job satisfaction. Additionally, this also affects their adaptability to new situations. In today’s work environment which is very dynamic, employers not only want workers to be efficient but they must also exhibit flexibility. This view has been successfully supported by the Theorist Abraham Maslow (Hierarchy of needs) and Frederick Herzberg (Hygiene). It was Maslow who stated that money is the basic need of an employee and to successfully motivate a person other social factors have to be taken into consideration (Braton:1999). Herzberg developed a theory that contradicted Taylor’s ideas as he developed ‘job enrichment’. Herzberg stated that there are two factors that could motivate an individual, Hygiene and Motivator (Braton: 1999). The negative aspects of scientific management are apparent when evaluating the treatment of employees. For example, sector that are using scientific management in modern day and age under this systems are call centres such as Zain or MTN Zambia Limited. Usually employees in these institutions are checked upon by their supervisors on whether they give efficient and appropriate services. This is the whole foundation of scientific management which replaced the old rule of thumb. As Ritzer defined it as a method used by managers to gain control over employees and hence by recording or listening to their conversations they are in fact keep them under control. This principal of scientific management is unquestionably authoritarian in that it assumes decision-making is best kept at the top of the organization because there exists a lack of trust in the competence of the employees. Taylor believed productivity and efficiency would both rise if there were a division between workers and experts, and contended that almost every act of the workman should be preceded by one or more preparatory acts of the management. He also reasoned that each person must be taught daily by those who are over them (Taylor: 1998). This style of management can be the catalyst for causing anti-motivation and dissatisfaction amongst employees. If workers feel as though they are being treated without due respect, many may become disenchanted with the company and refuse to work to their maximum potential. This also weakens Trade Union because everything is fixed & predetermined by management. So it leaves no room for trade unions to bargain as everything is standardized, standard output, standard working conditions, standard time etc. This further weakens trade unions in that it creates a rift between efficient & inefficient workers according to their wages Similarly, the piece rate payment system may cause the employer to encounter the problem of encouraging staff to concentrate on quantity at the expense of quality. Additionally, from an employee‘s view scientific management have had negative effects in that management reduces employment opportunities from them through replacement of men by machines and by increasing human productivity less workers are needed to do work leading to chucking out from their jobs. Similarly, scientific management is characterized with the exploitation of employees as they are not given due share in increasing profits which is due to their increased productivity. Wages do not rise in proportion as rise in production. Wage payment creates uncertainty & insecurity (beyond a standard output, there is no increase in wage rate). It also ignores the social and psychological side of employees as Taylor came to the conclusion that money is everything however going back to Herzberg it shows that social status and a sense of achievement are even bigger motivators. From the employer's viewpoint scientific management is a costly system and a huge investment is required in establishment of for example the planning department, standardization, works study, training of workers. It may be beyond reach of small firms. Heavy investment leads to increase in overhead costs (Marcouse: 1996). Additionally, the process is time consuming. Scientific management requires mental revision and complete reorganizing of organization. A lot of time is required for work, study, standardization & specialization. During this overhauling of organization, the work suffers Higher levels of access to technology and information as well as increased competition present another difficulty to theory of Scientific Management being applied to organizations in today’s work environment. Modern organizations process huge amounts of input and employees no longer work in isolated units cut off from the organization at large, but are quite literally connected to it. For example, Satellite link-ups and the Internet provide organizations with thousands of bytes of information everyday, enabling companies to work on a global scale and within never shortening time frames. Delivery times, information gathering, data processing and manufacturing techniques are constantly becoming more technologically advanced and efficient. Alongside this rapid technological growth organizations are finding it increasingly important to react quickly to developments that may affect their welfare. Managers recognize they are unable to control all aspects of employees’ functions, as the sheer layers of information factored into everyday decisions are so high that it is imperative employees use their own initiative. High competition between organizations also means that companies must react fast to maintain market positions. All of these forces modern companies to maintain high levels of flexibility. In the era during which Scientific Management was developed each worker had a specific task that he or she had to perform with little or no real explanation of why, or what part it plays in the organization as a whole. In this day and age it is virtually impossible to find an employee in the developed world who is not aware of what his or her organization stands for, what their business strategy is, how they are faring, and what their job means to the company as a whole. Organizations actively encourage employees to know about their company and to work across departments, ensuring that communication at all levels is mixed and (what is becoming even more popular today) informal. This phenomenon means that, for example, in companies such as EXXON scientists, marketers and manufacturers are all constantly aware of one another’s activities (Peters & Waterman 1982). In conclusion, it can be seen that Scientific Management is still very much a part of any organization in the 21st Century. Its strengths in creating a divide between management functions and work functions have been employed widely at all levels and in all industries. In addition its strengths in making organizations efficient through replacement of rule of thumb with scientific fact has both insured its widespread application and ironically bred the conditions that make it less applicable to modern organizations. Now that all modern organizations work on a factual basis and all of them have managerial and employee structures competition is controlled by other factors outside the realms of Scientific Management. Modern organizations rank humanistic factors such as employee initiative, loyalty and adaptability alongside efficiency. For this reason, Taylors’ claim that workers are solely concerned with monetary reward and that every facet of work needs to be controlled from above seems outmoded, untrue, and impractical. It is perhaps then better to accept that as a complete theory Scientific Management is not visible in modern organizations, however, elements of it are so relevant that they have become deeply ingrained in all modern organizations and are the very reasons why management has taken on new dimension in the 21st Century. Bibliography 1. Adler, P. (1993) Time-and-motion regained. Harvard Business Review 2. Dale, Ernest (1973) Management, Theory & Practice McGraw-Hill Publication. 3. Kelly John (1982) Scientific Management, Job Redesign, & Work Performance Academic Press. 4. Marcouse, I. et al. (1996) The Complete A-Z Business Studies Handbook, Hodder & Stoughton. 5. Nelson, David (1980) Frederick W Taylor and the Rise of Scientific Management The University of Wisconsin Press. 6. Peters, Tom & Waterman, Robert. (1988) In Search Of Excellence Harper & Row Publications. 7. Ritzer, George. (2000) The McDonaldization Of Society. Sage Publications Inc. 8. Sheldrake, John (2003) Management Theory 2nded Thomson Publications. 9. Taylor, Frederic. (1998) The Principles of Scientific Management. Re-published originally published in 1911 Dover Publications. 10. John Bratton (1999) Work and Organizational behaviour, Prentice- Hall 11. Elred, Eric (2001) The Principles of Scientific Management, Harvard Business Review