Taylor_vs_Mayo

MMMFredrick Winslow Taylor Fredrick Winslow Taylor (March 20, 1856- March 21, 1915) who was also known as the ‘father of scientific management’ was an American mechanical engineer who sought to improve industrial efficiency. He belonged to the era of industrial revolution. Positions held:- Ø In 1874, he became an apprentice mechanist, learning factory conditions at the grass roots level. Ø In 1884, he became an executive at the Midvale steel company by demonstrating his leadership abilities. Ø In 1898, he joined the Bethlehem Iron Company. He increased the staff and made Bethlehem a show place for inventive work. George Elton Mayo George Elton Mayo (December 26, 1880 – September 7, 1949) was a psychologists and sociologist. He is known as the founder of the Human Relations Movement, and is known for his research including the Hawthorne studies, and his book The Social Problems of an Industrialized Civilization (1933). Ø In 1926, he became the director of the department of industrial research at Harvard university Scientific Management Scientific management was the first attempt to systematically treat management and process improvement as a scientific problem.The systematic study of the relationships between people and tasks for the purpose of redesigning the work process for higher efficiency. Defined by Frederick Taylor in the late 1800’s to replace informal rule of thumb knowledge. Taylor sought to reduce the time a worker spent on each task by optimizing the way the task was done. Drawbacks of Scientific Management Managers frequently implemented only the increased output side of Taylor’s plan. - Workers did not share in the increased output. Specialized jobs became very boring, dull. - Workers ended up distrusting the Scientific Management method. Workers could purposely “under-perform.” - Management responded with increased use of machines and conveyors belts. While scientific management principles improved productivity and had a substantial impact on industry, they also increased the monotony of work. The core job dimensions of skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback all were missing from the picture of scientific management. Principles of scientific management are:- Ø Replace rule-of-thumb work methods with methods based on a scientific study of the tasks. Ø Scientifically select, train, and develop each worker rather than passively leaving them to train themselves. Ø Cooperate with the workers to ensure that the scientifically developed methods are being followed. Ø Divide work nearly equally between managers and workers, so that the managers apply scientific management principles to planning the work and the workers actually perform the tasks. Criticisms of scientific management Although it is accepted that the scientific management enables the management to put resources to its best possible use and manner, yet it has not been spared of severe criticisms. Workers Viewpoint 1. Unemployment - Workers feel 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. 2. Exploitation - Workers feel they are exploited 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). 3. Monotony - Due to excessive specialization the workers are not able to take initiative on their own. Their status is reduced to being mere cogs in wheel. Jobs become dull. Workers loose interest in jobs and derive little pleasure from work. 4. Weakening of Trade Union - To 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, creates a rift between efficient & in efficient workers according to their wages. 5. Over speeding - the scientific management lays standard output, time so they have to rush up and finish the work in time. These have adverse effect on health of workers. The workers speed up to that standard output, so scientific management drives the workers to rush towards output and finish work in standard time. Employer's Viewpoint 1. Expensive - Scientific management is a costly system and a huge investment is required in establishment of planning dept., standardization, work study, training of workers. It may be beyond reach of small firms. Heavy food investment leads to increase in overhead costs. 2. 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. Human Relations Management Theory THE HAWTHORNE STUDIES • Showed the importance of groups in affecting the behaviour of individuals at work. • He carried out a number of investigations to look at ways of improving productivity, for example changing lighting conditions in the workplace. • What he found however was that work satisfaction depended to a large extent on the informal social pattern of the workgroup. • Physical conditions or financial incentives had little motivational value. • People will form workgroups and this can be used by management to benefit the organisation. • CONCLUSION: people's work performance is dependent on both social issues and job content. He suggested a tension between workers' 'logic of sentiment' and managers' 'logic of cost and efficiency' which could lead to conflict within organisations. CRITICISMS OF MAYOISM     Mayoism was criticized on several grounds, most of which revolved around the claim it was "cow psychology" which could be expressed by the phrase "Contented Cows Give More Milk."  Mayoism was a bit too idealistic in trying to remove all forms of conflict within an organization, a bit too evangelistic in trying to save the world, and it excused much immaturity and irresponsibility among the workers.  Some of the harshest critics were March & Simon (1958) and Charles Lindblom (1959).  March & Simon (1958) called Mayoism a "garbage-can model" of decision-making because it was basically irrational and seemed to offer a garbage can full of easy answers.  March & Simon themselves were critics of perfect rationality, and gave us such terms as "bounded rationality" and "satisficing" to explain the kinds of things managers have to settle for.  Lindblom (1959) also studied the process of limited rationality, and said that Mayoism can't figure out how to sort and value-rank competing employee needs relative to a particular problem. Therefore, it results in an incremental (slow, step-by-step) approach to innovation because a manager must act on compromises. Beliefs of Elton Mayo • Individual workers cannot be treated in isolation, but must be seen as members of a group. • Monetary incentives and good working condition are less important to the individual than the need to belong to a group. • Informal or unofficial groups formed at work have a strong influence on the behavior of those workers in a group. • Managers must be aware of these 'social needs' and cater for them to ensure that employees collaborate with the official organization rather than work against it. Comparison Ø Taylor’s major concern throughout his whole life was to increase efficiency in production, for not only to lower the costs but also raise profits and possible increase to pay for workers throughout their highest productivity, whereas, Mayo’s primary concern was to examine the human aspects of workers. Ø Taylorism avoided ‘informal groups’, but the human relations movement supported their existence. The reason was that scientific management portrayed the worker as mechanical, passive and a being that worked only for monetary rewards and ‘the one best way’ to achieve organizational goals was to maintain as much rationality as possible but, Mayo believes that there should be development of informal groups amongst the workgroup in the workplace. This not only gives a sense of job satisfaction but also increases the productivity to the highest level. Informal groups also facilitates the communication and cooperation among members. Ø Taylor believed that the sole motivator for the workers to do their job was money. He also believed that increasing the financial reward of the workers would help increase productivity and maintain job satisfaction. To this, Mayo believed that financial reward was not the only motivation for the workers. The results of the Hawthorne experiments showed that “social bonds within working groups were so strong that group interests were sometimes placed above individual financial reward.”(web,2008). Ø Under scientific management, the function of the leader was to set work criteria and enforce them on the workers and was to be seen as the figure of high authority. While under the human relations movement, the function of the leader was to facilitate cooperation and coordination among the employees while providing assistance and opportunities for their ‘personal growth and development’. Ø Scientific management aimed at the growth of the organization but paid little attention to the worker’s individual growth by exercising external control over the worker’s performance, while the human relations movement aimed at organizational growth, yet maintaining the dedication to the individual growth of the worker. Ø Scientific management treated the worker as a ‘human machine’ and used the ‘differential system’ for motivation. While, the human relations movement held that the satisfaction of the worker was its main objective. According to the human relations movement, “satisfied workers are motivated workers and therefore effective workers”. (Adair. J, 1998). Ø The scientific management and Human Relation Movement has a different view of looking at the system at the modern world. To the world which was becoming increasingly democratic in principle if not in practice, scientific management could only be ever seen as anti-democratic. Whereas in the modern era the human relations is seen as a democratic. Ø Taylor devalues the importance of personal relations and the feeling and attitudes of the workers. He thinks that system which defines the work and workers are necessary to follow according to the procedures laid down by the planning committee of the company or factory. He did not have trust in the informal group within the work organization. However Mayo had a different opinion according to him importance of interpersonal relations, especially the feelings and attitudes within the working groups, should not be devalued. Mayo had faith in the casual groups within the system because on his Hawthorne investigation the casual group is active then the effectiveness and efficiency as well as the rate of production has a magnificent increase. He also believed that the foremost reasons why the organizations existed are to serve the human needs and that organization and people need each other. If one of them is effected the others too gets affected. Conclusion Scientific Management believed that planning should be separated from doing, whereas, Human Relations believed in a far wider participation when it came to decision-making. The scientific management theory and the human relations movement theory both aim at organizational excellence through increased efficiency. This excellence can be achieved if either of the two theories is applied or both. In light of the modern management scenario, a good manager is one who applies a blend of well proportioned management theories into practice. Taylor believed that efficiency is improved by removing initiative from workers and placing it in the hands of management while Mayo argued the very opposite that output is enhanced when workers are largely trusted to make their own decisions. It is significant that both Taylor and Mayo were using an applied scientific approach because off course both were able to provide evidence that their intervening were successful. Even though both the schools of management thought they were so different from each other in their approach, they shared a common ground at one point – ‘increased productivity’, which was the ultimate goal. Thus, Scientific Management and Human Relations can be seen as two sides of the same coin and none is superior to the other. References Books 1. Donnelly. R - Schools of Management Thought, Pitman Publishing, Scotland, 2000 2. Donnelly. R - Introduction to Management 1, Pitman Publishing, Scotland, 2009 3. Donnelly. R - The Role of the Manager, Pitman Publishing, Scotland, 2008 Web References http://www.apsu.edu/oconnort/4000/4000lect02a.htm http://ezinearticles.com/'Criticism-of-Scientific-Management&id=1639903