{"id":63,"date":"2015-04-21T22:15:43","date_gmt":"2015-04-21T22:15:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/courses.candelalearning.com\/masterybusiness1xngcxmaster\/?post_type=chapter&p=63"},"modified":"2015-10-06T13:44:59","modified_gmt":"2015-10-06T13:44:59","slug":"reading-fredrick-taylors-scientific-management","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/clinton-introbusinesswmopen\/chapter\/reading-fredrick-taylors-scientific-management\/","title":{"raw":"Reading: Fredrick Taylor\u2019s Scientific Management","rendered":"Reading: Fredrick Taylor\u2019s Scientific Management"},"content":{"raw":"

Fredrick Taylor\u2019s Scientific Management<\/h2>\r\nIn 1913, Frederick Taylor published Principles of Scientific Management,<\/em>[footnote]Taylor, F. (1913). Principles of scientific management. New York, NY: Harper.[\/footnote] ushering in a completely new way of understanding the modern organization. Frederick Taylor was trained as an engineer and played a prominent role in the idea of scientific management. Scientific management<\/span><\/em> is a management-oriented and production-centered perspective of organizational communication.[footnote]Einsenberg, E. M., & Goodall, H. L., Jr. (1993). Organizational communication: Balancing creativity and constraint. New York, NY: St. Martin\u2019s Press.[\/footnote]\u00a0Taylor believed that the reason most organizations failed was because\u00a0they lacked successful systematic management. He wrote that \"the best management is true science resting upon clearly defined laws, rules, and principles, as a foundation.\"[footnote]Taylor, F. (1913). Principles of scientific management. New York: Harper, pg. 19.[\/footnote]<\/span> He further noted that \"under scientific management, arbitrary power, arbitrary dictation ceases, and every single subject, large and small, becomes a question for scientific investigation, for reduction to law.\"[footnote]Ibid., p 211[\/footnote] Taylor believed that any job could be performed better if it were investigated\u00a0scientifically. Taylor developed\u00a0time and motion studies that helped improve organizational efficiency.\r\n
\r\n\r\nWorking as a foreman for the Bethlehem Steel Works in the 1900s, Taylor observed how workers could do more with less time. He analyzed coal shoveling at the factory and noticed that several workers brought\u00a0different sizes of shovels from home. Workers who brought small shovels could do more but it took them longer, and workers who brought big shovels could do less but it was faster. He observed that the best size shovel was one weighing about twenty pounds. As a result, he directed\u00a0the organization to provide all the workers with the same size shovel. He also provided pay incentives for workers who could shovel more coal. By making these changes, the organization dramatically increased its production.\r\n\r\nTaylor believed that several steps must be taken in order to create\u00a0a more productive organization. First, one must examine the job or task. Second, one needs to determine the best way to complete the job or task. Third, one must choose the most appropriate person for the task while at the same time providing proper compensation. Last, one must be able to train the person to do the task efficiently. Taylor believed that by using these scientific steps organizations\u00a0gain efficiencies.\r\n\r\nTaylor's idea of scientific management originated during a time\u00a0when most worker training was based on apprenticeship models. In an apprenticeship, a person would be taught by a more skilled and experienced person, who would demonstrate\u00a0the task so the inexperienced person could model the behavior. Taylor believed that this was a very ineffective way of training because he felt that workers would differ in terms of the tasks they\u00a0performed, and the quality or efficiency of task completion would depend on the kind of training they\u00a0received. Taylor argued that there should be only one way to explain the job and one way to execute the task. He didn't think the training of apprentices should be left to individual \"experts.\"\r\n\r\nOverall, Taylor felt that employees are\u00a0lazy and need constant supervision. He posited that \"the tendency of the average [employee] is toward working at a slow easy gait.\" He called\u00a0this tendency \"natural soldiering\" (\"soldiering\" is another word for \"taking it easy\"). One's natural tendency to take it easy on the job can also be affected by \"systematic soldiering,\" which occurs when when employees decrease their work production based on input or communications from others or if they feel that working harder will not result in greater compensation. When employees are paid by the hour, there is an additional incentive to slow down\u2014it's better to \"soldier\" and show that tasks take longer than might really be necessary. On account of what he took to be workers' inherent laziness, Taylor understood the impact of workers on production rates\u00a0and the need for more efficient\u00a0work practices.\r\n\r\nTaylor is known for developing\u00a0time and motion studies\u00a0<\/em>of work<\/span>. These were methods for calculating production efficiency by recording outcomes and the time it takes to produce those outcomes. Taylor believed that if each task were\u00a0scientifically designed and the workers could be trained, then production could be measured by timing the labor the workers performed. The idea was to\u00a0create quantified benchmarks for work in order to improve efficiency and production outcomes. Taylor's time and motion studies were furthered by Frank Gilbreth, who used film to capture workers in action to gain a better understanding of physical movements.[footnote]Nadworny, M. J. (1957). Frederick Taylor and Frank Gilbreth: Competition in scientific management. Business History Review, 31, 23\u201334.[\/footnote]\u00a0In the following video, you can see the work of Frank Gilbreth, along with his wife Lilian, as they attempted to use time and motion techniques to make bricklaying more effective, productive, and profitable.\r\n\r\nhttps:\/\/youtu.be\/lDg9REgkCQk\r\n\r\nIn the first half of the video, the initial\u00a0configuration of the scaffolding required the bricklayers to do a lot of bending. The bending motion not only took more time but also increased the workers' fatigue as the day wore on, making them\u00a0less effective and productive. In the second half of the video, after the time and motion study, you saw the solution: a new scaffolding arrangement that no longer required bending over to pick up the bricks. It was time and motion studies like these that enabled researchers (and employers) to\u00a0investigate the mechanics of doing work<\/em>\u2014which, in many cases, led to genuine improvements in worker conditions and work techniques.\r\n\r\nTaylor's mechanistic vision\u00a0applied\u00a0to organizations as a whole: ideally, work tasks would be clearcut and simple, and the sum total of employees efficiently performing their tasks would be a company that runs like a well-functioning machine.\r\n\r\nTaylor's ideas do not leave much room for flexibility, creativity, or originality on the worker's part. In his view, there is a strong and necessary division between managers, who do the thinking, and workers, who do the laboring. Nor do Taylor's scientific principles\u00a0address the messier, more human side of organizational management\u2014things like interpersonal relationships, work motivation, and turbulence in organizations. Taylor didn't think it was important to build rapport with\u00a0workers. Managers ought to communicate in a straightforward manner; employees don't need to give input\u2014they just need to know how to do their jobs.\r\n\r\nThough\u00a0Taylor's ideas were wildly popular in their day, they had\u00a0detractors even then.\u00a0As early as 1912, the U.S. Commission on Industrial Relations expressed skepticism about scientific management (what many were calling \"Taylorism\"):\r\n
To sum up, scientific management in practice generally tends to weaken the competitive power of the individual worker and thwarts the formation of shop groups and weakens group solidarity; moreover, generally scientific management is lacking in the arrangements and machinery necessary for the actual voicing of the workers ideas and complaints and for the democratic consideration and adjustment of grievances.[footnote]U.S. Commission on Industrial Relations (1912). A government evaluation of scientific management: Final report and testimony. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, pg. 136.[\/footnote]<\/blockquote>\r\n<\/div>\r\n \r\n

Check Your Understanding<\/h2>\r\nAnswer the question(s) below to see how well you understand the topics covered in this section. This short quiz does not<\/strong> count toward your grade in the class, and you can retake it an unlimited number of times.\r\n\r\nUse this quiz to check your understanding and decide whether to (1) study the previous section further or (2) move on to the next section.\r\n\r\nhttps:\/\/assessments.lumenlearning.com\/assessments\/203","rendered":"

Fredrick Taylor\u2019s Scientific Management<\/h2>\n

In 1913, Frederick Taylor published Principles of Scientific Management,<\/em>[1]<\/sup><\/a> ushering in a completely new way of understanding the modern organization. Frederick Taylor was trained as an engineer and played a prominent role in the idea of scientific management. Scientific management<\/span><\/em> is a management-oriented and production-centered perspective of organizational communication.[2]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0Taylor believed that the reason most organizations failed was because\u00a0they lacked successful systematic management. He wrote that “the best management is true science resting upon clearly defined laws, rules, and principles, as a foundation.”[3]<\/sup><\/a><\/span> He further noted that “under scientific management, arbitrary power, arbitrary dictation ceases, and every single subject, large and small, becomes a question for scientific investigation, for reduction to law.”[4]<\/sup><\/a> Taylor believed that any job could be performed better if it were investigated\u00a0scientifically. Taylor developed\u00a0time and motion studies that helped improve organizational efficiency.<\/p>\n

\n

Working as a foreman for the Bethlehem Steel Works in the 1900s, Taylor observed how workers could do more with less time. He analyzed coal shoveling at the factory and noticed that several workers brought\u00a0different sizes of shovels from home. Workers who brought small shovels could do more but it took them longer, and workers who brought big shovels could do less but it was faster. He observed that the best size shovel was one weighing about twenty pounds. As a result, he directed\u00a0the organization to provide all the workers with the same size shovel. He also provided pay incentives for workers who could shovel more coal. By making these changes, the organization dramatically increased its production.<\/p>\n

Taylor believed that several steps must be taken in order to create\u00a0a more productive organization. First, one must examine the job or task. Second, one needs to determine the best way to complete the job or task. Third, one must choose the most appropriate person for the task while at the same time providing proper compensation. Last, one must be able to train the person to do the task efficiently. Taylor believed that by using these scientific steps organizations\u00a0gain efficiencies.<\/p>\n

Taylor’s idea of scientific management originated during a time\u00a0when most worker training was based on apprenticeship models. In an apprenticeship, a person would be taught by a more skilled and experienced person, who would demonstrate\u00a0the task so the inexperienced person could model the behavior. Taylor believed that this was a very ineffective way of training because he felt that workers would differ in terms of the tasks they\u00a0performed, and the quality or efficiency of task completion would depend on the kind of training they\u00a0received. Taylor argued that there should be only one way to explain the job and one way to execute the task. He didn’t think the training of apprentices should be left to individual “experts.”<\/p>\n

Overall, Taylor felt that employees are\u00a0lazy and need constant supervision. He posited that “the tendency of the average [employee] is toward working at a slow easy gait.” He called\u00a0this tendency “natural soldiering” (“soldiering” is another word for “taking it easy”). One’s natural tendency to take it easy on the job can also be affected by “systematic soldiering,” which occurs when when employees decrease their work production based on input or communications from others or if they feel that working harder will not result in greater compensation. When employees are paid by the hour, there is an additional incentive to slow down\u2014it’s better to “soldier” and show that tasks take longer than might really be necessary. On account of what he took to be workers’ inherent laziness, Taylor understood the impact of workers on production rates\u00a0and the need for more efficient\u00a0work practices.<\/p>\n

Taylor is known for developing\u00a0time and motion studies\u00a0<\/em>of work<\/span>. These were methods for calculating production efficiency by recording outcomes and the time it takes to produce those outcomes. Taylor believed that if each task were\u00a0scientifically designed and the workers could be trained, then production could be measured by timing the labor the workers performed. The idea was to\u00a0create quantified benchmarks for work in order to improve efficiency and production outcomes. Taylor’s time and motion studies were furthered by Frank Gilbreth, who used film to capture workers in action to gain a better understanding of physical movements.[5]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0In the following video, you can see the work of Frank Gilbreth, along with his wife Lilian, as they attempted to use time and motion techniques to make bricklaying more effective, productive, and profitable.<\/p>\n