Frederick Winslow Taylor’s work revolutionized management in industrial operations, partly by making it a “science.” How does Taylor view the obligations of employers and employees to one another in his new system? What are some of the crucial changes in the workplace that he hopes to institute?
8 thoughts on “Taylor and Scientific Management”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
In the new “Scientific Management System” there is more responsibility placed upon the managers rather than all of the work being placed upon the workmen. This system is different than the old system because rather than the workmen learning each trade himself and doing this by learning from his older workers, and gaining a “basic knowledge of the trade,” the managers are responsible for learning all of the basic knowledge of all the trades he overseas. Then, the manager simplifies this knowledge and condenses it into “rules, laws, and formulas which are immensely helpful to the workmen in doing their daily work.” Rather than completing work in ways he has learned himself, the workman learns how to do his work in a universal way and days of work can be planned out days and weeks in advance with the introduction of ‘tasks’ which are what each workman must complete each day at work, and each task has specific instructions on what to do and how to do it. This new system places more responsibility upon the management side of the workforce in terms of planning, scheduling, and selecting the right workmen for the right job. Rather than placing all of the work on the workmen and allowing the workmen to choose their own trade, this new system splits the workload in half by getting the managers more involved and Taylor argues that this is far more effective than the “initiative and incentive” model.
Taylor’s work transformed management of industrial operations into a science by creating a series of tasks and checks delegated to each individual, holding them accountable for all hours of their day. Taylor ensured that no one would slack off with the allure of a bonus. This system depends on the hierarchy of foremen and workers, as the management is responsible for making sure that each worker attends to their duties, and for holding them accountable when they do not complete their tasks in the allotted amount of time. This scientific approach relies on the idea of a personal work ethic, as each employee is left to their own devices to complete their tasks, referred to by Taylor as “initiative and incentive” (33). This almost-mechanized system ensures a high productivity rate, maximizing profit and attaining the most efficient path to results.
Taylor’s discussion of industrial scientific management illustrates the changing nature of the relationship between labor and capital in the early 20th century. The driving logic throughout the essay is that labor’s autonomy from capital is a direct threat to industrial progress. Taylor criticizes the “incentive and initiative” era of production for its inability to give managers—the representative for capital in industrial production systems—control over the knowledge and skills of laborers. In this sense, labor maintains a certain amount of autonomy from capital because control over the efficiency of production is left in the hands of individual laborers. Conversely, Taylor’s system of scientific management seizes the knowledge of physical production away from labor and places it in the control of capital, leaving workers with hardly any ability to affect the efficiency of production. This philosophy of production leaves labor with hardly any bargaining power over capital by reducing the role of the industrial worker to that of an abundant, replaceable commodity.
As mentioned before, what makes scientific management so much more efficient than the previous plan is the “combination of the initiative of the workmen, coupled with the new types of work done by the management.” Taylor goes on to argue that the biggest element he hopes to institute is the idea of the “task.” With tasks, each workman’s day is fully planned out days in advance with written instructions on how to do the work and what they need for the work. These tasks will clearly increase productivity because workmen now have no excuses. Everything is laid out for them and they simply just have to perform their everyday tasks. Workmen were rewarded for fulfilling their tasks correctly and under the allotted time period with “an addition of from 30 per cent. to 100 per cent. to ordinary wages.”
The idea of “scientific management” that Taylor points out refers to a divided working environment where both the working men and the management know their roles and expectations. This culture is set up through uniformity and is run by the overseers. “An equal division of responsibility between the management and the workmen” exemplifies the idea of “scientific management.” It creates a working space where both the worker and the manager are responsible to do their jobs in order to have a efficiently run business. In this type of working environment, the status and knowledge of management is known by the workers and at the same time, the workers understand their expectations with the practice, training, and principles laid out for them. Through “incentive” workers work at their best ability to get their job done. This system of labor allows the business to run most efficiently using division of labor with a balance between the worker and the overseer.
As Liam and Luke have already mentioned, Taylor’s main goal here is to make his operations a certain type of science. With every operation though comes a certain type of environment within the workplace. In order for this “science” to be complete to the liking of Taylor, management and workmen need to be on the same page. Especially during the “four heads” Taylor mentions when developing a science for each mans work. For the most success in the workplace, Taylor would like to see more of a hands on approach with the men and management. Taylor understands that each man will have a different level of work ethic and production, but with the adaption of hands on work, maybe everyone can be at the same level.
In his piece on the science of management Fredrick Taylor uses observed managerial success to establish “scientific” principles that should be employed to make businesses more efficient. His principles are guided by “initiative and Incentive” that is created in the workplace. Taylor envisions the workplace as increasingly segregated between employers and employees with a much more structured division of labor. This division of labor would increasingly rely on the managers operating as overseers of the production process while the laborers are obediently following the managers every order. He believes heavily that there should be a system of incentives put in place that rewards laborers for reaching increased production and efficiency goals that were set by their managers. He also emphasizes that these changes must be made in the correct form, with the manager being of superior intellectual ability, knowing what is best for the laborer but not being able to do it himself. While the laborer is of superior physical ability but lacks the mental capacity to maximize his own usefulness.
Taylor attempts to make management and industrial operations a “science” by examining the obligations of employers and employees to one another, as well as the concept of economic efficiency as determined by workflows and wage efficiency theory. He realizes that many workers must be incentivized to increase their output, while increased managerial presence would help determine what workflows and industrial designs work best. For example, he theorizes that offering different types of tools to different employees may have the effect of increasing each individual’s output. He also recognizes the importance of break time and bonus pay, all the while increasing a form of “hands-on” managerial style that emphasized “scientific” analysis. He fails, however, to realize the costs of such high managerial involvement, as well as the fact that employees cannot be assumed as identical and therefore will not always react to these changes by increasing output and efficiency.