Comparison of Theories of Frederick Taylor, Henry Fayol and Elton Mayo - Coursework Example

Comparison and contrast of Frederick Taylor from Henry Fayol, and Elton Mayo Name Professor Institution Course Date Comparison and contrast of Frederick Taylor from Henry Fayol, and Elton Mayo Introduction Management is a discipline which has existed over the years, especially among researchers and people who have interest in the running on organization. Kemp (2013, p.346) stated that despite its existing there has been no consensus among management theorists on the definition of the term “management”. Every theorist has come up with his or her perspective to contribute towards this discipline. Even though differences have clearly emerged how the theorists define and explain managers should run the organizations, Heames and Breland (2010, p.427) contended that all the approaches used by theorists, including scientific and classical management always strive to realize similar ends such as maximizing efficiency, improving the organization on the basis of human resource management. Therefore, this essay will compare and contrast, Frederick Taylor from two other management theorists including Henry Fayol and Elton Mayo. Basically, the essay will analyze their approaches to management while highlighting their similarities and differences. Overview of Frederick Taylor, Henry Fayol and Elton Mayo Grachev and Rakitsky (2013, p.515) claimed that Fredrick Taylor was trained engineer who has often been referred to as the ‘father of scientific management’ due to his immense contribution towards the betterment of organizational management. Taylor’s theories and approaches to management were later termed ‘Taylorism’ in association with his name (Giannantonio & Hurley-Hanson 2011, p.8). In his argument he claimed that the variations in labor productivity were inspired by different causes like skills, talent, motive or intelligence. Fredrick Taylor understood that there is just one effective mode of doing any task in what scientific management called specialization. According to Schachter (2010, p.439) Taylor believed in planning and argued that it would significantly enhance productivity. He went further to claim that managing workers scientifically was more efficient as compared to incentive' and 'initiative’ way of motivating employees. He conducted different researches like the motion study, time study and analyzed the different workers’ so as to lessen wastage (Simha & Lemak 2010, p.237). Fredrick Taylor devised pay system particularly piece rate system in which each employee was remunerated a predetermined piece rate based on every unit produced. Henri Fayol was a management theorist and mining engineer from France who immeasurably contributed towards the modern management concepts. In his research, Rodrigues (2001) posited that Fayol suggested six 14 fundamental, principles and functions of management. Has greatly leading in creation of classical management school of thought which is regarded as major principle of classical perspective to the management. However, his 14 principles and primary functions theories are considered as task oriented as opposed to people oriented (Spatig 2009, p.197). Fayol is often recognized as the first theorist to differentiate between managerial and technical skills. On the other hand, Elton Mayo was a sociologist and organization theorist from Australia who his highly remembered for the Hawthorne Studies (, J.C. Wood & M.C. Wood 2004). This study conducted in 1930 demonstrated the significance of groups in influencing the individuals’ behavior at work. Wren and bedeian (2009) contended that the study enabled Mayo to come up with conclusions regarding how an organizational manager ought to behave. Mayo conducted out several experiments about increasing and enhancing productivity. He established that when employees operate in informal teams their job satisfaction differed to a large extent. As an initiator of human relations movement he contended that human beings are inspired by social needs and serves well in group setting which is socially bound (Bruce 2011, p.383). He reasoned that the fundamental challenge for any organization has to be fulfilling of the social needs. The theory by Mayo hold that only after an employee is satisfied in social perspective that he will work efficiently thus organizations are considered to be co-operating social systems where informal groups bear substantial influence on the productivity. Frederick Taylor versus Henry Fayol Even though most of these three theorists classical approach in their arguments, various disparities emerged. Pugh and Hickson (2007, p.34) argued that classical management approach was lead by endeavors to create a body of management theorists and thinkers who took part in this endeavors which were then regarded as the pioneers or founders of management research and discipline. The classical point of view highlights the efficiency in the management of organizations and work so as to improve production (Mullins 2011). The classical management approach can be classified into three categories including scientific, bureaucratic and administrative management. Among the three, Frederick Taylor concentrated in scientific management and his work earned him a name as the “the father of scientific management”. His theory concentrated on enhancing the inefficiencies and ineffectiveness he examined within a working environment, and contributed by introducing scientific approaches of working Taylor 1947). Wrege (2008, p.210) claimed that Frederick Taylor became apprehensive about the inconsistencies between the management and labour force concerning the sharing of profits as both side looked to concur on what form a fair work. He applied systematic analysis and resolved to research on the likelihood of establishing a better method of performing particular job tasks. Taylor authored a book title “The Principles of Scientific Management” in 1911 where he opined the advancement of management by means of the use of scientific hiring and training of employees and division of duties or tasks between employees and the management (Wren 2011, p.14). Thus, scientific management is considered as a theory which was based on the producing employees’ effectiveness to work organization efficiency as expected; his rationale was to capitalize on economies of scale so as to enhance productivity. Furthermore, Paxton (2011, p.76) asserted that Frederic Taylor differentiated between manual and intellectual labour, in which managers had the responsibility of planning job methods whilst employees had the responsibility of executing the work. Pryor and Taneja (2010, p.493) claimed the Frederic Taylor went further and forbidding staff to think and act for themselves. Scientific management fronted by Taylor is extensively criticized and was considered that it can result to staff resentment, and malingering, poor quality and repetitiveness (Wagner-Tsukamoto 2008). Nevertheless, people cannot rebuff the reality that he developing on the reasoning concerning the significance of hiring, training, motivation and compensation which are fields which are directly applicable in managing human resource in business environment of today. Pryor and Taneja (2010, p.495) claimed that whist scientific management focused on principles of improving the effectiveness of a worker, another area in the classical management emerged. Such area is the administrative management which was particularly contributed by Henri Fayol, a French industrialist. Fayol is referred to as “the father of the administrative management” because he came up with 14 principles of management which were aimed at assisting managers in understanding approach to take to effectively manage their organizations (Rodrigues, 2001). Fayol concepts are still currently used relevant in organizations and his management’s definitions are extensively applied in this area of research. Fayol book titled ‘General and Industrial Management,’ he described management as a process of forecasting and planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating and controlling (Parker & Ritson 2005). The description created the currently recognized management functions. The management approach fronted by Fayol has numerous resemblances with the scientific theory of management developed by Taylor. According to Rodrigues (2001), one of the Fayol’s fourteen principles and theory is division of work that summarizes the necessity for employees to specialize in particular jobs. The concept of job specialization was drawn from the scientific management principles. In addition, the managers’ empowerment, appropriate training of workers and the application of a sensible rewards system were borrowed from theories of Taylor which are referred as Taylorism (Kemp 2013, p.349). Fayol’ management theory discussed the topics entailing proper human resource management and organizational efficiency which are still used in modern organizations. Especially his five management functions have created insightful and significant influence on the management philosophy and the practices in modern organizations and worked as a basis for more techniques and theories (Rodrigues, 2001). Buchanan and Huczynski (2010) posited that both Taylor contributed toward classical management theory which focused on organizing employees in a way which would improve their performance for betterment of productivity. Both Taylor and Fayol have been compared to one another because they contributed to Scientific which can be used in controlling the cost of production in competitive companies (Pugh & Hickson 2007). The process is used to reduce cost of operation while maximizing the revenues. In fact, Fayol was to some extent influenced by Taylors and praised him for his contribution in management by describing him as a pioneer and visionary person. Fayol theories have differed from that of Taylor to some extent. Wren and bedeian (2009) argued that Taylor's majorly focused on task, whilst Fayol main focus was on management. Another disparity between these two philosophers was how they treated their employees. Analysis into Fayol’s application of his theories shows some respect for employees compared to Taylor. Taylor (2008) claimed that that employees were motivated with others factors rather than money alone is an example of his respect for employees. He went further to claim that fair treatment of employees and equity too motivates employees to perform positively. Another difference between Taylor and Fayol was that Fayol viewed management as top-down process while Taylor viewed as bottom-up process (Wren & bedeian 2009). Fayol also noted that in his book titled “General and Industrial Management’ stating that his theory begins with studying the actions of employees, impacts of their behavior on the productivity, develop new process to increase their efficiency, and uses lesson learnt at the lower levels of the organization. On the other hand, Fayol claimed that Taylor recommended identification of problems at lower levels so as to enhance efficiency (Heames & Breland 2010, p.431). Fayol argued that such approach leads to contradiction of the theory of unity of the command. Scientific management contributed by Taylor is still used today in many organizations. One of such companies which use this approach of management is Apple Inc. according to Kemp (2013, p.456) the company training are takes scientific approach; focusing on strategies which can maximize the efficiency of the organization. The company has also adopted one of the 14 principles of management by Fayol, i.e. division of work. Most of the employees at Apple have specialized in either technology or management. Frederick Taylor versus Elton Mayo Elton Mayo was Australia organization management researcher who is best remembered for Hawthorne Studies (Bruce 2011, p.387). Such studies transformed management philosophy by concentrating on the elements of employee’s job and the job satisfaction. The Hawthorne studies were classified into experiments including, test room studies, interviewing studies and observational studies. Wren and bedeian (2009) opined that the studies led to research of management changing from more scientific approach to a more multi-disciplinary field. The Hawthorne studies have massively increased understanding of workers, job, motivation, employee attitude and social and personal aspects in motivation. Muldoon (2012, p.108) affirmed that the result of Hawthorne studies, demonstrated that employees are not just motivated by money alone. Modern scholars of organization management have increasingly tried to compare and contrast Frederick Taylor and Elton Mayo contributions towards theories of management. The research has established that theories of both mayo and Taylor focused on individual employees and how to motivate them to enhance efficiency and effectiveness (Giannantonio & Hurley-Hanson 2011, p.11). In a bid to realize this status, the two theories concluded that managers ought to identify the needs of employees and influence and provide such needs to enable them increase their performance. However, the two theories differed on what particular needs of employees and factors which motivate them. According to Bruce (2011, p.392) Mayo emphasized on the job relationships as a critical factor in increasing organization productivity, motivated by Hawthorne studies. Elton Mayo researched about the impacts of state of working condition on the workers’ fatigue and productivity. These researches held that managers are capable of influencing employee’s motivation and efficiency by demonstrating concern for the workers relationships (Levitt & List 2011, p.228). In addition, the research by Mayo also demonstrates that in normally cases, people need to have a climate with good human relations for good coexistence. However, Taylor believed that only money was the sole factor needed for employees to increase their performance. Taylorism which was the principles of Taylor claimed that only financial rewards would help employees raise their productivity (Wagner-Tsukamoto 2008, p.354). Another difference between Taylor and Mayo has been that Taylor’s theories were more inclined on scientific theory compared to Mayo which majorly concentrated on behavioral and social management (Taneja, Pryor & Toombs 2011). In fact it has been argued that Hawthorne studies were not scientific in its approach and focus on behavior of employees as opposed to task itself. Grachev and Rakitsky (2013, p.517) stated that the reward systems which were contributed by Taylor and Mayo are today used at McDonald’s. The management understands that employees need to be motivated through different rewards and not just money to increase their efficiency. Conclusion Several similarities and differences between the three theorists is an indication that management is a wide discipline. Despite the broadness of this discipline, all these theorists endeavored to improve the state of management in organizations. However, some of the theories are out dated and must not adopted if the company wants to improve human resource management and efficiency. For instance, Taylor believed only on financial rewards as the key factor to improving staff performance. That is not true because employees have different personalities hence they value different rewards. This essay therefore conclude that modern organizations must consider all the theories put forth by pioneers of management field but carefully select which ones to apply. References Buchanan, D & Huczynski, A 2010, Organizational Behaviour, 7th ed. Harlow: Prentice Hall Bruce, K 2011, Elton Mayo and the Deification of Human Relations, Organization Studies, vol. 32, no.3, 383-405 Giannantonio, C.M & Hurley-Hanson, A.E 2011, Frederick Winslow Taylor: Reflections on the Relevance of The Principles of Scientific Management 100 Years Later, Journal of Business and Management – Vol. 17, No. 1, pp.7-20 Grachev, M & Rakitsky, B 2013, Historic horizons of Frederick Taylor's scientific management, Journal of Management History, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 512-527 Heames, J.T & Breland, J.W 2010, Management Pioneer Contributors: 30-Year Review, Journal of Management History, Vol.16, No.4, pp.427-436 Kemp, L.J. 2013, Modern to postmodern management: developments in scientific management, Journal of Management History, Vol. 19, No.3 pp. 345-361 Levitt, S.D & List, J.A 2011, Was there really a Hawthorne effect at the Hawthorne plant? An analysis of the original illumination experiments, American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, Vol. 3, 224–238. Muldoon, J 2012,The Hawthorne legacy, Journal of Management History, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 105 -119 Mullins, L 2011, Management and Organizational Behaviour, 9th ed, Prentice Hall, Harlow Parker, LD & Ritson, PA 2005, Revisiting Fayol: Anticipating Contemporary Management, British Journal of Management, vol. 16, pp. 175-194. Paxton, J 2011, Taylor’s Unsung Contribution: Making Interchangeable Parts Practical, Journal of Business and Management, Vol.17, No.1, pp. 75-83 Pugh, D & Hickson, D 2007, Great Writers on Organisations: The Third Omnibus Edition, Gower Pryor, MG & Taneja, S 2010, Henri Fayol, practitioner & theoretician – revered and reviled, Journal of Management History, vol. 16, issue 4, pp 489-503 Rodrigues, C 2001, Fayol’s 14 Principles of Management then and now: a framework for managing today’s organizations effectively, Monclair State University, New Jersey. Spatig, L 2009, Rediscovering Fayol: Parallels to Behaviouralist Management and Transformational Leadership, Northwest Business Economics Association Proceedings, 196-199 Schachter, H.L 2010, The role played by Frederick Taylor in the rise of the academic management fields, Journal of Management History, Vol.16, No.4, pp. 437-448 Simha, A & Lemak, D 2010, The value of original source readings in management education: The case of Frederick Winslow Taylor, Journal of Management History Vol.16, No.2, pp. 233-247 Taylor, F. W 2008, A report of a lecture and questions put to Mr. Taylor: a transcript, Journal of Management History, 14: 214-236. Taylor, F 1947, The Principles of Scientific Management, Harper & Bros, New York. Taneja, S, Pryor, M.G, Toombs, L. A. 2011, Frederick W. Taylor's Scientific Management Principles: Relevance and Validity, Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 16, No.3, pp.27-42 Wagner-Tsukamoto, S.A 2008, Scientific management revisited: Did Taylorism fail because of a too positive image of human nature? Journal of Management History, Boris Vol.14, 4, pp.348-372 Wood, J.C & Wood, M.C 2004, George Elton Mayo: Critical evaluations in business and management, Routledge, London Wrege, C.D 2008, F.W. Taylor’s Lectures on Management, June 4, 1907, Journal of Management History, Vol.14, pp. 209-213 Wren, D. A & bedeian, A.G 2009, The Evolution of Management Thought, 6th ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc Wren, D.A 2011, The Centennial of Frederick W. Taylor’s The Principles of Scientific Management: A Retrospective Commentary, Journal of Business and Management, Vol.17, No.1, 11-22. Read More