The Development of the Scientific Management Theory - Research Paper Example

Running Head: Management The Development of the Scientific Management Theory A Review of the Works and Influences of the Major Proponents of Scientific Management Name Course Title Name of Professor Date of Submission Introduction The main purpose of management should be to guarantee employer’s wealth maximization, alongside wealth maximization of employees. The term ‘wealth maximization’ is applied, in their extensive relevance, to imply not merely substantial dividends for the shareholders or the company, but the formation of every sector of the business to its optimal state (Schermerhorn, 2009), so that wealth may be stable. In the same manner wealth maximization for employees imply not just higher wages than are normally obtained by people of his/her socioeconomic group, however, of more significance still, it also implies the growth of each individual to his/her state of utmost productivity, so that s/he may be capable of performing, basically, the premier class of work for which his/her innate skills fit him/her, and it additionally implies assigning him/her, when likely, this grade of task to perform (Daft, 2009). It would appear to be obvious that wealth maximization for the employer, alongside wealth maximization for the employees, should be the two foremost goals of management. And still there is no doubt that, all over the developed world, a significant portion of the association of employers, and employees as well, is for conflict rather than for harmony, and that possibly most on either party think that it is impossible to organize their shared affairs so that their motives become one (Silver, 1981). Most of these individuals think that the basic motives of employers and employees are essentially opposed. In contrast, scientific management has for its core groundwork the strong belief that the genuine objects of the two are inseparable; that wealth for the employer cannot be sustained in the long run unless it is attended with the wealth for the employee; and that it is doable to grant the employee what s/he most desires (good compensation) and the employer what s/he desires (a cheap cost of labor) for his/her production (Thompson, 2008). Thus, it is unquestionable that the influential and most contentious contribution to the development of management theory was the theory and practice of scientific management by Frederick Winslow Taylor. History of Scientific Management Theory The development of scientific management started in the final half of the 19th century, following the industrial revolution that raged all over the United States and Europe (Thompson, 2003). In the emerging economic environment, managers were more and more attempting to discover better strategies to satisfy the needs and demands of customers. Numerous cultural, technical, and economic transformations were occurring at this period (Thompson, 2003). Managers and owners of the burgeoning factories discovered themselves unequipped for the tasks alongside the evolution from ‘small-scale crafts production to large-scale mechanized manufacturing’ (Thompson, 2008, 91). Most managers possessed only an industrial knowledge, and were unequipped for the social challenges that come about when individuals get together and perform tasks in large groups (Thompson, 2008). Managers started to look for new methods to handle the resources or assets of their organizations, and eventually they started to concentrate on means to boost the productivity of the employee-job mix (Jones & George, 2007). Adam Smith was one of the earliest economists who investigate the impacts of different systems of production. Smith discovered that factories where in workers focused on a single or a small number of tasks had better efficiency than factories where in workers carried out a large number of tasks (Schermerhorn, 2009). Smith explained that this disparity in productivity was due to the fact that specialized workers became better competent at their particular jobs, and, in a collective setting, were hence able to manufacture a product quicker than the assembly of workers who each had to carry out numerous jobs (Schermerhorn, 2009). Smith therefore claimed that elevating the status of job specialization, the mechanism by which the process of division of labor takes place as various workers focus on a variety of tasks for a given period of time, enhances productivity and results in more favorable organizational outcomes (Griffin & Moorhead, 2009). Due to the arguments of Adam Smith, early theorists and practitioners of scientific management concentrated on how managers ought to regulate and structure the work process to make best use of the benefits of the division of labor and job specialization (Griffin & Moorhead, 2009). Frederick Taylor and Scientific Management Theory Based on the management system of Taylor, factories are supervised through scientific processes. Taylor then formulated the four management principles which are (Taylor, 1917, 36-37): (1) the development of a true science; (2) the scientific selection of the workman; (3) the scientific education and development of the workman; and (4) intimate and friendly cooperation between the management and the men. It is this fusion of the workers’ initiative, alongside new forms of task performed by the manager that renders scientific management far more productive than the traditional management system (Thompson, 2008). In contrast, the development of a science entails the formation of several methods, laws, and guidelines which replace the discretion of the workers and which can be successfully applied just after having been methodically documented, filed, etc. (Thompson, 2003). Hence all of the preparation which based on the traditional management system was performed by workers, as an outcome of their individual experience, should necessarily based on the new system be carried by managers in agreement to scientific laws (Thompson, 2003). The most valuable contribution of Taylor to management theory was the notion of fragmenting a complicated task into several subtasks, and honing the efficiency of the subtasks (Khurana, 2009). Scientific management was largely successful. The personal work of Taylor involved essays on the piece rate method for the management of shops, worker incentive plans, and the science of coal shovel blueprint and metal cutting (Khurana, 2009). The organizational implications of scientific management can be observed in the growth of the disciplines of quality control, human resources management, and industrial engineering. From the point of view of the economy, Taylor’s scientific management was a remarkable achievement (Waring, 1991). Application of his principles and processes resulted in substantial increases in efficiency. The Gilbreths and Scientific Management Theory The couple Frank and Lillian Gilbreth played a crucial role in the progress of scientific management. Frank Gilbreth originally introduced the notion of ‘motion study’, which become the starting point of efficiency and production research for several decades from then on (Witzel, 2003). Lillian Gilbreth was one of the earliest advocates of the use of psychology in management. The contributions of the Gilbreth to management are varied in forms (Witzel, 2003). Primarily, and most prominently, there is their development of the motion study and fatigue, which later on became a component of the foundation of scientific management but which played a role to the development of ergonomics as well (Schermerhorn, 2009). Also, and of similar value, is the pioneering work of Lillian Gilbreth on the psychology of management. She was an engaged educator both prior and subsequent to the death of her husband, and educated several of the most prominent icons in the world of management and business (Witzel, 2003). Soon after, she became a highly regarded exemplar for women in management. Max Weber’s Theory of Bureaucracy Perceiving the development of major organizations during his time, just like Taylor, Weber formulated a group of rules for an ‘ideal bureaucracy’ (Schermerhorn, 2009). These rules involved: formal activity, management of a particular organization conforms to clear-cut rules, systematic and professional training, management derived from written documents, a decisively established structure of super and subordination, and formal and rigid jurisdictional areas (Schermerhorn, 2009). The bureaucracy was visualized as a big apparatus for achieving its objectives in the most proficient way possible. It would have been interesting to witness how Weber would have incorporated the theories of Mayo into his theory of bureaucracy (Thompson, 2008). It is possible that he would have viewed the ‘noise’ and ‘group dynamics’ in organizations, constraining the opportunities of the bureaucracy for unkindness, good organization, and productivity (Griffin & Moorhead, 2009). Henry Fayol’s Principle of Management Fayol initiates his account by claiming that all business organizations are differentiated by six kinds of activity (Witzel, 2003, 98): (1) management, (2) accounting, (3) security, (4) finance, (5) commerce, and (6) production. The value of management increases as businesses become bigger, since it is required to regulate and organize the components of the other five (Khurana, 2009). Based on this, Fayol advances to his declaration of the functions of management. Initially consisted of five components, this afterward became seven, namely, (1) planning, (2) organizing, (3) staffing, (4) directing, (5) co-ordinating, (6) reporting, and (7) budgeting (Witzel, 2003, 99). Managers are yet again required in these activities to a certain extent. If these components have survived, the similarly prominent 14 principles of management have failed. These are (Witzel, 2003, 99): (1) division of labor, so as to achieve the maximum efficiency from labor; (2) the establishment of authority; (3) the enforcement of discipline; (4) unified command, so that no employee reports to more than one supervisor; (5) unity of direction, with all control emanating from one source; (6) subordination of individual interests to the interest of the organization; (7) fair remuneration for all (though Fayol was not in favor of profit sharing); (8) centralization of control and authority; (9) a scalar hierarchy, in which each employee is aware of his or her place and duties; (10) a sense of order and purpose; (11) equity and fairness in dealings between staff and managers; (12) stability of jobs and positions, with a view to ensuring low turnover of staff and managers; (13) development of individual initiative on the part of managers; and (14) esprit de corps and the maintenance of staff and management morale. Fayol’s 14 management principles were outcomes of the period; seven decades after, their fame began to wither, viewed as the creations of the past (Daft, 2009). However, several of the 14 principles, particularly equity and fairness, a sense of order and purpose, and unity of direction, stay quite significant (Witzel, 2003, 99). The challenge nowadays is how to apply Fayol’s management theory in order to retain the important features and remove those pieces which are not important anymore. Certainly, later on, Fayol would be disparaged by a lot of scholars for being personally affiliated with Taylor and for promoting the formation of inflexible division of labor and firm managerial bureaucracy (Khurana, 2009). Similar to Taylor, Fayol trusted general principles of management (Thompson, 2008). However, there remain significant disparities between their perspectives. Taylor’s perspective of the organization was entirely a mechanical entity where in precision of the entirety was attained through precision of the totality of its components (Waring, 1991). Fayol far more resembles the Gilbreths in promoting an integrated view of organization and viewing management principles as a paradigm (Witzel, 2003) rather than a crucial route to success. Conclusions How successful is scientific management in influencing contemporary management practices? The principles of scientific management remain in vogue in large numbers of companies in the United States. However, this is not similar to the scientific management pioneered by Frederick Taylor. Over the years, these management principles have been modified. The outdated components have been eliminated, and the adjustments carried out by its proponents. This capacity to adjust has been helpful in the continued existence of the fundamental premises of scientific management. As an outcome of the flexibility of scientific management, there remain numerous deliberations about its fundamental rules in contemporary management theory. This is due to the fact that these fundamental principles remain vital, present-day managers still applying them; hence the issues have numerous spectators. Scientific management survives and will stay alive for a hundred years or so. References Daft, R. (2009). Organization Theory and Design. Mason, OH: South-Western College Pub. Griffin, R. & Moorhead, G. (2009). Organizational Behavior: Managing People and Organizations. Mason, OH: South-Western College Pub. Jones, G.R. & George, J.M. (2007). Contemporary Management. Pennsylvania: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Khurana, A. (2009). Scientific Management: A Management Idea to Reach a Mass Audience. Global India Publications Ltd. Schermerhorn, J.R. Jr. (2009). Exploring Management. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Silver, G.A. (1981). Introduction to management. Virginia: West Pub. Co. Taylor, F.W. (1917). The Principles of Scientific Management. New York: Harper & Brothers. Thompson, C. (2008). The Theory and Practice of Scientific Management. New York: BiblioBazaar. Thompson, K. (ed) (2003). Scientific Management. New York: Routledge. Waring, S.P. (1991). Taylorism Transformed: Scientific Management Theory since 1945. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Witzel, M. (2003). Fifty Key Figures in Management. London: Routledge. Read More