Taylors Scientific Management vs Fayols Principles of Management - Coursework Example

Short Response Questions Name Institution Module Instructor’s name Date A. Taylor’s Scientific Management vs. Fayol’s Principles of Management F.W. Taylor is said to be “the father of Scientific Management and Fayol is said to be the father of Principles of Management” for varying reasons. Each of these management gurus made significant contributions to the field of management that gave rise to the different fields, principles of management and scientific management. Henri Fayol is considered to be the father of principles of management for a number of reasons. Born in 1841, Fayol was of the leading management scholar of his time. He belonged to the school of thought called Universalists. Universalists believed that management principles are applicable to all group activities. They believed that management is a process of getting things done through and with people operating in organized groups. This perception formed the groundwork for creating a perceptual framework to identify principles underlying management and build a theory from it. Therefore, Fayol and his fellow Universalists regarded management as a universal process regardless of the type of enterprise or level in a given enterprise, though they recognized that the environment differs greatly and influences management. They viewed management theory as a way of organizing experience so that the practice can be improved through research, empirical testing principles and teaching fundamentals involved in the management process (Murugan 2007). Having started as an engineer in a French mining company in 1860, Fayol rose up the ranks to the senior management level. By 1880, he was appointed as the managing director of the same company. At his appointment, the company was on the verge of bankruptcy. His duration as the CEO of the firm saw the firm return to profitable ways his retirement in 1918. His success with the firm inspired him to share his management tactics and experience with other scholars and aspiring managers. He thus published a number of papers and books on the subject. In one of his books, General and industrial in administration published in 1915, he provided a general analytical framework for management. This framework was cited to be universally applicable. It contained fourteen principles of management as follows ((Murugan 2007): 1. Division of work should be divided according to specialization 2. Authority and responsibility: the manager has authority to give direction and demand compliance along with appropriate responsibility 3. Discipline: respect and obedience is required of employees and the firm 4. Unity of command: orders should be received from a single supervisor 5. Unity of direction: similar activities should be under the direction of one leader 6. Subordination of individual interest to general interest 7. Remuneration of personnel: wages are to be fair and equitable to all 8. Centralization: each organization must find the level of centralization of authority needed to maximize employee productivity 9. Scalar chain. There is a line of authority in an organization , usually from top to bottom 10. Order. all necessary materials should be located in the proper place for maximum efficiency 11. Equity: fair and equitable treatment for all employees 12. Stability of tenure of personnel. Adequate time should be allowed for employees to adjust to new work and skills demanded 13. Initiative. The ability to implemented and develop a plan is crucial 14. Spirit de corps. A spirit of harmony should be promoted among personnel While Fayol claimed that the above principles could be applied in any organization, he acknowledged environment difference that could influence the application of such principles. Consequently, he classified business activities into six categories as follows: i. Technical (production or manufacturing) ii. Commercial-buying, selling and exchange iii. Financial- search for and optimum use of capital iv. Security-protection of property and persons v. Accounting- record keeping, costing and statistics vi. Managerial- planning, organising, commanding, coordinating and controlling (Pride, Hughes & Kapoor, 2010). Frederick Winslow Taylor (1856-1915) on the other hand, had a different take on management. He approached management from the scientific perspective. However, much of his writings and views on management were based on his experience from three companies, Midvale Steel, Simonds Rolling Machine and Bethlehem Steel as opposed to scientific research. In 1911, he published a book called The Principles of Scientific Management. In this book, he theorised that “the principal object of management should be to secure maximum prosperity for the employer, coupled with the maximum prosperity for the employee” (Schermerhorn et al., 2011, p. 88). Throughout his career, Taylor was interested in the problem on increasing labour productivity without necessarily straining employees. His idea of scientific management was therefore born out of numerous experiments with employee in the workplace which he named scientific management. He defined scientific management as a way of “knowing exactly what you want your men to do and seeing that they do it in the best and cheapest way” (Taylor 1911, as cited in Murugan, 2007, p. 48). Taylor also identified a number of principles to guide scientific management. Murugan (2007) and Tripathi (2008) list them as follows: 1. Science not rule of thumb. This refers to systematic objective and critical examination of all factors influencing efficiency of operations in a firm. This requires that decisions are made based on facts and not based on opinions and beliefs. 2. Scientific selection, training and development of workers. Workers should be selected and trained in accordance with the requirements of their job position. This calls for organizations to develop systematic training programs for their employees designed to improve their skills and efficiency 3. Close cooperation between workers and management. This ensures that work is done with the developed scientific principles. The interest of the employer and employees should be fully harmonised so as to create a beneficial relationship. 4. Equal division of work and responsibility; management should get to decide the methods of work, working conditions, time for completion of work etc. instead of leaving such decisions to workers. This principle calls that employees should be only concerned with executing plans and decisions. 5. Maximum prosperity for both employees and employers. Management should make this possible by maximizing efficiency and output. Optimal or maximum utilization of resources high efficiencies lead to higher profits for employees and better ages for employees. 6. Mental revolution. This means a complete change in the outlook of both management and workers with respect to their mutual relations and in relation to work effort. Consequently, workers and employers should work together to increase surplus of industry which is beneficial to both. From the above discussion of the two approaches, it can be argued that the two approaches are complementary but not substitutes. B. Management as art and science Whether management is art of science is one of the oldest debates in management. The debate has created a lot of confusion both academically and practice. However, a number of authors acknowledge that management is both science and art (Fleet et al, 2011; Murugan, 2007). According to Tripathi (2008) it is considered a science because its principles are of universal application. This corresponds with the views of Taylor and fellow Universalists who posit that principles of management are applicable universally. Schermerhorn et al. (2011, p. 87) indicate that management is both a science and an art because “successful management needs ‘soft’ skills and ‘hard’ skills, in that it encompasses both characteristics of art and characteristics of science.” Therefore, managers must possess both soft and hard skills to be effective. Both scientific and artistic skills contribute towards management. Schermerhorn et al. (2011) write that a balanced blend of art and science is necessary is creating business value. As an art, managers are concerned about the plight of their employees in terms of emotions, attitudes, motivations among others as they seek to meet organizational and personal goals. There are no universal formulas that managers can use to respond to these variables among employees. Managers also themselves are subjective individuals whose personality traits come in handy in shaping their management style. However, there are logical operational processes, tools and methodological approaches grounded in science that can be applied in managing employees and a business. Such scientific methods and tools, which are largely learnt in business schools, give managers confidence in their decisions and also provide a framework for actions. However, there are those who insist that management is science on various grounds. Management research, following the true scientific model, would be based on hypothesis testing of theoretical-grounded foundations that would increase the knowledge in management (Schermerhorn et al., 2011). However, this would necessarily take lot of time before decisions are made. This is because conclusions that should be applied universally and in various industries cannot be made through just one research findings. Numerous organizations and institutions would find it necessary to test their hypothesis in their unique environments. The alternative perception posits that management is an art. Scholars who believe in this argue that managers should be the focus of research efforts and that management scholarship pertains to thorough and methodological study of what managers on the ground should manage organizations. Current debates on the topic centre on teaching management as an art or as an applied science. Fleet et al notes that since the 1950’s, the west has given increased weight to the scientific side of management owing to the criticism by Nobel Laureate, Herbert Simon. He had claimed that there was need to transform the American business education from a “wasteland of vocationalism to science-based professionalism” same way as medicine and engineering (Fleet et al., 2011, p. 5). This has seen management shift more towards qualitative methods and scientific research methods as opposed to social methods. Hall and Johnson (2009) also discuss this issue to say that a process such as management can only be termed as art if it can be described as judgement-based work. This means that there is variability in the process based on various issues such as cognitive abilities. On the other hand, it is scientific if it is standardized and calls for and uniform application of scientific methods and rules without room for judgment or subjectivity. From the various definitions of management available from various sources, management requires both some elements of standardization and application of personal skill. As a process that requires personal skill and knowledge in solving many complicated problem arising out in the everyday situation in an organization, the art in management is put to test. Management becomes art when it is personalised to alight with an individual’s personality traits and the context. Management fails to be a science if a person can learn the principles of management but fail to apply them accordingly (Fleet et al., 2011. Nonetheless, it qualifies as a science as long as scientifically tested management methods and tool such as sigma, Toyota way, Total Quality Management (TQM), lean management and others are continuously applied. From modern organisation and from a number of case studies, it is obvious that management both as an art and science is most popular and widely used (Schermehorn et al 2011). Given that management as an art involves more of an individual’s attributes and subjective skills, it would be proper to say that exceptional managers are those that lean more towards management as an art as opposed to those who perceive management as a science by sticking to the universal standard only. C. Equity Theory of motivation The equity theory is one of the four process theories on motivation with the other ones being the expectancy theory, goal setting theory and self-efficacy theory (Schermerhorn, et al. 2011). The equity theory was best developed by Stacy Adams. In her work on the theory, she posited that social comparison ns and the notion of perceived inequality were key motivating factors for employees. This theory argues that employees compare themselves with other colleagues within and without an organization to estimate how fairly they are being treated. Schermerhorn et al. note an important thing in that comparison alone does not only involve compensation but also other things such as preferred job assignments, work privileges and benefits. When workers feel that they are being unfairly compensated, they are more motivated to eliminate the unfairness and restore a sense of perceived fairness (Schermerhorn, 2010). This can be achieved through various ways such as demanding pay increment, changing comparison points so as to make things appear better, leaving the job, decreased performance (Schermhorn et al., 2011) or working harder especially where pay is attached to performance (Pride, Hughes & Kapoor, 2010). The choice action taken by individuals is determined by their perceptions. Some perceptions must be skewed based on bias on issue as opposed to other issues. Schermerhorn et al. (2011) indicate that the perception of the inequality in the eyes of the employee will influence behavioural response. It should be noted that the behavioural response is not determined by the rewards absolute value or the manager’s intentions. In creating rewards and benefits, managers are guided by the words of Taylor that management should aim to “secure maximum prosperity for the employer, coupled with the maximum prosperity for the employee” (Schermerhorn et al., 2011, p. 88). However, employees might not share this belief that managers are there to maximize their benefits. Where employee-manager relationships are not healthy, employees perceive that employers and managers are there to exploit them for profits (Pride, Hughes, & Kapoor, 2010). Leadership styles adopted by managers influence perception towards rewards and affects employees’ motivation. Murugan (2007) samples a number of leadership styles and the type of perception that they are likely to elicit from employees. The authors note that autocratic leaders in their pursuit of excellence are likely to overlook or neglect the welfare of employees. Such leaders centralise all decisions and do not give workers and employees opportunities to express their concerns such as demanding higher pay where social comparisons perceive the rewards and remuneration to be unfair. In response, workers are likely to protest silently by avoiding responsibility and lowering their output as much as possible. Such workers also suffer from frustration and low motivation (Parker, Bindl, & Strauss, 2010). However, blue violent autocratic leaders are can be effective in achieving high performance from employees and also retain a harmonious human relations that leave room for employees to voice their concerns after making social comparisons. Social comparison in rewards does not only involve colleagues but might involve opposite sex and organizational leaders. Schermerhorn et al. (2011) indicate that some employees are more concerned about the input into their job compared to their managers and organizational leaders. The author reveals that pay discrepancy in Australia largely varies across the gender divide. In fact, male managers earn a whopping $13 500 more than their female counterparts. In the US, the most conspicuous differences in pay are between executive leaders and average employees. Schermerhorn (2010) indicates that the pay for the CEO of American firm, Abercrombie & Fitch, was 364 times that of an average employee in the firm. Such differences are not to be expected in other countries where CEOs receive on average 13 times lesser that their counterparts in the US. This also implies that managers and managers must also carry out social comparison for all employees in the same level in the organisation and in other competing organisations. This informs the reward and benefits system adopted and remuneration enumeration strategies. This not only improves motivation but also helps the organisation in attracting and retaining the best skills in the market All in all, whether management is perceived as an art or science, there is one common theme, the human resource element. The approach that perceives management as an art gives more weight to the people element in organisations. It recognises that that management principles described by scientific management can only be implemented by the people and not organizational processes. Therefore, to improve and optimize the functioning of the people, the reward and remuneration must be fair and be perceived to be fair by all employees from the lowest level to the highest. The range of options taken by employees who perceive rewards to be unfair after social comparison are largely detrimental to the organization. References Fleet, D., Kacmar, K., Griffin, Ricky, Ford, R & Duncan, W. (2011). Towards finding the balance of art and science in management: a market approach to valuing management research. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, vol. 16, no. 1, p. 3-27 Hall, J. & Johnson, M. (2009). When should a process be art, not science? Harvard Business Review. Retrieved online on 1st July 20103 from. http://hbr.org/2009/03/when-should-a-process-be-art-not-science Murugan, P. (2007). Management principles and practices. Perth: New Age International. Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K. and Strauss, Karoline. (2010) Making things happen: a model of proactive motivation. Journal of Management, vol.36 , no.4. pp. 827-856. Pride, W., Hughes, R. & Kapoor, J. (2010). Business. Sydney: Cengage Learning. Schermerhorn, J. (2010). Management. Sydney: John Wiley & Sons Schermerhorn, J., Davidson, P., Poolem, D., Simon, A., Woods, P. & Chau, S. (2011). Management foundations and applications. Sydney: John Wiley & Sons Tripathi, P. (2008). Principles of Management. New Delhi: Tata McGraw Hill. Read More