Advantages and Disadvantages of Scientific Management Principles - Coursework Example

Scientific Management Principles Name: Tutor: Course: Date: Introduction The theories of principles of management have relevance in the current business world as organizations seek to increase their competitive advantage through managing people. Although previous theorists emphasized on quality and efficiency of systems, recent authors have given more attention to the importance of people in the organization. This introduces the human aspect of scientific management as proposed by Frederick Taylor which has far reaching consequences of organizational behavior, employee satisfaction and commitment. Although scientific management theory of Taylor applies to both simple and great corporations, it is deemed less human than later management approaches. Despite criticism on the works of this author, his effort has helped in understanding organizational efficiency, effective incentives, work scheduling and improved work methods. Moreover, Taylor confronted scientific management as embracing feelings of employees and concepts of Equity theory in modern business environment. Advantages and disadvantages of scientific management principles Industrialization and drive for lean production engendered the emergence of scientific school of management. However, the concern over the importance of employees in production gave a new breath to scientific management thought away from the pursuit of profit from factors of production. Zuffo (2011) agrees that the commitment by Taylor to industrial work marked a cultural turning point where technology, capitalism and modernity merged. Nonetheless, the scientific management thought was regarded as incomplete, ideal and organic; hence not compatible with mass production. During great depression, the social value of Taylor’s theories gain more social value as workers with know-how, product knowledge and skills were desired in process manufacturing and large scale production. Wren (2011) lauds Taylor as a solution to natural human resources where the management provides instruction, work assignment plans and proper tools to better worker performance. In addition, author agrees with Taylor that work diversity was important in increasing synergies at work than working individually as members of ethnic groups. For example, England and Germany were more developed in the 1930s than the United States because they focused on social and economic empowerment of workers while the later emphasized on machines, methods and systems. From a positivist perspective, Taylor helped in solving social contradictions related to well-being of workers, wealth generation and conditions for efficiency (Wren, 2011). By using science, Taylor also reinforced the need to verify and scientifically proof the selection of workers (Zuffo, 2011). While focusing on the needs of social system, the famous works of Taylor brought about scientific sustainability and further development in applied psychology (Wren, 2011). Despite his success in scientific precision, Taylor was unable to establish a relationship or laws between fatigue and work. By legitimizing his attention to overwork and giving more attention to under-work failed to capture the attention of women. Motivated workers demonstrate initiative and have the opportunity for promotion. For example, Taylor found that workers in Philadelphia Steel Plant embraced racial biases where African-Americans were least integrated into the society and workplaces. However, the plan to use sloppy management in US military arsenals in Watertown, New York could not work even after assigning task of time study to officers. This is because the perspectives of workers were not sought causing strikes and go slows due to the just introduced task management. According to Schwartz (2007), the management theory on scientific management has shallow understanding of business ethics which to academicians have ethical ramifications. The author noted that the theory of scientific management was impersonal and cold with interest in rationalizing work practices and omitting the human factor. Despite Taylor insinuating the issue of good management in terms of rights, participation, well-being and employee job-satisfaction, his efforts were viewed as non-employee friendly. For example, piece-rate compensation may be manipulated in highly fractionalized workforce and has less emphasis on employee participation. While the theory attracted ethical criticisms, the daily production rates were within the limits of worker’s health. Still, ethical challenges on delivery of fast food service or mass production issues today remained unresolved (Schwartz, 2007). Haden et al. (2012) found out that although team structure is informed by new product teams, the efficiency and title of a working man did not impress the influential labor leaders and congressmen. The pig iron experiment is erroneous and was questionable in solving management problems even as men were forced to work more efficiently and faster. In application to current management operations, the emergence of integrated product teams today testifies the relevance of Taylor’s principles today. Myers (2011) shows that Taylor contributed a lot in production management but had limited reflection on the changes in disciplines and business functions. Taylor not only succeeded in introducing the cost accounting system but also made progress in moving the function in generating cost reports. Significantly, Taylor affirms that new functions relate to training and selection of new employees. When used to control and measure processes of work, companies have also succeeded in rapid cleaning methods and teamwork (Haden et al., 2012). Moreover, scientific management has transcended industrial, information and virtual age. When narrowly interpreted, Taylor suggests that workers need to be micromanaged, rewarded on individual basis and their freedom limited on job performance. This contradicts the motivational theory of management and his earlier position where managers encourage and help workers (Myers, 2011). Giannantonio and Hurley-Hanson (2011) argue that even though Taylor changed people’s way of work in the past century, some people termed the theories as common sense and not positivist science. Conversely, the intentions of Taylor has resolved conflict using science and created a better society. One of the critics of Taylor was Upton Sinclair who saw scientific management as exploitative to the plight of workers despite improvement in their working conditions. On the other hand, Derksen (2014) objects the use of people like machines and that Taylor should embody great human motives and values. Yet, most of industrial unrest happened between dominant foremen and submissive shop floor workers leading to labor reforms. In manufacturing, Taylor reiterated that experience and training can help solve the production machinery breakdowns which is economically feasible and has a lot of impact in manufacturing. Moreover, boostrapping and bricolage are two aspects of managing resources with what is available with not need to externally fund continuing operations. Scientific management is relevant in today’s office environment in reducing workplace inefficiencies with regard to management of information. In this regard, Taylor failed to appreciate the role of welfare management such as pensions and insurance plans, cultural events and sports clubs, and a safe and clean working environment. Also, separation of execution and planning took away the initiative in men and thus deprived of character, development and independence (Derksen, 2014). As men become machines they lose their individuality, soul, freedom, initiative, personality and intelligence. While at Bethlehem Steel Plant, Taylor failed to introduce the ‘piece rate system’ due to resistance from workers and managers. With lower relative labor costs and higher wages, it was a win-win situation for piece wage workers. As scientific management tried to distant itself from criticism, it provided a platform to mutual helpfulness and friendly cooperation between employers, managers and workers. Moreover, it helped in identifying the root cause of the problem, reducing inefficiency and eliminating waste (Giannantonio & Hurley-Hanson, 2011). The pace of work is determined by the manager who not only employs time studies but also integrates teaching, friendship and cooperation at the workplace. In an attempt to humanize management, it became apparent that the role of engineers was diminishing and there is need to involve the thinking, feelings and motives of workers. Crainer (2003) observes that Taylor was inventive and a believer in greater efficiency regardless of accuracy and precision. Today, phone companies, McDonalds and others are using his scientific management approaches which lay in fellow workers as observed by Taylor. By measuring the amount of work that a worker can do in a given time, helped the organization to set goals and targets as well as penalties and reliable bonuses. As labor costs reduced, the gap between pay and production significantly reduced. Taylor is criticized for emphasizing on standardized techniques and scientific instruments that tend to put people in similar category as tools and task time (Bell & Martin, 2012). This perspective necessitated psychologists to formulate laws that govern the behavior and mind of individual workers (Crainer, 2003). For example, Moller Gilbreth disconnected the camaraderie and atmosphere of cooperation from scientific management and developed the moral, emotional and relational aspects of management as part of psychology. While workers are not forced to follow scientific rules, the presence of precise prescriptions and adherence to instructions made people slaves and took away their freedom. In essence, Taylor was callous and naïve psychologically by treating workers as machines through the famous use of the stop watch (Derksen, 2014). Taylor failed to appreciate the role of ethics at work and concentrated on efficiency where instead of focusing on corporate performance and improve work-life, companies become too engaged in downsizing. Bell and Martin (2012) agree that managers should communicate with employees under scientific management regarding issues such as fairness, justice and equality. Moreover, the proposed job analysis and design are common human resource practice today with roots in scientific management. Although it requires excellent managerial skills, failure by Taylor to communicate with employees destroyed their livelihoods and cost them jobs. Many managerial problems remain unsolved even as managers attempt to teach their employees on specific operations that require transparency and machine-like decisions. Moreover, scientific management had greater emphasis on efficiency but not inclusive to every interested party in the organization (Caldari, 2007). While improving efficiency could improve society, it was not guaranteed that better wages, health, sanitary conditions and morals could follow. In the nutshell, scientific management is essential in knowing the amount of work to be reapportioned and balancing of workloads between workers. Until the arrival of psychologists, workers would not have earned the environment of cooperation, honesty and friendship (Giannantonio & Hurley-Hanson, 2011). With the stopwatch, time was measured and become a significant factor in production. Although most of the audiences were not convinced, Taylor had successfully brought discipline and rigor to the workplace. Using scientific management approaches, the current manager is able to observe, measure and supervise is what is dubbed middle management (Crainer, 2003). Despite application to all kinds of human activities, he created barriers to decision making and business efficiency. Inventory as well as task measurement was the basis of re-engineering but required further consideration of peripheral people and processes. Scientific management thought was seen as a crude way of downsizing and reducing the number of employees yet cost-efficient overheads, lean and efficient processes are more profit driven. According to Caldari (2007), scientific management triggered production in Europe and America as the nations facilitated production processes and availability of labor. To reduce inefficiency, scientific management was based on principles of time optimization, monetary incentives, minimum training, predetermined work methods, simple movement repetition and division of labor. However, it did not optimize on the harmony between employees and employers nor the high profits and wages (Giannantonio & Hurley-Hanson, 2011). As scientific organizations increased their general and technical efficiency in commercial and productive process, there is a likelihood of increased conflicts between employers and employees due to extreme process standardization (Bell & Martin, 2012). While labor relations are inconsequential in an individual perspective, the motion and time study is a menace to workers. Conclusion The various insights into the scientific management thought as proposed by Frederick Taylor have shown the need for efficiency and time study in industrial operations. Just like the industrial age, scientific management continues to have relevance in the information and virtual ages as employees are significant factor of production. While Taylor focused on training and better wages to employees based on productivity, an emergent motivation and labor relations theories have given new twist to scientific management. Nonetheless, Taylor was seen as focusing too much on machines and neglected the input of people in the organization in terms of thinking, feelings and personal contribution. This aspect neglected the individual and personal efforts or initiatives that can change the organization besides the normal set of operations and rules. The essay has shown that while scientific management narrowly focused on machine efficiency and timed operations, the principles are gaining more strength today in job design and analysis, selection group process, incentives and motivation systems. References Bell, R. L. (2012) The relevance of Scientific Management and Equity Theory in Everyday Managerial Communication Situations, Journal of Management Policy and Practice, Vol. 13, No. 3, p. 106-113. Caldari, A. (2007) Alfred Marshall’s Critical Analysis of Scientific Management, European Journal and History of Economic thought, Vol 14, No. 1, p. 55-78. Crainer, S. (2003) One Hundred Years of Management, Business Strategy Review, Vol. 14, No. 2, p. 41-49. Derksen, M. (2014) Turning Men into Machines? Scientific Management, Industrial Psychology and the Human Factor, Journal of the History of Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 50, No. 2, p. 148-165. 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, p. 7-10. Haden, S.S.P., Humphreys, J.H., Cooke, J. & Penland, P. (2012) Applying Taylor’s Principles to Teams: Renewing a Century-Old Theory, Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, Vol. 9, No. 4, p. 11-19. Myers, L.A. (2011) One Hundred Years Later: What would Frederick W. Taylor Say? International Journal of Business and Social Science, Vol. 2, No. 20, p. 8-11. Schwartz, M. (2007),The Business Ethics of Management Theory", Journal of Management History, Vol. 13, No. 1, p. 43 – 54. 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, p. 11-22. Zuffo, R.G. (2011) Taylor is Dead, Hurray Taylor! The ‘Human Factor’ is Scientific Management: Between Ethics, Scientific Psychology and Common Sense, Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 17, No. 1, p. 23-41. Read More