The intent of this essay is to place the rules and assorted unfavorable judgments of Taylor ‘s scientific direction and to discourse whether Frederick Taylor ‘s rules and thoughts can be used successfully in today ‘s modern-day organisations.
Fredrick Winslow Taylor ( 1856 – 1915 ) , was a taking innovator in the surveies of direction, and was frequently known as the male parent of scientific direction. Taylor ( 1915 ) revolutionized direction in the 20th century by concentrating on mass production of cheap merchandises, ensuing in economic system stableness and a standardisation of major industrial procedures. The publication of his book titled ‘Principles of Scientific Management ‘was influential in its part to direction surveies around the universe ( Bedelan and Wren, 2001 ) .
Principles of Scientific Management
Taylor ( 1911 ) reported that directors, in his clip, relied on the personal enterprise of workers for accomplishing productiveness, although high degrees of productiveness were seldom attained. In postulating that workers performed at degrees beneath their true capacities, he came up with four rules of scientific direction to be followed by directors:
The First Principle focused on how the workers would execute their day-to-day undertakings. To happen out the most efficient method of executing specific undertakings, Taylor studied them in great item and considered the ways different workers went about executing their mundane occupations. Once Taylor understood the bing manner of executing a undertaking, he so experimented to increase specialisation ( Taylor 1911 ) . The ground for the success of this rule is that it made occupations simple for workers and cut down unneeded motions. Taylor besides wanted to happen ways to better each worker ‘s ability to execute a peculiar undertaking.
The Second Principle was to set up the new techniques of executing undertakings into written regulations and criterion operating processs. Once the best method of public presentation undertaking was determined, it would be communicated to all workers.
The Third Principle required the choice of workers who possessed accomplishments and abilities to fit the demands of the undertakings, and to develop them to execute the undertaking against established processs. To increase specialisation, Taylor believed workers had to understand the undertaking that were required and be trained to execute them at the needed degree. Workers who could non be trained to make this degree were to be transferred to a occupation where they were able to make the lower limit needed degree of proficiency.
The Fourth Principle was to put a just degree of public presentation for a undertaking, and so develop a wage system that provides a wages for public presentation above the acceptable degree. To promote workers to execute at a high degree of efficiency, and to supply them with an inducement to uncover the most efficient techniques for executing a undertaking, Taylor advocated that workers should be paid a fillip and have some per centum of the public presentation additions achieved through the more efficient work procedure.
Harmonizing to Taylor, as cited in Butler ( 1991 ) , greater consequences achieved through scientific direction were attained, non through a pronounced high quality in the mechanism of one type of direction over the mechanism of another, but instead by the permutation of one doctrine for another doctrine in industrial direction. It is informative to reexamine Taylor ‘s doctrine of scientific direction with its accent upon the human component, non by and large associated with Taylor. This doctrine is possibly more of import and appropriate for today than single rules of scientific direction. Human resource developments should be a affair of national concerns at all degrees. As engineering alterations, so make skill sets and other worker demands ( Butler, 1991 ) .
Criticisms of Scientific Management
Over the old ages at that place have been some cardinal unfavorable judgments against Taylor ‘s Scientific Management. One of these critics has charged Taylor ‘s system as holding “ viewed adult male as a machine -a cog in a wheel- and programmed every of import gesture a workingman had to put to death to finish an assigned undertaking ” ( Halpern, Osofsky, & A ; Peskin, 1989 ) . Those critics believed that that would go forth workers with no discretion at all and it is boring for all, but the most apathetic workers. Another critic added that scientific direction mandates an highly high division of labour which requires minimal accomplishments. This left workers with no inducement to turn and develop on the occupation. Besides, Taylor ‘s systems were criticized for non analyzing the sentiments of workers nor were they briefed on the intent for Taylor ‘s clip survey methods. Taylor ‘s system besides failed to place the societal and psychological demands of the worker, and the ailments of unsatisfactory on the job conditions and mortifying intervention ( Halpern, Osofsky, & A ; Peskin, 1989 ) . Employees in modern-day organisations were more extremely educated and would hold a better cognition of their occupation range therefore they are more actively involved in determination devising. Taylor ‘s rules seem to presume that the employees of the past epoch would merely execute simple work undertakings and do non necessitate much knowledge to finish their work.
Another unfavorable judgment about Taylor ‘s system was that its wages construction was bound by how an person performed. However, it stands to ground that modifying the original wages construction to widen to a squad or workgroup, the consequence would be applicable to today ‘s organisation ( Halpern, Osofsky, & A ; Peskin, 1989 ) .
Can scientific direction be used successfully in modern-day organisations?
In today ‘s organisations, many companies still use Frederick Taylor ‘s basic theories of scientific direction in forming and planing their occupations despite the fact that many directors and production applied scientists may non needfully subscribe to the hypothesis behind Taylor ‘s theory ( Pruijt, 2000 ) . Many large companies have taken up Taylor ‘s thoughts and applied them really efficaciously, even transforming the procedure. ( Peaucelle, 2000 ) .
An illustration of a reputable company utilizing Taylorism is General Motors ( GM ) . GM has publically acknowledged the importance of employee public presentation and squad public presentation ( Butler, 1991 ) . In one of its programmes, GM ranked employees against each other, basically rating the employees ‘ single public presentation. Based on the public presentation, foremans had to implement wage differences between the grades. On top of that, GM besides set up a “ acknowledgment award ” fund to be doled out in ball amounts to high performing artists, irrespective of the “ fight ” of their wages. This encouraged better cooperation among colleagues, enabling better efficiency within the company. This is a successful execution of Taylor ‘s Fourth Principle which rewards the person for their specific undertaking public presentation,
There are a figure of points that make the theories of scientific direction attractive to today ‘s directors. One of the nucleus attractive forces is the promise that the best possible method, “ the 1 best manner ” will be used. However, Taylor ‘s strong belief that “a one best way” to work might be a affair of idealistic argument.
When we compare today ‘s organisations, another nucleus attractive force of Taylorism is: it promises to be a agency against what Taylor called “ systematic soldiership ” . This concern is every bit relevant to today ‘s pull offing organisation as of all time. Pruijt ( 2000 ) supported that statement by analysing the productiveness spread in a European and a Nipponese organisation ; at Daimler in Germany, the current scheme was based more on responsible liberty, whilst in Nipponese workss, standard worksheets are used to stipulate the order of operations and the clip allowed for them. Therefore, with regard to Taylorism, when granted liberty, workers in mass production do non set in a maximal attempt. It would look so that for certain organisations, the Second and Third Principles are effectual.
Despite the advantages of Taylorism in today ‘s organisation, there are still some drawbacks. Pruijt ( 2000 ) mentioned that one of the drawbacks identified is that Taylorism is expensive because it entails making occupations for non-value adding supervisors and other indirect workers. On top of that, Pruijt ( 2000 ) besides noted that Taylorism is non favourable to flexibleness, although it boosts numerical flexibleness by doing it easier to rapidly set together new workers in a production procedure, and it allows workers to be laid away without losing cognition from the organisation.
In today ‘s corporate direction, “ Post-Taylorism ” ‘ , as stated by Peaucelle ( 2000 ) is adopted but it does non abandon Taylorism ‘s aims, instead, there is the add-on of new aims which includes productiveness ( efficiency ) , flexibleness, deadlines ( seasonableness ) and choice assortment ( diverseness ) . Although these new aims are sometimes pursued through wholly new activities when executed, the Taylorism ‘s traditional methods may besides sometimes be employed.
However, Peaucelle ( 2000 ) argues that new aims are unattainable without adversely impacting efficiency in a modern company utilizing Taylorism. Peaucelle ( 2000 ) further explained that increasing supply would be the lone manner to shorten bringing periods, which is dearly-won due to limited merchandise scope and the whole operation becomes more unaffordable as the merchandise scope is diversified. In add-on, diverseness would besides look to be really expensive as it diminishes the size of the manufactured series. Furthermore, quality would be accomplishable merely if review points are increased, and with the aid of qualified, and therefore more expensive work force, therefore adding more cost to production. Last, flexibleness would besides emerge as equivocal with respects to heavy and stiff investings in heavy industrial equipment purchased at lower monetary values.
For case, in Japan, since it was necessary to hold a high school certification in order to work on the car production line, the high degree of instruction corresponded to added competency, and was surely paid for. As discussed by Peaucelle ( 2000 ) , this is consistent with the analysis of efficiency-wage responsiveness. Therefore, in comparing to the traditional Taylorism, workers are paid above the minimal pay whereas the post-Taylorism company pays its workers a higher pay for increased competency since it is a manner of achieving its aims.
The findings suggest that Frederick Taylor ‘s theory still exists in today ‘s organisations. His rules of direction can still be used successfully in today ‘s organisations, with accommodations to provide for the modern workplace and its demands.