The application of Scientific Management in contemporary society

季心禾

【Abstract】Scientific Management has challenged previous working methods and influenced the world deeply, while some managers doubt if this theory still apply to modern companies. This article attempts to examine what Scientific Management is and how deeply it affects companies in 20th century. In addition, to a small extent modern companies had jettisoned this methods due to the efficient design and relevance with human nature.

【Key words】Scientific Management; modern corporate organization; 21st century

I. Introduction

Scientific management, which is also named Taylorism, was created by Frederick W. Taylor in 1911. It has been rated as first among 45 most important management theories in 20th century by 1000 CEOs of large-scale enterprises (Qiu, 2004). However, it also has been debated by many scholars whether the theory has become outmoded and could not adapt to the new environment. Thus, an important consideration is by the beginning of the 21st century, the extent to which modern corporate organisations had jettisoned the methods of work design associated with Scientific Management. If we understand this, companies will get better efficiency and establish more competitive advantages. This essay will argue that despite some limitations of the theory, modern companies to a small degree has given up work design combining with Scientific Management. As will be demonstrated, there are three main parts of this essay: first, what Scientific Management is and how it affects companies in 20th century, second, illustrating in details to a small extent Taylorism has been jettisoned as a work design in 21st century, and third, the reasons.

II. Definition of Scientific Management and its influence in the 20th Century

To begin, it is important to understand what Scientific Management is to better anaylse the main question. The core of Taylorism is normalising regulations and rules through systematically planning and calculating all elements of the labour process (Taylor, 1911). Within this theory, employers bear considerable responsibility. On the one hand, they need to make instructions in advance through timing every process and integrating the optimum options of procedure systematically to minimize the time incurred (Taylor, 1911; Braverman, 1974). In particular, the instructions include which tasks and by what means to complete the tasks (Taylor, 1911). On the other hand, employers select appropriate employees and trained them thoroughly to ensure them follow the given instructions completely (Taylor, 1911; Braverman, 1974).

However, there is some debate about the features of Taylorism. Braveman (1974) critises it as ‘dehumanisation and deskilling. To some extent, workers are just machines when they are working because they do ‘spoon feeding tasks—mastering and repeating the requirements of their specific jobs passively, instead of thinking how to improve themselves and learning more skills in other domains; whereas McLoughlin and Clark (1988) consider Braverman neglected Taylorism was ‘a(chǎn)n expression of inevitable technology influence as the widespread use of machines after the Industry Revolution consequently produce the idea of uniform work.

Despite these arguments, Taylorism was widely practiced in 20th century. A particular well-known application of Taylorism is Fordism (Hounshell, 1984). Ford also emphases rational and standardized individual jobs using time and motion techiques, but he designs for mass production (Huczynski and Buchanan, 2007). Assembly line was created, and the speed of workers are imposed by the assembly line rather than their own, which not only improves quantity, but also focuses on ‘power, accuracy, economy, system, continuity, speed and repetition (Ford, 1924). The successful practice of Fordism further proves and complements Taylorism.

There is no doubt that Taylorism had changed the ordinary management in various ways. For example, the ‘rule-of-thumb method of employees was scrapped in favour of uniform science procedures designed by employers. Employers now adopt one standard method of the work and one particular pay system as well, and job fragment is put into work design. In addition, individual work replaces group work. (see for example, Taylor, 1911; Braverman, 1974, McLoughlin & Clark, 1988).

III. To what extent Scientific Management has been jettisoned in 21st century?

The start of the 21st century witnessed a sharp increase in the number of modern companies, which utilise technology and applies modern management techniques, regardless of its start time and scale. For example, Toyota can be considered a modern company although it was established in 1933, as it uses advance technologies and management methods like lean production to produce cars efficiently (Womack, J.D. et al. 1990).

However, if corporations still exclusively used Scientific Management, there would be a high possibility of disaster, because the drawbacks of Taylorism become increasingly evident with the widespread application of its practice in 21st century. GM-Fremont was a follower of Taylorism, and it is also a typical company suffering from workers negative reactions. It was reported that it ‘had low productivity, abysmal quality, drug and alcohol abuse, and absenteeism over 20% (Adler, 2000). GM-Fremont had no choice but to make a joint venture with Toyota to accept a new management approach to solve the status quo.

The essential element of Taylorism has not been jettisoned. On the contrary, ‘its fundamental teachings have become the bedrock of all work design (Braverman, 1974, p. 87). Taylor emphasises that only systematic management can address inefficiency (Taylor, 1911). It is evident that non-discretion represents uniformity and better controlling. The former can be reduced due to lack of knowledge and experience of workmen and can bring about high quality and be highly-efficient if the system is sound (Taylor, 1911; Braverman, 1974). The latter makes it easy to adapt to the continuing changes. For example, Kanban controls have been adapted in Toyota to inform workers so they know ‘what parts are needed and when (Conti & Warner, 1993). Although it is the product of JIT, which will be explained explicitly later, the essentials of Kanban are based on and same to Taylorism—rationalization and efficiency (Taylor, 1911; Conti & Warner, 1993).

In addition, contemporary corporations still accept what Taylor believes that the fundamental interests between employers and employees are same, albeit in a different way. Common interests motivated Taylor to focus on building highly efficient system that allows for greater output in the same time, which would bring relatively more wages for workers, and at the same time lead to less labour costs for the managers, thus satisfying both parties interests (Taylor, 1911; Braverman, 1974). In the 21st century, companies also stress the importance of a win-win situation between employers and employees. Tom Peters (2014) believes that the main duty for a leader is to help people develop, create an energetic and exciting environment and give employees more growth opportunities. On the other hand, candidates who are productive, energetic and agree with the companys value are also more likely to be recruited by a modern company. For example, McKinsey, a famous consulting company, seeks for people who are team players, who possess an entrepreneurial drive, and who have problem-solving skills. These qualities are in accordance with McKinseys culture, and can help to attract more clients to the company (McKinseys website).

However, the modern corporations in the 21st century to a moderate degree has jettisoned the three strict principles of Taylorism, as well as its distinctive feature—the dimension of control, adding new management ideas to the old one. The first principle is the dissociation of the labour process from the skills of the workers (Braverman, 1974, p. 113). In order to prevent workers from casual or unsystematic discretion about the amount of work per day, managers integrate their knowledge of the labour process (Taylor, 1911; Braverman, 1974). This principle is still accepted nowadays, where organisations like McDonald assigns instructions containing pre-designed process to employees, who are trained to behave this way and are watched by managers closely to ensure high efficiency (Ritzer, 2000). In addition, to complement the rationality system and appeal to demand, Ohno Taiichi, a former vice president at Toyota, developed the ‘Just In Time formula, adding real-time information to indicate ‘production capacity, stock usage, and manpower utilization (Sewell,Wilkinson, 1992) through Kanban cards. This system minimises large capital investment in inventory and identifies underlying problems clearly via reducing buffers (Robert & Malcolm, 1993).

Separation of conception from execution is the second and most important principle in Taylorism (Braverman, 1974, p. 114), which has been jettisoned to a large extent especially when the notion ‘learning organisation created by Peter M. Senge attracts increasing attention by modern organizations. Taylor insisted ‘a(chǎn)ll possible brain work should be removed from the shop and centered in the planning or laying-out department (Taylor, 1903, p. 98-99). It regards labour as a part of capital rather than a human being, and ‘only the possessors of capital can afford labour time through selling labour time ‘for their means of subsistence(Braverman, 1974). This means workers ‘lose control over their own labour and the manner of performance (Braverman, 1974). This work design accelerates the speed of working in the short run, but it decreases workers motivation in the long run especially when employees do not understand why they do this. There might be some flaws in the production which are ignored by employers but workers have no ability to change them. However, learning organization focuses on developing group problem solving abilities through ‘fostering aspiration, developing reflective conversation, and understanding complexity of workers (Gharajedaghi, 2006). For example, NUMMI allows ‘workers themselves in a continuous, successful effort to improve productivity, quality, skills (Adler, 2000). Furthermore, the bureaucracy provides support to help workers investigate better (Adler, 2000). This learning-based structure can relieve worker exhaustion of being forced to operate through stimulating curiosity to unknown things. Thus it dramatically increases the motivation and job satisfaction of workers and improves quality and innovation of the whole organisation(Adler, 2000).

Modern companies have partly given up the third principle—the use of this monopoly over knowledge to control each step of the labor process and its mode of execution (Braverman, 1974, p. 119). Taylor proposes that foremen shoulder the responsibility to encourage the workmen to carry out the orders exactly as specified on the instruction cards (Taylor, 1903, p. 108). However, it is common for workmen to behave completely differently with and without the supervision of managers because workers are reluctant to behave like that. Hence, they work productively while under observation but work slowly without supervisors (Adler, 2000). To solve this problem, a portion of execution is allocated to workers. NUMMI allows peer supervision among team members. Workers use a stopwatch and try to improve by themselves, balancing the power distribution and increasing morale and innovation (Adler, 2000).

In addition, the feature—strong intensity of control in Taylorism is also changed. Every labour activity, no matter the complexity level and perception of importance, is under control (Braverman, 1974). In other words, Taylor does not give decision-making and rebellion rights for workers. There is no doubt that control is a necessity in management. However, it does not mean that the more intensive control, the better consequence. Appropriate ratio of power and autonomy can improve employers motivation and give vigour to the organization, like the situation regarding the second principle, giving employees the right to learn and design their own job.

IV. Why does it change and does not change?

The most thought-provoking point of Taylorism is that the foundations and principles integrate not only the efficient approaches of working, but also insights of human nature. That is why essentially it is rooted in job design.

There is no doubt that scientific working procedures is a crucial element for companies. The core job design of Taylorism is based on Time and Motion study, focusing on shaving time off each procedure, and combining process to save as much time as possible. Improving the quantity of output per hour is an excellent but not the only scientific way. Different types of jobs require exploring different efficient methods, but Scientific Management provides a thought and good example for managers to draw lessons from.

Taylor shows insightful understanding of human nature by observing that sloth and the desire to be treated equally lead to decreased productivity if foremen work without quantity limitation and at a uniform standard rate of pay (Taylor, 1911). It is true that without evaluation and motivation, we lack the power to keep pounding away at especially the tedious work. Based on this insight, Scientific Management regulates the maximum outputs every worker can meet and increases wages for those who successfully meet it to eliminate inequity (Taylor, 1911).

But why has it changed? The direct reason is decreasing profits and decreasing productivity due to the negative responses of workers, as I have mentioned before. To go much further, Taylorism neglects ‘psychological needs and capabilities of workers (Huczynski and Buchanan, 2007, p. 418). According to Maslows Hierarchy of Needs, employees do not just focus on the basic requirements of physical and safety needs. They pay more attention to love and belonging needs as well as esteem needs, even self-actualisation, preferring to choose a humanised workplace and harmonious relationship. However, Taylorism can only meet the first two needs because the inherent antipathy feeling towards the enforcement of monotonous work prevents the work from feeling being loved.

Advances in technology are also a contributor to this change, but not fundamental. More jobs related to computers and high-tech require considerable thinking from employees, and employers are incapable of gathering all the knowledge due to the booming of information, which has to be considered into job design but is contradictory to second principle—the separation of conception from execution (Braverman, 1974, p.114). Control of work operations in technology-based environment is likely to be more automated comparing with manufacturing industry, but human intervention is still required (McLoughlin & Clark, 1988).

Another reason is the increasing attention on corporate culture, which appeals to the dualism of human nature (Durkheimian, 1973, p. 158). Employees paradox feelings of desire for attention and being different as well as sense of belongings have been noticed (Ray, 1986). Employers try to take advantage of this principle to appeal to emotion of employees, including guaranteeing lifetime employment and paying graded by seniority instead of specific job function (Womack, J.D. et al. 1990). These actions can extensively manage workforce in affection domain and receive enduring trust in order to lower the rate of job-hopping and increase cohesion.

In addition, modern corporate organisations have emphasised on team learning, which is opposite to individual work design of Taylorism. As one characteristic of learning organisation, team work requires critical and independent individual thinking as well as communication and cooperation skills, promoting ‘creation, acquisition, dissemination and implementation of this knowledge in the organisation (Wang and Ahmed, 2003). The learning environment of NUMMI is based on teams, which improves the workers understanding and mastery of skills as well as the creativity of whole organisation (Adler, 2000).

V. Conclusion

In conclusion, the modern companies in this new era has to a small extent given up on employing Taylorism as a work design. The core of Scientific Management and what Taylor believes the essential interest of work is still adopted because Taylorism provides a good method to design work and utilises human nature. However, modern organisations combine new thoughts with the principles and features because of workers reaction, work psychology, technology, corporate culture and team work.

It is predictable that Scientific Management will still remain popular and be rooted in job design in the future because of the combination of efficient methods and human nature, and it will continue to be integrated with new theories to better adapt to the new environment, new challenges, and of course, new opportunities.

References:

[1]Adler,P.S.(1993).Time and Motion Regained.Harvard Business Review.Jan-Feb 1993.

[2]Braverman,H.(1974).Labour and Monopoly Capital:The Degredation of Work in the Twentieth Century,New York:Monthly Review Press.

[3]Conti,R.F.& Wamer,M.(1993).Taylorism,new technology and just-in-time systems in Japanese manufacturing.New Technology,Work and Employment.vol.8,no.1,pp.31-42.

[4]Durkheim,E.(1973).On Morality and Society:Selected Writings(Bellah,R.(Ed.)),Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

[5]Ford,H.& Crowther,S.(1924).My life and work,London:Heinemann.

[6]Gharajedaghi,J.(2006).Systems Thinking:Managing Chaos and Complexity,Amsterdam and Boston:Elsevier.

[7]Heywood,S.& Smet,A.D.(2014).Tom Peters on leading the 21st-century organization.www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization,our-insights/tom-peters-on-leading-the-21st-century-organization.

[8]Hounshell,D.A.(1984).From American system to mass production 1800-1932:The development of manufacturing technology in the United States,Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press.

[9]Huczynski,A.A.& Buchanan,D.A.(2007).Organizational Behaviour,Harlow:Pearson.

[10]Maslow.A.H.(1943).A Theory of Human Motivation,Psychological Review.50,370-396.

[11]Mckinsey&Company;/Greater China/Careers.www.mckinseychina.com/careers/.

[12]McLoughlin,I.& Clark,J.(1988).Technological Change at Work,Milton Keynes:Open University Press.

[13]Qiu,Q.J.(2004).The management of changing the world,Beijing:Economic Press·China.

[14]Ray,C.A.(1986).Corporate Culture:The Last Frontier of Control? Journal of Management Studies.23,287-297.

[15]Ritzer,G.(2000).The McDonaldization of Society,London:Pine Forge Press.

[16]Senge,P.M.(1992).The Fifth Discipline:the art and practice of the learning,London:Century Business.

[17]Taylor,F.W.(1903).Shop Management,New York and London: Harper&Brothers.;

[18]Taylor,F.W.(1911).The Principles of Scientific Management,New York and London:The Plimpton Press and Norwood Mass.

[19]Wang,C.L.and Ahmed,P.K.(2003).Organizational learning:a critical review.The learning organization.10(1) pp.8-17.

[20]Womack,J.D.et al.(1990).The Machine that Changed the World, New York:Macmillan.