Frederick Taylor and scientific management principles

Frederick Taylor

Most things in life are black and white -- all good or all bad -- totally an advantage and not injurious in any way or a completely a disadvantage and not beneficial in any way. Would it be easy if life was so simple? Such was the case with the theory of Scientific Management developed and implemented by Frederick Taylor at the turn of the 20th century. Although his approach to industrial engineering significantly increased productivity, it definitely had its flaws.

After the Civil War, American industry began to make considerable changes. Instead of small factories and single proprietorships, large U.S. industries developed plants from local trades such as textiles, steel, glass, and clothing. Owners wanted to find ways of motivating their employees to enhance their companies' output. In most cases, the incentive bonuses they were using for this purpose were not effective.

Taylor argued that incentive wages could not change the situation unless they were combined with employee responsibilities, which were thoroughly planned and taught. He suggested that management should work cooperatively with the workers (Freedman 26-38) in order to bring about organizational change. (Wredge and Greenwood 270-272). He also said that such cooperation would make trade unions unnecessary (This, in itself, was a very radical notion). He defined five specific goals.

1) Scientifically study every aspect of a task and determine the one best way of performing it; 2. Choose the best person to do the job; 3. Train, instruct and develop the worker; 4. Provide financial incentives for following the methods; and 5. Divide roles and objectives so that managers are responsible for planning the work methods and workers are responsible for doing the work accordingly.

The goal, he said, was to find the right challenge for each employee and provide monetary rewards for improved productivity. For example, he had time studies to set daily production quotas, and workers would receive incentives if they reached their daily goal. Those who did not achieve their goal would receive a commensurate rate with the work not accomplished, or a much lower pay. With this and other similar approaches, Taylor doubled productivity. In short, he paid the person not the job. If a person did not perform accordingly, he lost his job.

Taylor may have increased productivity considerably, but many people both at the levels of management and worker were not in agreement with his approach. Today when looking back at his approach, it is possible to see that there were no clear-cut rights or wrongs. Factories were completely different then than they are today. Work was completed according to the craft system, where trades were passed from master to apprentice (thus, the words 'trade secret). The business owners did not know how the work was done.

Workers were normally paid by piece rates instead of daily or hourly wages, and the rates were based on expectations. If an owner found that certain work could be done better or faster on machines, piece rates were reduced. Thus, workers would not want to improve. Taylor foresaw a future where the managers would acquire the information and the resulting gains shared. In fact, productivity did soar and such gains were made.

Yet, this does not mean that Taylor's approach was fail proof. He saw knowledge as a finite task, not a means of continually learning. Nor is there only one "best"

way of reaching objectives. More problematical, was the fact that Taylor saw a complete demarcation between the managers who planned and the workers who implemented -- the brains and the brawn. This top-down view in industry became the norm and has plagued business for generations. Workers promise not to think and they will be rewarded for their efforts.

At this same time, public education began to be developed to follow Taylor's approach. Schools went from the one-room school house with a mixture of ages and abilities learning from each other to a segregation of ages. Money was saved because more students could be taught with future teachers by relying on lecture method, but students did not learn as well and the brighter students were held back by the slower ones. More so, the slower ones did not learn from the more intelligent ones.

As noted before, there are very few things that are completely right or wrong. It does not appear that Taylor was purposely doing anything to malign workers. In fact, he stopped his work in this area when there were such mixed reviews.

There were and still are some benefits to Taylor's scientific management: it can be applied to all levels of work, despite complexity. If done properly, it brings the employees their peak of performance, without physical or mental harm. Incentives to motivate the worker is much better than an authoritarian approach and it does lead to productivity because people are doing tasks working at a rate best suited to maximum performance.

However, the view of monetary incentives as motivation for human is too simplistic and naive. Thus, businesses must realize that there is a better way, where information and profits are shared by both management and workers. A company cannot perform to its best ability unless everyone from the top down and bottom up work to their best ability and share similar goals -- that is, the success of the company. When the organization succeeds, then everyone will reap the benefits. Similarly education has to find a middle ground that does not put the system in front of the individual -- then our country will be much better off.