The negative aspects of scientific management are apparent when evaluating the treatment of employees and with the problems that arise from the piece rate payment system. At the beginning of the twentieth century Taylor’s methods for managing the workers were not completely adhered to. Thousands of plants introduced elements of scientific management, but few firms created formal planning departments or issued instruction cards to machine workers in fear of alienating the workforce (Nelson, 1980). The principals of scientific management are unquestionably authoritarian in that they assume decision-making is best kept at the top of the organisation because there exists a lack of trust in the competence of the employees. Taylor believed productivity and efficiency would both rise if there were a division between workers and experts, and contended that almost every act of the workman should be preceded by one or more preparatory acts of the management. He also reasoned that each person be taught daily by those who are over them (1911). This style of management can be the catalyst for causing demotivation and dissatisfaction amongst employees. If workers feel as though they are being treated without due respect many may become disenchanted with the company and refuse to work to their maximum potential. Similarly, the piece rate payment system may cause the employer to encounter the problem of encouraging staff to concentrate on quantity at the expense of quality.
A theory whose roots are based on the scientific management model is Fordism. Fordism refers to the application of Henry Ford’s faith in mass production (Marcouse, 1996). The theory combined the idea of the moving assembly line together with Taylor’s systems of division of labour and piece rate payment. With Fordism jobs are automated or broken down into unskilled or semi-skilled tasks. The pace of the continuous flow assembly line dictates work. Although Ford pioneered production in the assembly of consumer goods, such as cars, his theory retained the faults of Taylor’s. Autocratic management ensures a high division of labour in order to effectively run mass production; this leads to little workplace democracy and alienation. Equally, with emphasis on the continuous flow of the assembly line, machinery is given more importance than workers. Nonetheless, a retained benefit of Taylor’s work is the piece rate payment system. Workers are driven by financial motivation; being given a consolation of high wages while employers maintain control over the workforce.
The antithesis of scientific management is the human relations movement established by Elton Mayo. The model is based on the research undertaken by Mayo at the Hawthorne electrical components factory between 1927 and 1932. Mayo followed Taylor’s methods and was attempting to measure the impact on productivity of improving the lighting conditions within the factory. He followed Taylor’s scientific principles by testing the changes against a control, a section of the factory with unchanged lighting.
Although productivity rose where the lighting was improved, Mayo was surprised to find a similar benefit where no physical changes had taken place. This led him to conduct further experiments, which cast doubts on Taylor’s assumptions about the importance of money in motivation (Marcouse, 1996). Mayo’s work brought forward an alternative to Taylor’s methods of controlling the workforce; studies suggested that scientific management could not explain key aspects of people’s behaviour at work, specifically within work groups. Instead Mayo found that employees whose social needs were being fulfilled produced above average levels of output, as it acted as a source of empowerment.
There are many benefits of the human relations movement. It suggests a company should organise the social needs of the workforce and stresses that the role of management is to provide organisational environments in which employers can fulfil the social needs of their employees thus encouraging employees’ desire for co-operative activity (Fincham & Rhodes, 1999). This can be done through team building, supportive supervision, increased communication and opportunity for participation in decision-making.
The key difference between scientific management and the human relations model is highlighted when analysing the motivational techniques to increase productivity. Scientific management emphasises the use of financial measures in order to secure employers’ objectives whereas the human relations model argues that management should acquire the insight into the skills that will manipulate social factors in order to harness their employees’ social needs to managerial ends (Fincham & Rhodes, 1999)
It can be argued that scientific management was a product of its time. When Taylor was developing the theory the economic climate was a time of great change for American industry. America was experiencing a period of industrialism and factory revolution. The changes Taylor prescribed were grounded to improve efficiency and productivity at the time, and were also established to increase the performance of the workforce. The recommendations Taylor made were guidelines to improve the management of the manufacturing industry and ways in which employers could control their workforce.
This argument is given further credence with the advent of post-industrialism. With it, better standards of living are widespread and there is increased affluence. Accordingly modern organisations tend to focus more on services, with manufacturing having moved to different third world countries where labour is far less expensive. Here, firms are able to control output, maximise assets and efficiency, and achieve economies of scale. Scientific management is now applied to sweatshops in these countries with the advantage of substantially low levels of pay for increased output.
Equally, with the onset of the human relations movement, findings have established the growing need by employers to meet the social needs of their workforce. The human relations concept has been advanced and propounded with further studies. A famous model that builds upon Mayo’s earlier work is Herzberg’s two-factor theory of job satisfaction. Herzberg’s research was carried out in the 1950s among accountants and engineers and offered a practical approach to improving motivation through job enrichment (Marcouse, 1996). He placed emphasis on redesigning workplaces and work systems to provide more fulfilling jobs. Herzberg recognised two classifications that affect employees while at work: motivators and hygiene factors. Motivators are the aspects of a job that can lead to positive job satisfaction for an employee, whereas hygiene factors are the elements of working life that have the potential to cause dissatisfaction. Herzberg’s theory has proved very robust with many business leaders and firms putting his methods into practice (Marcouse, 1996).
The human relations movement was given further standing with the work of Abraham Maslow and his theory of the hierarchy of needs. His research established five distinct categories of needs for workers, and then classified them into a single hierarchy. They range from the physical needs through social needs towards the highest classification, which are psychological needs. Maslow argues that once all needs have been catered for, the employee will be motivated by self-actualisation (psychological growth and development).
The human relations model has changed both management thought and practice in a number of ways. Firstly, workers have become recognised stakeholders of a firm, before the arrival of human relations shareholders were recognised as a company’s only stakeholders. This proves that both employees and their needs have been given greater consideration and importance. In the same way, with post industrialism and human relations, specific laws and regulations have been passed that govern all areas of the work environment. Much of the law governing commerce and industry has been subject to considerable change. For example, there is now a minimum wage, a limit on working hours per week, and health and safety regulations, all of which were nonexistent at the time of Taylor and scientific management’s origin.
However, it can be reasoned that scientific management is still a relevant concept for understanding contemporary work organisations. Scientific management has proved it has a place in a post-industrial economy and within work organisations, albeit in a hybrid form with the human relations model. This is because scientific management allows a company to control its workforce through a series of measures that guarantees them the desired levels of productivity and efficiency, in spite of this, the model, as Taylor prescribed it, also manages to alienate the workforce and cause dissatisfaction due to the authoritarian structure of the role of management. The human relations model adds a new dimension to scientific management as it allows management to work on the same principles as Taylor approved, such as time and motion studies, while also serving to fulfil employees’ social needs at the same time.
This hybrid of management theories has been used effectively within modern organisations. A notion that fully highlights this and is argued to be the natural heir to Taylor’s system is the idea of ‘McDonaldisation’. It stresses the need for rationality, specifically within the dimensions of efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control. McDonaldisation is a concept created by George Ritzer in his study ‘The McDonaldisation of Society’ (1993). In his research Ritzer asserts that the business principles pioneered by McDonalds are increasingly dominating other industries and activities (Fincham & Rhodes, 1999). The underlying theme of his work is that particular aspects of scientific management have been adapted to contemporary business organisations in order to help management find the most cost effective and rational production technique thus leading to an increase in productivity. Tenets that are taken from Taylor’s model include the division of labour, where there is a split between planning and execution, specialisation, when workers are highly efficient in their specified task, and time and motion studies, which includes timing the job in order to find the most efficient method. Despite the adopted principles from scientific management, McDonaldisation also contains aspects of the human relations movement. For example, if output is above average the employee responsible will usually be praised and singled out. By doing so, management fulfils their social and psychological needs. This can affect the culture of an organisation as it means that employees are motivated by self-actualisation and not exclusively by financial incentives.
The above example proves that the theory of scientific management is compatible in understanding contemporary work organisations. Taylor’s recommendations have become standard practice around the world and have certainly been adopted throughout the manufacturing industry and increasingly in the services sector. Taylor himself prophesised “that these principles are certain to come into general use practically throughout the civilised world, sooner or later... and the sooner they come the better for all the people” (1911).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
FINCHAM, R & RHODES, P (1999) Principles of Organisational Behaviour, Oxford University Press
KELLY, John E (1982) Scientific Management, Job Redesign, & Work Performance, Academic Press
MARCOUSE, Ian et al (1996) The Complete A-Z Business Studies Handbook, Hodder & Stoughton
NELSON, David (1980) Frederick W Taylor and the Rise of Scientific Management, The University of Wisconsin Press
TAYLOR, Frederick W (1911) The Principles of Scientific Management, Harper Bros.
