As time passed other men were also selected and trained to handle pig iron at the rate of 47.5 tones per day and in return they would received 60% extra wages. Taylor drew attention to the need for the scientific selection of the workers (Mullins, 2002). With no loss of production, Taylor managed to cut down the workforce from 500 to 140, and it was this that made Taylor a well-known individual in the eyes of the public.
Taylor believed industrial productivity was poorer than it should be because of intentional absence of the workforce and unscientific design of work practices by management. He believed workers could be forced to work harder by motivating them with a higher wage, financed by higher productivity, which may well be achieved by strictly monitoring the worker's each movement which would make it impossible to slow down without being noticed (Dale, 1998). In order to achieve the highest productivity, Taylor planned that instead of dropping the number of "unproductive" workers to a minimum, about 25% of all workers should be committed to supervising, monitoring, measuring and accounting.
One of the world’s largest multi-national corporations in this day and age relies on labour management techniques that were developed at the start of the 20th century. Where ever you are, you will get the standard tasting burger, covered with the same relish, in the same bun, served in the same packaging. In any McDonald’s out of the 28,000 branches in 120 countries, when you order a big mac and large fries you know exactly what you are going to get. Consistency is one of McDonald’s strongest selling points (Noon & Blyton, 2002).
McDonald’s can be described as a well-maintained machine in nearly all aspect of its functions, from the customer interface to the centralised planning and financial control (Morgan, 1986) and the employees are treated as components of this machine. Each employee is given simple training on how to carry out a number of tasks which involve little judgement and leave minute room for discretion. Every one is given specific instructions on what to do, how to do it and what to say. They have precisely-timed, computer-controlled equipment that cook the burgers, dispense the drinks, heat the pies, record the order and calculate the customer’s change.
McDonald’s has developed a variety of machines to control its employees. When a worker must decide when a glass is full and the soft-drink dispenser needs to be shut off, there is always the risk that the worker maybe distracted and allow the glasses to overflow. Thus the sensor has been developed that automatically shut-off the soft-drink dispenser when the glass is full. (Ritzer, 1993: 105-6)
While the logic of Taylorism is perfect, the condition of work it produces is often dehumanising, and miserable: a set of highly segmented tasks, with no chance for employees to use their own judgment, and the scheme of close supervision to monitor their work performance (Edward, 1979), this lead to strong criticism against, scientific management methods.
At the Bethlehem Steel Corporation were Taylor started to apply his ideas on scientific management, there was strong criticism from the workers who found the work boring and required little skill. Regardless of this criticism Taylor attempted to increase the implementation of his ideas in the steel corporation. Nevertheless, fear of mass redundancies convinced the management to ask Taylor to restrain his actions. However Taylor’s attitudes in his methods were too strong and he would not allow management interference and in the end he was parted company with immediate effect. Scientific management was also applied in other countries with similar criticisms and hostile reactions (Mullins, 2002).
The ideas of scientific management were also adopted in the American Watertown Arsenal- to be followed more or less instantly by a strike of moulding workers. The strikes led to an investigation of Taylor’s methods by a House of Representatives Committee which reported in 1912. The conclusion of the committee was that scientific management has some positive techniques and offered helpful organisation suggestions, however it gave production managers a dangerously high level of controlled power. A the same time a survey between the workers showed a broad level of hatred and hostility, by both union and non-union members, to scientific manager methods. Due to this report Taylor’s methods of time study were banned in defence establishment by the committee (Mullins, 2002).
Taylor assumed that financial incentives were the only way to gain the efforts required, with hardly any other stands in the link between the two. He believed that money was the key to motivation, and that employees would be ready to trail the standard tasks and routine operations if the financial reward was worthwhile (Bennett, 1991). He recommended using an individual piece work system to establish pay. If a worker achieved the set production target, management would pay the regular salary. If workers produced more, managers would pay more.
However Mayo argues that money is not the key to motivation. Mayo and his team conducted a number of tests at the Hawthorn plant, the group observed some employees of the factory. The workers in this area were paid according to a piece-rate system. This is when the organisation pays the workforce a set amount for each thing or piece, which they produce. The more they produce the more they receive. Such methods reflect the theory that this will persuade employees to work harder. Mayo’s researchers were surprised to find out that employees produced much less then they could have done, on a regular basis. The reason for this was that they held their own opinions on what a usual rate of out put should be. The workers thought that if they produced, and earned a lot, then the management would think that the piece-rate was too high (Boddy & Paton, 1998).
Taylor’s other assumption is that manual workers cannot be trusted to complete their duties without tight supervision (Bennett, 1991). Incidents has uncovered that there are other ways in which work can be divided. The most famous according to Dale (1998), is self-directed work group.
The work group agrees its own outputs, quality values and contribution to the establishment with management. The team it-self then becomes responsible for organising the funds at its removal. A variety of studies, have proven surprising. In one organisation it was found that the level of absence came down when the workers became responsible for deciding their individual shifts and holiday rotas.
An autonomous work group grants great opportunities for progress. Group members are able to take on responsibilities formerly kept for managers and supervisors. The exceptional experience of being an associate of a self-determining team can be a learning experience, for traditional approaches of performing the job can be questioned by the individuals who know the job best. Quality circles work on similar basis (Drucker, 1994). The individuals, who are aware of a problem, are more likely to be concerned about it and are more capable of doing something to resolve it and collectively find ways of making improvements. They learn with and from each other and the process along the way.
Allowing the staff to participate in the questioning of the organisation’s operational processes can have numerous unexpected spin offs (Dale, 1998). Previously unknown talents and skills can be revealed by the members of the group as well as the managers. According to Taylor the employees cannot be trusted to complete their duties without tight supervision, and are not capable of planning, organising and improving their own work (Boddy & Paton, 1998). Taylor believed that management should plan and control all the workers efforts, leaving little discretion for employee control over working methods. Job specifications and instructions should be clear and precise.
The issue is whether allowing member of staff to participate in organisational planning helps improve organisational performance and growth or not. Fernie and Metcalf (1995) sum up a few common assumptions about the link between organisational performance and employee participation:
- Employee participation provides workers with greater rewards from work than do traditional form of governance. These rewards will enhance job satisfaction, as well as employee’s motivation to accomplish new objectives.
- Workers usually have more knowledge and information concerning their everyday jobs and processes than their managers, and thus are better placed to improved performance.
- Mutual trust and loyalty will be increased by allowing employee’s greater access to management information.
In a study by Black and Lynch (1997), it was recognized that organisations that encourage employees to think and work together are strongly linked with increased productivity.
An Australian example of how employee participation helped improve the quality of ford vehicles at the ford plant in Australia. Lansbury, Davis and Simmons (1996) write the qualities of ford vehicles have considerably improved since involvement programs were implemented. But they argue that, for both the workers and the organisation profitability from these changes are more liable to be long-term rather then immediate.
According to research carried out by Prasnikar, employee participation in developing countries illustrates that employee participation in non-modern societies in general have an affirmative effect. For example, productivity was increased by 2-3% per year when self-management was introduced at Malta Drydocks (Prasnikar, 1991).
Other critics of Taylor differed with his view that the interests of the employees were the same to those of managers. These critics believed Taylor was to blame for a subjugation of employees to a sort of industrial slavery. Through scientific management methods, workers were treated like machines and devalued. The correct metaphor should not be that of a machine but of a living human being. This individual has needs and requirements that can be fulfilled through interaction with the environment.
In a study by Mayo it was acknowledged that the raise in productivity was related to the changes in the social situation in which the group works:
The major experiment change was introduced when those in charge sought to hold the situation humanly by getting the co-operation of the workers. What actually happened was that 6 individuals became a team and the team gave itself wholeheartedly and spontaneously to co-operation in the environment (Mayo, 1949).
This makes the group feel they are special, managers asking for their views, involving employees with them, paying attention to them and giving them the chance to manipulate some aspects of the work. This approach influenced loyalty.
Man’s desire to be continuously associated in work with his fellows is a strong, if not the strongest, human characteristic. Any disregard of it by management or any ill-advised attempt to defeat this human impulse leads instantly to some form of defeat for management itself. In (a study) the efficiency experts had assumed the primacy of financial incentives come into operation (Mayo, 1949)
People also have social needs which need to be satisfied by management - and how organisions do it can either be in the managements interest or in opposition to them. By stressing the need of social factors in the organising, the human relations approach added an additional element to the management process. Scientific management stress the technical aspects of work, and the assumption that the people would be prepared to adopt those requirements (Boddy & Paton, 1998). Mayo’s experiments indicated that such assumptions are wrong. The Social needs of the employees, as well as individual economic incentives, influence behaviour. The nature of people does influence what they do at work as much as the formal design on the work environment. This implied that management would have to pay closer attention to the human side of the organising. Employees would work more effectively if management showed some interest in their well-being through more humane supervisory practice.
Conclusion
In the present day Examples of the Taylorism approach are easy to find, not just in manufacturing, but also in several offices and service organisations. A lot of call-centre staff, dealing with customer inquires or orders, work on a precisely specified duty. They have little discretion in how they complete the job, since management expects them to follow the prescribed method. If one is to look at staff in a bank or a travel agency the likelihood are that they would following extremely closely a set of prompts on the company computer screen, keying in the answer, which then prompts the next question (Gibrial, 1988).
This assignment implies that Tailors efforts took place in a moment in time when there were a lot of industrial changes occurring after the Civil War. His approach is sill found in some organisations in the present day for example McDonald’s, who generally employee young college students and people with little qualifications. But it seems that employees today, and in the near future are, and will be more educated then they were only a few decades ago. And if organisations want to stay active in the increasingly competitive global market, they will have to recognize the benefits of a motivated, efficient, co-operative and productive workforce. Hence although organisations can survive in the short run, but for the long-run management should consider looking at a different approach.
