Fredrick W. Taylor Ideas In Today's Organisation

Fredrick W. Taylor (1856 - 1915), pioneered the scientific management movement which studies a job carefully, breaking it into its smallest components, establish exact time and motion requirements for each task to be done, and then train workers to best complete these tasks in the same ways over and over again (Schermerhorn, Hunt & Osborn, 1998). These efforts are the forerunners of modern industrial engineering approaches to job design that focus on process efficiencies, the best methods and smooth workflows. Despite these efforts, there were critics that criticized Taylor's assertion that there is no such thing as "skill" in making and moving things and for not asking the workers he studied on how they thought their jobs could be improved.

The purpose of this essay is to identify how relevant are Taylor's ideas to the survival of today's organizations. Firstly, this essay will briefly discuss Taylor's four principles of management. Next, the essay will compare Taylor's four principles with other theorists' such as Hawthrone and Weber; and mainly on Ford and Fayol, to discover out the relationship among their theories. Following that, the essay will demonstrate Taylor's principles, which have succeeded in managing organisations, particularly the Japanese organisations. Also, it will investigate the development of Taylor's principles from the past to today's management rules.

Taylor's four components of management are summarized as follows: Firstly, developing a science for each element of work that has to be accomplished, which replaces the old rule-of-thumb method. Secondly, scientifically, select, train, teach and develop each employee to accomplish his or her task. Thirdly, sincerely cooperate with employees to ensure implementation of the scientific principles that have been developed accordingly. Lastly, dividing the work and the responsibility equally between management and workers (Robbins, Bergman, Stagg & Coulter, 2003).

According to Taylor, as cited in Butler (1991), greater results achieved through scientific management were attained, not through a marked superiority in the mechanism of one type of management over the mechanism of another, but rather through the substitution of one set of underlying principles - by the substitution of one philosophy for another philosophy in industrial management. It is instructive to review Taylor's philosophy of scientific management with its emphasis upon the human element, not generally associated with Taylor. This philosophy is perhaps more important and appropriate for today than individual principles of scientific management. Human resource developments should be a matter of national concerns at all levels. As technology changes, so do skill and other worker requirements change (Butler, 1991).

As cited in Crainer (2003, p. 4), Drucker argued that Taylor's is "the most lasting contribution America has made to Western thought since the Federalist Papers" compared to Henry Ford, as the assembly line was simply a rational extension of scientific management.

Crainer (2003) discussed that Taylor's popular beliefs about management is being divorced from human affairs and emotions. Similarly, Fordism's mechanisation of mass production further emphasised the use of humans as instruments or machines to be influenced by their leaders (Fuchs, 2002). Hence, by Ford's successful mass-production processes, Fordism's combination and emphasis on the scientific methods in getting things done.

Despite Fordism borrowing many Taylorism ideas, Fordism includes strong hierarchical control, with workers in a production line often restricted to the one single task, usually specialised and unskilled (Fuchs, 2002), hence, enabling managers to regulate production and uphold their own position within firms as well as meeting the efficiency criteria set by owners.

Dissimilarities also exist between the two theories. Fordism dehumanised the worker (Fuchs, 2002) whereas Taylorism persuaded the workers that their goals could be readily attained along with their employers goals, therefore they should all work together in this direction. Therefore, Fordism was more appropriate for industrial companies participating in mass production such as Ford Motors, whereas Taylorism could be applied in many types of organisation.

Peaucelle (2000) discussed that Taylor designed this using his principles of management that incorporated developing a science for each aspect of work and finding the quickest way the job could be completed. Whereas Fuchs (2002) mentioned that the Fordism production system incorporated using fixed and dedicated machines in individuals' work, instead of transforming the employee into a machine. Also, Santos, Powell & Sarshar (2002) argued that the Hawthorne studies concluded that the improvements in productivity happened almost solely due to social factors and motivation, regardless of the working environment.

As cited in Robbins et al (2003), Taylor believed it would be best to scientifically select, train, teach and develop the workers. However, in contrast, associated with mass production, Fuchs (2002) stressed that Fordism was in fact based on rationalization and mechanization of the production process using semi skilled workers who could be easily replaced. Contrasting to Taylor's ideas of scientific management of 'Heartily co-operate ... to ensure that all work is done in accordance with the principles of science' (Robbins et al, 2003, p. 40), Fordism did not care for the workers to work as a team.

In comparing Fayol and Taylor, although both theorists wrote during the same time period, their thoughts were different. Concerned with management at the lowest organisational level, Taylor used scientific method whereas Fayol's concentration was directed at the activities of all managers. As cited in Robbins et al (2003), Fayol argued that management was an activity common to all human endeavours in business, government and even in home, thus he proceeded to state the fourteen principles of management.

As cited in Crainer (2003), Fayol developed 14 "general principles of management", which were the universal characteristics of management: division of work; authority and responsibility; discipline; unity of command; unity of direction; subordination of individual interest to general interest; remuneration of employees; centralization; the scalar chain; order; equity; stability of personnel; initiative; esprit de corps.

As discussed in Cossette (2002), Taylor mentioned that work and responsibility should be almost divided equally between management and workers, thus, contradicting Fayol's