Talk:Scientific Management

I just read "Scientific Management" for the first time, and I was amazed at how wrong the second hand versions were. So I went to Wikipedia hoping to see an account that "got it right". Unfortunately, this account is wrong as well. I don't have a lot of time at the moment, but I will try to get back with more detail. I just wanted to immediately raise a red flag though.

Here are some examples:

"The majority of these men believe that the fundamental interests of employees and employers are necessarily antagonistic. Scientific management, on the contrary, has for its very foundation the firm conviction that the true interests of the two are one and the same; that prosperity for the employer cannot exist through a long term of years unless it is accompanied by prosperity for the employee and vice versa; and that it is possible to give the workman what he most wants-high wages-and the employer what he wants-a low labor cost-for his manufactures.

"Why is it, then, in the face of the self-evident fact that maximum prosperity can exist only as the result of the determined effort of each workman to turn out each day his largest possible day's work, that the great majority of our men are deliberately doing just the opposite, and that even when the men have the best of intentions their work is in most cases far from efficient?

"There are three causes for this condition, which may be briefly summarized as:

"First. The fallacy, which has from time immemorial been almost universal among workmen, that a material increase in the output of each man or each machine in the trade would result in the end in throwing a large number of men out of work.

"Second. The defective systems of management which are in common use, and which make it necessary for each workman to soldier, or work slowly,in order that he may protect his own best interests.

"Third. The inefficient rule-of-thumb methods, which are still almost universal in all trades, and in practicing which our workmen waste a large part of their effort. "

Bottom Line: Contrary to the current entry, Taylor NEVER said that men were naturally lazy, he insisted on employers "gainsharing" with employees, and his "time and motion" advice were only a small part of his "science" of management:

"The body of this paper will make it clear that, to work according to scientific laws, the management must takeover and perform much of the work which is now left to the men; almost every act of the workman should be preceded by one or more preparatory acts of the management which enable him to do his work better and quicker than he otherwise could. And each man should daily be taught by and receive the most friendly help from those who are over him, instead of being, at the one extreme, driven or coerced by his bosses, and at the other left to his own unaided devices.

"This close, intimate, personal cooperation between the management and the men is of the essence of modern scientific or task management."


 * So perhaps scientific management and Taylorism are different: the former sticking to Taylor's core notions; the latter to what others attribute to him, rightly or wrongly.  A-giau 01:30, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)