Critical Review of Scientific Management

According to Taylor, “Scientific Management is an art of knowing exactly what you want your men to do and seeing that they do it in the best and cheapest way”. In Taylors view, if a work is analyzed scientifically it will be possible to find one best way to do it. Hence scientific management is a thoughtful, organized, dual approach towards the job of management against hit or miss or Rule of Thumb. Taylor categorized his methods based on his scientific analysis and treated human power as entities, which raised the question about automating and mechanizing the workers and limiting their ability towards individual initiative and reflection. Taylor defined tasks as ‘motions’ and believed that, maximum output would be attained from a worker if a set goal is given to the entity. This ideology of ‘Economic Man ‘exposed the worker as exploited as machines motivated by financial benefits. Taylor defined managers as naturally ‘good, as not self-interested and as heartily cooperative’ however, was reluctant to consider workers feedback. Although it is accepted that the scientific management enables the management to put resources to its best possible use and manner, , (Taylor ,1911).yet it has not been spared of severe criticism.

The modern management system rationalized the behavioral problem faced by scientific management by flexibility, informality between worker-manager relationship, high collaboration and engagement, employee reflection and creativity. Taylor introduced science in management in order to increase ‘industrial efficiency’ and applied his methods to the ‘human factor’, hence Price argued for ‘democratization of industry’ where workers should be given proper recognition of their work.  Illustrates the fact that, modern management amalgamated the highly valuable constant, Behavioral Science which Taylor totally omitted in his scientific management

The main argument against Taylor is this reductionist approach to work dehumanizes the worker. The allocation of work "specifying not only what is to be done but how it is to done and the exact time allowed for doing it” is seen as leaving no scope for the individual worker to excel or think. This argument is mainly due to later writing rather than Taylor's work as Taylor stated "The task is always so regulated that the man who is well suited to his job will thrive while working at this rate during a long term of years and grow happier and more prosperous, instead of being overworked."Taylor's concept of motivation left something to be desired when compared to later ideas. His methods of motivation started and finished at monetary incentives. While critical of the then prevailing distinction of "us "and "them" between the workforce and employers he tried to find a common ground between the working and managing classes. scientific management has for its foundation the firm conviction that the true interests of the two are one and the same; that prosperity for the employer cannot exist a long term of years unless it is accompanied by prosperity for the employee and vice versa . However, this emphasis on monetary rewards was only part of the story.(Caldari,2007).

A basic tenet of scientific management was that employees were not highly educated and thus were unable to perform any but the simplest tasks. Modern thought is that all employees have intimate knowledge of job conditions and are therefore able to make useful contributions. Rather than dehumanizing the work and breaking the work down into smaller and smaller units to maximize efficiency without giving thought to the job satisfaction of the working. Encouragement of work based teams in which all workers may contribute. Such contributions increase worker morale, provide a sense of ownership, and improve management-worker relations generally.

References

Caldari, K., 2007. Alfred Marshall’s critical analysis of scientific management. The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 14(1), pp.74-75.

Ioana, A., Marinică, A., Semenescu, A. & Preda, C.F., 2014. Elements of Administrative Management Decision.International Journal of Management Science, 1(1), p.27.

Ireh, M., 2016. Scientific Management. Winston Salem.

Koumparoulis, D.N. & Vlachopoulioti, A., 2012. The Evolution of Scientific Management. Academic Research International, 3(2), p.425.