论文部分内容阅读
【Abstract】Scientific Management has challenged previous working methods and influenced the world deeply, while some managers doubt if this theory still apply to modern companies. This article attempts to examine what Scientific Management is and how deeply it affects companies in 20th century. In addition, to a small extent modern companies had jettisoned this methods due to the efficient design and relevance with human nature.
【Key words】Scientific Management; modern corporate organization; 21st century
I. Introduction
Scientific management, which is also named Taylorism, was created by Frederick W. Taylor in 1911. It has been rated as first among 45 most important management theories in 20th century by 1000 CEOs of large-scale enterprises (Qiu, 2004). However, it also has been debated by many scholars whether the theory has become outmoded and could not adapt to the new environment. Thus, an important consideration is by the beginning of the 21st century, the extent to which modern corporate organisations had jettisoned the methods of work design associated with Scientific Management. If we understand this, companies will get better efficiency and establish more competitive advantages. This essay will argue that despite some limitations of the theory, modern companies to a small degree has given up work design combining with Scientific Management. As will be demonstrated, there are three main parts of this essay: first, what Scientific Management is and how it affects companies in 20th century, second, illustrating in details to a small extent Taylorism has been jettisoned as a work design in 21st century, and third, the reasons.
II. Definition of Scientific Management and its influence in the 20th Century
To begin, it is important to understand what Scientific Management is to better anaylse the main question. The core of Taylorism is normalising regulations and rules through systematically planning and calculating all elements of the labour process (Taylor, 1911). Within this theory, employers bear considerable responsibility. On the one hand, they need to make instructions in advance through timing every process and integrating the optimum options of procedure systematically to minimize the time incurred (Taylor, 1911; Braverman, 1974). In particular, the instructions include which tasks and by what means to complete the tasks (Taylor, 1911). On the other hand, employers select appropriate employees and trained them thoroughly to ensure them follow the given instructions completely (Taylor, 1911; Braverman, 1974). However, there is some debate about the features of Taylorism. Braveman (1974) critises it as ‘dehumanisation and deskilling’. To some extent, workers are just machines when they are working because they do ‘spoon feeding’ tasks—mastering and repeating the requirements of their specific jobs passively, instead of thinking how to improve themselves and learning more skills in other domains; whereas McLoughlin and Clark (1988) consider Braverman neglected Taylorism was ‘an expression of inevitable technology influence’ as the widespread use of machines after the Industry Revolution consequently produce the idea of uniform work.
Despite these arguments, Taylorism was widely practiced in 20th century. A particular well-known application of Taylorism is Fordism (Hounshell, 1984). Ford also emphases rational and standardized individual jobs using time and motion techiques, but he designs for mass production (Huczynski and Buchanan, 2007). Assembly line was created, and the speed of workers are imposed by the assembly line rather than their own, which not only improves quantity, but also focuses on ‘power, accuracy, economy, system, continuity, speed and repetition’ (Ford, 1924). The successful practice of Fordism further proves and complements Taylorism.
There is no doubt that Taylorism had changed the ordinary management in various ways. For example, the ‘rule-of-thumb’ method of employees was scrapped in favour of uniform science procedures designed by employers. Employers now adopt one standard method of the work and one particular pay system as well, and job fragment is put into work design. In addition, individual work replaces group work. (see for example, Taylor, 1911; Braverman, 1974, McLoughlin
【Key words】Scientific Management; modern corporate organization; 21st century
I. Introduction
Scientific management, which is also named Taylorism, was created by Frederick W. Taylor in 1911. It has been rated as first among 45 most important management theories in 20th century by 1000 CEOs of large-scale enterprises (Qiu, 2004). However, it also has been debated by many scholars whether the theory has become outmoded and could not adapt to the new environment. Thus, an important consideration is by the beginning of the 21st century, the extent to which modern corporate organisations had jettisoned the methods of work design associated with Scientific Management. If we understand this, companies will get better efficiency and establish more competitive advantages. This essay will argue that despite some limitations of the theory, modern companies to a small degree has given up work design combining with Scientific Management. As will be demonstrated, there are three main parts of this essay: first, what Scientific Management is and how it affects companies in 20th century, second, illustrating in details to a small extent Taylorism has been jettisoned as a work design in 21st century, and third, the reasons.
II. Definition of Scientific Management and its influence in the 20th Century
To begin, it is important to understand what Scientific Management is to better anaylse the main question. The core of Taylorism is normalising regulations and rules through systematically planning and calculating all elements of the labour process (Taylor, 1911). Within this theory, employers bear considerable responsibility. On the one hand, they need to make instructions in advance through timing every process and integrating the optimum options of procedure systematically to minimize the time incurred (Taylor, 1911; Braverman, 1974). In particular, the instructions include which tasks and by what means to complete the tasks (Taylor, 1911). On the other hand, employers select appropriate employees and trained them thoroughly to ensure them follow the given instructions completely (Taylor, 1911; Braverman, 1974). However, there is some debate about the features of Taylorism. Braveman (1974) critises it as ‘dehumanisation and deskilling’. To some extent, workers are just machines when they are working because they do ‘spoon feeding’ tasks—mastering and repeating the requirements of their specific jobs passively, instead of thinking how to improve themselves and learning more skills in other domains; whereas McLoughlin and Clark (1988) consider Braverman neglected Taylorism was ‘an expression of inevitable technology influence’ as the widespread use of machines after the Industry Revolution consequently produce the idea of uniform work.
Despite these arguments, Taylorism was widely practiced in 20th century. A particular well-known application of Taylorism is Fordism (Hounshell, 1984). Ford also emphases rational and standardized individual jobs using time and motion techiques, but he designs for mass production (Huczynski and Buchanan, 2007). Assembly line was created, and the speed of workers are imposed by the assembly line rather than their own, which not only improves quantity, but also focuses on ‘power, accuracy, economy, system, continuity, speed and repetition’ (Ford, 1924). The successful practice of Fordism further proves and complements Taylorism.
There is no doubt that Taylorism had changed the ordinary management in various ways. For example, the ‘rule-of-thumb’ method of employees was scrapped in favour of uniform science procedures designed by employers. Employers now adopt one standard method of the work and one particular pay system as well, and job fragment is put into work design. In addition, individual work replaces group work. (see for example, Taylor, 1911; Braverman, 1974, McLoughlin