Tuesday, September 3, 2013

FREDERICK WINSLOW TAYLOR, “the father of scientific management.”


Today's managers owe Frederick Winslow Taylor a debt for having laid much of the foundation of their profession. Taylor's work is responsible for workplace phenomena such as reengineering and total quality management. Further, what Deming and Juran carried to Japan after World War II, was in great part so warmly received there because Taylorism was already well ensconced.

Although born to a wealthy family, Taylor began his work life when he signed on as an apprentice at a small Philadelphia pump works. Four years later, at a plant in Midvale, he developed the basic elements of what later came to be known as "scientific management" -- the breakdown of work tasks into constituent elements, the timing of each element based on repeated stopwatch studies, the fixing of piece rate compensation based on those studies, the standardization of work tasks on detailed instruction cards, and generally, the systematic consolidation of the shop floor's brain work in a "planning department."

Taylor's initial experiments were aimed at determining (scientifically, of course), how much work a “first-class man” could perform. It was Taylor's goal to collect raw data about the jobs in the workplace, and then to systematize that knowledge; to replace old habits and rules of thumb with precise and usually quantitative analysis. He was convinced that scientific study would reveal a better way -- the one best way -- of doing things. No task was too mundane for scrutiny. In one celebrated example, Taylor conducted extensive experiments to determine the optimal size of a shovelful of dirt to maximize the total amount shoveled in a day.

Essentially, in his scheme of things, workers would receive extraordinary increases in wages in return for extraordinary increases in output. Thus, unit costs would decrease significantly, making possible reduced prices and increased profits. It was a win-win-win: higher wages, higher profits, and lower prices. "In the past the man was first," Taylor said in a famous line, "in the future the system must be first."

In the first decades of the 1900's the general thrust of Taylor's work permeated American and world industrial society. Time and motion study, standardized tools and materials, simplification of methods, careful selection and training of workers, rigorous measurement of work output, and even benchmarking came to be known as “scientific management” or “Taylorism”. However, he also claimed that the true mark of scientific management was a “complete mental revolution” on the part of management and the workers. Taylor espoused collaboration between management and workers in building a larger surplus, instead of quarreling over how to divide the existing profit pie. Along with Henry Ford, he became a personification of American efficiency and industrial might.
AD AD
Taylor was concerned by what he saw as considerable inefficiency in the typical workplace of his era. He posed the question: "What is the cause of this inefficiency?" He was curious about why workers were often to be seen slacking. He concluded that some slacking is natural -- that all persons have a natural inclination to take it easy. 

Workers also tend to see their relationship with management as a fundamental conflict of interest. If managers discover that work can be done faster then piece rates tend to be reduced. In essence, a worker's attempt to earn more money by increasing his/her own output is self-defeating: The piece rate will be reduced, and then the worker and everybody else will have to work harder just to stay in place.

Further, he concluded that there is systematic slacking where the working group controls output through the enforcement of norms. Workers who don't adhere to group norms can expect ostracism if not physical abuse.Workers, according to Taylor, thus evolve rational ways of promoting their own (not the company's) best interests. 
From his observations, management must also carry a large part of the blame. Too often, he argues, they lack information about worker abilities. For example, they have rarely studies the work itself to determine how long it takes to do tasks. Managers engage in guess-work that is frequently inaccurate.When management discovers that a job is too easy (that the worker completes it too quickly) they often unilaterally/autocratically alter the times required to complete the task. Not surprisingly, workers then collude to deceive management in order to ensure maximum rewards for minimum effort.
Taylor's conceptualization is clearly a function of the era in which he lived in work. The early industrial factory mixed the dynamism of new industrial technologies with the backwardness of the medieval guild. Capital and labor were seen to be separated by a fault line of unresolvable, zero-sum conflict -- Management knew it was being cheated but couldn't prove it, while workers knew that management was trying to cheat them. Frederick Taylor lived this conflict as an apprentice and, later, resolved to do something about it.

AD AD Taylor recognized that knowledge is power. Management had to understand what was happening on the factory floor. Thus, the starting point of scientific management, according to Taylor, was "the deliberate gathering in on the part of those on the management's side of all of the great mass of traditional knowledge, which in the past has been in the heads of the workmen, and in the physical skill and knack of the workmen, which he has acquired through years of experience." Through his notorious time studies Taylor allowed those who ran the business to pierce the veil of shop practice secrecy.

Taylor’s scheme was rational. Perhaps it was too rational. There was no place in Scientific Management for workers as human beings. Essentially, Taylor saw the worker as but one element in a work and work control system -- the worker was to do the work and the management was to exercise control. For Taylor, the relationship between the worker and the company was a straightforward economic transaction: pay in return for work performed. Factors such as meaning, a sense of identity, or empowerment where not part of Taylor’s conceptualization. His models are based on assumptions about a "typical, economically motivated" worker.

Objectives of Scientific Management

The four objectives of management under scientific management:
The development of a science for each element of a man's work to replace the old rule-of-thumb methods.


The scientific selection, training and development of workers instead of allowing them to choose their own tasks and train themselves as best they could.
The development of a spirit of hearty cooperation between workers and management to ensure that work would be carried out in accordance with scientifically devised procedures.
The division of work between workers and the management in almost equal shares, each group taking over the work for which it is best fitted instead of the former condition in which responsibility largely rested with the workers.



Self-evident in this philosophy are organizations arranged in a hierarchy, systems of abstract rules and impersonal relationships between staff.
AD AD

Monday, September 2, 2013

DRUCKER, PETER: EMPLOYING THE WHOLE MAN (A SUMMARY)

"Employing the whole man", The Practice of Management. by Peter Drucker
Harper & Row (1982). New York (pp. 262-272)

Peter Drucker makes the case that a company cannot just hire "a hand"; an entire human being always comes with that hand. This means that the firm also hires the values, attitudes, and other personal attributes the worker brings to the workplace. According to Drucker:
The human resource... is, of all resources... the most productive, the most versatile, the most resourceful.
...one cannot "hire a hand"; its owner always comes with it.
In exploring the complexity of the management process, Drucker makes some significant comments about workers as humans, as opposed to inert resources.
...we are dealing with the worker as a human resource
[how we view the properties of this resource depends on]... whether we put the stress on the word "resource" or on the word "human"
AD AD

The management process requires that a number of questions be asked about the relationship between worker and enterprise.
Q1: what demands does the enterprise (as the organ of society for getting work done) make on the worker?
Q2: what demands does the worker (as a human, an individual, and as a citizen) make on the enterprise? 

There is, of course, also an economic dimension to management - the dichotomy between the firm's need for profits and the workers' needs for wages:
a) the enterprise is the wealth-producing organ of society
b) the enterprise is the source of the worker's livelihood
...we must reconcile... [the] conflict between wage as cost and wage as income... and... the problem of the worker's relation to the enterprise's fundamental requirement of profitability

 WORKERS AS RESOURCES

First, Drucker deals with the issue of workers as resources. He indicates that an engineering approach...
...looks at the worker as a resource, comparable to all other resources... to utilize him in the same way in which we utilize copper or... water power
Conversely, a human approach to the human resource issue would take a different and, according to Drucker, more appropriate perspective.
...the human being has one set of qualities possessed by no other resource: it has the ability to co-ordinate, to integrate, to judge, and to imagine....
 [we must focus]... on man as a moral and a social creature...
As a resource, man can be "utilized". A person, however, can only utilize himself. This is the great and ultimate distinction.
...it is workers' motivation that controls workers' output.
The human being also has control over how well he works... in all work of a clerical, skilled, technical, professional or managerial nature, this control is practically absolute ....

THE DEMANDS OF THE ENTERPRISE ON THE WORKER 

Since it has hired the worker, the enterprise makes some demands of that worker. It has been assumed that an enterprise has the right to expect "a fair day's labor for a fair day's pay". However, Drucker questions whether one can actually determine what is "fair". Furthermore, he feels that an enterprise ought to expect more from its workers.
The enterprise... must demand something much bigger than a fair day's labor. It must demand over and above fairness, willing dedication... It must aim at building aggressive esprit de corps.
The enterprise must expect of the worker not the passive acceptance of a physical chore, but the active assumption of responsibility for the enterprise's results. 
AD AD
Beyond the demand that the worker "buy into" the mission of the organization, Drucker maintains that the enterprise has the right to expect the worker to accept change. Change is not only an intellectual process but a psychological one... there are conditions for man's readiness to change.
  1. The change must appear rational
  2. [The change]... must appear an improvement
  3. [The change]... must not be so rapid or so great as to obliterate the psychological landmarks which make a man feel at home regarding:
    • his understanding of his work
    • his relations to fellow workers
    • his concepts of skill, prestige, and social standing
 Change will meet with resistance unless it clearly and visibly strengthens man's psychological security.

THE DEMANDS OF THE WORKER ON THE ENTERPRISE

Just as the enterprise makes demands of the worker, so too does the worker make demands of the enterprise. In making these demands, the worker acts as more than just an economic being. 

The worker in making his demands on the enterprise is a whole man not an economic subsection thereof. 

He demands, over and above economic returns, returns as an individual, a person, a citizen. He demands the fulfillment of status and function... that his work be meaningful and that it be serious.

THE ECONOMIC DIMENSION

...there is a big group of [management] problems that have their origin in the economic sphere.
 The enterprise lives in two economic systems, an external and an internal one. The total amount available for the internal economy (...above all for wages to the employee) is determined by what the enterprise receives for its product in the external economy. Internally... the enterprise is not a market economy. It is a "redistributive" one... [in which wages are distributed] according to a predetermined formula.
While the effort of management must be directed toward receiving more... the attention of the worker... is directed toward receiving a larger share....
Outside the enterprise the considerations are economic. Inside the enterprise they (considerations) are based on power balance and power relationships.

In the economic dimension, the is a basic divergence.
The enterprise needs flexibility of the wage burden. The individual values, above all, a steady, stable and predictable income... 
The result of this divergence tends to be a twofold meaning of profit:
  • To the enterprise profit is a necessity of survival.
  • To the worker profit is somebody else's income.
AD AD 

Tuesday, January 1, 2013

tables demo

df
ddfg

ffgh

row 1, cell 1 row 1, cell 2
row 2, cell 1 row 2, cell 2


hhjjk


kklj