Emergency and development of scientific management in the USA

The founder of scientific management in the United States is FW Taylor (1856 – 1915). His life and work are the ground base of the emergence of the science of management as a result of the generalization and theoretical comprehension of practical advances in this direction.

His summaries and principles were born and experimented within his own practice, first as an inventor engineer and subsequently as a director of an enterprise and a management consultant.

His first work on scientific management was Factory Management (1903). The full description of what he called “Taylorism” was made in his book Principles of Scientific Management (1911). The testimony given to a special committee of Congress, which was subsequently published as a standalone publication, has earned him real fame and worldwide fame. Taylor outlines the following basic principles of scientific management.

First, a scientific approach to the preparation and implementation of any work. At the factory or factory, absolutely nothing should be done out of habit, routine. Even the smallest details need to be studied scientifically (conditions and methods of work, supervision, and control, forms of guidance, etc.). A detailed and scientifically sound plan must be devised for all of this. His Taylor system as opposed to the traditional system of what he calls initiative and promotion management. Reference: Strategic Management. The initiative is for workers, and they are encouraged by employers for useful initiatives. Such a system, according to Taylor, is flawed as workers in very rare cases take the initiative. Even in their work, intentional sluggishness in the movements and insufficient intensity in their work can be noticed in their work. As a result, in his view, only 20% of their power is used and the remaining 80% remain unused.

Secondly, only coercive standardization of methods, tools and working conditions can provide a general acceleration of the pace of work

Third, Total control. Because a person by nature is lazy, he or she can only be forced to work with coercion, with any initiative taken from the workers. In this way, they become trained gorillas. Therefore, most of the responsibility for streamlining work must be borne by the administration. She must take care to gather all the traditional knowledge and habits that workers have and thus help them in their daily work.

Fourth, Scientific selection and development of workers’ capabilities as a strategic line in enterprise policy.

Fifth, Functional Division of Labor, Functional Specialization in Management. According to Taylor, by that time all the factories were organized on a military footing. In such an organization, the duties of managers require a lot of special knowledge combined with natural abilities that few people can handle. Taylor sees the exit as a waiver of military-type organization and a move to functional administration. In this case, production planning is concentrated in the planning department, and only manufacturing functions remain in the production units.

Each Taylor employee receives mandatory orders from eight functionally specialized supervisors.

Sixth, Detailed planning of each activity as one of the main prerequisites for efficiency. This detail reaches a daily plan with a written instruction (instruction card) for each worker for each job.

Seventh. Cash Incentives to accompany the execution of any work. His views are subordinated to the concept of homo economics, ie. that a person can only be affected by economic incentives. These performances are based on Taylor’s perception of the isolation of the individual from the environment.

He rejects collective labor and insists that the worker be paid depending on his individual workmanship. Considers that in large collectives the productivity of each individual inevitably falls to the level of the worst worker and even below that level. There are radically contradictory assessments about the positive and negative sides of the Taylor system. Positive evaluations are based on her purely organizational-technical side. Negative evaluations predominate in relation to her socio-economic, psychological, ethical or political aspects. What is undeniable is that with Taylor’s teaching the start of scientific management was given, that his ideas were immediately accepted and further developed by a whole host of his followers of the classical school Harrington Emerson (1853 – 1931).

In his work Twelve Principles of Productivity (1912) for the first time set out a system of views for the rationalization of all activity. According to Emerson, the basic prerequisites for productivity are organization and principles. For illustration, Emerson cites the case with Bismarck and military organizer Moltke, who decided to make their king the master of Europe. They consider that:

1. A clear plan or ideal pattern. 2. An organization that is able to achieve the objective and to strengthens the achievement by applying certain principles. 3. The availability of people, money, materials, machines, and methods (ie resources) that enable an organization to apply the principles by which it can achieve its goal and reinforce what has been achieved. 4. Competent and knowledgeable leaders (chieftains) who would force the organization and the facilities to achieve the goal and strengthen the achievement.

It is known from history that on July 19, 1870, Louis Napoleon declared war on Prussia. When they told Moltke he was still asleep. When he was awakened, he said: The plan for the hike is in the third drawer of my desk, turned to the other side and fell asleep again. Emerson argues that war actually benefits the principles of Moltke and the organization he created. In his book, Emerson analyzes the importance of the following basic principles on which productivity, in his view, depends:

  • Clearly set goals;
  • Common sense;
  • Competent consultation;
  • Discipline;
  • Fair treatment of staff;
  • Fast, reliable, complete, accurate and consistent reporting;
  • Dispatching;
  • Standards and schedules;
  • Normalization of conditions;
  • Normalization of operations;
  • Written standard instructions;
  • Performance remuneration;

Most of these principles do not need comment. In the first of the twelve principles he described, Emerson points to a clear goal-setting. To illustrate the importance of this principle, Emerson points to a curious case. During the construction of the railway station. Moscow-Petersburg line engineers appeared in front of Nikolai and asked him where the line should go. Here you are, gentlemen, the direction the king said after drawing a straight line between the two cities with a ruler and a pencil.

As a result, his construction cost $ 337,000 per mile, while at the same time in Finland it cost $ 23,000 per mile.

Another prominent representative of the US classical school is Henry Ford, the founder of the American automotive industry (1863-1947). He outlines his concepts, called Fordism, in his books My Life, My Work (1921), Today and Tomorrow (1926), and more. Ford focuses on the organizational and technical principles of management in large corporations and concerns. He is also a representative of existing executives and, as the head of Ford Motors, implements some of the company’s founding principles.

Among them is the principle of mass production. Ford sees mass production as creating the conditions for technical improvements, lowering production costs and increasing competitiveness.

Principle for good production and market positions

Another principle that creates good production and market positions is the principle of maximum standardization of products, units, parts. The idea of ​​standardization Ford borrowed from Taylor but applied it on a much larger scale. This allows it to maximize the benefits of specialized production. Ford organizes the production of hundreds of thousands of vehicles on the basis of a single chassis. Even Ford Motors cabs were manufactured in only five versions, from standard units and parts. The principle of vertical integration which he has adopted gives him advantages over the competition. Ford’s principle is almost extreme

For car manufacturing, iron is needed – Ford has its own metallurgical plants. Metallurgical plants require coal and iron ore – Ford owns its own coal mines and iron mines.

For the transportation of these materials, Ford has a branch railway. network and steamships in a number of rivers In general, all car production is secured from its own production rear to the rubber plantations of the Philippine Islands. This Ford Motors insurance makes it relatively independent of dramatic changes in the market. In addition, conditions are created for better coordination using administrative methods. Ford adheres to the principle of maximum division of labor and its reduction to simple operations that do not require skilled labor. Here, each worker performs a single, partial, extremely narrow function and in no case does two work at the same time. And in this area, Ford is taking things to the extreme.

For example, if two parts are to be fastened with a bolt, then one worker inserts the bolt, a second tightens the nut, a third tightens it, etc. In this way, workers adapt quickly to the elementary operation performed and do not waste time changing tools. Thus, Ford secures relative independence from skilled manufacturing workers. Within 1-2 days, each untrained worker begins to perform such an elementary operation quickly and skillfully. But in order for an untrained worker to waste time searching for materials and tools, Ford changes the organization of the production and technological process.

If the processing of a product technologically consists of certain operations, it has both humans and machines in the same sequence and at the least possible distance from each other. On this basis, through full mechanization of inland transport, he introduces the conveyor. We started delivering the work to the worker, not back. We follow two serious principles in all work: to force the worker to never take more than one step and never to allow him or her to tilt forward or sideways at work. Thus, Ford manages to achieve an exceptional labor intensity dictated by the pace of the conveyor.

Ford has found a balance between the increased intensity of work and the benefits of its workers compared to workers in other companies. The salary was always higher, and in 1914 he introduced, on his own initiative, a minimum wage and an 8-hour day. After the 1930s, Ford failed to adjust to the new social and market realities and gradually gave way to General Motors’ hegemony.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.