Taylor’s Scientific Management theory

Scientific Management theory, proposed by Frederick Taylor, is a managing method that aims at maximizing benefit. According to Taylor (1911), the fundamental purpose of management is to improve efficiency. Taylor put forward five principles: the work quota principle, the ability to adapt to the work principle, the standardization principle, the differential piecework pay system, the planning and execution separation principle (Taylor, 1911).

Centre for English Language Education 2020-21
1
UG-ESAC Arts & Social Sciences
Coursework
2020-2021 Semester 2
Independent Writing Assignment
International Business
Critically evaluate Taylor’s Scientific Management
theory.
Student Name: Huanxin Ying
ID 20320208
Module code: CELEN051

Centre for English Language Education 2020-21
2
Scientific Management theory, proposed by Frederick Taylor, is a managing method
that aims at maximizing benefit. According to Taylor (1911), the fundamental
purpose of management is to improve efficiency. Taylor put forward five principles:
the work quota principle, the ability to adapt to the work principle, the
standardization principle, the differential piecework pay system, the planning and
execution separation principle (Taylor, 1911). Taylor's appeal was his promise that
management could become a science and workers could become cogs in the
industrial machine (Stefanova, 2015). The theory has been applied in some
factories at that time and has a profound influence today. It can be observed that
Taylor’s theory is still applied in managing organizations. This essay will critically
evaluate Taylor’s scientific management theory and argue that while it may be
applicable in some labor-intensive industry, it can still bring many problems in
terms of worker satisfaction, workers’ mental health and organization efficiency.
This essay will first explore the argument which supports that Taylor’s theory could
increase efficiency to some degree. Then it will demonstrate three main problems
that Taylor’s scientific management can bring about, which is the neglect of
humanity, the stress caused by shortening working hours and the chaos from the
organization structure-system of functional foreman.
It has been claimed that Taylor’s Scientific Management theory can improve
efficiency and productivity. Taylor (1911) claims that the fundamental reason for
the waste of human resources is unscientific management. Too much attention
was paid to the output of work instead of the process (Freedman, 1992).
Therefore, Taylor made research on each step of the task. He brought with
notebooks and stopwatches to find some more suitable methods as well as
machines, which could significantly increase efficiency by increase output per
hour (O’Connor, 2017). At the same time, this effective way also changed the
original method of production based on experience. For example, Taylor once did
some experiences to find that with so many different-sized shovels, which one
could be the most productive that can lift 21 pounds of weight (O’Connor, 2017).
This experience was made in the Bethlehem Steel Company with 600 labourers
(O’Connor, 2017). It is undeniable that Taylorism can to some degree improve
efficiency and increase output by choosing some effective working methods and

Centre for English Language Education 2020-21
3
it provides a valuable management model for some enterprises. However, it is
partly wrong because Taylorism could only be applied in some specific industries.
According to Wright (1993), these techniques are limited to be applied in some
large companies in specific industries, such as the labor-intensive textile, clothing
and footwear industries. Taylorism could be applied to labor-intensive, semi-
skilled jobs which had already experienced substantial job fragmentation or were
initially organized on a semi-skilled basis (Wright, 1993). Taylorism may not be
suitable for the industries in today’s society because many labor-intensive jobs
have been replaced by robots. In other words, the scope of Taylorism's
application could be limited.
In addition to the usage limitation of Taylor’s Scientific Management theory,
another problem that it may bring about is the neglect of humanity. Taylor's
scheme is based on a tacit division of labor and the repetition of basic acts
(Caldari, 2007). Each operator must adhere to their orders and perform the
same task for many hours. Therefore, it is difficult to take advantage of their
initiative. Furthermore, the operator is reduced to a cog in the process, unable to
have decisions and choices (Marsgall, 1919, cited in Caldari, 2007). In Taylor's
plan, workers were highly likely to be appendages to the machine, designed to
maximize the employer's income (Caldari, 2007). Physical and mental activity
are isolated, resulting in monotonous work that lacks motivating self-expression
(Stefanova, 2015). Meanwhile, Taylor's scientific management theory treats
people as robots, simply focusing on technology instead of human factors and
ignoring human nature's needs, which is not conducive to improving employee
motivation and imaginative play. It is highly likely to have a serious impact on
society in the long run and obstructs the long-term growth of workers and
businesses. Taylor’s Scientific Management theory does not suit many of today's
companies. Stern (2015) claimed that some innovative and profitable firms have
stepped away from crude Taylorism and become more mature, allowing their
smart workers to think by themselves. The neglect of humanity may lead to the
difficult progress and development of enterprises. In conclusion, Taylor’s
scientific management theory neglect humanity and increase worker

Centre for English Language Education 2020-21
4
dissatisfaction by ignoring human factors such as aspirations as well as
motivation.
In addition, extra stress can be caused by shortening working hours. Taylor
argued that shorter working hours can improve efficiency. However, it could not
be in their best interests in the long run (Nyland, 1995). Taylor’s scientific
management theory ignore the adverse effects on mental health of workers
because they need to increase production within the specified time. Merely
speeding up the work of workers without corresponding changes in
organizational structures and working conditions cannot lead to a higher output
but could only cause mental injuries among workers. The challenging tasks may
bring severe stress on workers, which will harm workers’ mental health.
Additionally, at the beginning of the 20 centuries, many manufactures pay their
workers by how many times they spend. According to Person (1926, cited in
Nyland, 1995), workers will receive lower pay because they work fewer hours,
and this makes them unable to live more comfortably and freely in their later
years for the fact that they do not have enough money. Due to the payment
comparison with other people, they are highly likely to be more anxious and
stressed, which can bring a negative impact on worker well-being. In essence,
shortening working hours is capitalism's way of pursuing its money-making
instinct (Keynes, 1930, cited in Spencer, 2018). In order to earn money,
managers would ignore the mental health of their employees. In conclusion,
shortening working hours somehow means workers are given the choice between
direct free time and quality leisure time in later life, Taylorism probably is not in
the long-term interests of the workforce and may bring stress to workers
(Person, 1926, cited in Nyland, 1995).
Apart from the stress caused by shortening working hours, the organization has
become a shamble as a result of Taylorism by implementing the system of
functional foreman. Taylor believed that having one person oversee operations and

Centre for English Language Education 2020-21
5
staff in a large-scale factory was inefficient, with directives coming from the
manager to the supervisor and foreman, and then to the workers (Caldari, 2007).
Therefore, Taylor proposed the system of functional foreman, in which the
traditional work of the foreman was divided into eight different functions. Each
employee did not only have one point of contact with managers, but also receive
regular instructions and assistance from eight separate bosses, and each boss
carried out his specific functions (Caldari, 2007). The long working system requires
workers to report to eight bosses, and the unity of command will probably be
broken, which can easily lead to chaos in command and insufficiency. Additionally,
this is undemocratic. Absolute control is handed over to the boss of functional
departments, which reduces the workers' interests and responsibilities, and they
can only obey orders and instructions. Workers can only report their work, which
limits their ability to use their imagination and creativity. Meanwhile, Taylorism,
with the system of functional foreman, remained a formalized bureaucracy (Pruijt,
2000). Some people who are unhappy with the bureaucracy may quit their jobs,
which may increase the employee turnover rate. To sum up, Taylor’s scientific
management may lead to a chaotic organization and decrease the efficiency of
organizations.
In conclusion, for the choice of management method, although Taylor’s scientific
management theory can indeed increase productivity and efficiency to some
degree, it is evaluated that Taylor’s theory can bring many problems. Overall,
though it may increase efficiency, the scope of Taylorism's application is generally
limited. Moreover, the neglect of humanity is somewhat of strangulation of human
nature to force employees to do repeated actions day after day so that they
become numb and lose interest in their work. The motivation and imagination of
employees cannot be given full play, and the development of enterprises is also
restricted. Additionally, Taylor also pointed to shorten working hours. Increasing
productivity within a limited time frame is detrimental to the physical and mental
health of employees and is also detrimental to the long-term profits of workers.
The last problem is that the system of functional foreman would cause the
company disorganized, chaotic and inefficient. Furthermore, people who cannot
stand bureaucracy would probably leave the company. Taylor's scientific
management theory has improved the problem of individual-specific job

Centre for English Language Education 2020-21
6
organizational productivity, but it has not solved the problem of how to run and
handle an entire company. At present, some companies still bear the hallmarks of
Taylorism. However, more attention should be paid to what workers want and
desire, treat them as people and care about their physical and mental health.
Meanwhile, if the profit of the companies increases, the payment of workers should
also increase. Taylor is true that the purpose of the management is to increase
efficiency, though some of his methods are not so valid. Managers now can base
on Taylor’s theory and learn from Taylor's spirit of scientific practice. Different
company can have a different management style and management method. It
needs managers and researchers to consider not only the interests of the
companies but the employees. When appropriate management methods are
applied in companies, workers are more likely to be motivated and creative, the
productivity and efficiency of enterprises are highly possible to be improved, and
both enterprises and individuals could develop better.
(Word count: 1595 words)

Centre for English Language Education 2020-21
7
Reference list:
Caldari, K. (2007) ‘Alfred Marshall’s critical analysis of scientific management’,
The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 14(1). pp. 55-78.
Freedman, D. (1992) ‘Is management still a science?’, Harvard Business Review,
November–December. Available at: https://hbr.org/1992/11/is-management-
still-a-science/ (Accessed: 19 March 2021).
Nyland, C. (1995) ‘Taylorism and hours of work’, Journal of Management History,
1(2), pp. 8-25.
O’Connor, S. (2017) ‘When your boss is an algorithm’, The Financial Times,
September 8. Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/88fdc58e-754f-11e6-
b60a-de4532d5ea35/ (Accessed: 10 March 2021).
Pruijt, H. (2000) ‘Repainting, modifying, smashing Taylorism’, Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 13(5), pp. 439-451.
Spencer, D. A. (2018) ‘Fear and hope in an age of mass automation: debating
the future of work’, New technology, work, and employment, 33(1), pp.1–12.
Stefanova, K. (2015) ‘Is Amazon’s ruthless management culture hurting its stock
price?’, Forbes, October 24. Available at:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/katinastefanova/2015/10/24/why-amazons-
management-practices-will-likely-hurt-its-stock-price-in-the-long-
run/2/#29b6d46a1e50/ (Accessed: 16 March 2021).

Centre for English Language Education 2020-21
8
Stern, S. (2015) ‘Amazon employees find themselves at the mercy of big data’,
International Business Times, August 26. Available at:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/stefan-stern-amazon-employees-find-themselves-
mercy-big-data-1517145/ (Accessed: 15 March 2020).
Taylor, F. W. (1911) The principles of scientific management, New York: Harper
Bros.
Wright, C. (1993) ‘Taylorism Reconsidered: The Impact of Scientific Management
within the Australian Workplace’, Labor history (Canberra), (64), pp.34–53.