Exploring Scientific Management: A Historical and Critical Analysis

Scientific Management, pioneered by Frederick Winslow Taylor in the early 20th century, aimed to improve labour productivity through systematic analysis and standardization of workflows. While initially celebrated for its efficiency gains, particularly in large industries such as manufacturing, the theory has faced significant criticism over time. Critics argue that it reduces workers to mere cogs within a machine, neglects human elements such as motivation and job satisfaction, and is costly to implement, particularly for smaller enterprises. Modern management theories have evolved to address these shortcomings by emphasizing human relations, adaptability, and holistic approaches to employee well-being.

Running head: ORGANISATION BEHAVIOUR
Scientific Management
Name of the student:
Name of the university:
Author note

1ORGANISATION BEHAVIOUR
There are certain rules on the managing process of a business or organisation.
Management theories help to identify set of goals for the managers and implement certain
rules to assist them in accomplishing the goals. It also expresses certain sections of
motivation so that the working ability of the workers can be increased and they can be
performed in a better way. The main objective of the management theory is to increase the
workflow. Scientific management is a part of the management theory and it concentrates on
the analysis and synthesis of workflows. The aim of this management part is to improve the
standard of economic efficiency and concentrates over the labour productivity. Frederick
Winslow Taylor was the founder of this theory (Waring 2016). The theory was developed in
the nineteenth century where there was no formal management system in the industries and
the relation between the employers and the employees was too much unofficial. There were
no uniform rules for hiring or firing the employees. However, an importance regarding the
development of standard of the employees by implementing certain organisational behaviour
had cropped up in the last decade of that century. Taylor had approached certain wise steps to
make a change in the structural rulings of the organisations and for the betterment of the
standard of the employees (Aitken 2014). The term scientific management is metaphorical in
nature. He had concentrated over the performance of the workers and brought a new idea in
the workplace management system. According to him, the aim of the management theory
should be based on the prosperity of both employer and employee. He had stated that every
employee needs proper training to increase their workflows (Goetsch and Davis 2014).
Training will help them to apply their natural abilities on the projected work and prosperity of
an organisation is depending on the prosperity in productivity.

2ORGANISATION BEHAVIOUR
Source: (Epgp.inflibnet.ac.in 2018)
It has been observed by Taylor that repetition of works cause slower performance
among the workers and they become unmotivated in the workplace. It affects their
performances and the prosperity of the workplace become slower. This process has been
termed by Taylor as soldering and he had described the term as the greatest enemy of
workers. According to him, the rate of remuneration plays an important role in the workflow
level of workers and if the workers re paid as per their ability, the work flow will gradually
be increased.
The manufacturing system of America was influenced by scientific management
and the labour displacing technologies of the theory had helped the industries to improve
their mechanization power. However, the theory of Taylor is wholly based on man power and
he had unable predict about the workforce power and role of machines in the industries.

3ORGANISATION BEHAVIOUR
Taylor had always concentrated over the eligible and smart workers and had failed to look at
the comparatively weak workers. However, the theory of scientific management had
aggravated the grievance in between the workers on the management and helped to transfer
the knowledge among employees into tools. Further, Taylor’s scientific management theory
had helped to bring an equal division of works in between the employers and employees
(Modaff, Butler and DeWine 2016). This theory was able to bring a change in the
productivity of the workplace and the application of the theory was spread all over the world.
There are certain reasons laid down behind the change of scientific management
theory. Taylor had suggested certain manner or guidelines that can manage the workplace
conflicts in a better way. However, there were certain loopholes in his theory. Criticism
against the theory had been made in all stages of the industries (Bridgman and Cummings
2014). Employees and employers both have criticised the theory for certain reasons. Taylor
had suggested that the best employee has the ability to continue job in the workplaces and the
prosperity of a company is depending on them. He had not relied on the comparatively
weaker employees. Therefore, those particular classes of workers felt that they can be
terminated from their post and they could be replaced by the capable employees for the better
prosperity of the industry. According to SP Waring, the weak employees were felt insecurity
as they thought that if they cannot give the entire possible workforce, the company will
exploit them as in the theory of Taylor; there is no place for the weaker classes of employees
(Waring 2016). If the job criteria for the employees will be predetermined and fixed in
nature, the process of union will be hampered and there shall be no existence of the unions.
Therefore, the theory of Taylor had weakened the union system. According to Taylor,
employees should perform their task hurriedly so that the company can earn more profit. This
over speeding of work had created a negative impact on the health of the employees.
According to certain classes of employees, the behaviour of the employers are sometimes

4ORGANISATION BEHAVIOUR
autocratic in nature and in the absence of any union, the entire industrial system was became
undemocratic. Criticism has been made from all the section of the industries and even the
employers had raised their voice against the theory. It has been observed that the process of
scientific management was expensive and huge investment is required to install all the
machines and equipments for the standardisation of the workplace. Therefore, it is quite
troublesome for the small scale industries to apply the theory in their industries. Further,
Taylor had suggested for applying new system and the old system needed to be changed. The
process of changing was quite expensive and time consuming and therefore, there were risk
of loss of account. S Park has suggested the same theory and criticised the theory of Taylor
by stating it as an expensive theory (Jo et al. 2016). Apart from the employees and the
employers, the industrial psychologists are also criticised the theory. According to the
psychiatrists, Taylor had wanted to increase the work flow at any cost and therefore, the
workers became slave and he also failed to give enough concentration over the weak
employees (Derksen 2014). In modern times, the management system has changed and extra
focus has been given to the weaker employees so that they can develop their working
capacity and invest their diligence for the betterment of the company. Concurrently, other
theories had also introduced that replaced the idea of Taylor. Henry Ford has introduced a
theory where interdependence has been made in between every class of workers, whether
expert or weak. He concentrated over the mass production. Additionally, Hawthrone had
suggested bringing human relations movements by conjoining movement. These are the
reasons that Taylor’s theory has not been followed now. However, the theory was quite
popular in nineteenth century and helped to codify industrial rules.

5ORGANISATION BEHAVIOUR
Reference:
Aitken, H.G., 2014. Scientific Management in Action: Taylorism at Watertown Arsenal,
1908-1915. Princeton University Press.
Bridgman, T. and Cummings, S., 2014. Book review: Re-tayloring management: Scientific
management a century on.
Derksen, M., 2014. Turning men into machines? Scientific management, industrial
psychology, and the “human factor”. Journal of the History of the Behavioral
Sciences, 50(2), pp.148-165.
Epgp.inflibnet.ac.in.(2018). http://epgp.inflibnet.ac.in/epgpdata/uploads/epgp_content/
S000030PU/P001502/M016156/ET/146536875003.ET.Taylor-Roopinder_Oberoi.pdf
[Accessed 14 Jan. 2018].
Garrett, T.M., 2017. An interpretive-phenomenological critique of the science of (new?)
public management: A polemic. Public Voices, 8(2), pp.102-115.
Goetsch, D.L. and Davis, S.B., 2014. Quality management for organizational excellence.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: pearson.
Jo, S.J., Jo, S.J., Park, S. and Park, S., 2016. Critical review on power in organization:
empowerment in human resource development. European Journal of Training and
Development, 40(6), pp.390-406.
Modaff, D.P., Butler, J.A. and DeWine, S.A., 2016. Organizational communication:
Foundations, challenges, and misunderstandings. Pearson.
Waring, S.P., 2016. Taylorism transformed: Scientific management theory since 1945. UNC
Press Books.