What do you think?
Rate this book
The Principles of Scientific Management
It seems, at first glance, like an obvious step to take to improve industrial productivity: one should simply watch workers at work in order to learn how they actually do their jobs. But American engineer FREDERICK WINSLOW TAYLOR (1856-1915) broke new ground with this 1919 essay, in which he applied the rigors of scientific observation to such labor as shoveling and bricklayer in order to streamline their work... and bring a sense of logic and practicality to the management of that work. This highly influential book, must-reading for anyone seeking to understand modern management practices, puts lie to such misconceptions that making industrial processes more efficient increases unemployment and that shorter workdays decrease productivity. And it laid the foundations for the discipline of management to be studied, taught, and applied with methodical precision.
Paperback
First published January 1, 1911
279 people are currently reading
2687 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 110 reviews
November 4, 2012
This book proved much more interesting than I thought it was going to be. There were bits that made my skin crawl – all the stuff about ‘are you a high priced man?’ which managed to be patronising and insulting by explaining how incredibly stupid he felt working people are. But this book was interesting in ways that I hadn’t really expected it to be. Not least, because of the remarkable naivety of the author in places.
The book is concerned with addressing a number of fallacies about work. One of these is that all that is necessary for a business to succeed is to have the right person at the top – in a sense this is just daft, as it offers no help at all – if a business succeeds it is because the boss was the right man for the job (look at the date this one was written – I think I can build a case for using man). But this doesn’t tell us why. If it is only possible to work out if someone is going to be successful after they have been successful, you haven’t really learnt all that much.
Another fallacy is that workers know best how to organise their work and so management can more or less leave them to their own devises. There is a negative and positive response given to this in this book. The negative is that workers are under the delusion that they need to work at the slowest pace possible. This is because working harder is not only giving their boss something for nothing, but it is also likely to put some of their fellow workers out of work. His counter to this is that higher productivity is a social good and does not necessarily result in workers losing their jobs. But such a view is only possible if the reader is focused only on the firm that has suddenly become very productive – the nature of capitalism is such that while the workers in that very productive firm are probably safe, that probably isn’t true for all workers in their industry. Higher productivity certainly does displace labour, it would be hard to argue otherwise. The problem here is one that was noted by Marx – that capitalism produces a reserve army of workers, the unemployed and this reserve army helps to keep down wages and keep productivity up. Ignoring these facts hardly makes them go away – but there are no only ignored in this book, no negative effects of increased productivity to the workers is acknowledged at all. While workers need to keep on eating in the short-run, telling them things will be fine in the long-run do little to help.
The positive aspect to the fact that workers are not as good at organising their own work as they might be thought to be comes down to the central idea of scientific management. That is, that it is a managers responsibility to analyse how work is done, to perform time and motion studies and other scientific investigations into how work is performed and to therefore decide how work can best be optimised, and to then train and manage the workers so that they perform their work in accordance with the scientific principles discovered.
It isn’t just that the average worker is indolent and basically stupid (although, it is clear that for a large class of workers Taylor thinks exactly that), but also that the person doing the work is often in the worst of all possible positions to be able to perform the kinds of research necessary to learn the most productive way to perform that work.
To discover this requires someone to run a series of experiments designed to see the best way to perform the work. For example, he talks about someone whose job involves shovelling stuff. Now, the workmen doing this work generally have their own shovel. But depending on what they are shovelling a single shovel load could weight virtually nothing or be insanely too heavy. It turns out that there is an optimum shovel load weight that need to be worked along side programmed rest periods and that these will allow someone working all day shovelling to be at their most productive. If the weight of the load is too light, that means energy is being expended that is not productive, if it is too heavy then the workman will become quickly fatigued and therefore become increasingly unproductive. Finding this correct weight and the optimum number of rest periods for the workmen is the role of the scientific manager. It is also there role to be the worker’s friend – to show them how best to do their work, so as to be most productive and therefore to be entitled to improved wages. The improved wages part was something Taylor was certain that needed to be included in the overall equation to ensure improved productivity.
The more complex the task, the less likely the worker is going to be able to see the optimum method of work to ensure the most productive output. As work becomes more and more complex the number of variables becomes more and more numerous and so deciding what is the optimum way of working becomes guesswork for even the most educated employee. It is only through extensive investigations of the most objective kind that this can be discovered and so therefore this can only be discovered by properly trained and educated scientific managers.
What is interesting here is that he really did spend a lot of time saying that you needed to reward people for their improvements in productivity – but we have learnt better. Today labour productivity can improve for decades with no appreciable improvement in wages. The first chart on this page is an example: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2...
This book provides a very rosy picture of the benefits to come to everyone from the implementation of scientific management – well, everyone other than some of the female workers who were sacked, I assume, without any compensation. As he says, “And unfortunately this involved laying off many of the most intelligent, hardest working, and most trustworthy girls merely because they did not possess the quality of quick perception followed by quick action.” They weren’t fitted for the work and so it was in everyone’s best interests that they be let go. They were girls – hard to imagine they really needed the money, right…
All the same, and taking it as a given that capitalism will do what Marx suggested and only reward labour at the cost of its reproduction, this book does make its point very clearly that certain forms of objective analysis can result in increased productivity. However, another book I’ve read on industrial relations in Australia made the point that now that it is almost impossible for workers to go on strike they find other ways of gaining revenge on their unfeeling employers, mostly involving some form of industrial sabotage.
In the cases mentioned in this book, with a doubling and more of the productive output of the workers, their wages increasing, at best, by 60 per cent. He assumes this is fair enough as the employer will not take all of the extra profit to himself, but will spread this around so that a good part of it will also go to the employers customers. Hahahahaha.
This is a classic work and one that has had an enormous influence on how we go about organising work. It is important to read this, I think – it is short and to the point and could hardly be written in a clearer style.
The book is concerned with addressing a number of fallacies about work. One of these is that all that is necessary for a business to succeed is to have the right person at the top – in a sense this is just daft, as it offers no help at all – if a business succeeds it is because the boss was the right man for the job (look at the date this one was written – I think I can build a case for using man). But this doesn’t tell us why. If it is only possible to work out if someone is going to be successful after they have been successful, you haven’t really learnt all that much.
Another fallacy is that workers know best how to organise their work and so management can more or less leave them to their own devises. There is a negative and positive response given to this in this book. The negative is that workers are under the delusion that they need to work at the slowest pace possible. This is because working harder is not only giving their boss something for nothing, but it is also likely to put some of their fellow workers out of work. His counter to this is that higher productivity is a social good and does not necessarily result in workers losing their jobs. But such a view is only possible if the reader is focused only on the firm that has suddenly become very productive – the nature of capitalism is such that while the workers in that very productive firm are probably safe, that probably isn’t true for all workers in their industry. Higher productivity certainly does displace labour, it would be hard to argue otherwise. The problem here is one that was noted by Marx – that capitalism produces a reserve army of workers, the unemployed and this reserve army helps to keep down wages and keep productivity up. Ignoring these facts hardly makes them go away – but there are no only ignored in this book, no negative effects of increased productivity to the workers is acknowledged at all. While workers need to keep on eating in the short-run, telling them things will be fine in the long-run do little to help.
The positive aspect to the fact that workers are not as good at organising their own work as they might be thought to be comes down to the central idea of scientific management. That is, that it is a managers responsibility to analyse how work is done, to perform time and motion studies and other scientific investigations into how work is performed and to therefore decide how work can best be optimised, and to then train and manage the workers so that they perform their work in accordance with the scientific principles discovered.
It isn’t just that the average worker is indolent and basically stupid (although, it is clear that for a large class of workers Taylor thinks exactly that), but also that the person doing the work is often in the worst of all possible positions to be able to perform the kinds of research necessary to learn the most productive way to perform that work.
To discover this requires someone to run a series of experiments designed to see the best way to perform the work. For example, he talks about someone whose job involves shovelling stuff. Now, the workmen doing this work generally have their own shovel. But depending on what they are shovelling a single shovel load could weight virtually nothing or be insanely too heavy. It turns out that there is an optimum shovel load weight that need to be worked along side programmed rest periods and that these will allow someone working all day shovelling to be at their most productive. If the weight of the load is too light, that means energy is being expended that is not productive, if it is too heavy then the workman will become quickly fatigued and therefore become increasingly unproductive. Finding this correct weight and the optimum number of rest periods for the workmen is the role of the scientific manager. It is also there role to be the worker’s friend – to show them how best to do their work, so as to be most productive and therefore to be entitled to improved wages. The improved wages part was something Taylor was certain that needed to be included in the overall equation to ensure improved productivity.
The more complex the task, the less likely the worker is going to be able to see the optimum method of work to ensure the most productive output. As work becomes more and more complex the number of variables becomes more and more numerous and so deciding what is the optimum way of working becomes guesswork for even the most educated employee. It is only through extensive investigations of the most objective kind that this can be discovered and so therefore this can only be discovered by properly trained and educated scientific managers.
What is interesting here is that he really did spend a lot of time saying that you needed to reward people for their improvements in productivity – but we have learnt better. Today labour productivity can improve for decades with no appreciable improvement in wages. The first chart on this page is an example: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2...
This book provides a very rosy picture of the benefits to come to everyone from the implementation of scientific management – well, everyone other than some of the female workers who were sacked, I assume, without any compensation. As he says, “And unfortunately this involved laying off many of the most intelligent, hardest working, and most trustworthy girls merely because they did not possess the quality of quick perception followed by quick action.” They weren’t fitted for the work and so it was in everyone’s best interests that they be let go. They were girls – hard to imagine they really needed the money, right…
All the same, and taking it as a given that capitalism will do what Marx suggested and only reward labour at the cost of its reproduction, this book does make its point very clearly that certain forms of objective analysis can result in increased productivity. However, another book I’ve read on industrial relations in Australia made the point that now that it is almost impossible for workers to go on strike they find other ways of gaining revenge on their unfeeling employers, mostly involving some form of industrial sabotage.
In the cases mentioned in this book, with a doubling and more of the productive output of the workers, their wages increasing, at best, by 60 per cent. He assumes this is fair enough as the employer will not take all of the extra profit to himself, but will spread this around so that a good part of it will also go to the employers customers. Hahahahaha.
This is a classic work and one that has had an enormous influence on how we go about organising work. It is important to read this, I think – it is short and to the point and could hardly be written in a clearer style.
Read
July 21, 2018Frederick Taylor was a slightly eccentric man who in true mythical fashion was said to have experimented to find the most efficient way of walking as a boy, but who managed to turn his interest in achieving the one best way to do something to good use. In this short essay he uses examples including moving pig-iron and laying bricks to demonstrate how study and analysis can be used to increase measurable productivity. The flip side of this is how bizarrely amateur factory work used to be - one example looks at rates of shovelling different materials when all the workers are using different sized tools. Taylor swiftly demonstrates there are optimum sized and shaped spades for different tasks and optimum ratios of work to taking a breather to shift any mountain of shards or ashes or coal.
The implications in terms of improved labour efficiency were considerable and lead to the development of time and motions studies and the belief that productivity could be enhanced through control over the job and the working environment, until the Hawthorn experiments suggested that things are a little more complicated than that. What he says is interesting but only really an approach apparently suited to certain specific activities - which isn't something that Taylor acknowledges here, and psychological impacts are not considered . I suppose a more modern example of Taylorism in the workplace might be the management of telephone call centres - particularly if they are scripted, or recently I heard of a proposal to listen in to the greetings of supermarket staff to customers to ensure they regularly achieve the correct pitch of frenetic joy when serving. It holds out a kind of distopian or Utopian vision of incompetence trumped by surveillance.
The implications in terms of improved labour efficiency were considerable and lead to the development of time and motions studies and the belief that productivity could be enhanced through control over the job and the working environment, until the Hawthorn experiments suggested that things are a little more complicated than that. What he says is interesting but only really an approach apparently suited to certain specific activities - which isn't something that Taylor acknowledges here, and psychological impacts are not considered . I suppose a more modern example of Taylorism in the workplace might be the management of telephone call centres - particularly if they are scripted, or recently I heard of a proposal to listen in to the greetings of supermarket staff to customers to ensure they regularly achieve the correct pitch of frenetic joy when serving. It holds out a kind of distopian or Utopian vision of incompetence trumped by surveillance.
January 8, 2011
Taylor was an obsessive compulsive personality who used his privilege against the working class through what he called "scientific management." This was the science of speed-ups and labor efficiency for capital's sake with no regard for the workers. There is a part of the book where a working man, someone he used to work the lathes with before he became a manager and asked what he would do in the workers position; his answer was to fight every innovation he was enforcing on the workers. Brutal. Concise. Makes a lot of sense in terms of capitalism today--in some regards.
October 4, 2015
This book is in Planning.org's 100 essential books list, with the description: Taylor's highly influential argument was that both business and government should "functionalize work." It gave support to the idea of separating politics from the administration of work, giving credence to rise of a professional class of planners, city engineers, city finance officers, and the like.
It is certainly a classic (probably one of the most influential books of the 20th century), but let's face it, it's not something anyone is going to read if they don't have a reason to (probably a class).
* - Reserved for nonfiction. Worth a read if you're interested in the subject. Check out from library.
** - Good. May be inconsistent and flawed, but overall worth a read if you're in the mood for that genre. Check out from library.
*** - Very good. Recommended as a book that is either wonderfully written, informative, challenging, beautiful... but not all of the above. Check out from library or buy on Kindle.
**** - Great. Go out and read.
***** - Classic. MUST READ and should be on your bookshelf
It is certainly a classic (probably one of the most influential books of the 20th century), but let's face it, it's not something anyone is going to read if they don't have a reason to (probably a class).
* - Reserved for nonfiction. Worth a read if you're interested in the subject. Check out from library.
** - Good. May be inconsistent and flawed, but overall worth a read if you're in the mood for that genre. Check out from library.
*** - Very good. Recommended as a book that is either wonderfully written, informative, challenging, beautiful... but not all of the above. Check out from library or buy on Kindle.
**** - Great. Go out and read.
***** - Classic. MUST READ and should be on your bookshelf
February 20, 2017
Well, now I know.....
As much as I try to keep the fact that this guy died in 1915 and therefore is a product of his times I meet far too many folks citing his work to give him the benefit of the doubt.
This guy clearly thinks very little of laborers: comparing them to ox, saying they are too stupid to train themselves and implying they are easily manipulated. Further, he thinks very highly of himself claiming that he work in his heart.
In modern times, some of his opinions have been proven false: the whole if the worker is more productive the employer will pay them higher wages. Wages have been super stagnant in the USA and productivity has exploded.
Add to that in his final bit he claimed that if you utilize his program correctly you won't have any strikes. Its essentially a disclaimer: if your workers strike as a result of my program well YOU did it wrong.
I think there are some elements here that are usable: like getting buy in from your employees rather than forcing them all to change at once.
But generally this isn't a book that I think is overly useful.
As much as I try to keep the fact that this guy died in 1915 and therefore is a product of his times I meet far too many folks citing his work to give him the benefit of the doubt.
This guy clearly thinks very little of laborers: comparing them to ox, saying they are too stupid to train themselves and implying they are easily manipulated. Further, he thinks very highly of himself claiming that he work in his heart.
In modern times, some of his opinions have been proven false: the whole if the worker is more productive the employer will pay them higher wages. Wages have been super stagnant in the USA and productivity has exploded.
Add to that in his final bit he claimed that if you utilize his program correctly you won't have any strikes. Its essentially a disclaimer: if your workers strike as a result of my program well YOU did it wrong.
I think there are some elements here that are usable: like getting buy in from your employees rather than forcing them all to change at once.
But generally this isn't a book that I think is overly useful.
October 16, 2020
Incredibly patronizing logic used by Taylor. For example, Taylor mentions that some people are better suited to certain types of work, and it is the job of management to monitor and place them there. The work they do must be done "with no backtalk"--to sit when management says sit, to stand when they say stand, and to work when they say to work. Taylor also proposes a system of monitoring the production of each worker daily and adjusting their pay accordingly. Taylor justifies this intense micromanagement by claiming he and management know what's best for the worker, that some are "too stupid" to know what's best for themselves. This book eerily foreshadows authoritarianism in the early 20th century.
August 5, 2016
Since I've been reading seminal works this year, I decided to read this 1911 classic when it was posted on Project Gutenberg a while back. Taylor is credited as the father of scientific management as a field and this work is cited in Principles of Management classes like Smith's Wealth of Nations is in a Principles of Economics class. It's another example of a book that is oft cited but rarely assigned to students to read-- I recall reading only excerpts from it in several Management classes as an undergrad, but the book is short enough to be fairly easily required reading.
Consider this part of the Introduction, written 100 years ago, after Pres. Theodore Roosevelt gave a speech urging conservation of national resources:
"We can see our forests vanishing, our water-powers going to waste, our soil being carried by floods into the sea; and the end of our coal and our iron is in sight. But our larger wastes of human effort, which go on every day through such of our acts as are blundering, ill-directed, or inefficient, and which Mr. Roosevelt refers to as a, lack of "national efficiency," are less visible, less tangible, and are but vaguely appreciated...As yet there has been no public agitation for "greater national efficiency," no meetings have been called to consider how this is to be brought about. And still there are signs that the need for greater efficiency is widely felt."
Taylor is an engineer who sounds like a supply-side economist. Taylor's cause is fundamentally a Progressivist one, but he stands in opposition to Marxist elements agitating around him who are pitting the worker against the owner. Taylor is promoting a management style that requires heavily-involved owners and managers to increase the efficiency of the workers, the profitability of the businesses, and the wages of the workers.
"The principal object of management should be to secure the maximum prosperity for the employer, coupled with the maximum prosperity for each employee."
This is a nationalist cause for Taylor-- maximum productivity means maximum standard of living for Americans.
"It is no single element, but rather this whole combination, that constitutes scientific management, which may be summarized as: Science, not rule of thumb. Harmony, not discord. Cooperation, not individualism. Maximum output, in place of restricted output. The development of each man to his greatest efficiency and prosperity."
Taylor addresses the issue of shirking, or "soldiering" in his parlance, which he sees as widespread and contrary to the American spirit as demonstrated when Americans compete hard in sports on weekends. This is fundamentally a problem of incentives-- if I'm paid by the day then I have no incentive to work quickly, but rather to prolong the number of days it takes to complete a job. Several examples of this in piece work is given, including the classic 1903 paper "Shop Management" on the Midvale Machine Shop.
Taylor confronts the following thinking that promote such shirking and inefficiency:
First. The fallacy, which has from time immemorial been almost universal among workmen, that a material increase in the output of each man or each machine in the trade would result in the end in throwing a large number of men out of work.
Second. The defective systems of management which are in common use, and which make it necessary for each workman to soldier, or work slowly, in order that he may protect his own best interests.
Third. The inefficient rule-of-thumb methods, which are still almost universal in all trades, and in practicing which our workmen waste a large part of their effort.
Scientific management is more than properly aligning incentives, like just paying someone for output rather than a flat daily rate. It requires investment in scientists who will first carefully observe the work being done and determine the most efficient way to do it. What's the proper size of the shovel? What's the maximum number of repetitions until a job is finished? How far and how fast should the worker walk? How often and for how long should his breaks be? What is the "One Best Way" to do the job? The scientist becomes a micromanager, training workers in new ways of doing things in order to maximize productivity with the incentive dangled that the worker will receive higher pay for doing it this way.
The example Taylor gives is from his time at Bethlehem Steel with workers shoveling pig iron. Here's a summary:
"We found that this gang were loading on the average about 12 and a half long tons per man per day. We were surprised to find, after studying the matter, that a first-class pig-iron handler ought to handle between 47, and 48 long tons per day, instead of 12 and a half tons. This task seemed to us so very large that we were obliged to go over our work several times before we were absolutely sure that we were right. Once we were sure, however, that 47 tons was a proper day's work for a first-class pig-iron handler, the task which faced us as managers under the modern scientific plan was clearly before us. It was our duty to see that the 80,000 tons of pig iron was loaded on to the cars at the rate of 47 tons per man per day, in place of 12 and a half tons, at which rate the work was then being done. And it was further our duty to see that this work was done without bringing on a strike among the men, without any quarrel with the men, and to see that the men were happier and better contented when loading at the new rate of 47 tons than they were when loading at the old rate of 12 and a half tons."
(Note: Taylor enlisted famed mathematician Carl G. Barth in his efforts.) Taylor and his crew succeeded in achieving the 376% increase in productivity. Workers went from earning the standard $1.15 a day to $1.85 a day, a 38% increase in their wage that put them well above what competing firms offered. Interestingly, when someone from another firm came and promised workers an even higher wage the Bethlehem management gave them its blessing to leave. The workers came back to Bethlehem shortly thereafter because they found the other company's management always found ways to keep them from being productive to earn the higher promised wage. Other examples are given.
Taylor's system requires owners to investment in scientific managers, and requires scientific managers to invest heavily in the workers, something with high up-front costs. Floor managers need not be highly educated engineers, only trained in how to use a slide-rule, which is sort of the 1900s equivalent of a scientific calculator.
Wikipedia records Taylor's contribution to management thought and engineering, both here and places like Lenin's Soviet Union. I wouldn't hesitate to require this book in either a Principles of Management or Managerial Economics course.
The practicalities of Taylor's recommendations are questionable, and Wikipedia records that Bethlehem didn't implement all of his suggestions or methods. But it's easy to see how the field of Management grew out of his work. The book reminded me of the last time I worked on an assembly line and the plant had what I called the "Kaizen Team" who were people in white coats and clipboards monitoring our processes and looking for any ways they could improve efficiency. The workers resented the team and suffered from Taylor's fallacy #1 (above) of assuming improved efficiency meant permanently eliminating their jobs (in some cases the workers were correct, however). I doubt many on the Kaizen Team had read Taylor in the original, though.
Consider this part of the Introduction, written 100 years ago, after Pres. Theodore Roosevelt gave a speech urging conservation of national resources:
"We can see our forests vanishing, our water-powers going to waste, our soil being carried by floods into the sea; and the end of our coal and our iron is in sight. But our larger wastes of human effort, which go on every day through such of our acts as are blundering, ill-directed, or inefficient, and which Mr. Roosevelt refers to as a, lack of "national efficiency," are less visible, less tangible, and are but vaguely appreciated...As yet there has been no public agitation for "greater national efficiency," no meetings have been called to consider how this is to be brought about. And still there are signs that the need for greater efficiency is widely felt."
Taylor is an engineer who sounds like a supply-side economist. Taylor's cause is fundamentally a Progressivist one, but he stands in opposition to Marxist elements agitating around him who are pitting the worker against the owner. Taylor is promoting a management style that requires heavily-involved owners and managers to increase the efficiency of the workers, the profitability of the businesses, and the wages of the workers.
"The principal object of management should be to secure the maximum prosperity for the employer, coupled with the maximum prosperity for each employee."
This is a nationalist cause for Taylor-- maximum productivity means maximum standard of living for Americans.
"It is no single element, but rather this whole combination, that constitutes scientific management, which may be summarized as: Science, not rule of thumb. Harmony, not discord. Cooperation, not individualism. Maximum output, in place of restricted output. The development of each man to his greatest efficiency and prosperity."
Taylor addresses the issue of shirking, or "soldiering" in his parlance, which he sees as widespread and contrary to the American spirit as demonstrated when Americans compete hard in sports on weekends. This is fundamentally a problem of incentives-- if I'm paid by the day then I have no incentive to work quickly, but rather to prolong the number of days it takes to complete a job. Several examples of this in piece work is given, including the classic 1903 paper "Shop Management" on the Midvale Machine Shop.
Taylor confronts the following thinking that promote such shirking and inefficiency:
First. The fallacy, which has from time immemorial been almost universal among workmen, that a material increase in the output of each man or each machine in the trade would result in the end in throwing a large number of men out of work.
Second. The defective systems of management which are in common use, and which make it necessary for each workman to soldier, or work slowly, in order that he may protect his own best interests.
Third. The inefficient rule-of-thumb methods, which are still almost universal in all trades, and in practicing which our workmen waste a large part of their effort.
Scientific management is more than properly aligning incentives, like just paying someone for output rather than a flat daily rate. It requires investment in scientists who will first carefully observe the work being done and determine the most efficient way to do it. What's the proper size of the shovel? What's the maximum number of repetitions until a job is finished? How far and how fast should the worker walk? How often and for how long should his breaks be? What is the "One Best Way" to do the job? The scientist becomes a micromanager, training workers in new ways of doing things in order to maximize productivity with the incentive dangled that the worker will receive higher pay for doing it this way.
The example Taylor gives is from his time at Bethlehem Steel with workers shoveling pig iron. Here's a summary:
"We found that this gang were loading on the average about 12 and a half long tons per man per day. We were surprised to find, after studying the matter, that a first-class pig-iron handler ought to handle between 47, and 48 long tons per day, instead of 12 and a half tons. This task seemed to us so very large that we were obliged to go over our work several times before we were absolutely sure that we were right. Once we were sure, however, that 47 tons was a proper day's work for a first-class pig-iron handler, the task which faced us as managers under the modern scientific plan was clearly before us. It was our duty to see that the 80,000 tons of pig iron was loaded on to the cars at the rate of 47 tons per man per day, in place of 12 and a half tons, at which rate the work was then being done. And it was further our duty to see that this work was done without bringing on a strike among the men, without any quarrel with the men, and to see that the men were happier and better contented when loading at the new rate of 47 tons than they were when loading at the old rate of 12 and a half tons."
(Note: Taylor enlisted famed mathematician Carl G. Barth in his efforts.) Taylor and his crew succeeded in achieving the 376% increase in productivity. Workers went from earning the standard $1.15 a day to $1.85 a day, a 38% increase in their wage that put them well above what competing firms offered. Interestingly, when someone from another firm came and promised workers an even higher wage the Bethlehem management gave them its blessing to leave. The workers came back to Bethlehem shortly thereafter because they found the other company's management always found ways to keep them from being productive to earn the higher promised wage. Other examples are given.
Taylor's system requires owners to investment in scientific managers, and requires scientific managers to invest heavily in the workers, something with high up-front costs. Floor managers need not be highly educated engineers, only trained in how to use a slide-rule, which is sort of the 1900s equivalent of a scientific calculator.
Wikipedia records Taylor's contribution to management thought and engineering, both here and places like Lenin's Soviet Union. I wouldn't hesitate to require this book in either a Principles of Management or Managerial Economics course.
The practicalities of Taylor's recommendations are questionable, and Wikipedia records that Bethlehem didn't implement all of his suggestions or methods. But it's easy to see how the field of Management grew out of his work. The book reminded me of the last time I worked on an assembly line and the plant had what I called the "Kaizen Team" who were people in white coats and clipboards monitoring our processes and looking for any ways they could improve efficiency. The workers resented the team and suffered from Taylor's fallacy #1 (above) of assuming improved efficiency meant permanently eliminating their jobs (in some cases the workers were correct, however). I doubt many on the Kaizen Team had read Taylor in the original, though.
October 14, 2024
Classist, surpassed, dont get this being recommended as a must read for managers.
May 30, 2025
كثيرا ما صادفني مفهوم (التايلورية) وأنا أقرأ، وأغلب ما قرأته عنها كان نقدا لاذعا، ولكنني بعد أن قرأت الكتاب، وجدت أن (التايلورية) لم توفى حقها في النقد اللاذع، لأنها من الحقارة بمكان مما يجعلها في حاجة إلى نقد ألذع!
يقول المأفون: في الماضي، كان الإنسان (العامل) يأتي في الصدارة، أما في المستقبل يتوجب أن يكون النظام هو المتصدر!
هذا المأفون يتكلم عن العاملين على أنهم مجرد أدوات، آلات، يجب إدارتها بأفضل شكل ممكن، آلات لا حق لها في التفكير، ولا في الإبداع، فقط مجرد آلات، بل حيوانات، تساق كما يريد لها أسيادها.
ولعل البعض يراني أبالغ وأتجنى، ولكي أبرئ نفسي أنقل لكم كلامه نصا والذي ساقه في معرض تبريره لعدم أحقية العامل في نسبة تساوي زيادة إنتاجه والتي أنتجها تحت سيادة الإدارة العلمية فيقول : كما صرحنا سابقا، فإن العامل الحمّال، ليس من الإستثنائية بمكان حتى يتعثر علينا أن نحظى بأمثاله، فهو مجرد رجل لا يختلف عن صنف الثيران في قليل أو كثير، فهو بليد العقل، جافي البدن!
كما أن هذا المأفون لا يكتفي بتلك النظرة السادية، بل يسوق مبررات يستحمر بها القارئ حيث يبرر عدم زيادة أجور العمال بنفس زيادة معدل منتجاتهم في حين تتضاعف أرباح أصحاب العمل بأننا قد نسينا طرفا ثالثا، ألا وهو جمهور المستهلكين الطيب الذي سيحصد ثمار هذه الزيادة في صورة أسعار أرخص، وهو في تبريره هذا إما أجهل من حمار، يإما أروغ من ذئب، لأنه لا طرف ثالث أصلا في المعادلة، فالممستهلكين في النهاية هم طرفي المعادلة: أصحاب عمل وعمال!، أم أن أصحاب العمل والعمال، ينتجون ولا يستهلكون؟!، واعذروني لأني جمعت أصحاب العمل مع العمال، فمن ينتج هم العمال فقط ولا يستهلكون إلا ما يقيم أودهم لمواصلة الكدح، أما أصحاب العمل فهم من يستهلكون ولا ينتجون.
ملحوظة: الاقتباسات من ترجمتي، لأنني قرأت الكتاب بالإنجليزية ولم أجده مترجما.
يقول المأفون: في الماضي، كان الإنسان (العامل) يأتي في الصدارة، أما في المستقبل يتوجب أن يكون النظام هو المتصدر!
هذا المأفون يتكلم عن العاملين على أنهم مجرد أدوات، آلات، يجب إدارتها بأفضل شكل ممكن، آلات لا حق لها في التفكير، ولا في الإبداع، فقط مجرد آلات، بل حيوانات، تساق كما يريد لها أسيادها.
ولعل البعض يراني أبالغ وأتجنى، ولكي أبرئ نفسي أنقل لكم كلامه نصا والذي ساقه في معرض تبريره لعدم أحقية العامل في نسبة تساوي زيادة إنتاجه والتي أنتجها تحت سيادة الإدارة العلمية فيقول : كما صرحنا سابقا، فإن العامل الحمّال، ليس من الإستثنائية بمكان حتى يتعثر علينا أن نحظى بأمثاله، فهو مجرد رجل لا يختلف عن صنف الثيران في قليل أو كثير، فهو بليد العقل، جافي البدن!
كما أن هذا المأفون لا يكتفي بتلك النظرة السادية، بل يسوق مبررات يستحمر بها القارئ حيث يبرر عدم زيادة أجور العمال بنفس زيادة معدل منتجاتهم في حين تتضاعف أرباح أصحاب العمل بأننا قد نسينا طرفا ثالثا، ألا وهو جمهور المستهلكين الطيب الذي سيحصد ثمار هذه الزيادة في صورة أسعار أرخص، وهو في تبريره هذا إما أجهل من حمار، يإما أروغ من ذئب، لأنه لا طرف ثالث أصلا في المعادلة، فالممستهلكين في النهاية هم طرفي المعادلة: أصحاب عمل وعمال!، أم أن أصحاب العمل والعمال، ينتجون ولا يستهلكون؟!، واعذروني لأني جمعت أصحاب العمل مع العمال، فمن ينتج هم العمال فقط ولا يستهلكون إلا ما يقيم أودهم لمواصلة الكدح، أما أصحاب العمل فهم من يستهلكون ولا ينتجون.
ملحوظة: الاقتباسات من ترجمتي، لأنني قرأت الكتاب بالإنجليزية ولم أجده مترجما.
January 20, 2020
Revolutionary in its day, this work pioneered the fields of industrial engineering and management consulting. Although obviously outdated in many respects, one may still find various aspects concerning general philosophy, thinking in systems, optimization, etc. enlightening nonetheless.
August 5, 2024
Taylor truly hated workers. Was expecting more given its historical significance…
March 30, 2023
Read this for fun.
I was always taught in my history classes' narratives that this man was essentially a heartless efficiency fiend, who 'followed people around with a stopwatch'. But in Taylor's case, there is more to the story. Sure, he did indeed wish for workers to not 'loaf' or 'backtalk their bosses'. And he absolutely is as precise and calculated in his advocacy for a more smoothly run, well-oiled business as one might be led to believe. But one thing struck me strongly in his work that I've not heard effectively articulated elsewhere: he also argued that workers should be paid fairly and treated remarkably well, especially considering the time period.
In the time this book was written—1911—his ideas were nothing short of radical, and challenged the status-quo of traditional methods of management. He actually believed in win-win solutions for both management and workers . His recognization that workers who were paid too little would be demotivated would lead to (or retain) lower productivity and a far less efficient workplace. And yet, by contrast, workers paid fairly would mean they'd likely feel more compelled to perform at their best. He especially emphasizes that many workers 'soldier' (loaf and purposefully work less hard than they could) because they believe it's in their best interest. But if incentives work to properly award workers for meritorius efforts, then this would encourage them to be optimally productive.
Interestingly enough, more than 100 years later, this argument is just as (if not more) relevant today. Many business-people subscribe to the (I'd argue) misguided belief that paying their employees as little as possible is a key to success. And yet research has shown fairer pay is something that drivers both productivity and efficiency.
Taylor's ideas can be seen as advocating for a more ethical position compared to many modern business leaders. He recognized something that would, regardless of whether it is purely for profit or out of the kindness of his heart, arguably create a workplace that is both more efficient and humane. One of the central themes in Taylor's work is that a fair wage system is crucial for creating an efficient workplace. He believed that "the wages paid by any employer should bear some relation to the value of the services rendered" (p. 65). Taylor recognized that workers who were paid well would be more motivated to work hard and would be more likely to stay with their employer. In fact, he believed that paying workers well was one of the key factors in increasing productivity and reducing employee turnover. As he wrote, "An essential feature of the system here described, and one which will do more to harmonize the interests of the men and the management than any other one thing, is the payment of a high average wage" (p. 97).
One thing I'd add to balance out my more positive portrayal of Taylor, is that his ideas, while revolutionary for their time, are by no means perfect. For instance, he arguably saw workers more as modular components of a machine, rather than on a holistic, individual level; take, for instance, his phrasing of a worker in reference to a balance sheet: "The worker is therefore an expense item and not a source of income" (p. 73). Another supporting example of this is his comparing pig-iron handlers to beasts of burden: "One of the very first requirements for a man who is fit to handle pig-iron as a regular occupation is that he shall be so stupid and so phlegmatic that he more nearly resembles in his mental make-up the ox than any other type".
These sorts of attitudes may offend many people's sensibilities (including mine), but ultimately, what matters is that even Taylor recognized the optimal justification for paying workers more based on their value produced, which meant hard work should more-or-less equate to pay received. This is a potentially compelling argument for a better workplace, and it also begs the question: 'If a man who was willing to literally follow workers around with a stopwatch to increase output believed in high wages AND benefits in exchange for higher value produced, why in the world do so many business-people insist that paying workers as little as possible is somehow some sort of pearl of wisdom?'
(Granted, despite this rhetorical question, I'm more referring to when business-people or a 'certain sort of person' blithely mentions this, rather than meaning to insinuate some sort of universally higher-paying business model or models. Because while I do feel it's worth mentioning that while Taylor's argument for fair wages and recognition of the link between pay and productivity still holds true, there are absolutely some situations in which paying workers more does not make feasible sense. For example, an individual small business with limited resources may not be able to afford high wages and benefits for its employees. Or, take how some entire industries, such as retail and fast-food, operate on practically razor-thin profit margins, and rely on cheap prices and cheap labor costs to stay competitive. In these cases, compensating workers more than seemingly necessary may not be a realistic option without increasing prices, which could drive away customers and hurt their business model. This is even the case if factoring in businesses like Costco and Trader Joe's, which are effective counter-examples to the idea that some industries inherantly need to pay workers less as a 'rule'. Despite this, not every business can realistically afford to do this. But the key takeaway is chances are, in many organizations, with better efficiency or innovative thinking, there may very well be ways to justify paying better wages, even if profit and overall success are the only motives. )
One notable point that is worth mentioning is that Taylor recognized the importance of worker education and training to increase their productivity, and job satisfaction:
However, it is also worth acknowledging that Taylor's methods were not without controversy and criticism. For instance, his scientific management principles have been accused of creating a mechanized and dehumanizing workplace environment, where workers are reduced to mere cogs in a machine. Additionally, some of his practices, such as differential piece-rate systems, have been criticized for incentivizing workers to sacrifice quality for quantity in order to increase their pay. With these sorts of controversies, it's no wonder people think of things like this:
Or this:
Or, why more recently in this The Economist article talks about a supposed rise in a 'digital Taylorism' (he's that controversial and influential):
Or even—as the aforementioned The Economist article references, and this article delves into—why Aldous Huxley uses Taylorism as inspiration for his literary classic, Brave New World.)
Despite these criticisms, though, Taylor's ideas and principles continue to influence management practices. And have left a lasting impact on the world of business. By challenging the traditional management methods of his time and advocating for more efficient and fair practices, Taylor helped shape the modern workplace as we know it today.
In conclusion, "The Principles of Scientific Management" is a thought-provoking and insightful book that sheds light on the history of management practices and the evolution of the modern workplace. Whether you agree or disagree with Taylor's ideas, this book is sure to challenge your assumptions and offer new insights into the complex world of business and management.
Or, to put things in Taylor's own words:
-"The principal object of management should be to secure the maximum prosperity for the employer, coupled with the maximum prosperity for each employee." (Page 3.)
-"In order to increase the output of each man to the highest point possible there should be the closest cooperation between the management and the men." (Page 8.)
-"In the best-planned plants and offices, where the management has a high degree of efficiency, every workman who is doing his work properly receives from one to four times his usual wages." (Page 59.)
I was always taught in my history classes' narratives that this man was essentially a heartless efficiency fiend, who 'followed people around with a stopwatch'. But in Taylor's case, there is more to the story. Sure, he did indeed wish for workers to not 'loaf' or 'backtalk their bosses'. And he absolutely is as precise and calculated in his advocacy for a more smoothly run, well-oiled business as one might be led to believe. But one thing struck me strongly in his work that I've not heard effectively articulated elsewhere: he also argued that workers should be paid fairly and treated remarkably well, especially considering the time period.
In the time this book was written—1911—his ideas were nothing short of radical, and challenged the status-quo of traditional methods of management. He actually believed in win-win solutions for both management and workers . His recognization that workers who were paid too little would be demotivated would lead to (or retain) lower productivity and a far less efficient workplace. And yet, by contrast, workers paid fairly would mean they'd likely feel more compelled to perform at their best. He especially emphasizes that many workers 'soldier' (loaf and purposefully work less hard than they could) because they believe it's in their best interest. But if incentives work to properly award workers for meritorius efforts, then this would encourage them to be optimally productive.
Interestingly enough, more than 100 years later, this argument is just as (if not more) relevant today. Many business-people subscribe to the (I'd argue) misguided belief that paying their employees as little as possible is a key to success. And yet research has shown fairer pay is something that drivers both productivity and efficiency.
Taylor's ideas can be seen as advocating for a more ethical position compared to many modern business leaders. He recognized something that would, regardless of whether it is purely for profit or out of the kindness of his heart, arguably create a workplace that is both more efficient and humane. One of the central themes in Taylor's work is that a fair wage system is crucial for creating an efficient workplace. He believed that "the wages paid by any employer should bear some relation to the value of the services rendered" (p. 65). Taylor recognized that workers who were paid well would be more motivated to work hard and would be more likely to stay with their employer. In fact, he believed that paying workers well was one of the key factors in increasing productivity and reducing employee turnover. As he wrote, "An essential feature of the system here described, and one which will do more to harmonize the interests of the men and the management than any other one thing, is the payment of a high average wage" (p. 97).
One thing I'd add to balance out my more positive portrayal of Taylor, is that his ideas, while revolutionary for their time, are by no means perfect. For instance, he arguably saw workers more as modular components of a machine, rather than on a holistic, individual level; take, for instance, his phrasing of a worker in reference to a balance sheet: "The worker is therefore an expense item and not a source of income" (p. 73). Another supporting example of this is his comparing pig-iron handlers to beasts of burden: "One of the very first requirements for a man who is fit to handle pig-iron as a regular occupation is that he shall be so stupid and so phlegmatic that he more nearly resembles in his mental make-up the ox than any other type".
These sorts of attitudes may offend many people's sensibilities (including mine), but ultimately, what matters is that even Taylor recognized the optimal justification for paying workers more based on their value produced, which meant hard work should more-or-less equate to pay received. This is a potentially compelling argument for a better workplace, and it also begs the question: 'If a man who was willing to literally follow workers around with a stopwatch to increase output believed in high wages AND benefits in exchange for higher value produced, why in the world do so many business-people insist that paying workers as little as possible is somehow some sort of pearl of wisdom?'
(Granted, despite this rhetorical question, I'm more referring to when business-people or a 'certain sort of person' blithely mentions this, rather than meaning to insinuate some sort of universally higher-paying business model or models. Because while I do feel it's worth mentioning that while Taylor's argument for fair wages and recognition of the link between pay and productivity still holds true, there are absolutely some situations in which paying workers more does not make feasible sense. For example, an individual small business with limited resources may not be able to afford high wages and benefits for its employees. Or, take how some entire industries, such as retail and fast-food, operate on practically razor-thin profit margins, and rely on cheap prices and cheap labor costs to stay competitive. In these cases, compensating workers more than seemingly necessary may not be a realistic option without increasing prices, which could drive away customers and hurt their business model. This is even the case if factoring in businesses like Costco and Trader Joe's, which are effective counter-examples to the idea that some industries inherantly need to pay workers less as a 'rule'. Despite this, not every business can realistically afford to do this. But the key takeaway is chances are, in many organizations, with better efficiency or innovative thinking, there may very well be ways to justify paying better wages, even if profit and overall success are the only motives. )
One notable point that is worth mentioning is that Taylor recognized the importance of worker education and training to increase their productivity, and job satisfaction:
The education of the workman, however, to fit him to do higher class work, or to take an intelligent interest in the operation of the work to which he is put, or to enable him to rise from the ranks, should be carried on by the management as a part of its regular work (p. 82).He believed in breaking down complex tasks into simpler ones, allowing workers to become experts in their specific areas and leading to greater efficiency overall:
In the past the man has been first; in the future the system must be first. This in no sense, however, implies that great men are not needed. On the contrary, the first object of any good system must be that of developing first-class men; and under systematic management the best man rises to the top more certainly and more rapidly than ever before (p. 45).This idea is still used today in many industries, such as manufacturing and assembly line production.
However, it is also worth acknowledging that Taylor's methods were not without controversy and criticism. For instance, his scientific management principles have been accused of creating a mechanized and dehumanizing workplace environment, where workers are reduced to mere cogs in a machine. Additionally, some of his practices, such as differential piece-rate systems, have been criticized for incentivizing workers to sacrifice quality for quantity in order to increase their pay. With these sorts of controversies, it's no wonder people think of things like this:
Or this:
Or, why more recently in this The Economist article talks about a supposed rise in a 'digital Taylorism' (he's that controversial and influential):
Or even—as the aforementioned The Economist article references, and this article delves into—why Aldous Huxley uses Taylorism as inspiration for his literary classic, Brave New World.)
Despite these criticisms, though, Taylor's ideas and principles continue to influence management practices. And have left a lasting impact on the world of business. By challenging the traditional management methods of his time and advocating for more efficient and fair practices, Taylor helped shape the modern workplace as we know it today.
In conclusion, "The Principles of Scientific Management" is a thought-provoking and insightful book that sheds light on the history of management practices and the evolution of the modern workplace. Whether you agree or disagree with Taylor's ideas, this book is sure to challenge your assumptions and offer new insights into the complex world of business and management.
Or, to put things in Taylor's own words:
-"The principal object of management should be to secure the maximum prosperity for the employer, coupled with the maximum prosperity for each employee." (Page 3.)
-"In order to increase the output of each man to the highest point possible there should be the closest cooperation between the management and the men." (Page 8.)
-"In the best-planned plants and offices, where the management has a high degree of efficiency, every workman who is doing his work properly receives from one to four times his usual wages." (Page 59.)
June 24, 2018
An enormously influential book but so flawed!
For a book with "scientific" in the title, it is staggeringly unscientific. There is, for example, not one reproducible experiment and Taylor constantly conflates explanations. In his Schmit story, Taylor fails to construct a scientific experiment so that we do not know whether Schmit's increased output was due to the motivation of piece rates or Taylor's to improved methods for carrying pig iron. Taylor just expects the reader to accept both.
Taylor also treats workers as machines and so effectively ignores social and psychological factors. That is, his "science" leaves out critical scientific variables.
Many of those who claimed to adopt Taylor's methods were even less scientific and in particular, failed to follow Taylor's advice to start with one man and work up. Instead they applied Scientific Management to whole factories and, as Taylor predicted, were met with opposition from their workers.
Despite these flaws Scientific Management was adopted in the US and other countries in the early 20th century, then dropped when it failed to deliver much more than industrial unrest. In contrast, Lenin, Starlin and Trotsky were avid followers of Taylor to the extent that the soviet economies were based on his approaches. Five Year Plans and Centrally Planned Economies and endless recitation of production statistics are pure Taylorism.
For a book with "scientific" in the title, it is staggeringly unscientific. There is, for example, not one reproducible experiment and Taylor constantly conflates explanations. In his Schmit story, Taylor fails to construct a scientific experiment so that we do not know whether Schmit's increased output was due to the motivation of piece rates or Taylor's to improved methods for carrying pig iron. Taylor just expects the reader to accept both.
Taylor also treats workers as machines and so effectively ignores social and psychological factors. That is, his "science" leaves out critical scientific variables.
Many of those who claimed to adopt Taylor's methods were even less scientific and in particular, failed to follow Taylor's advice to start with one man and work up. Instead they applied Scientific Management to whole factories and, as Taylor predicted, were met with opposition from their workers.
Despite these flaws Scientific Management was adopted in the US and other countries in the early 20th century, then dropped when it failed to deliver much more than industrial unrest. In contrast, Lenin, Starlin and Trotsky were avid followers of Taylor to the extent that the soviet economies were based on his approaches. Five Year Plans and Centrally Planned Economies and endless recitation of production statistics are pure Taylorism.
March 1, 2023
There are much better books that cover these core principles but without the big blind spots he had.
November 9, 2017
Taylor manages a relatively clear and engaging account of his methods of management. He explains and motivates his view that every task has an associated science that can be used to manage it. He also explains why he thinks this is a boon to all concerned and that proper management can not only increase efficiency but end labour strife. Overall his examples while relatively clear seem to have limited applicability, the judgement of the manager etc. as to what will actually have been done rather than being able to simply read off the situation as Taylor seems to suggest. Also despite claiming to be a friend of the working man Taylor states that a key problem of achieving efficiency is workers "soldiering" and one of his premises is that workers are too stupid to manage themselves and in particular he refers to those best suited to manually move large ore as having almost the mind of an ox. It is interesting to read this formative document in modern management and Taylor's reflection on his various researches.
September 21, 2008
As a glimpse of an important part of organizational history, this is an linchpin book to read. As a practical matter of utility in modern organizational life, it is less so. Indeed, many of the practices advocated by Taylor would be inadvisable or even illegal in today's world. Nonetheless, his work, and that of some of his contemporaries, formed a strong foundation for later innovations and practices in industrial psychology and organizational behavior.
January 6, 2015
This is the classic work on time and motion studies or factory management. It is essential reading for any American history student especially those interested in the second half of the nineteenth century.
Want to read
October 22, 2008This book is recommended by Dale Carnegie
May 10, 2019
Taylorism is a pejorative term I have seen referenced in several business-related books; at least, that's how I have most often seen it referenced. Frederick Winslow Taylor is its titular founder. Taylorism is more formally known as scientific management, which is a method of describing, analyzing, and controlling human labor. Although largely considered obsolete today, some leaders and managers, according to Dan Pink and others, still use principles of scientific management to poke, prod, and compel their subordinates into the behaviors and actions they have deemed most effective or efficient. It was interesting and enriching to read the source material of the theory which has been commented on so much by modern organizational and motivational thinkers. In some ways, I feel like Taylorism has become a favorite foil and somewhat of a straw man in the ongoing debate of organizational effectiveness and human motivation.
When you read The Principles of Scientific Management I think you'll immediately realize it's not a theory totally devoid of value or insight. For example, Taylor writes: "In the future it will be appreciated that our leaders must be trained right as well as born right, and that no great man can (with the old system of personal management) hope to compete with a number of ordinary men who have been properly organized so as efficiently to cooperate." Most modern business school academics and organizational leaders would happily agree with the sentiment. Furthermore, Taylor's vision is as laudable today as it was startling then: "It is possible to give the workman what he most wants—high wages—and the employer what he wants—a low labor cost—for his manufactures." Yet, the criticisms against Taylorism are equally valuable and insightful. Taylor writes rather crudely about workmen and the work they do. Perhaps one of the most troubling statements in his paper is the following: "One of the important objects of this paper is to convince its readers that every single act of every workman can be reduced to a science." I have a strong conviction that nothing is as simple as we would like when human beings are involved, regardless of the work they're doing or how they're intended to do it. Furthermore, managers and leaders should be warned against distilling everything down to its most "scientific" level while ignoring the human diversity and variety extant in any organization. (See The Tyranny of Metrics).
It's eagerly pointed out how Taylorism has fallen short, especially in our advanced economy. The vast majority of the American workforce is not physically lifting pig iron and hauling it from one designated area to another. Most of us are involved in intellectual and emotional labor of some kind. The rules of our labor are far more ethereal and often much harder to track and measure. But not all of us. Here is where I feel modern writers on this subject fall a little short. They write poetically about human motivation in the modern era in which work requires creativity and collaboration; however, even in my own experience, I have worked jobs and know plenty of laborers who are still hauling pig iron, metaphorically if not literally. There are truly dreary jobs which require very little of what most of us would find intrinsically motivating. I don't suggest Taylorism is the answer for those types of occupations. Rather, I feel modern writers on these topics have not successfully closed the gap between the "obsolete" theories of yesterday and those of today relative to the aforementioned dreary jobs.
The more you read the easier it becomes to discern foundational ideas—those which are cited and explored by critics and adherents alike. Taylor's The Principles of Scientific Management appears to be a source of some of those foundational ideas. Although it's deeply anachronistic in many ways, Taylor's paper has clearly had a profound effect since its publication. It was worth reading. I'm certainly not an adherent of Taylorism, but I'm also on an earnest search for its comprehensive rebuttal. I think we have come part of the way, but there are some ideas, I believe, left undiscovered or not articulated. I'm an eager advocate once they're found.
https://thethousanderclub.blogspot.co...
When you read The Principles of Scientific Management I think you'll immediately realize it's not a theory totally devoid of value or insight. For example, Taylor writes: "In the future it will be appreciated that our leaders must be trained right as well as born right, and that no great man can (with the old system of personal management) hope to compete with a number of ordinary men who have been properly organized so as efficiently to cooperate." Most modern business school academics and organizational leaders would happily agree with the sentiment. Furthermore, Taylor's vision is as laudable today as it was startling then: "It is possible to give the workman what he most wants—high wages—and the employer what he wants—a low labor cost—for his manufactures." Yet, the criticisms against Taylorism are equally valuable and insightful. Taylor writes rather crudely about workmen and the work they do. Perhaps one of the most troubling statements in his paper is the following: "One of the important objects of this paper is to convince its readers that every single act of every workman can be reduced to a science." I have a strong conviction that nothing is as simple as we would like when human beings are involved, regardless of the work they're doing or how they're intended to do it. Furthermore, managers and leaders should be warned against distilling everything down to its most "scientific" level while ignoring the human diversity and variety extant in any organization. (See The Tyranny of Metrics).
It's eagerly pointed out how Taylorism has fallen short, especially in our advanced economy. The vast majority of the American workforce is not physically lifting pig iron and hauling it from one designated area to another. Most of us are involved in intellectual and emotional labor of some kind. The rules of our labor are far more ethereal and often much harder to track and measure. But not all of us. Here is where I feel modern writers on this subject fall a little short. They write poetically about human motivation in the modern era in which work requires creativity and collaboration; however, even in my own experience, I have worked jobs and know plenty of laborers who are still hauling pig iron, metaphorically if not literally. There are truly dreary jobs which require very little of what most of us would find intrinsically motivating. I don't suggest Taylorism is the answer for those types of occupations. Rather, I feel modern writers on these topics have not successfully closed the gap between the "obsolete" theories of yesterday and those of today relative to the aforementioned dreary jobs.
The more you read the easier it becomes to discern foundational ideas—those which are cited and explored by critics and adherents alike. Taylor's The Principles of Scientific Management appears to be a source of some of those foundational ideas. Although it's deeply anachronistic in many ways, Taylor's paper has clearly had a profound effect since its publication. It was worth reading. I'm certainly not an adherent of Taylorism, but I'm also on an earnest search for its comprehensive rebuttal. I think we have come part of the way, but there are some ideas, I believe, left undiscovered or not articulated. I'm an eager advocate once they're found.
https://thethousanderclub.blogspot.co...
March 14, 2025
1. What is this?
Fredrick Taylor, Max Weber & Henry Fayol are part of Classical Management Science.
The other authors are related.
2. Why Taylor, Fayol & Weber's Scientific Principles of Organization is important to workplace?
From readings on Historical series in Manufacturing Sector, I came across works of Fredrick Taylor, Henri Fayol, Max Weber, who all focused on contributing to Science of Management.
Until now, it was not that clear to me, Why this was important?
Applying this helps organization scientifically to improve in revenue, create clarity in environment, profit and have higher employee well-being.
Firstly you can divide activities of a business units into chunks of smaller parts to create structure, Secondly, organizing management activities to make clear roles & responsibilities, which will increase output in revenue & profit. Thirdly, create decision-making & hierarchy.
This can be applied across sectors of industries
a. Schools
b. Colleges
c. Hospitals
d. Manufacturing-Industries
Taylor specifically invented newer ways of managing, which is mind-blowing!
He called it, “Scientific way of managing” Taylor focused from the tasks.
He applied at Bethlehem Steel Company, Bricklaying and came up with Science of Management.
Henri Fayol also invented newer ways of managing, impressive indeed!
Fayol focused mostly on management activities, differing with Taylor who focused on tasks. Max Weber suggested to organize management into layers.
Real-world application in Tamil Nadu, India
I think of an example from Pavoorchatram, a small trading town between Coutrallam & Tirunelveli, there are lumber mills, that can apply into cutting, polishing, men who are raised from rural backgrounds, who have strong sense of identity (caste) and wealth.
Processes in Pavoorchatram’s MKVK Lumbermill:
Cut Trees → Transport Logs → Scale Logs → Debark Logs → Sort Logs Cut Logs into Cants & Flitches → Re-saw Cants → Trim Edges → Dry Lumber, Smooth Lumber → Inspect → Ship into Market.
Here’s an easy way to make the lumber-mill better: Divide every processes, tasks and find best ways, apply standardization methods to all for employees.
Taylor’s Methods:
1) Science, not rule of thumb — study, analyze each task, to find the one best way to do it, this saves time
2) Harmony, not discord — managers & workers work together, acknowledge each other’s needs
3) Cooperation, not individualism — between managers & workers
4) Development of each person to their greatest efficiency — Select & Train workers (No favoritism)
3. So, What is Fayol's Method?
Fayol’s methods focused on organization of management, role of managers in planning, organizing, control.
1) Division of work
2) Delegation of authority and responsibilities
3) Discipline
4) Unity of commands
5) Unity of direction
6) Subordination or Interrelation between individual interests and common organizational goals
7) Compensation package or Remuneration,
8) Centralization And Decentralisation
9) Scalar chains
10) Order
11) Equity
12) Job guarantee or Stability of Employees
13) Initiatives
14) Team-Spirit or Esprit de corps
Overall, amazing works!
Deus Vult,
Gottfried
Fredrick Taylor, Max Weber & Henry Fayol are part of Classical Management Science.
The other authors are related.
2. Why Taylor, Fayol & Weber's Scientific Principles of Organization is important to workplace?
From readings on Historical series in Manufacturing Sector, I came across works of Fredrick Taylor, Henri Fayol, Max Weber, who all focused on contributing to Science of Management.
Until now, it was not that clear to me, Why this was important?
Applying this helps organization scientifically to improve in revenue, create clarity in environment, profit and have higher employee well-being.
Firstly you can divide activities of a business units into chunks of smaller parts to create structure, Secondly, organizing management activities to make clear roles & responsibilities, which will increase output in revenue & profit. Thirdly, create decision-making & hierarchy.
This can be applied across sectors of industries
a. Schools
b. Colleges
c. Hospitals
d. Manufacturing-Industries
Taylor specifically invented newer ways of managing, which is mind-blowing!
He called it, “Scientific way of managing” Taylor focused from the tasks.
He applied at Bethlehem Steel Company, Bricklaying and came up with Science of Management.
Henri Fayol also invented newer ways of managing, impressive indeed!
Fayol focused mostly on management activities, differing with Taylor who focused on tasks. Max Weber suggested to organize management into layers.
Real-world application in Tamil Nadu, India
I think of an example from Pavoorchatram, a small trading town between Coutrallam & Tirunelveli, there are lumber mills, that can apply into cutting, polishing, men who are raised from rural backgrounds, who have strong sense of identity (caste) and wealth.
Processes in Pavoorchatram’s MKVK Lumbermill:
Cut Trees → Transport Logs → Scale Logs → Debark Logs → Sort Logs Cut Logs into Cants & Flitches → Re-saw Cants → Trim Edges → Dry Lumber, Smooth Lumber → Inspect → Ship into Market.
Here’s an easy way to make the lumber-mill better: Divide every processes, tasks and find best ways, apply standardization methods to all for employees.
Taylor’s Methods:
1) Science, not rule of thumb — study, analyze each task, to find the one best way to do it, this saves time
2) Harmony, not discord — managers & workers work together, acknowledge each other’s needs
3) Cooperation, not individualism — between managers & workers
4) Development of each person to their greatest efficiency — Select & Train workers (No favoritism)
3. So, What is Fayol's Method?
Fayol’s methods focused on organization of management, role of managers in planning, organizing, control.
1) Division of work
2) Delegation of authority and responsibilities
3) Discipline
4) Unity of commands
5) Unity of direction
6) Subordination or Interrelation between individual interests and common organizational goals
7) Compensation package or Remuneration,
8) Centralization And Decentralisation
9) Scalar chains
10) Order
11) Equity
12) Job guarantee or Stability of Employees
13) Initiatives
14) Team-Spirit or Esprit de corps
Overall, amazing works!
Deus Vult,
Gottfried
March 9, 2022
An incredibly insightful book which is a case in point for reading influential books rather than reading about them. I knew of Taylor from the few sentences he gets in textbooks: creator of scientific management, dehumanized work with a stopwatch, proscribed tasks so exactly that he turned people into machines. When you read his book though, you realize he's much more sophisticated.
Taylor starts his short book with an unexpected comparison: President Roosevelt is now conserving our natural resources because Americans are watching them disappear (one of the delights of the book is they it transports you to a different age) but how much effort and life is wasted on inefficiencies that fade away without a trace. Nothing less than the fate of the nation is at stake: a golden future awaits us if we embrace the simple and logical idea that maximum prosperity is only possible with maximum productivity. American can even solve the labor unrest of the early 20th century by redesigning industrial processes that are so wasteful that improving them will increase wages and lower per unit costs.
The rest is dedicated to explaining scientific management and three specific successful examples. These are enjoyable for several reasons. One is the feel of being in the early 20th century that they give you, at one point Taylor explains that most people wear shoes now as opposed to when he was a child because the manufacturing cost has come down, he needs a building to store all the notebooks of data he's collected, in another anecdote labor leaders threaten to shoot him, the country was so different one of his laborers is building his house by hand after work. Taylor’s contempt for the intelligence of working people is at times appalling but that too is part of the flavor of the times and is always tempered by his desire to help them help themselves.
Most surprising though is how different Taylor the thinker is than his textbook caricature. He's interested in treating people as interchangeable machines. Instead he's trying to break down old incentive systems that didn't reward workers based on individual effort and replace them with systems where the worker’s incentive isn’t to work as slowly as possible without getting caught. He's trying to identify people particularly suited to each task and he never expects to increase output without increasing compensation. Scientific management is much more than how to use a stopwatch. Its strength is how well Taylor understands people and any process you design must take their incentives into account.
Taylor’s vision is improving the world through productivity. He believes in creating systems that make people so productive they are more valuable. He wants to align workers’ incentives with managements’, and he envisions management as the heroic search for the one best way of doing something rather than glorified babysitters. Given his influence and the prosperity productivity gains would unleash over the next 100 years Taylor may have had a point. The book is a classic for a reason and anyone working instead in creating productive system ought to read it.
Taylor starts his short book with an unexpected comparison: President Roosevelt is now conserving our natural resources because Americans are watching them disappear (one of the delights of the book is they it transports you to a different age) but how much effort and life is wasted on inefficiencies that fade away without a trace. Nothing less than the fate of the nation is at stake: a golden future awaits us if we embrace the simple and logical idea that maximum prosperity is only possible with maximum productivity. American can even solve the labor unrest of the early 20th century by redesigning industrial processes that are so wasteful that improving them will increase wages and lower per unit costs.
The rest is dedicated to explaining scientific management and three specific successful examples. These are enjoyable for several reasons. One is the feel of being in the early 20th century that they give you, at one point Taylor explains that most people wear shoes now as opposed to when he was a child because the manufacturing cost has come down, he needs a building to store all the notebooks of data he's collected, in another anecdote labor leaders threaten to shoot him, the country was so different one of his laborers is building his house by hand after work. Taylor’s contempt for the intelligence of working people is at times appalling but that too is part of the flavor of the times and is always tempered by his desire to help them help themselves.
Most surprising though is how different Taylor the thinker is than his textbook caricature. He's interested in treating people as interchangeable machines. Instead he's trying to break down old incentive systems that didn't reward workers based on individual effort and replace them with systems where the worker’s incentive isn’t to work as slowly as possible without getting caught. He's trying to identify people particularly suited to each task and he never expects to increase output without increasing compensation. Scientific management is much more than how to use a stopwatch. Its strength is how well Taylor understands people and any process you design must take their incentives into account.
Taylor’s vision is improving the world through productivity. He believes in creating systems that make people so productive they are more valuable. He wants to align workers’ incentives with managements’, and he envisions management as the heroic search for the one best way of doing something rather than glorified babysitters. Given his influence and the prosperity productivity gains would unleash over the next 100 years Taylor may have had a point. The book is a classic for a reason and anyone working instead in creating productive system ought to read it.
Read
June 2, 2023Bilimsel Yönetim İlkelerinin Özeti
Bilimsel Yönetimin İlkeleri, Frederick Winslow Taylor tarafından 1911 yılında yayınlanan bir monografidir. Taylor'ın bilimsel yöntem ve ilkelerin uygulanması yoluyla sanayi kuruluşlarında etkinlik ve verimliliğin nasıl artırılabileceğine ilişkin görüşlerini ortaya koymaktadır. Kitap üç bölümden oluşmaktadır: Giriş, Bölüm 1: Bilimsel Yönetimin Temelleri ve Bölüm 2: Bilimsel Yönetimin İlkeleri.
Giriş
Giriş bölümünde Taylor, ulusal kaynakların korunmasının, insan faaliyetlerindeki israf ve verimsizliğin ortadan kaldırılmasına bağlı olan daha büyük ulusal verimlilik sorununun yalnızca bir ön hazırlığı olduğunu savunmaktadır. Bu verimsizliğin çaresinin, sıra dışı ya da olağanüstü bir adam aramaktan ziyade sistematik yönetimde yattığını iddia etmektedir. Ayrıca en iyi yönetimin, açıkça tanımlanmış yasalar, kurallar ve ilkeler üzerine kurulu gerçek bir bilim olduğunu ileri sürer. Bilimsel yönetim ilkelerinin bireysel eylemlerden büyük şirketlere kadar her türlü insan faaliyetine uygulanabilir olduğunu ve doğru uygulandığında şaşırtıcı sonuçlar üretebileceğini kanıtlamayı amaçlamaktadır.
Bölüm 1: Bilimsel Yönetimin Temelleri
Bu bölümde Taylor, bilimsel yönetim ilkelerini açıklamaktadır. O zamanlar kullanılmakta olan en iyi yönetim sistemi olarak gördüğü "gayret ve teşvik" sistemini tanımlayarak başlar. Bu sistemde, yönetim daha iyi çalışma için teşvik vermekte ve çalışanlar da ellerinden gelen çabayı göstermektedir. Bununla birlikte, bu sistemin aşağıdaki gibi bazı dezavantajlarına işaret etmektedir:
- Farklı işçiler tarafından kullanılan yöntem ve araçlarda tekdüzelik ve standardizasyon eksikliği
- Çalışanların üretimlerini kısıtlama ve aşırı efordan kaçınma eğilimi
- Yönetim ve çalışanlar arasındaki düşmanlık ve güvensizlik
- Gereksiz hareketler ve kesintiler nedeniyle zaman ve enerji kaybı
Daha sonra bu sistemi kendi önerdiği bilimsel yönetim sistemi ile karşılaştırır:
- Bir işi yapmanın en iyi yolunu belirlemek ve standartlaştırmak için bilimsel yöntemlerin kullanılması
- Yönetim ve çalışanlar arasında görev ve sorumlulukların net bir şekilde paylaştırılması
- Çalışanların bilimsel olarak seçilmesi, eğitilmesi, öğretilmesi ve geliştirilmesi
- Çalışanların öngörülen yöntemleri takip etmelerini ve performansları karşılığında tam olarak ödüllendirilmelerini sağlamak için onlarla işbirliği yapmak
Sistemini, pik demir taşıma, tuğla örme, kürekle kazma, makine atölyesi işleri gibi çeşitli endüstriyel operasyonları yönetme konusundaki kendi deneyimlerinden çeşitli örneklerle açıklamaktadır. Sisteminin üretkenliği nasıl artırabileceğini, maliyetleri nasıl düşürebileceğini, kaliteyi nasıl geliştirebileceğini, güvenliği nasıl artırabileceğini ve hem yönetime hem de çalışanlara nasıl fayda sağlayabileceğini göstermektedir.
Bilimsel Yönetimin İlkeleri, Frederick Winslow Taylor tarafından 1911 yılında yayınlanan bir monografidir. Taylor'ın bilimsel yöntem ve ilkelerin uygulanması yoluyla sanayi kuruluşlarında etkinlik ve verimliliğin nasıl artırılabileceğine ilişkin görüşlerini ortaya koymaktadır. Kitap üç bölümden oluşmaktadır: Giriş, Bölüm 1: Bilimsel Yönetimin Temelleri ve Bölüm 2: Bilimsel Yönetimin İlkeleri.
Giriş
Giriş bölümünde Taylor, ulusal kaynakların korunmasının, insan faaliyetlerindeki israf ve verimsizliğin ortadan kaldırılmasına bağlı olan daha büyük ulusal verimlilik sorununun yalnızca bir ön hazırlığı olduğunu savunmaktadır. Bu verimsizliğin çaresinin, sıra dışı ya da olağanüstü bir adam aramaktan ziyade sistematik yönetimde yattığını iddia etmektedir. Ayrıca en iyi yönetimin, açıkça tanımlanmış yasalar, kurallar ve ilkeler üzerine kurulu gerçek bir bilim olduğunu ileri sürer. Bilimsel yönetim ilkelerinin bireysel eylemlerden büyük şirketlere kadar her türlü insan faaliyetine uygulanabilir olduğunu ve doğru uygulandığında şaşırtıcı sonuçlar üretebileceğini kanıtlamayı amaçlamaktadır.
Bölüm 1: Bilimsel Yönetimin Temelleri
Bu bölümde Taylor, bilimsel yönetim ilkelerini açıklamaktadır. O zamanlar kullanılmakta olan en iyi yönetim sistemi olarak gördüğü "gayret ve teşvik" sistemini tanımlayarak başlar. Bu sistemde, yönetim daha iyi çalışma için teşvik vermekte ve çalışanlar da ellerinden gelen çabayı göstermektedir. Bununla birlikte, bu sistemin aşağıdaki gibi bazı dezavantajlarına işaret etmektedir:
- Farklı işçiler tarafından kullanılan yöntem ve araçlarda tekdüzelik ve standardizasyon eksikliği
- Çalışanların üretimlerini kısıtlama ve aşırı efordan kaçınma eğilimi
- Yönetim ve çalışanlar arasındaki düşmanlık ve güvensizlik
- Gereksiz hareketler ve kesintiler nedeniyle zaman ve enerji kaybı
Daha sonra bu sistemi kendi önerdiği bilimsel yönetim sistemi ile karşılaştırır:
- Bir işi yapmanın en iyi yolunu belirlemek ve standartlaştırmak için bilimsel yöntemlerin kullanılması
- Yönetim ve çalışanlar arasında görev ve sorumlulukların net bir şekilde paylaştırılması
- Çalışanların bilimsel olarak seçilmesi, eğitilmesi, öğretilmesi ve geliştirilmesi
- Çalışanların öngörülen yöntemleri takip etmelerini ve performansları karşılığında tam olarak ödüllendirilmelerini sağlamak için onlarla işbirliği yapmak
Sistemini, pik demir taşıma, tuğla örme, kürekle kazma, makine atölyesi işleri gibi çeşitli endüstriyel operasyonları yönetme konusundaki kendi deneyimlerinden çeşitli örneklerle açıklamaktadır. Sisteminin üretkenliği nasıl artırabileceğini, maliyetleri nasıl düşürebileceğini, kaliteyi nasıl geliştirebileceğini, güvenliği nasıl artırabileceğini ve hem yönetime hem de çalışanlara nasıl fayda sağlayabileceğini göstermektedir.
December 27, 2020
Considered a classic in management thinking, although Taylor is credited as the father of "scientific management", his ideas were not leveraged in much in professional or academic "management thought" for most of the 20th century or the start of the 21st. However, "Taylorism", the method of analyzing work tasks mechanically, timing them, and then finding ways to re-engineer the process by 'optimizing' with respect to time-to-execute, may have some application now, with respect to automating warehousing and factories, so there may be some merit to reading the original paper as background-reading for those domains (but I really doubt it). Also, I believe I read that Soviet planners may have also leveraged some ideas from Taylorism ironically.
There are a couple of comments made by Taylor early on in the text which are clearly wrong, specifically, he states that if a scientific study is made of a factory floor, it will become evident there is one 'optimal' configurations you should array the floor to achieve maximal output and/or minimize time. This seems wrong. There are probably many different configurations for a given floor to achieve similar output/time processes for a given set of input-factors, and searching through these would be non-trivial.
Also, for all the pomp of declaring the process "scientific" there's not really much science, no system, not much with regards to testable statements, really the book should be re-titled "quantitative management", as the key innovation of Taylor generating data from his analysis. Strangely also, there's not much in way of equations in the tract either. The one exception is an example Taylor gives late in the book where he describes how the extracted 'law' for milling plant operations by characterizing certain metrics in algebra (which by coincidence has a "Cobb-Douglas" form, but is not actually Cobb-Douglas).
Sort of disappointing as a book of learning. For a historian in this field, this might be useful, but because there is so little technical material I don't think much of anything can be recovered from this text at this point. It's mostly a historical curiosity. Not recommended.
There are a couple of comments made by Taylor early on in the text which are clearly wrong, specifically, he states that if a scientific study is made of a factory floor, it will become evident there is one 'optimal' configurations you should array the floor to achieve maximal output and/or minimize time. This seems wrong. There are probably many different configurations for a given floor to achieve similar output/time processes for a given set of input-factors, and searching through these would be non-trivial.
Also, for all the pomp of declaring the process "scientific" there's not really much science, no system, not much with regards to testable statements, really the book should be re-titled "quantitative management", as the key innovation of Taylor generating data from his analysis. Strangely also, there's not much in way of equations in the tract either. The one exception is an example Taylor gives late in the book where he describes how the extracted 'law' for milling plant operations by characterizing certain metrics in algebra (which by coincidence has a "Cobb-Douglas" form, but is not actually Cobb-Douglas).
Sort of disappointing as a book of learning. For a historian in this field, this might be useful, but because there is so little technical material I don't think much of anything can be recovered from this text at this point. It's mostly a historical curiosity. Not recommended.
February 27, 2020
If you ever heard of Taylorism or to tailor something in a project work, this book (or more precise its author) is what coined the term. First published in 1911, this book shows us a world that has absolutely no compassion for workers and their rights. Stupid muscle is what you need, and that is what you get – not humans. If you can bare that zeitgeist, you get an interesting read. Most fascinating for me is how much of his ideas are ignored by the very same people constantly referring to his principles.
Taylor explains in his book how you can improve productivity when every single part of work is done in a way that improves the overall productivity, not the most efficient processing of that single task. He explains this with moving iron ore around and the necessary breaks that need to go along. Without them, the men get overworked too fast and the overall productivity sinks. (Compare that with all the micro-optimisations in our time and how everyone ignores the overall productivity)
If you want your workers to do more work, you need to let them participate in the gains of their productivity. In short: pay them more! He explains in detail how much more that should be and shows that above that income the prospect of making more money is no longer a motivation. His example for this point are the workers who go to another steel factory with the promise of higher payment but return because the organisation has not done their homework and the workers earn substantially less. (individual bonus systems for things you only can achieve as a team)
There are many more examples on how his scientific method works that are by now completely forgotten. What was saved into our times is the exact measurement of every single task we do. Combine that with a wrongly understood concept of productivity and we end up exactly where we are. I hope more of the people using Taylor as an example would read his book. It would save us all a lot of troubles.
Taylor explains in his book how you can improve productivity when every single part of work is done in a way that improves the overall productivity, not the most efficient processing of that single task. He explains this with moving iron ore around and the necessary breaks that need to go along. Without them, the men get overworked too fast and the overall productivity sinks. (Compare that with all the micro-optimisations in our time and how everyone ignores the overall productivity)
If you want your workers to do more work, you need to let them participate in the gains of their productivity. In short: pay them more! He explains in detail how much more that should be and shows that above that income the prospect of making more money is no longer a motivation. His example for this point are the workers who go to another steel factory with the promise of higher payment but return because the organisation has not done their homework and the workers earn substantially less. (individual bonus systems for things you only can achieve as a team)
There are many more examples on how his scientific method works that are by now completely forgotten. What was saved into our times is the exact measurement of every single task we do. Combine that with a wrongly understood concept of productivity and we end up exactly where we are. I hope more of the people using Taylor as an example would read his book. It would save us all a lot of troubles.
June 4, 2025
Aunque la teoría de Taylor suena interesante y plantea una forma de hacer que tanto patrones como obreros se beneficien, en la práctica se nota que el enfoque está completamente cargado hacia el lado del patrón.
Taylor dice que los obreros deben ser más productivos, más eficientes, más obedientes… pero nunca exige lo mismo del patrón. La responsabilidad de que todo funcione parece recaer siempre en quienes más necesitan el trabajo. Entiendo que, el escritor sabía (para la época) que los empleados no eran los que iban a pagar su publicación en la editorial. Como me dijo un amigo “quien paga, pone la música”.
Incluso cuando habla de desocupación o desigualdad, Taylor culpa al obrero por temerle al cambio, y defiende su sistema sin cuestionar si los patrones realmente van a compartir esos beneficios que dice que existen.
Siento que, al igual que en algunas teorías como el socialismo de Marx, la idea puede sonar chévere sobre el papel, pero cuando entra al sistema real (donde el poder lo tiene uno solo), muchas veces termina beneficiando al que ya está arriba.
Taylor escribe desde una posición cómoda dentro del sistema, así que es lógico que nunca le lance directamente al patrón. Por eso, aunque entendí su propuesta, no estoy de acuerdo con que su enfoque sea justo, porque le exige todo al obrero y muy poco al que de verdad tiene el poder para cambiar las condiciones laborales.
Taylor dice que los obreros deben ser más productivos, más eficientes, más obedientes… pero nunca exige lo mismo del patrón. La responsabilidad de que todo funcione parece recaer siempre en quienes más necesitan el trabajo. Entiendo que, el escritor sabía (para la época) que los empleados no eran los que iban a pagar su publicación en la editorial. Como me dijo un amigo “quien paga, pone la música”.
Incluso cuando habla de desocupación o desigualdad, Taylor culpa al obrero por temerle al cambio, y defiende su sistema sin cuestionar si los patrones realmente van a compartir esos beneficios que dice que existen.
Siento que, al igual que en algunas teorías como el socialismo de Marx, la idea puede sonar chévere sobre el papel, pero cuando entra al sistema real (donde el poder lo tiene uno solo), muchas veces termina beneficiando al que ya está arriba.
Taylor escribe desde una posición cómoda dentro del sistema, así que es lógico que nunca le lance directamente al patrón. Por eso, aunque entendí su propuesta, no estoy de acuerdo con que su enfoque sea justo, porque le exige todo al obrero y muy poco al que de verdad tiene el poder para cambiar las condiciones laborales.
June 18, 2024
The problems with Frederick Winslow Taylor's ideas are well known: poor conception of human nature regarding workers and what motivates them, etc. That is, he assumed workers are passive, prone to avoid work unless motivated by wages, basically stupid and need close supervision by managers and staff. However, there are good things in Taylor's approach.
For example, Taylor warned against abandoning workers to their own means of discovering how to do a job. I have had this happen to me in both government administration and higher education, and the resulting stress could have been avoided. Specifically, Taylor noted that training is critical when introducing new technologies and methods of doing work. He also noted the need for workers to take breaks, to be rewarded as soon as possible for performance, and for management to understand that introducing change takes time to implement and realize the benefits (anticipating the learning curve), among others. Scientific study of work can produce better work conditions.
As such, it is a book worth reading for students and scholars of organizational theory and behavior, but it should be read with both an open mind and a critical eye.
For example, Taylor warned against abandoning workers to their own means of discovering how to do a job. I have had this happen to me in both government administration and higher education, and the resulting stress could have been avoided. Specifically, Taylor noted that training is critical when introducing new technologies and methods of doing work. He also noted the need for workers to take breaks, to be rewarded as soon as possible for performance, and for management to understand that introducing change takes time to implement and realize the benefits (anticipating the learning curve), among others. Scientific study of work can produce better work conditions.
As such, it is a book worth reading for students and scholars of organizational theory and behavior, but it should be read with both an open mind and a critical eye.
October 19, 2017
A couple of years ago I read a book about Ritz-Carlton hotel group. At the time I was amazed at how systematically they select, train, and evaluate staff performance. After reading this work, it is clear to me where the principles are coming from. Only Taylor applied scientific method to manual work, while Ritz-Carlton applied it to service operations.
They are identical:
1) Select people with the highest abilities for a given task. The hotel company uses personality tests to identify the most suitable candidates for a given position.
2) Analyze the task. Make the process as efficient as possible. Institute standards.
3) Set up management to direct work and measure performance.
4) Link salary to individual performance.
5) Reward workers for innovative ideas.
etc.
If we look around us, we can clearly see the same rules applied to other industries, be it manufacturing or service industry. There is a lot of opposition against rigid structures these days, but what is an alternative?
They are identical:
1) Select people with the highest abilities for a given task. The hotel company uses personality tests to identify the most suitable candidates for a given position.
2) Analyze the task. Make the process as efficient as possible. Institute standards.
3) Set up management to direct work and measure performance.
4) Link salary to individual performance.
5) Reward workers for innovative ideas.
etc.
If we look around us, we can clearly see the same rules applied to other industries, be it manufacturing or service industry. There is a lot of opposition against rigid structures these days, but what is an alternative?
June 19, 2022
After a reference to this in the book Never Stop Learning: Stay Relevant, Reinvent Yourself, and Thrive, I decided to read it and found the Project Gutenberg version. Much of what I'd heard *about* "scientific management" misses a lot of what Taylor set out to do. As Taylor calls out at the end of the paper, misapplying the ideas -- because of lack of understanding of the principles -- could lead to them being used to make life worse for people rather than better. Which is something that seems to happen with pretty much every process improvement idea, Agile being one.
While the style of the writing is dated, and some of his descriptions are a but cringe worthy in retrospect, if you find your self talking about Taylor's, even in passing, it's worth skimming through the actual source rather than relying on general impressions.
While the style of the writing is dated, and some of his descriptions are a but cringe worthy in retrospect, if you find your self talking about Taylor's, even in passing, it's worth skimming through the actual source rather than relying on general impressions.
August 21, 2024
I used his work for my thesis because it is one of the first works about process improvements in industry. That being said, I was unable to put the book down in the way that it's hard to avert your eyes from a car crash. He proposed paying workers the maximum value possible, which seems modern. That is until he says things like the best laborers should be stupid like oxen and couldn't possibly have the thinking capabilities of more elite men. He recommends that more educated men stand over the dullard laborers with checklists each day and tell them exactly when to pick up and put down pig iron and when to rest. He argues that laborers do not have the mental capacity to do this optimally and should be talked to roughly because they are too stupid to understand civilized logic. He also talks about how soldering (think quiet quitting) is the route of the biggest evil in business. This book now lives in my brain rent-free because I am fascinated by what this guy would think about the modern day.
January 4, 2021
This book was an odd duck. But here Taylor is able to apply observation, economics, and systems thinking in order to offer a way to manage workers and industry for the benefit of both.
It's kind of a dry read and somewhat pejorative when it comes to the faux conversations between all, but that is to be expected.
He does suggest many times that it is bad management to exploit workers, to not reward individual labor and to not pay well. He is often talking about pay increases of 30-60% -- unheard of in today's employment environment... but then again in today's world work has become overmanaged as employers often try to squeeze out every bit from their employees.
This book is kind of like looking through a telescope to a far away place at the edge of our employment milieu and seeing how very different things used to be. For that, I appreciate it greatly. Reading this book though was pretty dry.
It's kind of a dry read and somewhat pejorative when it comes to the faux conversations between all, but that is to be expected.
He does suggest many times that it is bad management to exploit workers, to not reward individual labor and to not pay well. He is often talking about pay increases of 30-60% -- unheard of in today's employment environment... but then again in today's world work has become overmanaged as employers often try to squeeze out every bit from their employees.
This book is kind of like looking through a telescope to a far away place at the edge of our employment milieu and seeing how very different things used to be. For that, I appreciate it greatly. Reading this book though was pretty dry.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 110 reviews