Scientific management theories do not support the workforce diversity required for today’s organizations

“Scientific management theories do not support the workforce diversity required for today’s organizations”.

 

Scientific management did result in greater professionalism on the part of both managers and workers. The benefits of precise measurement, research and planning were widely acknowledged. At the same time, the introduction of scientific management was not without its problems.

 

Scientific management is a method of management theory which defines changes to improve labor productivity. It had its origins in a movement to better the lot of the worker. It was developed at a time when working conditions had reached an all-time low and industrial unrest was becoming a major issue, especially in the US. A group of American engineers led by Frederick Winslow Taylor argued that the answer was to pay workers according to productivity while at the same time improving working conditions so as to make maximum productivity possible. In an efficient workplace, it was argued that each worker could work to his or her full potential, and be rewarded accordingly.

 

However, with the development scientific management theory, diversity has been compromised. Workforce diversity is not a passing fad but an important issue to be addressed. (1994) posits three paradigms for defining diversity: 1. the Golden Rule, 2. Right the Wrongs, and 3. Value all differences. In the golden rule paradigm diversity is a matter of individual responsibility and morality. Diversity means do unto others as you would have them do unto you. In the “right the wrong” paradigm specific groups in the organization is viewed as having been systematically disadvantaged, with the aim of a diversity effort to correct injustices to groups who were selectively disadvantaged in the past. Diversity means establishing equality and justice for the target groups. In the “Value the Differences” paradigm individuals work toward understanding and interacting effectively with other organizational members. All three paradigms aim to create high performing organizations through valuing and using all the talents of the different groups in the organization.

Scientific management does not support workforce diversity. The application of the theory has been criticized as ignoring the individual differences. The most efficient way of working for one person may be inefficient for another. It has also ignores the fact that economic interests of every individual worker and management differ from one another and they are motivated in working for different reasons.

Proponents of workforce diversity assert that diversity offers organizations a number of benefits (1997). For example, it has been suggested that increasing the diversity of an organization’s workforce expands the breadth of perspectives and ideas available to the organization in making decisions. This resource, if properly used, has the potential to improve the quality of decisions made in that organization (1991).

Another potential benefit is that recruiting employees from a wider range of age and ethnicity gives the firm a larger talent pool in which to search, increasing the probability of acquiring higher skilled employees. Demographers have predicted that during the 1990s, people of color, white women, and immigrants will account for 85 percent of new growth in the U.S. labor force (1991) and that an older workforce is expected as the baby-boom generation ages (1990). These trends will make it increasingly difficult for organizations of all sizes to acquire a traditionally homogeneous workforce with the most advantageous skills.

 

Further, it is pointed out that more and more companies have been expanding their business operations internationally, and that businesses with a diverse workforce will have “greater success in marketing to foreign and ethnic minority communities” (1991). A diverse workforce may enhance the adaptive capacity of a firm to compete in the global marketplace (1997).

 

In the private sector, employers increasingly recognize that in the global marketplace, a diverse workforce can provide a competitive edge. The U.S. workforce, with all its heterogeneity, provides many potential employees who know the language, culture and values of a country in which an employer might want to do business. Furthermore, diversity provides a richness of ideas and variety of views a fertile growing medium for creativity.  In short, diversity is essential to corporate growth, the health of the bottom line and, ultimately survival. Diversity means major changes in organizational values and methods

 

However, and his colleagues, especially and the husband-and-wife team of believed that they were acting in the best interests of the workers when they have insisted on their scientific theory. (1947) himself was firmly convinced that “Scientifically managed workplaces would be more attractive to workers, not only for their higher wages but for the security they offered”. And argued: “Poor management usually means poor wages. Good management means good wages, for the high efficiency demanded by good management can only be maintained by such wages as will attract good men and induce them to work at their highest efficiency.” (2005)

 

For and his colleagues, the key to more efficient management and worker prosperity both lay in science. This was happening in the midst of the scientific revolution, at a time when statement that “science begins with measurement” was regarded as almost a holy truth (2005). Properly applied, science could show the best and most efficient way of getting work done. And, once the ‘one best way’ had been discovered, it would be impossible for either side to argue or object in the face of scientific proof. Labor unrest would wither away. Companies would profit, and workers would see their wages and prosperity increase.

However, instead of withering away labor unrest, scientific management led to an increase in labor unrest. Indeed, many union leaders had no objection to practices that gave their workers more security and higher wages.

 

In some ways, scientific management made an enormous impact on American industry, government, and nonprofit organizations. While a group of notorious engineers active at the turn of the century provided a set of methods and metaphors to make organizational practices more “systematic” and ” scientific,” an equally prominent group of social and political reformers known as the Progressives extended the same set of principles to education, the government, and culture (1962; 1964; 1991). Organizational studies has come to accept that our main theories — including scientific management — contain ideological as well as technical considerations (1974; 1992;1993; 1994; 1995),

 

Scientific management argued that organizations and people in organizations worked, or were supposed to work, like machines (1986;1986; 19881995b), European modernism insisted on the aesthetic potential of efficiency, precision, simplicity, regularity, and functionality. Scientific management stressed the careful selection of the most adequate worker for each task. Scientific management has been portrayed as a paradigm of reckless deskilling, impersonal production, and mediocre quality (1974; 1979; 1984; 1986; 1991; 1995b).

 

According to literatures, the cornerstone of scientific management is the prosperity of the employer and employee. The principal object of management should be to secure the maximum prosperity for the employer, coupled with the maximum prosperity for each employee (1947). wants management to take on new responsibilities. The principles of scientific management, as developed by , had included some changes. First, a science for each element of a man’s work has been developed which replaces the old role of thumb method. In addition, staffing has also been changed in which people are scientifically selected and then train, teach, and develop the workman instead of having people choose his own work and trained himself as best as he could as been practiced traditionally. Moreover, management should heartily cooperate with the men so as to insure all of the work being done in accordance with the principles of the science which has been developed. Furthermore, there is an almost equal division of the work and the responsibility between the management and the workmen. The management take over all work for which they are better fitted than the workmen, while in the past almost all of the work and the greater part of the responsibility were thrown upon the men (1947).

 

The most prominent single element in modern scientific management is the task idea. The work of every workman is fully planned out by the management at least one day in advance, and each man receives in most cases complete written instructions, describing in detail the task which he is to accomplish, as well as the means to be used in doing the work. And the work planned in advance in this way constitutes a task which is to be solved, as explained above, not by the workman alone, but in almost all cases by the joint effort of the workman and the management. This task specifies not only what is to be done but how it is to be done and the exact time allowed for doing it. And whenever the workman succeeds in doing his task right, and within the time limit specified, he receives an addition of from 30 to 100 percent to his ordinary wages. These tasks are carefully planned, so that both good and careful work are called for in their performance, but it should be distinctly understood that in no case is the workman called upon to work at a pace which would be injurious to his health. The task is always so regulated that the man who is well suited to his job will thrive while working at this rate during a long term of years and grow happier and more prosperous, instead of being overworked. Scientific management consists very largely in preparing for and carrying out these tasks. (1947)

Critics of scientific management accuse Taylor of engineering the humanity out of work. Taylor’s glowing descriptions of the humanity of scientific management often did not match the reality of what management actually practiced. Many managers were quick to implement the rigid procedures and standards that were the basis for scientific management, but somehow never got around to implementing the raises and bonuses when the workers increased production. Taylor can take some of the blame for this, because in the bulk of his works he explains the science behind scientific management very eloquently, but gives the human relations side short shrift.

Taylor was also somewhat disingenuous when he talked about “the joint effort of the workers and the management,” since all his descriptions of the implementation of scientific management involve managers and engineers watching, timing, and overseeing the workers. Although Taylor pays lip service to worker input, under Taylor’s version there is never any real consultation between workers and management. Fortunately, The Taylor Society recognized the need for change.

There was a strong criticism of the theory that treats human beings like machines and assumes that workers are satisfied by money alone.

Scientific management describes the use of such tools as time study, standardization of tools and tasks, and bonuses for performance in industry to improve the efficiency of business.  Although scientific management and its tools had a turbulent history, it is indisputable that the application of many of its tenets was indispensable in industry as a starting point for business improvements

 

Managers should take full responsibility for the planning of work and should use scientific methods to specify precisely how the job should be done to achieve the maximum efficiency. Managers should select the most appropriate person for the job, train them to do the job efficiently, and monitor their performance to ensure conformity to the specification. Scientific management is credited with increasing productivity enormously, but only at the cost of deskilling many areas of work. The boring, repetitive, and alienating nature of the jobs created using scientific management methods causes demotivation in staff and can lead to an extreme emphasis on pay rates as the primary form of motivation.

 

In connection with this, workplace diversity will be least beneficial in organizations that employ routine technology. Indeed, diversity may sometimes be detrimental to efficiency: decision-making will be more difficult because of differences in perspectives, employees may become dissatisfied and frustrated because of limited involvement in the labor process, miscommunication may occur more frequently, and administrative cost would increase because of the need to meet diverse needs (1991).

Routine Technology is typically employed by organizations that operate in relatively stable environments, where the factors of production are in abundant supply, consumer needs and preferences are stable, and public policies are predictable. Such organizations usually adopt functional designs, with centralized decision-making, high degree of dependence on written rules, technical specialists, and repetition of established procedure.

Organizations in this cell have low variability in terms of the exceptions or unexpected tasks that they face. And, the tasks they have can be accomplished through an established procedure or program. Typically, standardized solutions exist for the tasks at hand, and personnel are simply trained and expected to follow the procedure. Even in the case of product or process improvement the path to follow is logically deducible.

 

Valuing diversity means viewing people as having equal rights while being different” (1993). Therefore, diversity in the workplace “is about recognizing, valuing, and managing people’s differences” (1993) and about sharing power and communicating. Workplace diversity focuses on “empowering people of all kinds to develop and contribute their own unique talents to solving our business problems” rather than having employees “give up their own ethnic, gender, or individual identities to be successful in corporate America” (1993).

 

The last decade has seen increased globalization of businesses. At the same time the national workforce in many countries has diversified (Adler, 1997). As a result of dealing with people from many different backgrounds both internationally and domestically on a daily basis, companies have to develop policies and processes that can minimize misunderstanding and harness the potential benefits of diversity.

The research suggests that diversity can improve performance (2000). Particularly, diverse teams can be more productive than homogeneous teams (2000). Team members bring their own backgrounds and personalities to the task at hand. Their views are also influenced by their individual personalities, their professional backgrounds, and their cultural backgrounds. (2005) found that educational diversity on a team influences the range and depth of information use positively; whereas it may influence the integration of information negatively. Research shows that successful teams do not merely draw on the individual contributions of their members but are able to create a new synergy (2002; 1999) which (1992) calls “transactional culture”. Out of the diversity, teams form a new common culture (2000).

However, scientific management is not concern with people. It sets standards that people should be done in a specific time and having the thought that people are only motivated with money. However, there other reasons which people are considering in having their jobs. Thus scientific management does not conform to the workforce diversity in which aims to empower workers and respect humanity and equality especially with the growing globalization.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com