Research Topics: Scientific Management Theory

SAMPLE Module 1 Assignment

1 Masters in Training and Human Resource Management SAMPLE Module 1 Assignment QUESTION: “It is now time that all employees took full responsibility for their own learning and development”. Evaluate this statement in the light of your knowledge of the ways in which people learn. ANSWER: In tackling this question a number of approaches could be utilised. One could argue for example that people should take responsibility on the grounds that it is necessary for the employee to maintain their employability ( 1990). Alternatively it could be argued this is a more liberal or humanistic approach. However this assignment attempts to evaluate whether giving, or allowing the learner to take responsibility, results in effective learning. The analysis will be undertaken with reference to behaviourist, cognitive, experiential and Symbolic Interactionist theories of learning. In approaching the question it is first necessary to assess why, and indeed if, employees should now be responsible for their own learning and development. This will be done through an analysis of the factors that prevented the exercise of employee responsibility, namely Scientific Management and behaviourist learning paradigms. The analysis will then go on to examine changes in industry and the impact these have had on the nature of work paradigms and training paradigms. The next section proceeds to an examination of management development and how individuals may, or indeed are forced to, take responsibility for their learning and development This is followed by a consideration of two practical employee approaches, competence-based learning and open learning approaches. Finally we turn to a consideration of how social factors may impact on the ability for self-directedness and how this may affect the individual’s ability to learn. In addressing the question of why all employees should now be responsible for their own learning and development it is necessary briefly to examine the backdrop against which this change has taken place. This will be done through an examination of Scientific Management and behaviourist learning theory and will show how these militated against individuals taking responsibility for their own learning and development. One of the characteristics of early forms of mass production was the attempt by management to exercise greater control over the work process.  in his 2 book Scientific Management argued that while workers retained ownership of production skills they could also determine the rate and price at which work was done. In order for management to regain control of production, he suggested, it was necessary to redefine the very nature of the work process itself. This he suggested should be done by the gathering up of craft skills and their redistribution in the form of simplified repetitive tasks to the workforce (). By reappropriating ownership of the skills of production from the workers, management had also wrested control of the means of developing and defining these skills thus reducing the extent to which workers could exercise developmental and learning self-direction ( 1997). The subordination of shop floor workers was further psychologically reinforced by the workers’ lack of substantive involvement in the work processes. In this regard recent research shows that alienation of the individual from the work process and thus a reduction in the capacity for occupational self-direction also leads to lack of general self-direction in personal orientation and a tendency to submit more willingly to authority (1990). It is clear from the preceding paragraphs that control of the process of production was clearly premised on the ownership of knowledge and substantive involvement in the production process. The task of the trainer under these circumstances was the improvement of workers’ manual dexterity to perform a limited range of simple manual tasks. Thus a theoretical approach which dealt with the imparting of basic manual skills through behaviour modification, such as that proposed by the behaviourist psychology, was all that was required ( 1998:). The behaviour modification techniques employed by trainers under systems of Scientific Management had their origins in the work of the American psychologist ( 1998:). ’s work was based on the earlier work of Ivan Pavlov who established that all organisms could be conditioned to produce a predictable response in the presence of given stimuli (1988). While maintaining, like , that all learning should be understood in terms of observable phenomena suggested that rather than acting in response to the environment organisms act on their environment to obtain reinforcing consequences.  showed that through the appropriate application of reinforcement an organism’s natural behaviour could be guided towards a new desired behaviour. By using behavioural shaping techniques trainers were thus able to build on and adapt the workers’ innate physical skills to the efficient performance of the simple physical tasks involved in the work process ( 1988). From the preceding paragraphs a clear analogy emerges between Scientific Management and its underpinning behaviourist training paradigm. On the one hand Scientific Management seeks to subordinate individual autonomy to the process of production. While on the other hand behaviourist psychological theory describes individuals, not as autonomous self-directed beings, but as organisms at the mercy of their environment and those who seek to manipulate it ( 1988). In brief summary both the organising principles of Scientific Management and the behaviourist theory, which underpinned its perpetuation, located the individual in a 3 position of passivity incapable of exercising control or self-direction over development of their skills, in particular, and their environment in general. Having briefly considered the historical context of workplace organisation it is important to examine the reasons why or indeed if, employees should ‘now’ be responsible for their own learning and development. This will be done through an examination of changes in the industrial paradigm and how these have lead to changes in the nature of work and the nature of training. The changes that have taken place in markets over the last thirty years towards more differentiated quality-oriented production have had dramatic effects on the organisation of work. In order to flexibly respond to the rapidly changing demands of the market organisations have been forced to radically re-think the way in which work is organised (). In adjusting to these changes organisations came to realise that financial incentives alone were perhaps less important than previously thought and that in fact substantive improvements in the nature of work itself were perhaps a more powerful motivating factor (). Studies carried out by Elton Mayo at the Hawthorne company in the late twenties revealed that substantial gains in productivity could be made by allowing a degree of worker interaction and selfdirection over work processes ( 1989). It was on this background that tentative steps were made by some companies to broaden the range of skills deployed by workers in their work processes and to introduce more participative working practices through the establishment of quality circles and group working ( ). In this regard workers are increasingly being called upon to exercise their problem solving abilities in the day to day execution of their jobs ( ). Of course it should not be concluded from these preceding paragraphs that we have entered a halcyon age where all workers are involved in substantively complex and intellectually challenging work situations. Indeed   (1995), amongst others, has suggested that in many respects new flexible forms of working and organisation may be ill-suited to some forms of production. Child suggests that organisational form is very much contingent on a number of variables including size, production technology and stability of markets. Thus, for example, attempts to introduce flexible working practices into a large, low technology company which has a constant market demand for the single product it produces may in fact be counter-productive to its efficient operation (1995). While Childs’ theory would seem to suggest that care should be taken before making sweeping generalisations about the organisational context of modern industry the majority of organisations have, to a greater or lesser extent, started to adopt more participative working practices and to encourage individual problem solving in the workplace. The concerns of the trainer lie thus now to a lesser extent in the transmission of an objective body of skills and more in the development of the learner’s intellectual flexibility in the solving of everyday work problems (1998). Having examined changes in the nature of work it is perhaps useful to look at the training paradigm that underlies the demands of the new workplace. In this section we give a brief overview of what cognitive approaches are and then move onto a more 4 detailed discussion of two of the most important theorists in this field and examine how their theories are being applied in the context of recent organisational change. In examining cognitive approaches we see a deliberate attempt to try an account for learning in terms of changes in individuals’ internal representations of their environments through the study of ‘perception, memory, concept formation, language, symbolisation, problem-solving and reasoning’ (1998). Such an approach would seem to posit that the development of problem-solving is not concerned with the acquisition of chunks of knowledge, as is suggested by behaviourist approaches, but in facilitating individuals in their refinement of their mental representations of the problem situation (1998). It would thus appear that cognitive approaches to learning and development are very much concerned with the self-constructed nature of knowledge and learner ownership of the learning process. From these introductory remarks we now turn to focus on the work of two cognitive theorists, , who have impacted on the development of tools for the development of cognitive functioning. In evaluating these two approaches we see how these theories and their practical applications have necessitated the individual taking responsibility for the learning process in order to develop cognitive functioning. In considering the first of these two approaches, namely that of  we see an attempt to explain cognitive functioning in terms of individuals interaction with their environment. Piaget argued that all individuals possess a set of mental representations of their world and that as the individual acts on the world these schemata are subject to alteration or change. Where new experiences could be understood in the light of existing knowledge these experiences were assimilated into the existing schemata. If however the experience was too incongruent with the individuals existing schemata a change took place in the representations, this Piaget called accommodation. Furthermore Piaget saw this process as ongoing in the development of children marked by the increasing ability of the child to make abstract conceptions of the world around them ( 1995).  work has given us a number of useful injunctions that might be applied to the training of employees required to undertake problem solving. His theories of assimilation and accommodation would suggest that learning best takes place through individual self-discovery where individuals are enabled, for example via computerbased simulation systems, to explore the area they wish to learn about through selfdirected problem solving (Wood 1994). In maintaining consistency with Piagetian theory these systems should also facilitate the integration of new knowledge with existing knowledge. Furthermore such systems, in accordance with Piagetian developmental theory should aim to lead learners towards the acquisition of abstract knowledge through use of concrete learning examples generated by their own discovery ( 1988). While Piagetian theory would seem to suggest that learning takes place exclusively through the development of internal cognitive functioning the work of (1978) ascribes far greater importance to the role of social interaction in the learning process. 5 Fundamental to Vygotskian thought is that all individuals possess two levels of development, that which is achievable independently and that which can be achieved through expert or peer assistance. He called the gap between these two levels the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). Vygotsky argued that through the establishment of collaborative problem solving exercises teachers could assist learners in achieving their potential development level, which in time would be internalised into their cognitive functioning to become their actual developmental level. In practice Vygotskian theories have given a powerful illustration of how social interaction can assist learners to move towards a higher state of development using their own objective circumstances as the basis for learning. (1987), in his research on the training of small business people to become more financially strategic, showed how this approach might be used. Brotherton argues that by creating analogies between the participants’ everyday experience and the need to be financially strategic the trainers were able to create a context for the developmental process (read ZPD). Having jointly created this ZPD the trainers were then able to lead the participants through to a better understanding of what the abstract concept of financial mangement meant for them. By utilising individual experience Brotherton argues that participants are made responsible for their own learning and gain ownership of the means for its resolution (1998). In concluding this section we can clearly see that workers under new forms of organisation are in a position of taking limited responsibility for their learning and development. To the extent that job roles have been broadened and problem-solving skills are being increasingly called upon a degree of self-direction would seem conducive to the intellectual functioning of the employee (1990). This would not however suggest that workers are in a position to take full control for their learning and development. Organisations do, after all, have certain organisational goals, which will limit the extent to which all employees may exercise self-direction (1996b). These limitations would also seem to be reflected in the new cognitive learning paradigms that have emerged recently. While cognitive theories would seem to posit a more central position for the learner in developing problem-solving skills they are more concerned with facilitating the learner’s perception of the problem situation than necessitating the learner taking responsibility. Although as we have seen from the work of Brotherton, Vygotskian theory posits that learner ownership of the problem-solving process would seem to be accorded at least equal status with the role of the teacher in the development process. Having examined the historical shifts in organisational paradigm and the general theoretical changes in learning theory concomitant on this, the focus of the argument now turns to a specific consideration of recent approaches to management development. In this section it will be argued that the changing nature of management competence, concomitant on the changes in production paradigms, have in fact necessitated managers taking responsibility for their own learning and development. This has been due to the fact that management development can now primarily be seen in terms of the adaptation 6 of individuals to their environment. Such adaptive processes are in fact best served by experiential methods which place the starting point for learning as lying in the experience of individuals themselves. While the majority of literature on employee development in the UK and USA has focused on management development ( ) the discussion will be broadened to the development of other employees later on in the paper. The following section on management development provides a brief account of the changing nature of management competence and proceeds to analyse three contemporary learner-centred approaches and the extent to which these may allow effective learning to take place. The changes in patterns of work, as outlined in the earlier section of the assignment, have also had dramatic effects on the nature of management competency. While even under systems of Scientific Management management had a wider remit of competence and responsibility, their position and status was still relatively sharply defined by the rigidity of organisational structure (1996). Within such traditional hierarchical organisational forms management competencies were seen in terms of ensuring quotas were met, organising, defining roles and tasks and the issuing of instructions (1989). While these bureaucratic forms of organisation and management seemed to work well where demand was predictable and stable, their inability to respond flexibly to more market-oriented production lead to a degree of loosening of traditional notions of hierarchy (Perrow 1989). With no hierarchy to define their job or legitimise their position within the modern flexible organisation the manager’s role became far more nebulous and vague. Management theorists reflect this state of affairs in their descriptions of the new job roles of the manager.  (1988) argues a manager’s job roles are now essentially chaotic and fragmented. He suggests that managerial functions can be categorised in the following way: in terms of interpersonal roles liasing with customers, authorities and peers in their outside environment; as a monitor of information relevant to his department or company; as an initiator and developer of ideas; as a problem-solver and allocator of scarce resources within the organisation. Even this list is not exhaustive. The question that must thus be asked is if the skills needed for those functions are “teachable” or are they only learnt through the interpretation and utilisation of experience? Much contemporary thought on management development would seem to suggest that the latter is probably the case.  (1989) argues that the failure of past, and to a greater or lesser extent present, management development has been to place too much emphasis on formal development methods. He argues that the overuse of methods such as lectures, case studies and simulation exercises divorces development processes from the frenetic reality of the modern manager’s job ( 1989). Mumford also criticises the tendency of those involved in traditional management development for their assumptions that management consists of a set of generalisable skills capable of easy transfer back to the work place. Current research suggests they are not and that skills are, in fact, closely tied to the context in which they are first learnt (). If this is the case, he continues, management development should be very much concerned with the contextual particularities of the manager’s job. 7 Conversely, Mumford also criticises the inefficiency of informal development processes for ignoring the fact that very few learners are able to efficiently extrapolate the lessons that might be learnt from their informal experiences. Ultimately Mumford proposes an experiential theory of learning which seeks to facilitate the extraction of abstract knowledge from the experience of the individual (1989). In analysing how this approach might theoretically and practically work the focus now shifts to a more detailed discussion of experiential theories of learning and their role in developing the manager in the light of the changes to the manager’s role discussed earlier. This will be attempted through an examination of the work of , the principles of Andragogy and the Action Learning of   In the work of  (1998) we see a deliberate attempt to analyse learning in terms of individuals’ adaptation to their environment which would appear to be in line with the demands of  model.  believes this process takes place through the continuous process of individuals having experiences, reflecting upon these, conceptualising knowledge from the experience and the application of knowledge to new situations. In this regard  theory bears striking similarities to  (1995) developmental model. , however, does not believe development to be a wholly internal process but a transactional process “whereby individual experience can alter external circumstances and visa versa” ( 1998:). This would seem to suggest that the epistemological root of knowledge is, in fact, in the interaction of individuals with their environment. Teacher’s may also have a role here in mediating the process of transaction, by inputting new knowledge or helping individuals to avoid defective problem-solving strategies ( 1998). Kolb would not only seem to provide a theoretical basis for assumptions on the nature of management learning but maintain that the unity of experience with abstract knowledge is the very root of adaptive knowledge itself. Though arguably more concerned with providing injunctions of good practice rather than providing a theoretical base for learner-centred development Andragogy nevertheless seems to echo many of the concerns of Mumford’s model of management development by locating learning firmly in the experience and responsibility of the learner. Whereas KoIb develops a theoretical model for experiential learning Andragogy manifests a more methodological approach to learning and development. In Andragogy we see a specific recognition of the self-directed orientation of adults, the role that their life experience may play in the learning process and how this experience may be employed in the learning of new life skills (1995). The assumptions that Andragogy makes specifically about the self-directed nature of adulthood in turn impact on the form that learning takes. Therefore, in establishing an Andragogical learning programme responsibility for the diagnosis of learning needs, course planning and content and evaluation reside to a large degree in the learners themselves ( 1998). It is easy to see why such an approach would seem attractive in the light of recent 8 developments in management learning but what does Andragogy offer us a from a learning perspective? While perhaps lacking the theoretical rigour of  approach Andragogy’s emphasis on the primacy of learner needs in the learning process would seem to have important ramifications for the learning process. Brundage and  (1995) point to the fact that individuals may learn better in adult learning situations when they have formulated their own learning objectives and when the learning process is conducive to the raising of self-esteem. In this respect the work of Huam and Jewson (1995) suggests that the maintenance of learner self-esteem and the framing of learning within the learner’s own life context promotes a selfdirected attitude to further learning. This would seem to be of particular importance in respect of the continuous ongoing adaptive approach to management development that Mumford’s model proposes. Interestingly, in the light of our question, Andragogy also raises some general issues about the nature of learner responsibility in the learning process in that self-direction may, in fact, be counterproductive to learning in certain situations.  ( 1998) illustrates this shortcoming of the theory in his description of an andragogical counselling course for supervisors. Woodward observed that while Andragogical theory fully encouraged the supervisors’ experience to bear on the learning process their lack of self-direction in determining the aims and methods of the course lead to a less than satisfactory course. These observations would lead us to the conclusion that self-direction should not be applied thoughtlessly without regard to the specific characteristics of the participants involved. In considering the work of the third of the above-mentioned theorists, Reg Revans, we see an even more radical manifestation of the desire to place management development in the realm of individual responsibility. Revans (1998) argues that learning should take place within the context of real risk-bearing work projects. Managers, he maintains, should learn not just to recommend action but to take action. In this regard he believes that as instructors/teachers bear no responsibility in the problem-solving process itself their role should be limited to assisting in the establishment of the action learning groups. Action Learning posits what is essentially an extreme form of experiential learning. Revans believes managers learn not through the acquisition of new knowledge but through joint critical reflection on past experience and taking action to remedy problems. This takes place through periodic group meetings where participants bring their experiences to the table and engage in mutual questioning seeking to expose strategies towards solutions of members’ problems. Participants are then required to marshal resources for the problem and implement its solution (1978). In many senses Action Learning is very similar in its theoretical scope to other experiential theories however it differs in its use of double-loop problems solving. In problem-solving learners usually employ single loop problem-solving strategies. While these are sufficient for simple problems they may be less effective in dealing with more complex problems where the assumptions that inform the reasoning process itself may lead to an inappropriate solution to the problem (1995). Double loop learning by contrast helps to expose the personal, social or cultural factors that might affect decision making and thereby allow the learner to come to a correct solution (   1996). Stopping briefly for reflection is obvious that we have a theoretical disjuncture in our original proposition. While Action Learning posits the learning and development process in the responsibility of the individual, it is not the individual alone that activates the learning process. Clearly double loop problem-solving in Action Learning is part of social process of learning (1989). In this regard, simple injunctions about the nature of self-directed learning would appear to be erroneous and a more inclusive definition must be drawn up to include the possibilities for social learning in the learning process. While the support and alternative viewpoints that the group may provide offer new perspectives on problems it has been suggested that the neutral outsider may also play a useful role in the functioning of the set. In this respect Smith (CLMS 1995g:1355) suggests that sensitive expert outside may help to avoid erroneous problem-solving strategies and introduce fresh perspectives that group members may not have considered. Again while an approach such as Action Learning posit the learner as primarily responsible for their own learning and development it is necessary to remember the complementary role a teacher may play in intervening in the learning process. It is clear from the above accounts that by placing management development in the experience of the individual, and thus conferring ownership of the learning process on the learner, experiential models provide a powerful self or socially constructed means for managers to generate knowledge about their own environment and how it might be best adapted to. The focus of the next section shifts to a consideration of practical attempts to allow all employees to take responsibility for their own learning and development in the workplace through an investigation of competence-based learning and open learning approaches. In analysing the first of these specific practical attempts at employee development, competence based education and training we can perhaps see an answer to the conundrum of allowing non-management employees to take responsibility for their learning and development. In that competence-based training attempts to give objective measures of employee skills in a particular area they are detached from the organisational needs of a specific company or organisation. This will be explored in further detail in the next section. The emergence of competency-based education and training in the last thirty years has provided all employees with a means of taking charge of their own learning and development. Fundamental to the CBET philosophy is that competency be expressed in terms of clearly stated learning outcomes which contain a description of the function to be performed and the criteria by which their successful performance is measured (Wolf 1998:). This provides a publicly acknowledged point of reference which learners can work towards in the pursuit of recognition of competent performance in their occupational field. While from a personal and moral stand point this approach may seem to be an “open, honest and democratic thing to do” (1988) the issue of whether CBET is effective as means of learning is somewhat less clear. On the one hand the CBET 10 approaches have been criticised for their tendency to concentrate on job-specific technical skills ignoring other job-role related skills which enable the employee to use these skills flexibly and transfer them to other contexts (Jessup in CLMS 1995h). On the other hand the bestowal of competence may perform an important role in improving learner self-image and encouraging the individual to become more self-directed in their learning (1998). It is with an examination of the first of these perspectives that the analysis begins. The tendency of many of the earlier, and some of the more recent, forms of CBET to atomise skills into their fundamental technical components has come in for a great deal of criticism from those writers and practitioners involved in their development and application. Such an approach, Jessup (1995) argues, neglects other vital functions of the work role such as priontising, co-ordinating and problem solving. To illustrate this let us take the work role of a chef. The chef may be very competent at preparing individual components of a menu but without the coordinatory skills to time the preparation of the individual dishes or the problem-solving abilities to deal with somebody else’s substandard preparation he cannot perform the task. Psychologically this behaviourist tendency towards the atomisation of skills does not allow for the creation of flexible plans, units of behaviour, which are generalisable to new situations or flexible enough to deal with contingency ( ). Increasingly academic debate in the field of CBET is centred on the search for a fuller definition of competence which seeks to integrate other job-role functions into descriptions of competency. In this regard the work of  (1997) in his Job Competence Model goes some way to addressing this problem.  suggests that competency should be conceived not only in terms of the technical skills of the job but also in the ability to manage contingencies, to co-ordinate work tasks and to relate the individual’s role to the external environment. Clearly such an approach would seem to redress the balance between the needs of the employer and competence as a means of enabling employee occupational mobility. While the debate on the nature of competency is of central importance to its future relevance CBET has also been praised for its role in recognising and certifying of workplace learning (). In this regard CBET can play an important role in reintroducing those with negative experience of formative education to learning by bestowing recognition for their achievements in workplace learning (1998).  in her work with health sector NVQ learners, notes that by conferring recognition on learners’ achievements negative self-images can be transformed and learners enact a tendency to further educational selfdirection seeking out new learning opportunities of their own accord. This “virtuous circle of learning” (1989) that describes has obvious parallels with that of the (1995) research into the training of Singaporean taxi drivers. In this case the recognition of taxi drivers’ job competencies lead to a boost in the taxi drivers’ self-image of what it meant to be a taxi driver and motivated a considerable number of them to become more self-directed in their learning and go on to take the initiative to obtain further qualifications. In both of the above cases the conferring of competence on individual’s workplace learning played an important role 11 in transforming the individual’s negative self-image and ‘kickstarting’ their learning self-direction. In evaluating the second of the general approaches to employee development, open learning, it is necessary to make some preliminary comments about the nature of open learning itself. Open learning can be seen to operate on two levels. Primarily it is concerned with the breaking down of geographical and temporal barriers to educational participation. Secondly, and perhaps less obviously, it should also attempt to offer learners the opportunity to determine the direction and content of learning itself ( 1990). The tendency in the majority of open learning programmes, at least within, the UK has been to concentrate on the first of these dimensions, namely openness to access. Under these circumstances learning is primarily concerned with the dissemination of knowledge as valuable commodity in itself ( 1987). While seemingly offering little more than the transfer of classroom didacticism to the learner’s own home situation this approach can in fact offer a number of advantages over traditional classroom learning. In this regard Brooke suggests that the very noncontiguity of the learner and teacher necessitates that the student engage in active assimilation and understanding what is to be learnt (). Furthermore Race argues that learners can be assisted in this process by the use of self-test exercises which, rather than providing the learner with a correct or incorrect answers, seek to expose the reasoning that leads to a particular response (). It is clear from the above comments that the very non-contiguity of the open learning situation may in its own right bring substantive benefits to the learner in the open learning environment. Even if we are to maintain a rigid experiential critic of open learning, the line between disseminatory and experiential paradigms is becoming increasingly blurred. This is evidenced by the growing realisation amongst open educators of the transactional nature of the learning process. Thus with the emergence of new telecommunications and computer technology the open learner is increasingly in a position where they are able to adopt a critical dialogue on the materials presented to them (1989). While theoretically a vigorous defence can be mounted for the use of open learning, the employee development organisations have, in practice, focussed to a far greater extent on the cost-benefits of open learning than on its usefulness as a learning tool. Open learning, as in the case of the UK Post Office, has been widely used as a means of costeffectively targeting training resources to facilitate adjustment to technological and cultural changes within their industries and marketplaces ( 1990). It is such a preoccupation with cost-saving to the detriment of what can actually be achieved using systems of open learning that can lead industry ‘to do less with more’ (1990: ). Thus, open learning should be planned not only with an eye to the financial benefits but also with a commitment to the learner. This includes ensuring that not only are open learning programmes directly relevant to the learner’s job but also that learning receives some form of official certification and if possible should be linked to developing the employment potential of the employee (1990 ). This last section brings us back, yet again, to the argument that by bestowing 12 competence on the learner we also motivate them to become more self-directed in their learning. So far the overriding assumption of the analysis has been that all individuals, given sufficient support, are able to assume responsibility for their own learning and development. The final section however turns to a consideration of the extent to which social factors such as class, ethnic origin, gender and lack of basic skills may impact on the individual’s ability to take responsibility for their own learning and development. Before proceeding to an examination of two of these factors, namely the lack of basic skills and ethnic origin, a brief account will be given of the general factors which impact on this problem. Whist the majority of literature concerning the impact of social factors in the work environment focuses on the school environment there is no reason to suppose that these do not apply equally to learning in the workplace ( ). The capacity for self-directed learning is bound up with perceptions of self as can be seen in the work of  (1995). It was shown how positive self-image preceded the further self-direction of these learners and that the raising of participant’s self-image made effective framing possible. The creation of self-image is not a process that carries on in isolation in the individual but takes place through interaction with others “How we perceive others to see us, as well as how we relate to a generalised other, has a bearing on our self-conception” (1995). It can be inferred from this assumption that the experience of discrimination would thus have a negative effect on an individual’s self-image. Bearing in mind  (1995) observations about the role of self-image in the exercise of self-direction, we could thus conclude that the experience of discrimination would also lead to a reduction in the capacity for individual self-direction and thus willingness to take responsibility for their own learning and development. The factors that have been outlined above would seem to have particular relevance to individuals with low basic numeracy and literacy skills. Recent research into the relationship between lack of basic skills and employment prospects suggests that there is a strong link between low basic skills and low self-esteem (1994). Such a lack in self-worth may lead individuals themselves, and their superiors, to under estimate their potential for achievement ( 1998). Low basic skills would thus seem to locate individuals in the double bind of neither being self-motivated nor receiving support from their employers which might prove an incentive to develop themselves. The effect of labour market position, contingent on the lack of basic skills, may also militate against the individual from taking responsibility for their own learning and development. In his research  (1994) also notices the tendency for individuals with low basic skills to go into unskilled occupations. From a psychological perspective the lack of substantive job complexity in such a situation reduces the exercise of employee self-direction and intellectual flexibility (1990). Clearly, the situation faced by workers with low basic skills has strong parallels with the deskilling of the worker under Scientific Management. In contrast to the Symbolic Interactionist model, and the problems faced by those with 13 low basic skills, the experience of discrimination for ethnic minorities has in many senses developed a stronger sense of learning self-directedness amongst these groups. This has been particularly noticeable in patterns of continuing education. The pattern of ethnic minority attainment in comparison to white people is neither clear nor very consistent in the UK and if anything shows bigger differences between life circumstance than any clear ethnic divisions. What, however, is clear is that whether because of a greater desire for self-improvement or because of the experience of racial discrimination both Asians and West Indian minorities are significantly more likely to pursue further study than their white counterparts (1989). The phenomenon of the individual using educational self-direction as a means of overcoming prejudice can also be seen in Mac and Ghaill’s account of ‘The Black Sisters’ Response: Resistance Within Accommodation’. While rejecting the white middle class values of school the black sister’s instrumentally valued education, and particularly, exams as a measure of objective success (1988). Self-directedness and the imperative of taking responsibility for their own learning, in this context can be seen as a survival strategy and means of protection against the double danger of economic uncertainty and discriminatory practices of the labour market. This approach would also seem to satisfy our original proposition from the point of view that by taking responsibility for their own learning and development were also facilitating their entry to further development and learning opportunities (1988). In summary the picture is somewhat mixed. The transition from production under Scientific Management to newer flexible forms of production has had different implications for different groups. Shop floor workers have experienced considerable change in their forms of working and the need to increase employee flexibility and problem-solving skills has necessitated workers taking a limited degree of responsibility in their learning. This is reflected in the new cognitive approaches to employee development, where even if the employee is not made entirely responsible for their own development they are seen as the starting point for development. Vygotskian theory extends this notion in premising development partly on learner ownership of the development process. However the degree to which learners may take responsibility is ultimately limited by organisational objectives of the company or organisation. In contrast, it has been shown that in the absence of hard and fast maxims of management management development has started to concern itself with developing individual’s ability to learn from experience, thus locating the learning process of necessity, in the responsibility of managers themselves. It has also been shown that by providing clearly stated standards of achievement CBET has enabled the learner to take charge of their learning. While not providing any particular new insights into the learning process it has been shown that by bestowing competence, and thus increasing self-esteem, these approaches may facilitate further individual learner self-directedness. Open learning would also seem to support the assertion that learner responsibility is central to the learning process. While it does not provide any new insight into the learning process, its very non-contiguity seems to involve the student in systematic learning through assimilation of materials and periodic personal interaction with tutors. 14 Finally in the section on the impact of social factors it has been demonstrated that while these factors may create barriers to learning in certain situations these barriers may lead to a considerable degree of self-direction which have lead learners on to explore opportunities in further and higher education. In final conclusion, the need to devolve employee responsibility is clearly a two faceted argument. On the one hand devolution of learning and development has been widely advocated through out industry on the grounds of costs. It has not been in the scope of this discussion to give a full account of this. It would however, in the light of the observations made in this paper, be worth organisations to momentarily set the financial cost benefits aside and try to see how this process may also facilitate the development of a better prepared more intellectually flexible workforce to meet the challenges of the future. University of Leicester Centre for Labour Market Studies Module 1 Assignment Report Masters in Training and Human Resource Management Course Member: Agent: Intake: Grade: B 65% Essay Construction: This is a good paper. You have approached the question in a thoughtful and considered way – beginning with a concise yet effective introduction. It was pleasing to see you open the discussion with a consideration of the different interpretations that could be placed on the question, e.g. “employability” or “humanism”? The discussion then unfolded with a broad exploration of the changing industrial paradigms and the nature of the workplace, e.g. the limitations imposed by scientific management techniques. You then explored more contemporary theories of learning and how these relate to self-development – utilising examples from management development practice to make important points about the influence of “contextual particularities” and the need to take these into account. This message was reinforced by a critical analysis of CBET and Open Learning, finally pointing out that social, class and gender are also important influences. Could this issue of ‘individual characteristics have been expanded upon even further’? Your conclusion pulled the main strands of the discussion together and you (rightly) concluded that the issues of responsibility for self-development was not a clear-cut one and essentially contingent on the situation facing the individual and the organisation. However which in this situation would you see as being more important/more powerful? Is the relative power of individuals versus organisations worthy of more consideration in a question such as this? Style and Expression: You write and express yourself well and in a manner that is appropriate to Masters 18 study. Knowledge and Understanding: Echoing the above comment, you are clearly aware of the key issues implicit within the question and have explored them in an interesting and insightful way. Quality of Argument and Level of Analysis: There was some good critical material in this paper. The general thrust was apparent from the outset and that was to present a critical yet balanced debate. Your main argument revolved around the need for employees taking responsibility for their personal learning and development. However, this can only be effective if the organisation considers carefully all of the influencing variables and acknowledges that any leaning approach has to be contingent on a range of factors which themselves have to be managed to create a favourable climate. But equally, to press ahead and encourage or even force employees down this road may be ‘counterproductive’. This was an important observation to make. Use of Sources and Referencing: Good use of a range of CLMS and other source material in support of the discussion. Overall, this was an interesting paper and a pleasure to read. You have obviously given the question a great deal of consideration and highlighted a range of important issues but presented them in a critical and yet balanced way. To improve your marks still further, ensure that your argument is fully explored. Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

SAMPLE Module 1 Assignment

1 Masters in Training and Human Resource Management SAMPLE Module 1 Assignment QUESTION: “It is now time that all employees t...

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

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 di...