100% tevredenheidsgarantie Direct beschikbaar na betaling Zowel online als in PDF Je zit nergens aan vast
Eerder door jou gezocht
In what respects was the Human Relations Movement a reaction against Scientific Management? What are the lessons for HR management?€8,62
In winkelwagen
Foundations of Business and Management HRM (MG4A9)
Alle documenten voor dit vak (1)
Verkoper
Volgen
LSEstudent2022
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
People are any organisation’s most valuable resource, so it is little surprise that over the
centuries experts have invested entire lives into understanding how to best manage them.
Scientific Management Theory (SM) was one of the first original main organisational
theories to make its way into hundreds of factories in the 20th century (Mitcham, 2005). It was
initially popularised by Fredrick Winslow Taylor. His ideas were made accessible after their
outline in his ‘Principles of scientific management’ (Taylor, 1911). Nevertheless, the
limitations of Taylor’s theories soon led to the creation of the contrasting Human Relations
Movement. This was mainly headed by Harvard psychologist Elton Mayo and others within
the social sciences. This essay will first examine scientific management as a theory and its
application, secondly, it will address SM’s limitations and how these led to the creation and
prevalence of the Human Relations Movement (HRM). Finally, we will unpack what lessons
there may be for HR management and employee organisation with regards to what is
explored.
Scientific Management was first coined under the term ‘Taylorism’, the 20th century era of
mass industrialisation and production provided an excellent platform for Taylorist principles.
Taylor outlined 4 principles in his book: Develop a science for each man's work which
replaces rule-of-thumb methods; Scientifically select, then train, teach and develop the
workmen; Management and workmen ‘heartily cooperate’ to ensure work done in
accordance with scientific management; and the equal division of work and responsibility
between management and workers (Taylor, 1915; Hartwell, 2021). Interestingly, Taylor’s
ideas were in reaction to the ‘The Industrial Problem’. Here, inefficient practices such as
'soldiering’ and ‘rule of thumb’ methods meant that managers made decisions based on
personal judgement rather than what is most efficient. By applying his principles at
Bethlehem Steel Company Taylor was able to increase the first class handler ‘Schmidt’s’
output by 276% with only a 60% pay-rise and mandatory regular breaks (Pearson, 2009).
Later, in the ‘Science of Bricklaying’, there was further evidence that his system of studying
work methods can be applied to both manual and administrative work (Pearson, 2009).
Fordism was another one of SM’s success stories, here there was a focus on the mass
production of inexpensive goods coupled with high-wages for – the $5-a-day wage. The
growing focus on the standardization of the product and production were essential, During
one of his meetings ‘any color as long as it’s black’ (Henry Ford and Samuel Crowther,
1922). There was also some consistency with ‘Efficiency Wage’ models, which where
1
, employers maximise labour efficiency by setting a wage ω > ω*, i.e., labour’s reservation
wage (Akerlof and Yellen, 1986).
However, it was clear that there were some serious concerns with Scientific Management.
One of the first critiques was headed by Professor Robert F. Hoxie, in ‘The Hoxie Report’. It
investigated all technical systems of scientific management, not just Taylor’s but Gnatt’s and
Emerson’s too. He found that most of the principles of SM would often fail in their
application, the designated ‘efficiency experts’ simply did not have “the ability or the
willingness to install scientific management in accordance with the Taylor formula and
ideals”(Hoxie, 1915). With regards to the selection of labourers, there was also a lack of
competency, both from the designated ‘heads’ or managers who were doing the selection and
those they picked (Wren and Bedian, 2009). Additionally, there was a gap in the training
employees were receiving, particularly because the focus was placed on achieving the target
output instead of ensuring workers were doing ‘quality work’(Hoxie, 1915 ). The areas of
time study and task setting were equally concerning, for example, since incentives could only
be established after a hurried inquiry there was widespread inaccuracy and injustice. Finally,
the ineffective use of time-study meant that employees lacked training and set targets based
on the manager’s desires instead of what would be calculated using the scientific method.
There seemed to be a serious lack of transferability from theory to application and
organisations were unable to keep up with the rigorous specifications of Scientific
Management.
People had already begun to look elsewhere when there was serious opposition on the part of
labour unions and organised management. The view of trade unions was that Taylor’s ideas
isolated non-managerial workers and denied them a voice in setting work standards,
determining wage rates, and establishing conditions of employment(Wren and Bedian, 2009).
There was an understanding that scientific management at its core was not only
dehumanising for the ‘automaton’ workers, but its mass deskilling trapped people in menial
jobs due to the lack of foresight(Dury, 1918). Particularly in the case of mass production
lines, there was a lack of focus on quality and a stronger focus on maximised output , "the
worker was taken for granted as a cog in the machinery."(Ellen, 1993). Hoxie’s report also
touched on this, elaborating that SM intensifies tasks to a fault, thus, it displaces skilled
workers and lessens their respective bargaining strength through the specialisation of the task
and the destruction of craft skill (Hoxie, 1915). In 1911 the incident at Watertown Arsenal
2
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper LSEstudent2022. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €8,62. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
