Q.3. Describe the basic philosophy of scientific management?
Basic Philosophy of Scientific Management – Mental Revolution
Taylor testifies that in order for the principles of scientific management to succeed, a complete mental revolution on the part of the management and workers was required.
The basic philosophy of Taylor’s scientific management lies in the need for a fundamental change of attitudes on the part of both managers themselves as partners in the joint endeavor rather than adversaries. Rather than quarrel over profits, they should try to increase production. He believed that the management and labour had a common interest in increasing productivity – which he called mutuality of interest.
Taylor pleaded for double mental revolution. He writes that in its essence, scientific management involves a complete mental revolution on the part of the workingmen engaged in any particular establishment or industry. Such a revolution should be brought about concerning their duties towards their work, toward their fellowmen and toward their employers.
He pleaded for equal mental revolution on the part of management – the owner of the business and the board of directors. Such a revolution should be brought about concerning their duties toward their fellow workers in the management toward their workmen and toward all of their daily probelems.
Taylor believes that without this complete mental revolution on both sides scientific management does not exist. Scientific management exist when the management cares for the interest and goals of the workers and on the other hand, the workers trust the managers and cares for the interests and goals of the organisation.
Taylor says that the great revolution that takes place in the mental attitude of the two parties under scientific management is that both sides take their eyes off i.e., away from the division of the surplus as the all-important matter and they together turn their attention towards increasing the size of the surplus.
Critical Evaluation
Taylor’s scientific management may be critically examined as follows:
(a) Contribution to Management Thought
Taylor was the first person to develop a systematic and scientific study of management. Hence he is known as the father of scientific management. He presented his ideas as a systematic body of thought. His main contribution to management practices included the following aspects.
(b) Criticism Or Limiatation
Inspite of its great contributions, the scientific management approach has been criticized for its various limitations as follows:
1. It is mechanistic approach ignoring human element in the organisation – it is concerned with the efficiency of workers in the technical sense emphasizing production only and attaching no importance to the social and psychological need of the workers. In this context it has called unfair and undemocratic.
2. Trade unions have opposed scientific management on the ground that it leads to autocratic management and also raises the workload of workers with a corresponding adverse impact on employment of men.
3. It assumes that workers are inherently lazy and they require strict supervision and exercise of authority by management. It is also its wrong assumption that workers are motivated by material gains, i.e. money only.
4. It has been called by some critics as narrow, impracticable and titled toward exploitation of workers.
5. It is said that this approach is primarily concerned with problems at operating level only and it hardly emphasizes the managerial organization and processes.
6 Some say that there is no one best way of doing a job as pleaded by Taylor, because what is the best way, it shall depend on different circumstances of each case.
Conclusion
Despite all criticism of Taylor’s scientific management, his techniques continue in the name of work study in India and elsewhere.
Taylor testifies that in order for the principles of scientific management to succeed, a complete mental revolution on the part of the management and workers was required.
The basic philosophy of Taylor’s scientific management lies in the need for a fundamental change of attitudes on the part of both managers themselves as partners in the joint endeavor rather than adversaries. Rather than quarrel over profits, they should try to increase production. He believed that the management and labour had a common interest in increasing productivity – which he called mutuality of interest.
Taylor pleaded for double mental revolution. He writes that in its essence, scientific management involves a complete mental revolution on the part of the workingmen engaged in any particular establishment or industry. Such a revolution should be brought about concerning their duties towards their work, toward their fellowmen and toward their employers.
He pleaded for equal mental revolution on the part of management – the owner of the business and the board of directors. Such a revolution should be brought about concerning their duties toward their fellow workers in the management toward their workmen and toward all of their daily probelems.
Taylor believes that without this complete mental revolution on both sides scientific management does not exist. Scientific management exist when the management cares for the interest and goals of the workers and on the other hand, the workers trust the managers and cares for the interests and goals of the organisation.
Taylor says that the great revolution that takes place in the mental attitude of the two parties under scientific management is that both sides take their eyes off i.e., away from the division of the surplus as the all-important matter and they together turn their attention towards increasing the size of the surplus.
Critical Evaluation
Taylor’s scientific management may be critically examined as follows:
(a) Contribution to Management Thought
Taylor was the first person to develop a systematic and scientific study of management. Hence he is known as the father of scientific management. He presented his ideas as a systematic body of thought. His main contribution to management practices included the following aspects.
- To emphasize the importance of applying scientific methods of enquiry, observation, experimentation and inferences to the problems of the management. He exhorted against the use of trial and error approach to industrial problems.
- Stressing the separation of planning of work from its execution so as to enable workers to perform at his best and earn accordingly.
- Emphasizing the aim of management to the maximum prosperity of the employer along with the maximum welfare of each employee.
- Laying emphasis on the necessity of a complete mental revolution on the part of the both workmen and management in order to derive the benefits of scientific management through harmony and cooperation rather then individualism and discord.
(b) Criticism Or Limiatation
Inspite of its great contributions, the scientific management approach has been criticized for its various limitations as follows:
1. It is mechanistic approach ignoring human element in the organisation – it is concerned with the efficiency of workers in the technical sense emphasizing production only and attaching no importance to the social and psychological need of the workers. In this context it has called unfair and undemocratic.
2. Trade unions have opposed scientific management on the ground that it leads to autocratic management and also raises the workload of workers with a corresponding adverse impact on employment of men.
3. It assumes that workers are inherently lazy and they require strict supervision and exercise of authority by management. It is also its wrong assumption that workers are motivated by material gains, i.e. money only.
4. It has been called by some critics as narrow, impracticable and titled toward exploitation of workers.
5. It is said that this approach is primarily concerned with problems at operating level only and it hardly emphasizes the managerial organization and processes.
6 Some say that there is no one best way of doing a job as pleaded by Taylor, because what is the best way, it shall depend on different circumstances of each case.
Conclusion
Despite all criticism of Taylor’s scientific management, his techniques continue in the name of work study in India and elsewhere.
No comments:
Post a Comment