Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 6

Article 01

HRM has seen a lot of nick naming in its age. Since it was recognized as a separate and important function, it has been called
"personnel relations" then it evolved to "industrial relations", then "employee relations" and then, finally, to "human resources". I
strongly believe, that human resources is the most apt name for it. It, quintessentially, proves the importance of the human beings
working in the organization.

With the Industrial Revolution, came the conversion of the US economy from agriculture-based to industry-based. This led them to
require an extremely well-organized structure. Further, this led them to recruit a lot of people. More so, the industrial revolution
brought in maddening amounts of immigration. Again, to create employment for all the immigrants, recruitment and management of
the recruited individuals gained vitality. As such, there was a blaring need for Human Resource Management.

Early human resource management, in general, followed a social welfare approach. It aimed at helping immigrants in the process of
adjusting to their jobs and to an "American" life. The main aim behind these programs was to assist immigrants in learning English
and acquiring housing and medical care. Also, these techniques used to promote supervisory training to ensure an increase in
productivity.

With the advent of "labor unions" in the 1790's, the power in the hands of the employees multiplied considerably and increased at a
rapid pace by the 1800s and furthermore in the 1900s. This led to the HR department being more capable of politics and diplomacy.
The two feats that were quintessential to the importance of HR were; the fact that it was the HR department that got the
management and the labor unions to come on common grounds. They basically worked on getting the management to see things
from the labor perspective and grant them medical and educational benefits. The other would be Frederick W. Taylor's (1856-1915)
Scientific Management. This book had tremendous impact on attaining better productivity from low-level production workers.

B.F. Goodrich Company was the pioneers in designing a corporate employee department to address the concerns of the employees in
1900. National Cash Register followed suit in 1902 by forming a separate department to handle employee grievances, record
keeping, wage management and other employee-related functions. Personnel Managers started seeing more sunshine since the
Wagner's Act (aka National Labor Relations Act) in 1935. There was a shift in focus from worker's efficiency to efficiency through
work satisfaction, thanks to the Hawthorne studies around the 1930s to 1940s.

Between the 1960s and 1970s, the HRM movement gained further momentum due to the passing of several acts like the Equal Pay
Act of 1963, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), and the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970. Now, the HR department was the apple of the corporates' eyes because, the corporates placed a lot
of importance on human resource management to avoid plausible law suit.

So by the end of the 1970s, HRM had taken over the world! Almost all big and medium scale industries had a department to manage
their recruitment, employee relations, record-keeping, salaries and wages, etc. Towards the 1980s, the importance of HR continued
to intumesce for several reasons like increase in skilled labor, training, regulation compliance, dismissal, etc. The HR managers were
the ones who did the hiring and the firing.

In today's date, HR has the same importance as the other departments, in some corporates, it has more. With the constant increase
in education, technology and frequent fluctuations in economic status and structures, I believe, HR is the oldest, most mature and
yet, the most efficient of all management styles.

Article # 2

Workfoce management has become increasingly complex. The heritage and growth of the human resource management profession is
closely linked to people's attitudes about work, the evolution of employment-related laws and sociological trends. The HR field today
recognizes the dynamic relationship between strategy, people, technology and the processes that drive organizations. Although this
dynamic relationship appears obvious now, the evolution of the profession has often been slow.

Assembly line production required that large numbers of people come together for work, but these workers were interchangeable
and, to some extent, expendable, because few skills were required for most factory jobs. Employers' attentions focused on consumer
demands, the speed at which new machines produced goods and the processes that drove production -- concerns that were
sometimes placed well ahead of the needs of employees.

The personnel administration movement

By the late 1800s, people problems were a very real concern in the workplace. For the average blue-collar worker, most jobs were
low-paying, monotonous and unsafe. Some industries experienced difficulty recruiting and retaining employees because of the poor
working conditions workers were exposed to. As the means of production continued to shift from farmlands and guilds to city
factories, concerns grew about wages, safety, child labor and 12-hour workdays. Workers began to band together in unions to
protect their interests and improve living standards. Government stepped in to provide basic rights and protections for workers.

Forward-thinking employers recognized that productivity was connected to worker satisfaction and involvement and realized they
could not meet production schedules with bands of disgruntled employees. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, the personnel
profession that grew out of concerns about employee absenteeism and high turnover attempted to solve worker problems with such
basic personnel management functions as employee selection, training and compensation.

It's believed that the first personnel management department began at the National Cash Register Co. (NCR). NCR faced a major
strike at the turn of the century but eventually defeated the union after a lockout in 1901. After this difficult union battle, company
President John H. Patterson decided to improve worker relations by organizing a personnel department to handle grievances,
discharges, safety and other employee issues. The department also kept track of pending legislation and court decisions and these
first personnel managers provided training for supervisors on new laws and practices.

NCR was not alone in its efforts to address employee grievances. Other employers were looking for management solutions that
would alleviate employee disenchantment. Many attempted to ease labor unrest by increasing wages. For example, Ford experienced
employee turnover ratios of 380 percent in 1913; in 1914, the company doubled the daily salaries for line workers from $2.50 to $5,
even though $2.50 was a fair wage at that time.

Although industrial giants were beginning to understand that they had to do more than just hire and fire if they were going to meet
consumer demands for products, most of the objectives of early personnel professionals were one-sided. Business leaders still
viewed the work itself as infinitely more important than the people doing it, and production rates remained the top concern. Because
employers believed employees would accept more rigid standards if they received extra pay and benefits, most employer-sponsored
business solutions were aimed at making employees more efficient. From this mind-set grew scientific management approaches
based on the work of Frederick W. Taylor and other experts whose goal was to get people to perform as efficiently as machines.

Of course, such approaches did little to improve worker morale or improve working environments. To counter the growing strength
of the labor movement, some employers hired strikebreakers or kept blacklists of union members. Others made workers sign
"yellow-dog" contracts -- agreements that they would not join unions. Still others attempted to protect their interests by creating
company unions to preempt the influence of outside union activities.

Government stepped up to help those who were less fortunate through reforms of work hours, new laws governing the work of
children and workers' compensation laws aimed at protecting employees injured on the job. In Congress created the U.S.
Department of Labor "to foster, promote and develop the welfare of working people, to improve their working conditions and to
enhance their opportunities for profitable employment.

The Labor Department grew rapidly during World War I as the war effort became a national priority. By the war's end, the Labor
Department -- through the War Labor Administration (WLA) -- had set numerous policies to ensure that wage, hour or working
condition problems did not hinder the war effort and industrial growth. WLA initiatives were model programs but frequently fell short
of business needs. They could not meet the challenges that would soon stop the industrial explosion in its tracks.

In 1929, the onset of the Great Depression drastically changed the rules of business. With profits dwindling, employers first
eliminated voluntary welfare program, then jobs. The government led by President Franklin Roosevelt, provided some assistance by
creating jobs ranging from road building to painting murals on government buildings through the Civil Works Administration and later
the more extensive Works Progress Administration. New social programs, including old-age pensions, labor standards and minimum
wages for some industries, were developed.

With dreams of the good life fading for most workers, unions established strong roots in many industries and gathered political clout
with Congress. The Norris-LaGuardia Act changed the rules of the game in labor-management relations by making "yellow-dog"
contracts unenforceable and severely restricting the use of federal court injunctions in labor disputes. Union organizations grew in
power after passage of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in 1935, also known as the Wagner Act.

The NLRA signaled a change in the federal government's role in labor-management relations, giving employees the right to organize
unions and bargain collectively, while prohibiting employers from engaging in certain unfair labor practices. The act also created the
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which continues to establish procedures for conducting union organizing and election
campaigns and has authority to investigate unfair labor practices.

As employers began to understand the need for professionals who could play a middle role between employees and employers, the
personnel manager's role emerged. It was during this first movement that employers began to truly understand that employees were
more than machines with interchangeable faces. The personnel managers of this period did not have all the answers, but the
developing practices and concerns of the era set the stage for continuing study and investment in the role of effective human
resource management.

As employers began to understand the need for professionals who could play a middle role between employees and employers, the
personnel manager's role emerged. It was during this first movement that employers began to truly understand that employees were
more than machines with interchangeable faces. The personnel managers of this period did not have all the answers, but the
developing practices and concerns of the era set the stage for continuing study and investment in the role of effective human
resource management.

Human relations movement

The field of human relations -- or industrial and personnel relations -- that emerged in the 1920s provided a new focus for the
profession. In an effort to increase productivity, personnel programs expanded to include medical aid and sick benefits, vaccinations,
holidays, housing allowances and other new benefits. New personnel roles emerged as unions began challenging the fairness and
validity of Taylor's scientific management theories.

The human relations movement provided new insights derived from studies that linked improved productivity to management
philosophies emphasizing employee communications, cooperation and involvement. This new thinking about employee cooperation
grew from the works of Elton Mayo -- known as the Father of Human Relations -- and from the Hawthorne Studies, an important
series of illumination experiments conducted between 1924 and 1932.

Conducted at the Hawthorne Works of AT&T's Western Electric Plant near Chicago, the Hawthorne Studies were the first to question
Taylorism's behavioral assumptions. Mayo, who conducted the studies to explore how changes in working environments affected
productivity, was surprised by the results.
Although the study began as an effort to quantify the levels of lighting and other physical conditions that would maximize employee
productivity, Mayo and his researchers soon found a much greater link between employee productivity and the level of attention
managers paid to employees and their behavior. The studies concluded that, in motivating workers, human factors were often more
important than physical conditions. For the first time, productivity research put forth the controversial proposition that workers'
feelings were important. Mayo's work propelled further developments in HR management.

The concept of employee motivation increased in importance in the 1940s. When World War II ended the nation's economic drought
and brought full production and full employment to the industrial giants, labor was again in short supply. As men were called to
serve their country, shortages emerged, and women and teens were called on to keep the engines of industry rolling. For the first
time, people of color took jobs previously not open to them. Expanded job growth also meant expanded roles for the personnel
manager -- recruiting, testing, training, mediating, and keeping an eye on employee morale and production efficiency.

As the 1940s moved forward, Mayo's work and real-world business experiences launched a greater understanding of the dynamics of
work groups and the social needs of employees. Business leaders began to appreciate the production that resulted when managers
acted less like taskmasters and more like good leaders, counselors and facilitators. Non-monetary rewards became an important
supplement to monetary rewards for motivating employees. New theories on the benefits of improving the relationships between
management and employees abounded.

But many Americans awoke to harsh realities after World War II. Returning war veterans were ill equipped to meet the technological
demands of the new workplace. The federal government responded with measures such as the GI Bill of Rights, which granted
university-level educational assistance to returning veterans and was instrumental in developing new leaders and a powerful new
workforce for the United States.

After the war, the country was also rocked by severe inflation and labor unrest. After enduring wage freezes imposed during the war,
unions sought to make up for the lost time. Union membership had grown from about 6 percent when the NLRA was passed to about
23 percent in 1947. Strikes became more frequent and union tactics in some cases more militant.

A strong anti-union sentiment emerged and against this backdrop Congress overrode President Truman's veto of the 1947 Labor-
Management Relations Act, better known as the Taft-Hartley Act. The new law banned the use of "closed shops," which required
workers to join t he union to be hired, and placed government in the role of mediating union and management disagreements. But
as the turbulent 1940s came to an end, a new turbulence was brewing in the Far East. Once again, the country mobilized for war
production with the outbreak of the Korean War

Human resource movement

After the Korean War, a new class of college-educated managers emerged with a greater sense of social responsibility than their
predecessors. Throughout the second half of the 20th century, social well-being coupled with social upheaval -- best exemplified by
the struggle for desegregation -- changed the thinking of employees in the United States.

As the 1960s and 1970s unfolded, a more personable group of managers emerged, and their interests in people and feelings
influenced all facets of business, including the growth of market research, communications and public relations. This group of
managers emphasized the relationship between employers and employees, rather than scientific management. Programs to increase
wages and fringe benefits continued to be developed. New studies linked greater productivity to management philosophies that
encouraged worker ideas and initiatives.

The new laws of the Great Society sprouted from this social foundation -- laws that protected employees from unsafe jobs and from
violations of basic civil rights. Personnel and human relations managers were now responsible for motivating people and helping their
organizations navigate a maze of regulations, executive orders and court decisions.

As time progressed, the nature of work continued to change. A well-educated group of baby boomers became to take new theories
to heart. Boomers placed human rights and ideas of self-fulfillment at the forefront of their workplace concerns. These people wanted
more than an occupation; they wanted jobs that were challenging and interesting. Employees of this era began to view themselves
as stakeholders in their companys' enterprises.

In contrast to the attitude of the early 1900s -- where workers were considered cogs in the industrial machine -- many of the highly
skilled knowledge workers of today actually control the machines, carrying the power and ability to make decisions to satisfy
customer needs. In looking for ways to increase productivity, baby boomers are also heavily influenced by psychology and other
behavioral sciences. Dedicated to making work meaningful, enriching the work environment, communicating and imaging by
objectives, this generation seeks to tie the goals of individuals with the goals of the organization. Most businesses have been happy
to go along with the new programs, since their efforts are tied to in-creased productivity.

As bottom-line results improve and more competitive advantages are tied to human resource innovations, the power of human
resource management has begun to extend beyond the domain of human resource departments. Organizations have recognized the
importance of human resource considerations in long-range strategic planning. Today, the human resource professional is charged
with optimizing employee skills, matching people to jobs and maximizing the potential of employees as valuable resources.
Article # 3

Milestones in the Development of Human Resource Management


1890- Frederick Taylor develops his ideas on scientific management. Taylor advocates scientific selection of workers based on
1910 qualifications and also argues for incentive-based compensation systems to motivate employees.
Many companies establish departments devoted to maintaining the welfare of workers. The discipline of industrial
1910-
psychology begins to develop. Industrial psychology, along with the advent of World War I, leads to advancements in
1930
employment testing and selection.
The interpretation of the Hawthorne Studies' begins to have an impact on management thought and practice. Greater
1930-
emphasis is placed on the social and informal aspects of the workplace affecting worker productivity. Increasing the job
1945
satisfaction of workers is cited as a means to increase their productivity.
In the U.S., a tremendous surge in union membership between 1935 and 1950 leads to a greater emphasis on collective
1945-
bargaining and labor relations within personnel management. Compensation and benefits administration also increase in
1965
importance as unions negotiate paid vacations, paid holidays, and insurance coverage.
The Civil Rights movement in the U.S. reaches its apex with passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The personnel function
1965- is dramatically affected by Title VII of the CRA, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, and
1985 national origin. In the years following the passage of the CRA, equal employment opportunity and affirmative action
become key human resource management responsibilities.
Three trends dramatically impact HRM. The first is the increasing diversity of the labor force, in terms of age, gender, race,
and ethnicity. HRM concerns evolve from EEO and affirmative action to "managing diversity." A second trend is the
1985- globalization of business and the accompanying technological revolution. These factors have led to dramatic changes in
present transportation, communication, and labor markets. The third trend, which is related to the first two, is the focus on HRM as
a "strategic" function. HRM concerns and concepts must be integrated into the overall strategic planning of the firm in order
to cope with rapid change, intense competition, and pressure for increased efficiency.

developing his ideas about scientific management, other pioneers were working on applying the principles of psychology to the
recruitment, selection, and training of workers. The development of the field of industrial psychology and its application to the
workplace came to fruition during World War I, as early vocational and employment-related testing was used to assign military
recruits to appropriate functions.

The Hawthorne Studies, which were conducted in the 1920s and 1930s at Western Electric, sparked an increased emphasis on the
social and informal aspects of the workplace. Interpretations of the studies emphasized "human relations" and the link between
worker satisfaction and productivity. The passage of the Wagner Act in 1935 contributed to a major increase in the number of
unionized workers. In the 1940s and 1950s, collective bargaining led to a tremendous increase in benefits offered to workers. The
personnel function evolved to cope with labor relations, collective bargaining, and a more complex compensation and benefits
environment. The human relations philosophy and labor relations were the dominant concerns of HRM in the 1940s and 1950s.

HRM was revolutionized in the 1960s by passage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and other anti-discrimination legislation—as well
as presidential executive orders that required many organizations to undertake affirmative action in order to remedy past
discriminatory practices. Equal employment opportunity and affirmative action mandates greatly complicated the HRM function, but
also enhanced its importance in modern organizations. As discussed more fully in a later section, these responsibilities continue to
comprise a major part of the HRM job. Finally, changes in labor force demographics, technology, and globalization since the 1980s
have had a major impact on the HRM function. These factors also are discussed in more detail in a later section.

Article #4

Hawthorne Studies

The Hawthorne effect is a form of reactivity whereby subjects improve or modify an aspect of their behavior being experimentally
measured simply in response to the fact that they are being studied, [1][2] not in response to any particular experimental manipulation.

The term was coined in 1950 by Henry A. Landsberger [3] when analysing older experiments from 1924-1932 at the Hawthorne Works
(a Western Electric factory outside Chicago). Hawthorne Works had commissioned a study to see if its workers would become more
productive in higher or lower levels of light. The workers' productivity seemed to improve when changes were made and slumped
when the study was concluded. It was suggested that the productivity gain was due to the workers feeling motivated; that is the
workers were impacted by the motivational effect of the interest being shown in them. Although illumination research of workplace
lighting formed the basis of the Hawthorne effect, other changes such as maintaining clean work stations, clearing floors of
obstacles, and even relocating workstations resulted in increased productivity for short periods. Thus the term is used to identify any
type of short-lived increase in productivity.[3][4][5]

Relay assembly experiments

In one of the studies, experimenters chose two women as test subjects and asked them to choose four other workers to join the test
group. Together the women worked in a separate room over the course of five years (1927–1932) assembling telephone relays.

Output was measured mechanically by counting how many finished relays each dropped down a chute. This measuring began in
secret two weeks before moving the women to an experiment room and continued throughout the study. In the experiment room,
they had a supervisor who discussed changes with them and at times used their suggestions. Then the researchers spent five years
measuring how different variables impacted the group's and individuals' productivity. Some of the variables were:

 giving two 5-minute breaks (after a discussion with them on the best length of time), and then changing to two 10-minute
breaks (not their preference). Productivity increased, but when they received six 5-minute rests, they disliked it and
reduced output.
 providing food during the breaks
 shortening the day by 30 minutes (output went up); shortening it more (output per hour went up, but overall output
decreased); returning to the first condition (where output peaked).

Changing a variable usually increased productivity, even if the variable was just a change back to the original condition. However it is
said that this is the natural process of the human being to adapt to the environment without knowing the objective of the experiment
occurring. Researchers concluded that the workers worked harder because they thought that they were being monitored individually.

Researchers hypothesised that choosing one's own coworkers, working as a group, being treated as special (as evidenced by working
in a separate room), and having a sympathetic supervisor were the real reasons for the productivity increase. One interpretation,
mainly due to Elton Mayo,[citation needed] was that "the six individuals became a team and the team gave itself wholeheartedly and
spontaneously to cooperation in the experiment." (There was a second relay assembly test room study whose results were not as
significant as the first experiment.)

Bank wiring room experiments

The purpose of the next study was to find out how payment incentives would affect productivity. The surprising result was that
productivity actually decreased. Workers apparently had become suspicious that their productivity may have been boosted to justify
firing some of the workers later on.[11] The study was conducted by Mayo and W. Lloyd Warner between 1931 and 1932 on a group of
fourteen men who put together telephone switching equipment. The researchers found that although the workers were paid
according to individual productivity, productivity decreased because the men were afraid that the company would lower the base
rate. Detailed observation between the men revealed the existence of informal groups or "cliques" within the formal groups. These
cliques developed informal rules of behavior as well as mechanisms to enforce them. The cliques served to control group members
and to manage bosses; when bosses asked questions, clique members gave the same responses, even if they were untrue. These
results show that workers were more responsive to the social force of their peer groups than to the control and incentives of
management.

Article #5

George Elton Mayo (26 December 1880 - 7 September 1949) was an Australian psychologist, sociologist and organization theorist.

He lectured at the University of Queensland from 1911 to 1923 before moving to the University of Pennsylvania, but spent most of
his career at Harvard Business School (1926 - 1947), where he was professor of industrial research. On 18 April 1913 he married
Dorothea McConnel in Brisbane, Australia. They had two daughters, Patricia and Gael.

Mayo is known as the founder of the Human Relations Movement, and is known for his research including the Hawthorne Studies and
his book The Human Problems of an Industrialized Civilization (1933). The research he conducted under the Hawthorne Studies of
the 1930s showed the importance of groups in affecting the behavior of individuals at work. Mayo's employees, Roethlisberger and
Dickson, conducted the practical experiments. This enabled him to make certain deductions about how managers should behave. He
carried out a number of investigations to look at ways of improving productivity, for example changing lighting conditions in the
workplace. What he found however was that work satisfaction depended to a large extent on the informal social pattern of the work
group. Where norms of cooperation and higher output were established because of a feeling of importance, physical conditions or
financial incentives had little motivational value. People will form work groups and this can be used by management to benefit the
organization.

He concluded that people's work performance is dependent on both social issues and job content. He suggested a tension between
workers' 'logic of sentiment' and managers' 'logic of cost and efficiency' which could lead to conflict within organizations.

Disagreement regarding his employees' procedure while conducting the studies:

 The members of the groups whose behavior has been studied were allowed to choose themselves.
 Two women have been replaced since they were chatting during their work. They were later identified as members of a
leftist movement.
 One Italian member was working above average since she had to care for her family alone. Thus she affected the group's
performance in an above average way.

Summary of Mayo's Beliefs:


 Individual workers cannot be treated in isolation, but must be seen as members of a group.
 Monetary incentives and good working conditions are less important to the individual than the need to belong to a group.
 Informal or unofficial groups formed at work have a strong influence on the behavior of those workers in a group.
 Managers must be aware of these 'social needs' and cater for them to ensure that employees collaborate with the official
organization rather than work against it.
 Mayo's simple instructions to industrial interviewers set a template and remain influential to this day i.e. A. The simple rules
of interviewing:- 1. Give your full attention to the person interviewed, and make it evident that you are doing so. 2. Listen -
don't talk. 3. Never argue; never give advice. 4. Listen to: what he wants to say; what he does not want to say; what he
can not say without help. 5. As you listen, plot out tentatively and for subsequent correction the pattern that is being set
before you. To test, summarize what has been said and present for comment. Always do this with caution - that is, clarify
but don't add or twist. [SOURCE: papers held by Mayo's grand-daughter.]

Article #6

Principles of Management

1. Division of work. This principle is the same as Adam Smith's 'division of labour'. Specialisation increases output by making
employees more efficient.
2. Authority. Managers must be able to give orders. Authority gives them this right. Note that responsibility arises wherever
authority is exercised.
3. Discipline. Employees must obey and respect the rules that govern the organisation. Good discipline is the result of effective
leadership, a clear understanding between management and workers regarding the organisation's rules, and the judicious
use of penalties for infractions of the rules.
4. Unity of command. Every employee should receive orders from only one superior.
5. Unity of direction. Each group of organisational activities that have the same objective should be directed by one manager
using one plan.
6. Subordination of individual interests to the general interest. The interests of any one employee or group of employees
should not take precedence over the interests of the organisation as a whole.
7. Remuneration. Workers must be paid a fair wage for their services.
8. Centralisation. Centralisation refers to the degree to which subordinates are involved in decision making. Whether decision
making is centralised (to management) or decentralised (to subordinates) is a question of proper proportion. The task is to
find the optimum degree of centralisation for each situation.
9. Scalar chain. The line of authority from top management to the lowest ranks represents the scalar chain. Communications
should follow this chain. However, if following the chain creates delays, cross-communications can be allowed if agreed to
by all parties and superiors are kept informed.
10. Order. People and materials should be in the right place at the right time.
11. Equity. Managers should be kind and fair to their subordinates.
12. Stability of tenure of personnel. High employee turnover is inefficient. Management should provide orderly personnel
planning and ensure that replacements are available to fill vacancies.
13. Initiative. Employees who are allowed to originate and carry out plans will exert high levels of effort.
14. Esprit de corps. Promoting team spirit will build harmony and unity within the organisation.

Article #6

Frederick Winslow Taylor (March 20, 1856 – March 21, 1915) was an American mechanical engineer who sought to improve
industrial efficiency.[1] He is regarded as the father of scientific management and was one of the first management consultants.[2]

Scientific management was a theory of management that analyzed and synthesized workflows. Its main objective was improving
economic efficiency, especially labor productivity. It was one of the earliest attempts to apply science to the engineering of processes
and to management. Its development began with Frederick Winslow Taylor in the 1880s and 1890s within the manufacturing
industries. Its peak of influence came in the 1910s; by the 1920s, it was still influential but had begun an era of competition and
syncretism with opposing or complementary ideas. Although scientific management as a distinct theory or school of thought was
obsolete by the 1930s, most of its themes are still important parts of industrial engineering and management today. These include
analysis; synthesis; logic; rationality; empiricism; work ethic; efficiency and elimination of waste; standardization of best practices;
disdain for tradition preserved merely for its own sake or merely to protect the social status of particular workers with particular skill
sets; the transformation of craft production into mass production; and knowledge transfer between workers and from workers into
tools, processes, and documentation.