Q1. Does Scientific Management have any relevance for the 21st century manager?

Scientific management is based on the idea of one best way and the principles of standardisation of time and routinization of motion Developed by Taylor he rose to foreman at Midvale steel company tested out his theories later releasing the book the principles of scientific management Four main principles: Science of work- observing and measuring norms of output, using a stopwatch and detailed
observations on human movements, used these findings to make improvements on environment e.g. tools and workstations.

Scientific selecting and training- task management, managers fit the workers to the job depending on their aptitude.
Combining the science of work and selecting and training of employees- workers will be able to adapt to scientific management easily benefiting from the higher wages, managers may find it difficult with the change in system and increase in work also losing previously held privileges. Management and workers must specialise and collaborate closely- Management focuses on mental labour; on setting up systems, designing them and supervising them. Workers must concentrate on manual labour, completing their task. Taylor believed if everyone stuck to their task conflict between the workers and management would be eliminated.

Taylor believed that responsibility for the organisation of work belonged with the manager; workers merely implemented what they were told to do. He taught that the most efficient way of doing the job should be specified precisely, then followed. Workers should be carefully selected, trained and monitored via tools such as the time and motion study. Taylors view of the separation of hand and brain, and belief that workers could be motivated by payment by results incentives alone, this can make us feel uncomfortable and, interestingly, were by no means universally popular in his own day. He was, for example, termed the enemy of the working man and was summoned in 1911 to defend his system of management before a committee of the US House of Representatives. However, before we adopt a condemnatory stance we should remember that Taylorism is still flourishing today. Example 1 McDonalds In many ways McDonalds is the archetypical example of an organization employing Scientific Management in production. Within this restaurant chain, uniformity is complete; no matter what country you are in every branch of McDonalds is the same, as are the methods used to prepare food, clean floors, promote staff and lock up on closing. McDonalds employees are taught to follow tick lists that break down their activities into small component parts; production lines are closely controlled and monitored by computers; and call centre operatives follow scripts that have been written for them. It is this ability to efficiently supply standard food and service throughout the world that has allowed McDonalds to become the biggest restaurant chain on the planet (Mcdonaldisation).

Example 2 Toyota Toyota is another example of a company using the scientific management principles in the 21st century. Dr. Shigeo Shingo, an independent consultant, and Taiichi Ohno, vice-president of production at Toyota restudied the work of Taylor. A principle of scientific management is the flow of manufacturing the workers were not expected to stop and think; thus eliminated decision making processes from workers. In the process thousands of simple and small problems were neglected, quality suffered, workers dignity suffered, and the workplace was dehumanized. They discovered a powerful missing ingredient the worker on the factory floor is really the expert on the job, rarely ever asked to be creatively involved in solving problems. To be internationally competitive this waste of human resources had to end. As Lean was created at Toyota the worker was directly involved: Whenever a problem was detected the worker either pulled a chain or pushed a button to stop the line. The worker was asked to immediately detect the cause of the problem, solve it and also get to the root cause so that the problem would not occur again. Toyota wanted the exact same Flow as Taylor. They did not want the worker to think on the job except when a problem occurred. They realized that the worker on the floor has brains and that those brains were required to help solve problems. Toyota noted for making junk, in 1960 became the worlds highest quality producer, in fact, the richest automotive company in the world. Today, Toyotas stock is worth more than General Motors. Conclusion It is not difficult to find examples of Scientific Management in the 21st Century; the car and computer manufacturing plants, the work environments we go to everyday, the hospitals we are treated in and even some of the restaurants we might eat in, - almost all of them function more efficiently due to the application of Scientific Management. In fact, these methods of working seem so commonplace and so logical to a citizen of the modern world that it is almost impossible to accept that they were revolutionary only 100 years ago. Although Scientific Management does play an important role in the 21st century, it is necessary to note that this method of management contains weaknesses that limit its influence in current work environments, and consequently not all of its tenants are applicable to modern organizations. Scientific Management is perhaps best seen as an evolutionary stage in managements ever developing history. Comparing Scientific Management and Human Relations Management Both are interested in efficiency and increasing output but understand the employees role in this differently Both approaches focus on the behaviour of employees (e.g. turning up on time, employee doing what is asked of him/her) with the commercial concern being the impact of absenteeism and level of productivity on profitability Both approaches are involved in extending the reach of management to manage aspects of employees that were previously seen as out of bounds or out of reach Both are strategies of organizational control

Both emphasised the notion of a Managers Right to Manage However, Human Relations was able to provide greater legitimating of management authority than scientific management, presenting managers with a more subtle yet powerful means of asserting authority in the workplace.