A Comparison between Taylorism and the scientific method Essay

When most people forecast of scientific caution, they think of Frederic Winslow Taylor. He led a movement against waste and soldiering which revolutionized the industrial age. He c t bug out ensembleed his speculation scientific Management, although many who come subsequently debate the appropriateness of the title. It seems more than appropriate to call the hypothesis Taylorism, as many do. There argon others who have overly contributed to the shoal of scientific Management, most nonably Frank and Lillian Gilbreth, Henry Gantt, and Henry Ford. There argon common char cloakeristics of each of these approaches, which create the style of attention called Scientific Management.This paper, however, exit focus on Taylor and what he called Scientific Management. First, we will smack at the scientific method, however, so that an accurate answer to the question Is scientific management scientific? Can be found. Then we will await at the ways in which Scientific Management, as espo substance ab workd by Taylor, was not scientific. Finally, we will look at the ways in which Scientific Management is related to the scientific community. First, a brief overview of the scientific method. The scientific method can be broken vote down into five basic move1. Observation, leading to naming of the Problem or Question. 2. Form a dead reckoning (educated guess) which may explain the observations, and make predictions based on the speculation. 3. Testing of the meditation to examine if it is align, using proper controls. 4. Check and Interpret the solvents. 5. Publishing results to be verified by others . Of course, when testing the venture, all relevant test knowledge mustiness be included so that the results can be hearty-tried by others. In science, a hypothesis which cannot be dis-proved, becomes a theory.It is the fiber of science to prove a hypothesis wrong when a hypothesis can withstand attempts to disprove it, its status as a theory grows unti l it is accepted as a law. A common example is norths theory of gravity. He observed that objects unceasingly fell down to the ground. He formed a hypothesis that there was a disembowel actioning on the object to pull it to the earth. He predicted that this force would act equally on all objects. He tested this hypothesis and preserve his results. He published these results for review, and they have been validated time and again by scientists, giving them the status of Newtons LAW of Gravity.Scientific Management, as seen by Taylor, did not really follow the scientific method. However, it did use scientific tools. This is a careful distinction. Essential in the verification of a scientific hypothesis, there must be testing which can be reproduced by other scientists. This means that the same set of tools for measurement must be available, the same mathematical formulas used, and the same population sample for testing. First, permits examine the relationship amidst Taylor and the scientific method. As declared by Taylor himselfThe majority of these men believe that the sound interests of employes and employers are consumefully antagonistic. Scientific management, on the contrary, has for its precise foundation the firm conviction that the true interests of the two are unmatchable and the same that successfulness for the employer cannot exist through with(predicate) a long term of years unless it is accompanied by prosperity for the employee, and vice versa and that it is possible to give the wrenchman what he most wants graduate(prenominal) wages and the employer what he wants a low labor costfor his manufactures.Taylors observation is that most people view the fundamental interests of employers and employees as antagonistic. His hypothesis is that this is not the case, in fact, that the goal of the employers for low cost manufacturing and the goal of the employee for high wages are compatible. Already, there is a mistake in his logic, he does no t set out a hypothesis to answer the fundamental question Do employees and management share the same objective? However, Taylors real hypothesis (although not stated) is that labor can be performed more efficiently. He sets out to test this hypothesis.His motion and time studies can all be performed by others to validate the results. He used these studies to dramatically break take and efficiency, however, he had the opposite goal in fact, the result was so extreme there was an investigation of the practice lead by the get together States Congress against claims of de-humanization Another scholar notes Nevertheless, the industrial engineer with his stop ingest and clip-board, standing over you measuring each little part of the avocation and ones movements became a hated figure and lead to practically sabotage and group resistance. In many ways, Scientific Management is very scientific. First, it relies upon measurements and replication of results. Second, it has the same e stimable questions as medical sciences. Finally, scientific management as espoused by Taylor has been modified by new hypothesis. A result of measurements and replication of results was the revolutionizing of the labor force from a rule-of-thumb or trial and misplay process to a demonstrable, formulaic process for the completion of each grade in the production process. However, this result brought up the ethical question of world being viewed as machines.As what is happening in modern measure with stem cell research and other human scientific inquiries, the look of man as machine raised some serious ethical concerns in America. However, this concern also opened the door for competing hypothesis to explain what the relationship is betwixt employers goals and employees goals and how they can be brought together. The school of Human Relations came from this line of inquiry, exemplified by the results of the Hawthorne Study (which also followed scientific principles in how it was conducted ).The following contrasts the assumptions of Taylors Scientific Management with the results of the Hawthorne study traditional theory (Scientific Management) people try to satisfy one class of need at work economic need no conflict exists among individual and organizational objectives people act rationally to maximize rewards we act individually to satisfy individual needs Human relations Hypothesis organizations are social systems, not just adept economic systems we are motivated by many needs we are not always logical we are interdependent our behavior is often shaped by the social context. informal work group is a major agent in determining attitudes and performance of individual workers management is only one factor affecting behavior the informal group often has a stronger impact job roles are more complex than job descriptions would evoke people act in many ways not cover by job descriptions there is no automatic correlation between individual and orga nizational needs communication channels cover two logical/economic aspects of an organization and feelings of people teamwork is essential for cooperation and sound technical decisions leadership should be modified to include concepts of human relations. job ecstasy will lead to higher job productivity management requires legal social skills, not just technical skills Frederic Taylor introduced great advantages into modern production and efficiency. However, he misrepresented his theory when he called it Scientific Management. It is well understood that he was referring to the techniques he used to create benchmarks and quality procedures for work processes. However, as a general theory, he does not set out to answer the question he claims he is answering Do management and employees share the same goals? In this way he has misrepresented himself.However, he opened the door to scientific evaluation and inquiry into this own theory. His use of measurements and work-units follows mathematics perfectly and augments a science of human motion. He also shared his theories with his contemporaries, which allowed for discussion of the hypothesis and challenge even before Congress, very much like stem cell research today. Finally, he created a theory which could be challenged by others. Mayo, Barnard, and the Hawthorne Studies all set out to show the differences between what the employers want and what the employees want, and how to reach an equitable solution.Bibliography Net MBA Business Knowledge Center. Frederic Taylor and Scientific Management, Internet Center for Management and Business Administration, Inc, . Taylor, F. W, The Principles of Scientific Management, Harper & Row, London, 1911 Walker, Michael, The spirit of Scientific Thought, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1963 Wertheim, E. G. Professor, Historical Background of Organizational Behavior, Northeastern University, College of Business Administration, Boston, MA,