The Taylor philosophy established an adversarial relationship between labor and management

Abstract

This analysis of data from a 2003-2004 telephone survey of 750 Canadian and 450 English workers finds that work practices and human resource (HR) practices had important implications for unions. The effects differed by the type of practice (for example, traditional versus "new" HR), and were mediated by each country's institutional environment. For example, traditional personnel/HR practices were strongly positively related to the likelihood of union representation and strongly negatively related to workers' propensity to vote for a union in Canada, but made little difference to either of those union outcomes in England; and "alternative" work practices bore an inverse U-shaped association with union representation in Canada, versus a positive relationship with that outcome in England. In general, the Canadian findings are consistent with an adversarial dynamic, and the English findings with a more collaborative one.

Journal Information

Issued quarterly since October 1947, the Industrial & Labor Relations Review is a leading interdisciplinary journal, broad in scope and international in its coverage of work and employment issues. We also publish reviews of some 20 books per year. We define industrial relations to include a broad range of market, organizational, and institutional processes related to the world of work. Relevant topics include the organization of work, the nature of employment contracts, human resource management, employment relations, conflict management and dispute resolution, labor market dynamics and policies, labor and employment law, and employee attitudes and behaviors at work. Our articles are edited with the aim of making their findings and conclusions intelligible to all readers.

Publisher Information

Sara Miller McCune founded SAGE Publishing in 1965 to support the dissemination of usable knowledge and educate a global community. SAGE is a leading international provider of innovative, high-quality content publishing more than 900 journals and over 800 new books each year, spanning a wide range of subject areas. A growing selection of library products includes archives, data, case studies and video. SAGE remains majority owned by our founder and after her lifetime will become owned by a charitable trust that secures the company’s continued independence. Principal offices are located in Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC and Melbourne. www.sagepublishing.com

Rights & Usage

This item is part of a JSTOR Collection.
For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions
ILR Review
Request Permissions

Answer:

The Taylor philosophy also contributed to the development of labor unions and established an adversarial relationship between labor

Frederick Winslow Taylor (1856 - 1915) Principles of Scientific Management

Slides

In the past the man has been first; in the future the system must be first (Taylor: 7).

Taylor's focus of attention was plant management. He argued that labor problems (waste, low productivity, high turnover, soldiering, and the adversarial relationship between labor and management) arose from defective organization and improper methods of production in the workplace. Production, he contended, was governed by universal and natural laws that were independent of human judgment. The object of scientific management was to discover these laws and apply the "one best way" to basic managerial functions such as selection, promotion, compensation, training, and production.  In this way, Taylor sought to eliminate guesswork from the business of management.

Taylor advocated using time and motion studies to determine the most efficient method for performing each work task, a piece-rate system of compensation to maximize employee work effort, and the selection and training of employees based on a thorough investigation of their personalities and skills. Taylor also promoted changes in the organizational structure of the firm, such as replacing the single omnipotent foreman in charge of all aspects of production and personnel management in a given department with several foremen, each of whom would be trained in the knowledge and skills of a specific functional activity (e.g., productivity, machine repair, quality assurance).

The gist of the problem. Taylor believed that under the traditional management each worker was to become more skilled in his own trade than it was possible for any one in management to be, and that, therefore, the details of how the work should best be done must be left to him (p. 63). Unfortunately, four problems existed that rendered this situation untenable for society: First, management used rules of thumb to decide on what constitutes a fair day of work (p. 22), work procedures, personnel matters, etc. Second, being self-centered, workers abused managers' trust in two ways (pp. 17, 19, 20, 50). According to Taylor, "the natural instinct and tendency of men is to take it easy, which may be called natural soldiering" (p. 19).  "To ward off a rate cut was one reason to soldier.  To thumb his nose at the boss, protest wages deemed too low, or husband shop work otherwise apt to run out were others" (Kanigel, 1997: 164). Third, even those employees who wanted to perform to the best of their capabilities were forced to conform to an informal, group-made norm that was always lower than their optimal performance (p. 13).  This Taylor labeled "systematic soldiering," where the whole shop conspired to restrict production (p. 20). Fourth, any man phlegmatic enough to do manual work was too stupid to develop the best way, the 'scientific way' of doing a job, hence the vast amount of waste in the workplace (p. 63). 

An important brick in the intellectual edifice of Taylor's scientific management is the "rabble hypothesis:"

1. Natural society consists of a horde of unorganized individuals;
   
2. Every individual acts in a manner calculated to secure his self-interest (especially in times of economic scarcity). In itself this may not be detrimental to an organization.  However, when viewed in the context Taylor portrayed of crafty workers who tried to squeeze more money for less effort, it is clear why self-interested workers are a menace.
    

   Hardly a competent worker can be found in a large establishment, who does not devote a considerable part of his time to studying just how slowly he can work and still convince his employer that he is going at a good pace (quoted in Kanigel: 171. My emphasis).

3. Every individual thinks logically, to the best of his ability, in the service of this aim. This is why the best incentive to induce workers to work harder is money.

What then should management do with employees? (See pp. 36, 140):

1. Science, not rule of thumb
   
2. Harmony (playing by the rules of the game designed by management), not discord (p. 15)
   
3. Cooperation, not individualism (p. 36)
   
4. Maximum output, in place of restricted output (soldiering)
   
5. The development of each man to his greatest physical capability (pp. 39, 55, 57, 59)

We begin to see that Scientific Management has a strong HRM component.

Taylor strongly believed that the successful manager was a manager who controlled every aspect of the production process. To achieve this, managers should:

• Centralized planning. Uncouple planning and execution -- i.e. workers only execute what managers plan (pp. 37-8). This is probably the most well-known principle of Scientific management.  At a lecture he gave in 1906, Taylor explained:
   

  In our scheme, we do not ask for the initiative of our men.  We do not want any initiative.  All we want of them is to obey the orders we give them, do what we say, and do it quick (Kanigel: 169).

• Systematic analysis of each distinct operation. Create an elaborate set of rules to regulate every aspect of worker behavior at the workplace (pp. 22, 36).
  
• Detailed instruction and supervision. Breakdown every job to its minuscule components so that no one worker would posses any knowledge which might be unique enough to put this worker in a position of power vis-�-vis management (see p. 36 - the 4 rules of Scientific Management).
  
• Uncouple "direct" and "indirect" labor. All preparation and servicing tasks are stripped away to be performed by unskilled workers as far as possible. Thus, he created two classes of workers -- laborers and maintenance workers.
  
• Recruit the most stupid men they can lay their hand on (p. 40-1, 43-6, 59, 62, 137).
  
• Functional management/foremanship (123-5; 129). Taylor advocated breaking down the function of the shop-floor inspector into four functions (setting-up boss, speed boss, quality inspector, and repair boss), and placing them under the control of the planning department. Thus foremen like workers became subject to the rule of clerks. In this way, Taylor tackled a major problem faced by management of large, complex organizations, that is, the integration of conflicting instructions. In the process, he was laying the ground for the modern division between 'staff' and 'line' functions.
  
• Wage payments. Wage systems should be carefully designed to induce each worker to follow the detailed instructions. Taylor preferred a piece-rate system of compensation. Frequently, piece-rate systems are associated with bonuses for extra efforts. Characteristically, these systems tend to evolve upward. Continuously and consistently, what used to be an extra effort worthy of a bonus, becomes the new performance norm. And vying to gain or regain competitive advantage, managers are driven to establish a higher norm for their employees.

These principles constitute a dynamic of work bureaucratization &  deskilling. Thus Taylor went from one extreme, the rule of the omnipotent supervisor, to another, the rule of the impersonal bureaucracy.  Importantly, the drive for deskilling was initiated not by Taylor but by larger factories and more specialized machines.

HOW TO READ TAYLOR

• SM is a philosophy and a set of principles an organization uses to make the most of workers' physical capabilities (pp. 129-131). Therefore,

• Like quality improvement gurus who emerged years after Taylor's death in 1915, Taylor believed that successful implementation of Scientific Management required a "thought revolution in management." In other words, implementation of the principles of Scientific Management without a supporting philosophy (culture) is a recipe for failure (pp. 130-31):

  When, however, the elements of this mechanism, such as time study, functional foremanship, etc., are used without being accompanied by the true philosophy of management, the results are in many cases disastrous... the really great problem involved in a change from the management of "initiative and incentive" to Scientific Management consists in a complete revolution in the mental attitude and the habits of all those engaged in the management, as well as the workmen... This change in the mental attitude of the workman imperatively demands time... The writer has over and over again warned against those who contemplated making this change that it was a matter, even in a simple establishment, of from two to three years, and that in some cases it requires from four to five years.

  Management of initiative and incentiverefers to a system whereby managers would have to provide workers with special incentives to obtain their best effort, or initiative. The reason being, workers believed "it to be directly against their interests to give their employers their best initiative" (p. 33).

  
  

• SM includes a political element that emphasizes management control. It creates an organization that strives for maximum interchangeability of personnel (with minimum training) to reduce its dependence on the availability, ability, and motivation of individuals.

• Taylorism represents a form of organization devoid of any notion of a career-structure for the majority. Thus, Taylorism can be defined as the bureaucratization of the structure of control, but not the employment relationship (no unions/CB/labor law) or career development.

• Taylor's recognition of the problems of cooperation, gaining consent and legitimacy and shared understandings, as well as the meaning of work should not be disregarded, see:
  
  • Harmonious society (pp. 10, 85);
    
  • Prosperous society and thriving individuals (pp. 10, 15, 29, 55, 125-128);
    
  • Management-cum-instructors (p. 26).

  These three elements are succinctly captured by Kaufman (2004: 68-9): "Taylor saw that politics, ideology and arbitrariness separated employers and workers and bred conflict and low productivity, so he sought to banish them by substituting rationality, expert administration and strict observance of the law of the shop, thus removing enmity and uniting employers in the common pursuit of prosperity."

  
  

• Ultimately, Taylor evoked the authority of science to legitimize his ideas. With science as a foundation, Taylor hoped to improve efficiency and usher in an era of peaceful coexistence between capital, management and labor based on an objective understanding of what was best for all three groups. However, not everyone interested in SM had the same goal. Clearly, capital had much more to gain from the shift to SM than labor in terms of control and profits.

• Taylor discouraged teamwork. Yet understanding that it was unavoidable, it stressed that it should be highly controlled. Thus, teams should be created only with management permission. No more than 4 people per team are allowed, and the team should disband within one week of its creation (pp. 72-3).

References:

Frederick W. Taylor. 1985. (Originally 1911).

. Easton: Hive.

Robert Kanigel. 1997.

. Penguin.

Bruce E. Kaufman. 2004. The Global Evolution of Industrial Relations: Events, Ideas and The IIRA. Geneva: ILO.

Elements of Fordism

1. Production system - rested on work that was organized hierarchically, on a continuous flow technology, on high-volume production of standardized consumer goods, targeted standardized and uniform markets, acknowledged working class consumption, displaced a division of labor more centered on craft production, created unskilled production jobs, emphasized high level of specialization, demanded no learning experience and, therefore, offered little on-the-job training.
   
2. Personnel Departments - maintained industrial peace and ensured that the labor process operated effectively and smoothly. Importantly, personnel departments were removed from the key corporate strategy-making within the business. Personnel managers were given no initiating role; they were regarded as being basically reactive, responding to the demands made by trade unions. No strategic HRM at that point in time.
   
3. Collective Bargaining - meshed with Fordism as a mechanism insuring that consumption power was tied to productivity growth.
   
4. Homogeneous Customers - large numbers of potential customers have essentially identical and well-defined wants for a long list of products.

   A combination of reduced profit levels (inability to sustain increased wages together with falling productivity), increased international competition and fragmented consumption patterns has limited the extent of Fordism in North America.

What is the Taylor philosophy?

What is the Taylor philosophy of strategic human resource management?

Why did Frederick Taylor’s workforce management system fail?