In this blog post, we will look at whether Taylor’s Scientific Management Theory was a true innovation or the beginning of human alienation.
When asked what they think of industrialization, many people think of the relationship between machines and humans in the movie Modern Times. The 1936 film Modern Times, directed by Charlie Chaplin, is a brilliant satire of industrialization, and the scene in which Chaplin works on a production line is particularly impressive. He tightens the bolts of the parts on the conveyor with tools in both hands. As the speed of the conveyor increases, Chaplin tries his best to keep up with it, but he ends up getting caught between the gears and wobbling around in a comical manner. Many people believe that technological advancements have made workers the victims. And at the heart of this criticism is Taylor’s scientific management theory. It is said that Taylor saw workers as machines that would work until they were exhausted if only they were paid a lot of money, so workers were unable to enjoy their lives and became machines.
However, such criticism is the result of a fragmentary understanding of Taylor’s scientific management theory. In fact, Taylor’s theory does not simply treat workers like machines, but aims to maximize the efficiency of labor and improve the quality of life of workers. Taylor studied various ways to reduce worker fatigue and enable them to work in a more pleasant environment. In this respect, his scientific management theory did not simply emphasize productivity, but sought a way for both workers and managers to win-win.
Taylor’s scientific management theory is a new, rational and efficient management technique that was proposed in criticism of the existing, rule-of-thumb style of corporate management. It is based on the following four principles.
First, they develop a science that will replace the rule-of-thumb methods of the past for each element of the workers’ work.
Second, they scientifically select and train workers and develop each worker to the highest level in their field of work.
Third, they sincerely cooperate with workers so that all work can be carried out based on the principles of the previously developed “science.”
Fourth, there is an almost equal distribution of work and responsibilities between labor and management.
As anyone who has looked closely at the above four principles will have noticed, the people who are supposed to follow Taylor’s four principles are not the workers, but the management. In the past, the workers were almost solely responsible for carrying out their duties and responsibilities, and the management simply encouraged them and used the carrot-and-stick method. Taylor, on the other hand, requires management to study ways to ensure that workers are in the best possible condition, with the least amount of time and effort, and achieve the greatest satisfaction. If you check what is a fair workload for both managers and workers in consideration of their fatigue levels, and systematically train workers by studying efficient movements and tools, their work skills will improve and the company’s productivity will increase. Of course, the prerequisite is to guarantee a definite wage increase when workers’ productivity increases. This is in line with the third principle.
In this context, the claim that Taylor’s theory treats humans like machines may be an overreaction. His theory should be seen as an effort to make human labor more efficient and more humane. His goal was to maximize human capabilities while eliminating unnecessary waste and inefficiency in the process. This was not simply to increase the intensity of labor, but to enable workers to work less tired and more safely.
Nevertheless, some people will still criticize, “What’s the difference between quantifying work and seeing people as machines?” I would like to argue as follows. The important thing in the principles of scientific management is not the mechanism itself, but the philosophy of scientific management. This philosophy is about finding ways to make workers, managers, and members of society as a whole happy. Creating systems such as time studies, work instructions, and bonus systems based on the four principles is just a means. If you try to change things in a hurry because you think you have come up with a better way, you may end up getting the workers’ resentment and causing more problems. If you train workers to gradually change their work in consideration of their perceptions and lead them to a better way, you will be able to achieve work improvement and have the workers and management cooperate sincerely.
In addition, Taylor’s scientific management theory is not a universal solution that can be applied to all situations as is. In modern society, the forms of labor are diversifying, and as a result, there is a need to reinterpret Taylor’s principles in a modern way. In particular, his management principles can only be applied to a limited extent in fields where knowledge work or creativity is important. Therefore, it is important to flexibly apply Taylor’s theory to the modern environment rather than blindly following it.
One thing that is disappointing about Taylor’s scientific management theory is that he explained it from a too personal perspective. He argued in his book that “individual motivation decreases when working in a group,” and insisted that people should work as individually as possible. However, humans are social animals and working in a team can create a synergy effect. In addition, most social systems, including today’s factories, have many tasks that are performed by teams rather than individuals, so scientific management can be applied to group tasks as well.
The scientific method that can be proposed when working in a group is to create a system for teamwork and a learning organization for managing the team. This is especially necessary in fields where safety is important. For example, let’s say that doctors from various fields are performing surgery in the operating room to save a patient. They will each try to save the patient with the best manual they have been given. If each of them has the best technology, but an accident occurs due to a lack of communication, this will ultimately lead to a decline in productivity. Therefore, to this end, we will be able to create a scientific alternative to deal with emergencies through multiple studies and simulations by all team members in accordance with the principles of scientific management.
We also need a system that can manage the second created organization well. Even if you look at the Sewol ferry sinking incident that occurred in Korea a long time ago, you can see the need for a management system that can oversee the entire process. Design a learning organization to remember what went wrong, organize it correctly by people who are familiar with the technology, share information between teams, and organize the organization to pursue the same goal. In addition, a great organization will be created if security is maintained and discipline is ensured for cooperation between the organization’s leaders and team members.
In this article, we have examined what Taylor’s scientific management theory is. We have also proposed a collective scientific management method that was not explained in his theory. If we understand what Taylor was trying to say, we can see that engineering is not a science that mechanizes humans and harms them. In order to become a “warm” engineering, we must continue to study how to create things that people can do for a better and safer society. In this process, it will be important to find new scientific management methods that respect the rights and humanity of workers.
Today, we are entering the era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, which presents completely different challenges and opportunities than the Taylorism era. In the midst of these changes, we must consider how to reinterpret and apply Taylor’s scientific management theory. With the introduction of automation and artificial intelligence, the forms of labor are becoming more diverse, and the role of humans is shifting to more creative and complex areas. Therefore, we must develop new human-centered management methods by advancing Taylor’s principles in a modern context.
