F W Taylor

F W Taylor - (1856 - 1915), USA- The Scientific Management School

Taylorism involved breaking down the components of manual tasks in manufacturing environments, timing each movement ('time and motion' studies) so that there could be a proven best way to perform each task. Thus employees could be trained to be 'first class' within their job. This type of management was particularly relevant to performance drives e.g 'Action On' projects.

This was a rigid system where every task became discrete and specialized. It is fair to suggest that this is unlikely to be of value to the NHS with the Modernisation agenda suggesting that we should have a flexible workforce.

Key points about Taylor, who is credited with what we now call 'Taylorism':

• he was in the scientific management school
• his emphases were on efficiency and productivity
• but he ignored many of the human aspects of employment

For the managers, scientific management required them to:

• develop a science for each operation to replace opinion and rule of thumb
• determine accurately from the science the correct time and methods for each job (time and motion studies)
• set up a suitable organisation to take all responsibility from the workers except that of the actual job performance
• select and train the workers (in the manner described above)
• accept that management itself be governed by the science deployed for each operation and surrender its arbitrary powers over the workers, i.e. cooperate with them.

For the workers, scientific management required them to:

• stop worrying about the divisions of the fruits of production between wages and profits.
• share in the prosperity of the firm by working in the correct way and receiving wage increases.
• give up their idea of time wasting and co-operate with the management in developing the science
• accept that management would be responsible for determining what was done and how
• agree to be trained in new methods where applicable

The benefits (mainly for the management) arising from scientific management can be summarised as follows:

• its rational approach to the organisational work enables tasks and procedures to be measured with a considerable degree of accuracy
• measurement of paths and processes provide useful information on which to base improvements in working methods, plant design, etc
• improving work methods brought enormous increases in productivity
• it enabled employees to be paid by results and to take advantage of incentive payments
• it stimulated management into adopting a more positive role in leadership at shop floor level.
• it contributed to major improvements in physical working conditions for employees
• it provided the formation for modern work studies

The drawbacks were mainly for the workers:

• it reduced the worker's role to that of a rigid adherence to methods and procedures over which he/she had no discretion
• it led to increased fragmentation of work due to its emphasis on divisional labour
• it generated an economically based approach to the motivation of employees by linking pay to geared outputs
• it put the planning and control of workplace activities exclusively in the hands of the managers
• it ruled out any realistic bargaining about wage rates since every job was measured and rated 'scientifically'

Therefore, in summary, while the scientific management technique has been employed to increase productivity and efficiency both in private and public services, it has also had the disadvantages of ignoring many of the human aspects of employment. This led to the creation of boring repetitive jobs with the introduction of systems for tight control and the alienation of shop floor employees from their managers.

Taylorism prevailed in the '30s through to the early '60s - and in many organisations considerably later than this. Peters and Waterman in the 70s/80 and Senge late '80s/early '90s led us towards what we now call 'systems thinking' where the rights and potential wider contributions of employees received considerably greater emphasis.

Henri Fayol

Henri Fayol (1841 - 1925), France

 

1.Division of work	Reduces the span of attention or effort for any one person or group. Develops practice and familiarity
2. Authority	The right to give an order. Should not be considered without reference to responsibility
3. Discipline	Outward marks of respect in accordance with formal or informal agreements between firm and its employees
4. Unity of command	One man superior
5. Unity of direction	One head and one plan for a group of activities with the same objective
6. Subordination of individual interests to the general interest	The interests of one individual or one group should not prevail over the general good. This is a difficult area of management
7. Remuneration	Pay should be fair to both the employee and the firm
8. Centralisation	Is always present to a greater or less extent, depending on the size of the company and quality of its managers
9. Scalar chain	The line of authority from top to bottom of the organisation
10. Order	A place for everything and everything in its place; the right man in the right place
11. Equity	A combination of kindliness and justice towards the employees
12. Stability of tenure of personnel	Employees need to be given time to settle into their jobs, even though this may be a lengthy period in the case of the managers
13. Initiative	Within the limits of authority and discipline, all levels of staff should be encouraged to show initiative
14. Esprit de corps	Harmony is a great strength to an organisation; teamwork should be encouraged

Advantages

• Fayol was the first person to actually give a definition of management which is generally familiar today namely 'forecast and plan, to organise, to command, to co-ordinate and to control'.
• Fayol also gave much of the basic terminology and concepts, which would be elaborated upon by future researchers, such as division of labour, scalar chain, unity of command and centralization.

Disadvantages

• Fayol was describing the structure of formal organizations.
• Absence of attention to issues such as individual versus general interest, remuneration and equity suggest that Fayol saw the employer as paternalistic and by definition working in the employee's interest.
• Fayol does mention the issues relating to the sensitivity of a patients needs, such as initiative and 'esprit de corps', he saw them as issues in the context of rational organisational structure and not in terms of adapting structures and changing people's behaviour to achieve the best fit between the organisation and its customers.
• Many of these principles have been absorbed into modern day organisations, but they were not designed to cope with conditions of rapid change and issues of employee participation in the decision making process of organisations, such as are current today in the early 21st century.
  
  

6 Most Overrated Management Concepts

Making a company successful requires, above all, clear thinking.

Unfortunately, there are dozens of management concepts that, far from making success easier, tend to encourage fuzzy ideas and bad decisions.

Here are a few of my favorites. Make sure you're not falling into any of these traps:

1. Consensus

Managers often strive to reach consensus among groups and individuals before any important decision is made. That sounds reasonable (hey, it's the "wisdom of crowds"), but in practice consensus drives weak decisions.

Strong decisions--the ones that create powerful futures--entail cutting away other options, and that generally means disappointing somebody. Consensus favors what's bland over what's innovative, what's safe over what's risky, and the status quo over carpe diem.

2. Customer Focus

If you focus on the customer, you'll be better able to satisfy the customer's needs, right?  Well, not really. "Focusing" on the customer is viewing the situation from your own perspective as a vendor. What's really required is the ability to listen to and absorb what the customer is saying and project yourself into the customer's shoes.

Understanding a customer is not so much a visual act (like using a microscope) as a passive act: It involves rapport, empathy, and imagination.

3. Brainstorming

Getting people together to bounce ideas off one another (in a supportive environment) sounds like a great idea. Until you actually try making it work, that is. Creativity is not a group process, and great ideas do not emerge out of dumb, half-baked ones.

What's more, no matter how supportive the environment, people know they'll be judged on the quality of their contributions. That's why brainstorming usually creates nothing more than a dull drizzle.

4. Rightsizing

Rightsizing is a weasel word intended to make mass firings seem as if they're strategic. The real truth is that big layoffs are always the result of lousy management. Though it's sometimes necessary to make staffing changes, well-run companies with farsighted management never require such drastic surgery. So let's stop using jargon that hides the fact that management failed.

5. Human Resources

The problem with calling humans "resources" is that you just dehumanized them into objects. The term puts human beings conceptually in the same bucket as raw materials on the factory floor or the network wires inside the wall. It ignores the fact that people are complicated and multifaceted, and that getting them to work together requires treating them as individuals rather than as plug-and-play commodities.

6. Leadership

Before he died, the management visionary Peter Drucker pinned the excesses of corporate America on the bloated concept of leadership. He believed businesses have more than enough leaders; what they really need are competent managers who can do the hard work of decision making, planning, and coaching.

In my experience, the typical business leader is like the leader of a marching band--he waves a stick while other people do the work.

Needless to say, feel free to leave a comment if you disagree.

THE SHOES

"positive thinking & negative thinking"

You will perhaps have heard this very old story illustrating the difference between positive thinking and negative thinking:

Many years ago two salesmen were sent by a shoe manufacturer to an island to investigate and report back on market potential.

The first salesman reported back, "There is no potential here - nobody wears shoes."

The second salesman reported back, "There is massive potential here - nobody wears shoes."

This simple short story provides one of the best examples of how a single situation may be viewed in two quite different ways - negatively or positively.

We could explain this also in terms of seeing a situation's problems and disadvantages, instead of its opportunities and benefits.

When telling this story its impact is increased by using exactly the same form of words (e.g., "nobody wears shoes") in each salesman's report. This emphasizes that two quite different interpretations are made of a single situation.

THE MECHANIC AND THE SURGEON

"PERCEPTION: THE NATURE OF BIG DIFFERENCE"

A heart surgeon took his car to his local garage for a regular service, where he usually exchanged a little friendly banter with the owner, a skilled but not especially wealthy mechanic.

"So tell me," says the mechanic, "I've been wondering about what we both do for a living, and how much more you get paid than me.."

"Yes? " says the surgeon.

"Well look at this," says the mechanic, as he worked on a big complicated engine, "I check how it's running, open it up, fix the valves, and put it all back together so it works good as new.. We basically do the same job don't we? And yet you are paid ten times 

what I am - how do you explain that?"

The surgeon thought for a moment, and smiling gently, replied, "Try it with the engine running."

Banking Ombudsman Scheme

Banking

LEARNING TO LIVE WITHOUT RECOGNITION IS A SKILL!

There was a farmer who collected horses; he only needed one more breed to complete his collection. One day, he found out that his neighbor had the particular horse breed he needed. So, he constantly bothered his neighbor until he sold it to him. 

A month later, the horse became ill and he called the veterinarian, who said: Well, your horse has a virus. He must take this medicine for three days. I'll come back on the 3rd day and if he's not better, we're going to have to put him down. Nearby, the pig listened closely to their conversation.

The next day, they gave him the medicine and left. The pig approached the horse and said: Be strong, my friend. Get up or else they're going to put you to sleep!

On the second day, they gave him the medicine and left. The pig came back and said: Come on buddy, get up or else you're going to die! Come on, I'll help you get up. Let's go! One, two, three... On the third day, they came to give him the medicine and the vet said: Unfortunately, we're going to have to put him down tomorrow. Otherwise, the virus might spread and infect the other horses. After they left, the pig approached the horse and said: Listen pal, it's now or never! Get up, come on! Have courage! Come on! Get up! Get up! That's it, slowly! Great! Come on, one, two, three... Good, good. Now faster, come on.... Fantastic! Run, run more! Yes! Yey! Yes! You did it, you're a champion!!!

All of a sudden, the owner came back, saw the horse running in the field and began shouting: It's a miracle! My horse is cured. This deserves a party. Let's kill the pig!

Points for reflection:

This often happens in the workplace. Nobody truly knows which employee actually deserves the merit of success, or who's actually contributing the necessary support to make things happen.

LEARNING TO LIVE WITHOUT RECOGNITION IS A SKILL!

If anyone ever tells you that your work is unprofessional, remember: amateurs built the Ark and professionals built the Titanic.