4 principles of taylor control. F. Taylor School of Science Management. Frederick Taylor's Fundamental Principles

The main goal of any commercial enterprise- improvement of own parameters of efficiency. In order to do this, you need to increase the productivity of your employees and reduce unnecessary costs. Frederick Winslow Taylor identified the factors that influence and also acted as the creator of the scientific management system. With the help of a series of experiments, he determined the average time rates for the completion of individual operations and the optimal ways to perform them.

Frederick Taylor: biography

The future founder of scientific management was born in 1856 into a family of lawyers in Pennsylvania. He studied in France and Germany, and then in New Hampshire, at the Exter Academy. Frederick Winslow Taylor originally intended to become a lawyer like his father. He successfully graduated in 1847 from Harvard College in this specialty, but he had vision problems that prevented him from continuing his education.

Frederick Taylor began his career as an apprentice of a model designer, was a machinist for a time, but at the age of 35 he was promoted to a management consultant after successfully conducting a series of experiments at a steel mill in Midwell, and based on their results, made valuable suggestions to management. Here, in six years, he went from a simple hired worker to a chief engineer, at the same time receiving a correspondence technical education, and for the first time differentiated the salary of his employees depending on their labor productivity.

Professional achievements

In 1890, the future founder of Taylorism ends his engineering career and becomes general manager of the Philadelphia Manufacturing Investment Company. But after three years he decided to start his own business and became the first in a private consultant. In parallel, Frederick Taylor promoted industrial management through his membership in the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, until he founded an organization dedicated exclusively to this issue.

The scientist outlined the theoretical concepts that brought him worldwide popularity in three main works:

Factory Management;
"Principles of Scientific Management";
"Testimony before a special commission of Congress."

Practical experimentation

During his time at the steel mill, Taylor researched the time spent on individual manufacturing operations. The first experiment was to measure key points trimming of cast iron ingots. Frederick Taylor was able to derive average labor productivity rates, which then began to apply to all workers. As a result, the salary at the enterprise increased by 1.6 times due to an increase in labor productivity by almost 4 times and rationalization of the ingots manufacturing process.

The essence of the second experiment, conducted by Taylor, consisted in determining the optimal ways of placing workpieces on machines using a ruler, which was specially invented by him, and the correct cutting speeds. Tens of thousands of experiments were carried out at the enterprise, which made it possible to identify 12 factors affecting the final efficiency.

Research theories

Scientific management is an umbrella term for the ideas that Taylor put forward regarding management theories and practices. His method involves short repetitive cycles, a detailed sequence of tasks for each employee, monitoring the implementation of the set goals and motivating employees using a system of material rewards. The differentiated system used today in most organizations and bonuses for performance are built precisely on his experience. According to the main researchers organizational management Andrzej Hutchinsky and David Buchanan, efficiency, predictability and control of the production process are the main goals that Frederick Taylor ascribes to his scientific method of management.

The connection between personal and professional life

Since, as a result of the considered practical developments, the demand for labor was reduced, the angry workers even tried to kill the scientist. Initially, even big businessmen opposed it, and a special commission was created in the US Congress to study its findings.

Since 1895, Taylor devoted himself entirely to the study of the scientific organization of labor. Over time, he came to the conclusion that the well-being of the enterprise is possible only if there are favorable conditions for each employee. The scientist died at the age of 59 from pneumonia, leaving behind conclusions that inspire researchers and entrepreneurs today.

Frederick Taylor: Management Principles

The scientific management system is based on three "pillars": regulation of labor processes, systematic selection and professional development of personnel, monetary motivation as a reward for high productivity. main reason Taylor's inefficiency is the imperfection of incentives for rewarding employees, therefore, they should be paid attention to by a modern entrepreneur.

The system developed by the scientist is based on 4 principles:

Close attention to individual components of the production process to establish laws and formulas for their effective implementation.
Careful selection of employees, their training and professional development, as well as the dismissal of those who are not able to understand scientific methods management.
Feedback of management with employees and convergence of production and science.
Distribution of functions between employees and management: the former are responsible for the quality and quantity of the final product, the others are responsible for making recommendations for

The above principles of Taylor have proven their correctness, because after a century they underlie the functioning of any enterprise, and the study of building a management system is one of the main areas of research.

The school of scientific management was finally formed and became widely known at the beginning of the 20th century. It is associated primarily with the names of F. Taylor, Frank and Lillian Gilbreth, G. Emerson, G. Ford.

Creators schools of scientific management proceeded from the fact that, using observations, measurements, logic and analysis, it is possible to improve most of the manual labor operations, to achieve their more efficient performance.

The main principles of the school of scientific management:

Rational organization - involves the replacement of traditional methods of work with a number of rules formed on the basis of work analysis, and the subsequent correct placement of workers and their training in optimal working techniques.
Development of the formal structure of the organization.
Determination of measures for cooperation between the manager and the worker, that is, the delineation of executive and managerial functions.

The founders of the School of Scientific Management are:

F.W. Taylor;
Frank and Lily Gilbert;
Henry Gantt.

F.W. Taylor- Practical engineer and manager, who, based on the analysis of the content of the work and the definition of its main elements developed methodological foundations labor rationing, standardized work operations, introduced into practice scientific approaches to the selection, placement and stimulation of workers.

Taylor developed and implemented a complex system of organizational measures:

timing;
instruction cards;
methods of retraining workers;
planning bureau;
collection of social information.

He attached considerable importance to the correct system of disciplinary sanctions and labor incentives. in his system is the main source of efficiency. A key element of this approach was that people who produced more, rewarded more.

A look at the piecework and bonus wage systems:

F. Taylor: workers should receive wages in proportion to their contribution, i.e. piecework. Workers who produce more than the established daily rate should receive higher wages, i.e. differentiated piece-rate wages;
G. Gantt: the worker is guaranteed a weekly wage, but if the norm is exceeded, he earns a bonus plus a higher unit pay.

Scientific management is most closely associated with the work of Frank and Lilia Gilbert, who were primarily concerned with the study of physical work in production processes and investigated the ability to increase product output by reducing efforts spent on their production.

Gilberts studied work operations using movie cameras in combination with a microchronometer. Then, using freeze frames, the elements of operations were analyzed, the structure of work operations was changed in order to eliminate unnecessary, unproductive movements, and they sought to increase work efficiency.

Research into the rationalization of workers' labor, conducted by F. Gilbert, provided a threefold increase in labor productivity.

L. Gilbert laid the foundation for the field of management, which is now called "personnel management". She researched issues such as placement and training. Scientific management did not neglect the human factor.

An important contribution of this school was systematic use of incentives in order to motivate workers to increase the volume of production.

The closest student of Taylor was G. Gantt, who was engaged in the development of methods of premium payment, who compiled schematic cards for production planning(Gantt strip charts), and also contributed to the development of leadership theory. Gantt's works characterize the consciousness of the leading role of the human factor.

Representatives of the school of scientific management mainly devoted their work to what is called production management. She focused on improving efficiency at the sub-managerial level, the so-called off-management level.

Criticism of the School of Scientific Management: a mechanistic approach to management: teaching management was reduced to teaching industrial engineering; reducing labor motivation to meet the utilitarian needs of workers.

The concept of scientific management was a watershed moment. It almost instantly became a subject of general interest. Many industries business activities began to apply scientific management not only in the United States, but also in England, France and other countries.

G. Ford, mechanic and entrepreneur, organizer mass production cars in the United States, was the successor of Taylor's teachings and implemented his theoretical provisions in practice.

G. Ford's principles of production organization: replacement self made machine; maximum division of labor; specialization; arrangement of equipment along the way technological process; mechanization of transport operations; regulated production rhythm.

The ideas laid down by the school of scientific management were developed and applied to the management of organizations as a whole, primarily by representatives.

Principles, Advantages and Disadvantages of the School of Scientific Management

The founder of the Taylor School of Scientific Management, using observation, measurement and analysis, improved many of the manual labor operations of workers and, on this basis, achieved an increase in the productivity and efficiency of their labor. The results of his research served as the basis for revising the norms of production and wages of workers.

Taylor's followers Frank and Lillian Gilbreth focused on rationalizing workers, studying physical movements in the manufacturing process, and exploring the possibilities of increasing output by increasing labor productivity. A significant contribution to the development of the Taylor system was made by Emerson, who investigated the staff principle in management and the rationalization of production. Ford formulated the basic principles of organizing production, for the first time separated the main work from its service.

From the studies and experiments carried out, the authors of this school have derived a number of general principles, methods and forms of organizing production and stimulating the labor of workers. Basic principles of the school of scientific management:

development of optimal methods for carrying out work on the basis of studying the costs of time, movements, efforts, etc .;
absolute adherence to the developed standards;
selection, training and placement of workers in those jobs where they can provide the greatest benefit;
pay based on labor results;
separation of management functions into a separate area of professional activity;
maintaining friendly relations between workers and managers.

The contribution of the school of scientific management to management theory:

usage scientific analysis for studying labor process and determining the best ways to accomplish the task;
selecting the workers best suited to the tasks and providing them with training;
providing employees with the resources required to effectively perform their tasks;
the importance of equitable incentives for workers to improve productivity;
separation of planning and organizational activities from the work itself.

The disadvantages of this theory include the following:

the doctrine was based on a mechanistic understanding of a person, his place in the organization and the essence of his activities;
in the worker, Taylor and his followers saw only the performer of simple operations and a means to an end;
did not recognize disagreements, contradictions, conflicts between people;
only the material needs of the workers were considered and taken into account in the doctrine;

Taylor tended to treat workers as uneducated people, ignoring their ideas and suggestions.

The founder of this school, Taylor, has devoted many years to increasing the productivity of workers. In fact, he was trying to find an answer to the question: how to make the worker work like a machine? The set of principles and provisions of this school were later called "Taylorism".

At the same time, this theory became a serious turning point, thanks to which management began to be widely recognized as an independent field. scientific research... For the first time, practitioners and academics saw that the methods and approaches recommended by the school can be effectively used to achieve organizational goals.

The representatives of this school created the scientific foundations of production and labor management. In the 1920s. from this scientific direction independent sciences emerged: the scientific organization of labor (NOT), the theory of the organization of production, etc.

Current page: 1 (total of the book has 9 pages)

Frederick Winslow Taylor

"Principles of Scientific Management"

F.W. Taylor- the recognized founder of the scientific management of enterprises - management. In the book F.W. Taylor"Principles of Scientific Management" examines the main elements of the famous "Taylor system".

Introduction.

President Roosevelt, in his welcoming speech to the governors at the White House, prophetically observed that "the preservation of our national wealth is only a detail in relation to the more general question of the productivity of national labor."

The whole country quickly realized the importance of preserving our material wealth, and this was the beginning of a broad social movement, which will undoubtedly lead to major results in the direction of this goal. On the contrary, until now we are very unclear about the importance of "the more general question of increasing the productivity of our national labor."

We can directly see how our forests are disappearing, how our water energy is lost unused, how our soil is washed away by the sea, and the end of our reserves of coal and iron is a matter of the near future. On the contrary, the immeasurably large waste of human energy that occurs every day in the mass of our actions, which are erroneous, misdirected, or not reaching the goal - the very actions that Mr. Roosevelt refers to as a lack of "productivity of national labor" - this waste is less obvious , is less perceptible, and therefore its size seems to us very unclear.

We can see and feel the leakage of wealth. On the contrary, awkward, misdirected and unproductive actions of a person do not leave behind anything visible and tangible. Evaluating them requires on our part an act of memory, an effort of imagination. And because of this, despite the fact that our daily losses from this source are much more significant than the losses due to the waste of material goods, the latter deeply affect us, while the former make very little impression on us.

Until now, there has been no public agitation for "raising national productivity", no gatherings have been organized to discuss how to implement it. And yet, if there is clear evidence that the need to increase productivity is created by wide circles of the nation.

Finding better, more competent people to perform functions - from the CEOs of our large companies to domestic servants, inclusive - has never been more pressing than it is today, and the demand for knowledgeable, well-trained people has never surpassed the limited supply. ...

However, what we are all looking for is a ready trained person who has been learned by someone else. Only when we are fully aware that it is our responsibility to systematically cooperate in order to learn and create this knowledgeable person and that we have every opportunity to do this, instead of hunting for someone else who has learned - only then will we be on the path to increasing our national productivity. In the past, the prevailing view was well expressed in the words: "Captains of industry are born, and they are made." This theory believed that one has only to get a "real" person, and the methods of his activity will apply themselves. In the future, everyone will understand that our leaders should be as well trained as they should be born outstanding, and that they should not. an outstanding person cannot (under the old system of personal leadership) compete with a few ordinary people who are so organized as to achieve good results in their joint activities.

In the old days, the most important thing was personality; in the future, the most important thing will be the system. This, however, should by no means mean that we do not need outstanding personalities. On the contrary, the first task of any good organizational system is the task of generating first-class ideas, and with the systematic organization of work, the best worker moves up faster and more confidently than ever before.

This book was written:

First, in order to show, with a series of simple examples, the enormous losses that the whole country suffers as a result of the insufficient productivity of most of our daily activities;

Secondly, - in order to try to convince the reader that the cure for this productivity lies in the systematic organization of labor, and not in the search for any extraordinary or extravagant personality;

Thirdly, in order to prove that the best organization of labor is a real science, based on clearly defined laws, rules and principles as its foundation. And further, in order to show that the basic principles of scientific organization are equally applicable to all types of human activity, from our simplest individual actions to the work of our large public organizations, which requires the most developed cooperation. In short, this book wants to convince the reader, through a series of graphic illustrations, that wherever these principles are correctly applied, the results of their application are bound to be absolutely astounding.

This work was originally intended to be presented to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Therefore, the examples we have chosen are such that they should, we hope, make a particularly strong impression on the engineers and directors of industrial enterprises, as well as on all those workers who are employed in these enterprises. We nevertheless express the hope that it will be clear to other readers how the same principles can be applied with equal success to all resolute species. social activities: to the arrangement of our household goods, to the management of our farms, to the conduct of commercial operations by our merchants, large and small; to the organization of our churches, philanthropic institutions, universities and government bodies.

Chapter 1. Prerequisites for scientific management.

§ 1. The main task of organizing an enterprise.

The main task of enterprise management should be to ensure maximum profit for the entrepreneur, in conjunction with the maximum welfare for each employee employed in the enterprise.

We use the words "maximum profit" in a broad sense and mean not only large dividends for a joint-stock company or the sole owner of an enterprise, but also the development of each individual branch of business to the highest level of perfection, ensuring the constant nature of the realization of this profit.

Likewise, “the maximum welfare for each employee employed in the enterprise” means not only higher remuneration than those usually received by people in his profession, but, more importantly, it also means the development of each employee to the maximum degree of productivity available to him, which would allow to him, generally speaking, to give labor of the highest quality, within the limits of his natural abilities; and further, it means giving him, whenever possible, work of this very quality.

The fact that the achievement of maximum profit for the entrepreneur, in conjunction with the maximum welfare for the employees employed in his enterprise, should be the two main tasks of enterprise management, seems to be so self-evident that even the very mention of it seems superfluous. And yet it is undeniable that throughout the industrial world a significant part of organized entrepreneurs, as well as organized workers, are for war, not for peace, and that, perhaps, the majority on both sides do not believe in the possibility of regulating their relations in this way. so that the interests of both parties become identical.

Most of these people believe that the basic interests of employers and workers are necessarily opposed. The scientific organization of management, on the contrary, proceeds, as its main prerequisite, from the firm conviction that the true interests of those and others completely coincide; that welfare for the employer cannot take place for a long series of years if it is not accompanied by welfare for the workers employed in his enterprise, and vice versa; and that it seems quite possible to give the worker what he mainly wants - high wages - and at the same time to give the entrepreneur what he wants - a low cost of labor in the production of his manufactured goods.

We hope that at least some of those who do not sympathize with one of these two goals will come to the conviction of the need to change their views: that some entrepreneurs, whose position in relation to their workers was to try to get the most out of them the amount of labor for the lowest possible wages, will have to come to the conclusion that a more liberal policy towards workers will be more beneficial for them, and that many workers who envy the fair and large profits of their employers and believe that all the fruits of their labor must be wholly owned by them - the workers, and those for whom they work and who have invested in the enterprise are entitled to little or nothing - that these workers will also change their views.

It is hardly possible to find a person who would object that for each individual individual the highest material well-being can only take place when this individual reaches the highest degree of productivity available to him, i.e. when he will give in his work the maximum daily output.

The truth of this position is equally clear in the case of joint work of two people. For example, if you and your apprentice have achieved such an art that both together make two pairs of shoes a day, while your competitor and his apprentice make only one pair, then it is clear that by selling your two pairs of shoes, you can pay his apprentice is a much higher wage than your apprentice who produces only one pair a day can pay. And, nevertheless, you will still have enough money on top of that to make a bigger profit than your competitor.

More complex industrial enterprise it would seem just as clear that maximum permanent welfare for workers, coupled with maximum profit for the employer, can only be achieved if the work of the enterprise is carried out with the minimum combined costs of human labor, natural resources of nature and the cost of capital depreciation. in the form of machines, buildings, etc. Or, expressing the same thing, in other words: maximum well-being can be achieved only as a result of the highest possible productivity of people and machines of the enterprise, that is, only if every worker and each machine gives the maximum possible product. Clearly, if your workers and your machines do not generate more daily output than those around you, competition will not allow you to pay your workers higher wages than your competitors pay. And what is true about the possibility of paying high wages in the case of two separate companies competing with each other is also true of whole areas in a country and even of whole nations competing with each other. In short, maximum welfare can only be realized as a result of maximum productivity. Below in this book will be examples of several companies that realize big dividends and at the same time pay their workers 30-100% more expensive than the wages received by the same workers in their immediate neighborhood from the entrepreneurs with whom they compete. These examples cover a wide variety of jobs, from the simplest to the most difficult.

If this reasoning is correct, then it follows that the most important task of both the administration of the enterprise and the workers themselves should be the training and development of each individual employee in the enterprise so that he can (at the fastest pace of work and maximum productivity) give labor of the highest quality and, moreover, the one to which he is most capable of his natural inclinations.

§ 2. "Working with coolness." Three reasons for low labor productivity.

These principles seem so self-evident that many may find it naive to state them. Let us turn, however, to the facts as they relate to our country and England. The British and Americans are the greatest athletes in the world. When an American worker plays baseball, or when an English worker plays cricket, it is safe to say that he is straining every nerve to ensure that his party is victorious. He does everything he can to get the maximum score possible. The general sentiment in this regard is so strong that any person who in sports does not give everything they can will be branded as a "waste player" and will become an object of contempt for all their companions.

However, when the same worker comes to work the next day, then, instead of making every effort to maximize his production as much as possible, he in most cases deliberately strives to work as little as he can, and to produce significantly less output than the one he is actually capable of: in many cases no more than one third or half of the proper daily output. Indeed, if he strove with all his might to a possible increase in his output, then his fellow workers would have treated him even worse for this than if he had turned out to be a "waste player" in sports. Underdevelopment, that is, deliberately slow work, with the aim of underproduction of the full day's work, is "soldier's work", as it is called in our country "to chill out," as it is called in England, "saanae," as it is called in Scotland, - is an almost ubiquitous phenomenon in industrial enterprises and predominates to a significant extent also in the construction industry. The author argues, without fear of opposition, that this underdevelopment constitutes the greatest misfortune suffered by workers, both in America and in England.

Later in this book it will be shown that the elimination of slow work and "work with cool", in all its forms, and the establishment of such a relationship between the employer and workers in which each worker will work for the greatest benefit for himself and with maximum productivity, in conjunction with the maximum cooperation of workers with the management of the enterprise and the help provided by the workers' management, should result in an increase in production per worker and per machine - on average, almost double. What other reforms, among those currently being debated by both nations, can do so much in the direction of increasing prosperity, reducing poverty and alleviating suffering? America and England have recently been agitated by discussions of such issues as the question of the customs tariff, control over large capitalist associations, on the one hand, and over hereditary power, on the other, about various more or less socialist projects related to taxation. and so on. All these questions deeply worried both nations, and at the same time, almost not a single voice was heard to draw attention to the immeasurably more important issue of "working with coolness." Meanwhile, the last question directly and very strongly affects the wages, well-being and life of almost every worker and at the same time, to the same extent, affects the well-being of every industrial enterprise in the country.

The elimination of "cool things" and various reasons for slowness in work should so reduce the production costs of industry that both our internal and our foreign market will expand significantly, and we will be able to compete on more than equal terms with our competitors. This would eliminate one of the main causes of periods of economic depression, "bad times", unemployment and poverty, and would therefore have a much longer and more decisive effect on all these disasters than any of those life-saving drugs that are currently are used to mitigate their effects. This would ensure higher wages, shorter working hours and the possibility of improving working and household conditions for workers.

Why, in the face of the obvious fact that maximum welfare can be achieved only as a result of the conscious effort of every worker in the direction of a possible increase in his daily output, the vast majority of our workers consciously do exactly the opposite, and even in those cases when they are animated by the best intentions, their work for the most part is far from the highest possible productivity?

There are three reasons for this situation, which can be summarized as follows:

Firstly, it is a misconception that has been almost universally prevalent among workers since time immemorial and consists in the fear that a real increase in the output per person and per machine in a given industry will lead to end result to the deprivation of work for a significant number of workers employed in it;

secondly, the commonly used erroneous system of organizing enterprise management, which forces each worker to “chill out” or work slowly, thereby protecting his own vital interests;

thirdly, unproductive, crudely practical methods of production, which to this day dominate almost everywhere in all branches of industry and, using which, our workers waste a significant portion of their efforts.

This book will attempt to show the tremendous benefits that can be obtained by replacing our workers with these crude methods of scientific methods.

We will explain in somewhat more detail each of these three reasons.

§ 3. First reason.

The overwhelming majority of workers to this day believe that if they began to work at the fastest possible speed, they would cause enormous harm to all their comrades in the profession, throwing a large number of them out of work. In contrast, the history of the development of any industry shows that every improvement and improvement, be it an invention new car or the introduction of improved production methods, resulting in higher labor productivity in a given industry and a lower cost of production, always, in the long run, instead of depriving people of work, gave work to more workers.

The cheapening of any commodity that is a commodity, almost instantly entails a significant increase in demand for this commodity. Take shoes for example. The mechanization of footwear production, which replaced almost all of the old manual work with machine work, has resulted in a reduction in labor costs in this production to a small fraction of their previous value. As a consequence, it became possible to sell shoes so cheaply that nowadays almost every man, woman and child in the working class buys one or two pairs of shoes a year and wears shoes all the time, whereas in the old days a worker bought a pair of shoes, perhaps every five years and walked barefoot most of the time, wearing shoes only as a luxury or in the most extreme of necessity. Despite the tremendous increase in the production of footwear per worker as a result of the mechanization of production, the demand for footwear has increased so much that the relative number of workers employed in the footwear industry is now much larger than ever before.

Workers in almost every single branch of industry have a similar object lesson before their eyes, and yet, ignorant of the history of their own industry, they still firmly believe, as their fathers did before them, that the possible increase in the daily output of each of them is contrary to their most vital interests.

Influenced by these erroneous views, the vast majority of workers in both countries (America and England) deliberately work slowly in order to reduce their daily output. Nearly all labor unions have created or seek to create rules designed to reduce output for their members, and the most influential workers in the working class are the workers' leaders, as do the multitude of philanthropic workers who help the workers spread this misconception and persuade on a daily basis. workers is that they are overburdened with work.

A lot has been said and is being said all the time about the "sweatshop" of labor. The author has deep sympathy for those who are overburdened with work, but he feels even more sympathy for those who receive too little pay. For every single worker overburdened with work, there are hundreds of others who deliberately lower their output - to a very large extent every day of their life - and therefore deliberately contribute to the establishment of such conditions, which, in the final analysis, have the inevitable consequence of low wages. boards. Yet almost no voice is heard in the direction of attempts to rectify this evil.

We, engineers and plant managers, are much more familiar with this state of affairs than any other class of society, and we, therefore, are most able to lead the movement to combat this delusion, by instilling not only the workers, but the entire nation correct views on the related facts. And yet we practically do nothing in this direction and leave the battlefield entirely in the hands of labor agitators (many of whom are ignorant and unscrupulous people) and sentimental people who have no idea about modern working conditions.

§ 4. Second reason.

As for the second reason for the unproductiveness of labor - the relationship that exists between employers and workers with all the almost common organizational systems management of enterprises, it seems completely impossible to explain in a few words to a person who is little familiar with the problem concerned, why the ignorance of entrepreneurs regarding the proper duration of the production of various kinds of work makes it vital for the worker to work with coolness.

The author will venture here to cite his lecture given to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers in June 1903 and entitled "Factory Management." This quote will hopefully provide a full explanation of this reason for non-performance.

This idle pastime or "cool work" comes from two reasons:

first, from the natural instinct and tendency of people to idleness, which can be called a natural tendency to cool off;

secondly, from more complex back thoughts and reasoning caused by the social relations of workers, which can be called systematic "work with coolness."

“There is no question that the tendencies of the average person (in all areas of his life activity) are directed to work slowly and calmly, and that only by virtue of long reflection and on the basis of experience, or as a result of following an example, persuasion or external compulsion he gives his work a faster pace.

There are, of course, people of extraordinary energy, vitality and pride, by nature inclined to the fastest pace of work, who set their own standards and work hard, even if this is contrary to their own vital interests. But these few extraordinary people can only serve to, by virtue of contrast, more strongly emphasize the general and average tendency.

This general tendency towards resting work is greatly enhanced in the case of joint and homogeneous work of a significant number of people with the same payment for their daily work.

Under these conditions, the best workers will gradually but surely slow down the pace of their work to that of the worst and least productive workers. If by nature active man works for several days next to a lazy person, then the logic of the situation is indisputable: “Why should I burden myself with work if this lazy guy gets the same pay as me, but produces exactly half of my work?

A detailed study of the conditions of the speed of labor of people working in this state of affairs reveals facts that are both funny and deplorable.

By way of illustration: the author made a record of working hours in relation to a naturally energetic worker who walked at a speed of 3 to 4 miles per hour on the way to and from work and often ran home after working day... But as soon as he got to work, he immediately slowed down his pace of walking to one mile an hour, approximately. So, for example, rolling a loaded wheelbarrow, he walked at a good brisk pace even uphill in order to drag the load as little time as possible; but on the way back he immediately slowed down to a speed of one mile an hour, taking advantage of every opportunity to slow down and just not sitting down straight to rest. Wanting to be sure that he didn't have to work harder than his lazy neighbor, he got tired of walking slowly.

These people worked under the command of the main master - a man of good reputation, about whom his master had the highest opinion. When the master's attention was drawn to this state of affairs, he replied: "Well, I can prevent them from sitting down, but the devil himself will not make them walk faster when they work!"

Natural human laziness is a very serious thing, but an immeasurably more significant evil, from which both workers and entrepreneurs suffer, consists in "systematic work with coolness", which, under ordinary enterprise management systems, represent an almost ubiquitous phenomenon arising from the conscious consideration of working moments. that promote their interests.

The author was very interested recently, having once overheard how a small but experienced boy of about twelve, who carried sticks while playing golf, explained to another boy of the same age, a novice in this business, who showed special energy and interest in the game, the need to walk slowly and, dragging his feet behind his player when he approaches the ball. He argued that since they were paid by the hour, the faster they walk, the less money they made, and in the end he threatened him that if he walked too fast, the other boys would beat him up.

This is a kind of "systematic work with coolness", though not very serious, since it is known to the entrepreneur himself, who can easily put an end to it if he wishes.

However, on a much larger scale, this systematic slowdown in the pace of work is carried out by workers, with the deliberate intention of leaving their employers in the dark as to how fast this work.

This kind of "coolness" seems to be a phenomenon so widespread that it is hardly possible to find at least one experienced worker in large enterprise, no matter how he works - by the day, by the piece, by special agreement or some other commonly used payment system — which would not devote much of his time to investigating how much he can slow down the pace of his work, while continuing to keep his master convinced that he is working at a good pace.

The reason for this, in short, is that almost all employers pre-determine the maximum amount of wages they think can be earned per day by each of the different classes of workers employed in their enterprise - whether or not these workers work. by the day or by the piece.

Each worker very soon finds out the approximate size of this figure for himself and understands perfectly well that if his owner is convinced that one person can produce more output per day than he produces, then sooner or later the entrepreneur will find a way to force him to a corresponding increase. production with little or no increase in its payment.

Entrepreneurs derive their knowledge of how much of a certain kind of work can be done per day either from their own experience, which is often outdated, or from casual and unsystematic observations of their workers, or, at best, from records set by someone. in relation to the highest, the speed of production of each given type of work. In many cases, the employer is almost certainly convinced that a given job can be done faster than it actually gets done, but he rarely cares about taking the decisive action necessary to get workers to do their job at the fastest pace, unless he has no record set to conclusively prove how soon this work can be done.

It is clear that in this case, the interest of each worker requires the adoption of measures to ensure that no work is done faster than it was in the past. Younger and less experienced workers learn this from their older comrades, and all kinds of persuasion and social pressure are applied to individual greedy and selfish people in order to keep them from setting new records that temporarily increase their own earnings, but as a result, which all the rest of the workers will subsequently have to give more work for the same pay.

With the best organized daily work of the usual type, provided that an accurate record of the amount of output made by each person and his productivity is kept, moreover, the wages of each worker increase in accordance with the increase in his productivity, and those workers who cannot reach a certain level of it are fired and are replaced by fresh, carefully selected workers - under such conditions, it is possible to put an end to both natural and systematic "coolness" and slowdown of the pace of work. This can be done, it is true, only if the workers are deeply convinced that there is no intention of introducing piece-rate wages, even in the most distant future. Therefore, it is almost impossible to get them to believe this when the work itself, by its very nature, suggests to them the possibility of introducing piece-rate pay. In most cases, the fear on their part to set such a record, which can later be used as a basis for piecework payments, will motivate them to work as slowly as they can.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Frederick Taylor's Principles of Scientific Management

F. Taylor is called the father of scientific management and the founder of the entire system of scientific organization of production, and for more than a hundred years all modern theory and practice in the field of scientific organization of labor has been using the "Taylor" heritage. And it is no coincidence that management theory was founded by an engineer who thoroughly knows the technology of an industrial enterprise and, on his own experience, has learned all the features of the relationship between workers and managers.

The Taylor system is based on the statement that for efficient organization work of the enterprise, it is necessary to create such a management system, which would ensure the maximum growth of labor productivity at the lowest cost.

Taylor suggested that the problem is primarily related to a lack of management practice. The subject of his research was the position of workers in the system of machine production. Taylor set himself the goal of identifying the principles that make it possible to maximize the "benefit" from any physical labor, movement. And based on the analysis of statistical data, he justified the need to replace the then dominant system of general management of management with the one based on the widespread use of narrow-profile specialists.

Among the most important principles of the scientific organization of Taylor's work, such as the specialization of work and the distribution of responsibility between workers and managers stand out. These principles formed the basis for the functional structure of the organization preached by Taylor, which was supposed to replace the then dominant linear structure.

Influenced by the ideas of Adam Smith regarding the division of work into the simplest tasks and assigning each of them to a low-skilled specialist, Taylor sought to assemble a single team and, thereby, he maximally reduced costs and increased labor productivity.

He was one of the first to use accurate calculation in the wage system (instead of intuition) and introduced a system of differentiated wages. He believed that the scientific organization of the enterprise's activities is based on the awakening of the initiative of workers, and that for dramatic increase labor productivity must study the psychology of employees and the administration must move from confrontation with them to cooperation.

The piecework system, introduced long before Taylor, encouraged incentive and initiative by paying for output. Such systems completely failed before Taylor, as standards were poorly set, and employers cut workers' wages as soon as they started earning more. For the sake of protecting their interests, workers concealed new, more progressive methods and techniques of work and improvement.

Keeping in mind the past experience of cutting wages when they exceed a certain level, workers have come to an agreement on productivity and earnings. Taylor did not blame these people and even sympathized with them, since he felt that these were errors of the system.

The first attempts to change the system met with opposition from workers. He tried to convince them that they could do more. Taylor began by explaining to turners how he could get more output with less through his new ways of working. But he failed because they refused to follow his instructions. He decided on larger changes in labor standards and wages: now they had to work better for the same price. People responded by damaging and stopping cars. To which Taylor responded with a system of fines (the proceeds from the fines went in favor of the workers). Taylor did not win the battle with the machine tools, but he learned a useful lesson from the struggle. He will never use the system of fines again and will later create strict rules against salary cuts. Taylor concluded that a new industrial scheme had to be created to prevent such unpleasant clashes between workers and managers.

He believed that he could overcome the shirking by carefully researching the work in order to establish precise production rates. The challenge was to find complete and fair norms for each assignment. Taylor decided to establish scientifically what people should do with equipment and materials. To do this, he began to use methods of scientific data retrieval through empirical research. Taylor probably did not think about creating some kind of general theory applicable to other professions and industries, he simply proceeded from the need to overcome the enmity and antagonism of workers.

The study of the timing of operations became the foundation of the entire Taylor system. It formulated the basis of a scientific approach to work and had two phases: "analytical" and "constructive".

During the analysis, each work was divided into many elementary operations, some of which were discarded. Then the time spent on each elementary movement performed by the most skillful and qualified performer was measured and recorded. A percentage was added to this recorded time to cover unavoidable delays and interruptions, and other percentages reflecting the "novelty" of the job for the person and the necessary rest breaks were added. Most critics saw it in these allowances that Taylor's method was unscientific, since they were determined on the basis of the researcher's experience and intuition. The constructive phase included the creation of a card index of elementary operations and the time spent on performing individual operations or their groups. Moreover, this phase led to the search for improvements in devices, machines, materials, methods and the ultimate standardization of all elements surrounding and accompanying work.

In his article "The Differentiated Pay System," Frederick Taylor first announced a new system that involved examining and analyzing turnaround times to establish norms or standards, "differential pay" for piecework, "pay for a person, not for a position." This early talk on incentives and proper relationships between workers and management anticipated his philosophy of mutual interest between these parties. Taylor proceeded from the admission that, by opposing workers' higher wages, the employer himself received less. He saw a mutual interest in cooperation, not conflict between workers and management. He criticized employers 'practices of hiring cheap labor and paying the lowest wages possible, as well as demanding workers' pay for their labor to the maximum. Taylor advocated high wages for first-class workers, encouraging them to work to produce more standard through efficient conditions and less effort. The result was high labor productivity, which translates into lower unit costs for the employer and higher wages for the worker. Summarizing his pay system, Taylor outlined the goals that should be pursued by each enterprise:

· Each worker should get the most difficult job for him; taylor scientific management management

· Every worker should be encouraged to do the maximum work that a first-class worker is capable of;

· Every worker, when he is working at the speed of a first-class, is required to receive a bonus of 30% to 100% for work he does above average.

The challenge for management was to find the job for which a given worker was best suited, to help him become a first-class worker, and to provide him with the incentives for top productivity. He came to the conclusion that the main difference between people was not their intellect, but will, the desire to achieve.

Taylor also created a job management system. Taylor defined management as "knowing exactly what you want from a person and observing how he does it in the best and cheapest way." He added that a succinct definition cannot fully capture the art of management, but stressed that "the relationship between employers and workers is undoubtedly the most important part of this art." Management, in his opinion, must create such a system of work that would ensure high productivity, and employee incentives would lead to even greater productivity.

Realizing that his system of work depends on careful planning, he founded the concept of "job management", which later became known as "scientific management". The assignment management consisted of 2 parts:

· Every day the worker received a specific task with detailed instructions and precise indication of the time for each stage of work;

The worker who completed the task in certain time received a higher salary, while those who spent more time received regular earnings.

The assignment was based on a detailed study of time, methods, devices and materials. Once identified and assigned to first-class (exemplary) workers, these tasks in the future did not require the time and energy of a manager who could focus on organizing the overall system of work. The immediate challenge for the organization was directing management's efforts to plan work and guide its completion.

This division of the two functions is based on the specialization of labor of both managers and workers, and on a rational approach to the formation of the management hierarchy in organizations. At each level of the organization, there is a specialization of functions. Separating work planning and execution, production organizations form planning departments whose task is to develop precise daily prescriptions for managers. Taylor, however, went further and substantiated the need for specialization of the leaders of the lower levels - groups of performers.

The concept of functional group leadership is to divide the work of managers in such a way that each person (starting with the assistant manager and below) has as many functions as he can perform. Taylor believed that the traditional functions of the leader of the grassroots group boil down to both planning and management.

Taylor noted that planning activities should be carried out in planning departments by employees who specialize in these matters. He identified four different subfunctions to be performed by four different individuals: order and direction clerk, instructions clerk, time and cost clerk, and shop discipline clerk. Management activities were to be manifested at the workshop level and carried out by four different persons: the shift supervisor, the acceptance manager, the repair shop manager, and the rationing manager.

In order to cope with the increasing complexity of management, Taylor created a unique form of leadership that he called "functional leader". It was assumed that manufacturing process will improve, since neither the worker himself nor one of the group leaders can be a specialist in all subfunctions. However, a worker who tries to follow the instructions of all specialized managers can hardly satisfy all of them. The cumbersomeness of such an organizational structure undoubtedly explains its low distribution in industry. However, it should be recognized that the functions of production planning already exist in other forms in modern industry, and in the functions of industrial design and staff you can find the functions of a leader for rationing and compliance with shop discipline.

Taylor identified 9 characteristics that determine a good low-level leader - a master: intelligence, education, special or technical knowledge, dexterity or strength, tact, energy, endurance, honesty, personal opinion and common sense, good health.

But despite the importance of personal and business qualities specialist, administrator, the main condition is the "system" of the organization, which must be established by the leader. Taylor draws attention to the need to ensure the correct selection, reasonable use of specialists, which he saw in the deepening of the specialization of the functions of employees, and the functions of the administration consist in such a distribution of management work, when each employee from the assistant director to the lowest positions is called upon to perform as few functions as possible.

One of the most important management principles developed by Taylor was the principle of employee compliance with the position. Taylor proposed a recruiting system, believing that every employee should be taught the basics of his profession. In his opinion, it is the managers who are fully responsible for all the work that their employees have performed, while each of them is personally responsible only for his part of the work.

Thus, Taylor formulated four fundamental principles of production management:

1) a scientific approach to the implementation of each element of the work;

2) cooperation of managers with workers;

3) a systematic approach to learning;

4) separation of responsibility.

These four provisions express the main idea of scientific management: for each type of human activity, a theoretical justification is developed, and then his training is carried out (in accordance with the approved regulations), during which he acquires the necessary work skills. This approach opposes the method of volitional decisions, when the tasks of managers and workers are not clearly separated. Taylor believed that through a more efficient organization of labor, the total volume of goods can be increased, and the share of each participant can increase without reducing the share of others. Therefore, if both managers and workers perform their tasks more efficiently, then the incomes of both will increase. Both groups need to experience what Taylor called a "mental revolution" before the widespread use of scientific management is possible. "Mental revolution" will consist in creating an atmosphere of mutual understanding between leaders and workers on the basis of satisfying common interests.

Taylor argued that "the art of scientific management is evolution, not an invention" and that market relations have their own laws and logic of development, for which there are no and cannot be unified solutions and approaches. Taylor showed that intra-industrial relations, and first of all, subordination, i.e. behavior and communication of ordinary workers and management personnel, has a direct impact on the growth rate of labor productivity.

Frederick Taylor and his associates represent the first wave of synthesis in scientific management. Scientific management is characterized as the process of connecting the physical resources or technical elements of an organization with human resources in order to achieve the goals of the organization. From the technological side, Taylor's scientific approach was aimed at analyzing existing practices in order to standardize and rationalize the use of resources. On the part of human resources, he was looking for the highest degree individual development and rewards by reducing fatigue, scientific selection, matching the worker's abilities to the work he does, and by incentivizing the worker. He did not ignore the human element, as is often noted, but emphasized the individual, not the social, group side of man.

Taylor was the center of the scientific management movement, but the people who surrounded and knew him also contributed to the formation and spread of scientific management.

The greatest effect from the introduction of his system was obtained at the enterprises of Henry Ford, who, thanks to the scientific organization of labor, achieved a revolutionary growth in productivity and already in 1922 produced every second car in the world at his factories.

As a talented mechanical engineer and inventor, Ford borrowed from Taylor the basic principles of the rational functioning of the enterprise and practically for the first time introduced them in full in its production.

List of used literature

1. Vasilevsky A.I. Management history: A course of lectures / A.I. Vasilevsky. - M .: RUDN, 2005 .-- 264 p.

2. Goldstein G.Ya. Management basics: Tutorial/ G.Ya. Goldstein. - Taganrog: Publishing house of TRTU, 2003 .-- 94 p.

3. Kravchenko A.I. Management history / A.I. Kravchenko. - 5th ed. - M .: Academ. Project: Triksta, 2005 .-- 560 p.

4. Kuznetsova N.V. Management history / N.V. Kuznetsova. - Vladivostok: Publishing house of the Far Eastern University, 2004. - 216 p.

5. Mescon M. Fundamentals of management / M. Mescon, M. Albert, F. Hedouri. - M .: Williams, 2007 .-- 672 p.

Posted on Allbest.ru