1 market economies
1.1 taylor s view of workers
1.2 taylorism, anomie, , unions
1.3 decades: making jobs unpleasant
1.4 later decades: making jobs disappear
1.5 relationship fordism
market economies
taylor s view of workers
taylor expressed views of workers may considered insulting. recognized differences between workers, stressed need select right person right job, , championed workers advocating frequent breaks , pay work. failed conceal condescending attitude towards less intelligent workers, describing them stupid , comparing them draft animals in have have tasks managed them in order work efficiently.
other thinkers offered more ideas on roles workers play in mature industrial systems. these included ideas on improvement of individual worker attention worker s needs, not needs of whole. james hartness published human factor in works management in 1912, while frank gilbreth , lillian moller gilbreth offered own alternatives taylorism. human relations school of management evolved in 1930s complement rather replace scientific management, taylorism determining organisation of work process, , human relations helping adapt workers new procedures. today s efficiency-seeking methods, such lean manufacturing, include respect workers , fulfillment of needs integral parts of theory. (workers slogging way through workdays in business world encounter flawed implementations of these methods make jobs unpleasant; these implementations lack managerial competence in matching theory execution.) syncretism has occurred since taylor s day, although implementation has been uneven, lean management in capable hands has produced results both managers , workers, in incompetent hands has damaged enterprises.
taylorism, anomie, , unions
with division of labor became commonplace taylorism implemented in manufacturing, workers lost sense of connection production of goods. workers began feel disenfranchised monotonous , unfulfilling work doing in factories. before scientific management, workers felt sense of pride when completing good, went away when workers completed 1 part of production. further progress of industrial development... increased anomic or forced division of labor, opposite of taylor thought effect. partial adoption of taylor s principles management seeking boost efficiency, while ignoring principles such fair pay , direct engagement managers, led further tensions , rise of unions represent workers needs.
taylor had largely negative view of unions, , believed led decreased productivity. although opposed them, work scientific management led disenfranchised workers unions support.
early decades: making jobs unpleasant
under scientific management, demands of work intensified. workers became dissatisfied work environment , became angry. during 1 of taylor s own implementations @ watertown arsenal in massachusetts, strike led investigation of taylor s methods u.s. house of representatives committee. committee reported in 1912, concluding scientific management did provide useful techniques , offered valuable organizational suggestions, gave production managers dangerously high level of uncontrolled power. after attitude survey of workers revealed high level of resentment , hostility towards scientific management, senate banned taylor s methods @ arsenal.
scientific management lowered worker morale , exacerbated existing conflicts between labor , management. consequence, method inadvertently strengthened labor unions , bargaining power in labor disputes, thereby neutralizing or of benefit of productivity gains had achieved. net benefit owners , management ended small or negative. took new efforts, borrowing ideas scientific management mixing them others, produce more productive formulas.
later decades: making jobs disappear
scientific management may have exacerbated grievances among workers oppressive or greedy management. strengthened developments put workers @ disadvantage: erosion of employment in developed economies via both offshoring , automation. both made possible deskilling of jobs, made possible knowledge transfer scientific management achieved. knowledge transferred both cheaper workers , workers tools. jobs once have required craft work first transformed semiskilled work, unskilled. @ point labor had been commoditized, , competition between workers (and worker populations) moved closer pure had been, depressing wages , job security. jobs offshored (giving 1 human s tasks others—which new worker population bad old) or rendered nonexistent through automation (giving human s tasks machines). either way, net result perspective of developed-economy workers jobs started pay less, disappear. power of labor unions in mid-twentieth century led push on part of management accelerate process of automation, hastening onset of later stages described.
in central assumption of scientific management, worker taken granted cog in machinery. while scientific management had made jobs unpleasant, successors made them less remunerative, less secure, , nonexistent consequence of structural unemployment.
relationship fordism
it assumed fordism derives taylor s work. taylor apparently made assumption himself when visiting ford motor company s michigan plants not long before died, methods @ ford evolved independently, , influence taylor s work indirect @ best. charles e. sorensen, principal of company during first 4 decades, disclaimed connection @ all. there belief @ ford, remained dominant until henry ford ii took on company in 1945, world s experts worthless, because if ford had listened them, have failed attain great successes. henry ford felt had succeeded in spite of, not because of, experts, had tried stop him in various ways (disagreeing price points, production methods, car features, business financing, , other issues). sorensen dismissive of taylor , lumped him category of useless experts. sorensen held new england machine tool vendor walter flanders in high esteem , credits him efficient floorplan layout @ ford, claiming flanders knew nothing taylor. flanders may have been exposed spirit of taylorism elsewhere, , may have been influenced it, did not cite when developing production technique. regardless, ford team apparently did independently invent modern mass production techniques in period of 1905-1915, , not aware of borrowing taylorism. perhaps possible hindsight see zeitgeist (indirectly) connected budding fordism rest of efficiency movement during decade of 1905-1915.
Comments
Post a Comment