Taylor Research School of Scientific Management. Basic Principles of Frederick Taylor

The classical school of management organization - the School of Scientific Management - is the very first school in the theory of organization. The heyday of this school dates back to the period from the end of the 90s. 19th century by the end of the 20s. 20th century “Taylorism is based on the assumption that you can manage “scientifically”, hence the name of this school.

Places and personalities characterizing the formation of this school are very different:

§ USA - Frederick Winslow Taylor, Harington Emerson, the Gilberts and others;

§ France - Henri Fayol;

§ Germany - Max Weber;

§ Poland - Kottorbinsky;

§ Russia - Peter Kerzhinsky, Nikolai Vitke.

The theorists of this school postulated for the first time that the object of management in an organization is a person, and only he can be managed.

Frederick Winslow Taylor (1856-1915) is one of the creators of modern management, the founder and main developer of the ideas of the scientific management school. Born and lived in Philadelphia, one of the most industrialized cities in America at that time. Unlike many management theorists, Taylor was neither a research scientist nor a business school professor. He was a practitioner, having received an engineering education, starting as a worker, he went through several levels of hierarchy and rose to the level of chief engineer in a steel company. He is a social engineer. He lacked entrepreneurial talent. He was a lively and scandalous person.

The founding premise of the school scientific management is that work (in particular, the work of performers) can and should be studied using scientific methods. According to Taylor, an objective analysis of the facts and data collected in the workplace can be the basis for determining the best way to organize work. Moreover, it is the manager's responsibility to determine this best way.

Essence scientific management expressed by Taylor in the following four principles:

1) to develop optimal methods for the implementation of work on the basis of a scientific study of the costs of time, movements, efforts, etc., and to follow these developed standards in absolute terms;

2) with the help of certain criteria, select, and then train, educate and develop the workforce, and the placement of workers takes place in those jobs where they can give the greatest benefit;

3) ensure a reasonable division of labor and responsibility between managers and employees. Managers (functional managers) perform the work for which they are better prepared than workers, that is, they exercise control in specialized areas ( managers think, workers work). Pay based on performance.

4) maintaining friendly relations between workers and managers in order to ensure the possibility of scientific management.

These four statements express main idea of ​​scientific management: for each type of human activity, a theoretical justification is developed, and then he is trained, during which he acquires the necessary work skills. This approach is opposed to 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 amount of goods could be increased, and the share of each participant could increase without reducing the share of others. Therefore, if both managers and workers perform their tasks more efficiently, then the income of both will increase. Both groups would have to experience what Taylor called a "mental revolution" before the widespread application of scientific management becomes possible. The "intellectual revolution" will consist in creating an atmosphere of mutual understanding between managers and workers on the basis of satisfying common interests.

Division, planning and execution of work

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

Functional group management

This concept consists in dividing the work by managers in such a way that each person (starting with the assistant manager and below) had as many functions as he could perform. Taylor believed that the traditional functions of the leader of the grassroots group were reduced to planning and management activities. Moreover, planning activities should be carried out in planning departments by employees specializing in these matters. He identified 4 different sub-functions to be performed by 4 different individuals:

§ an employee in the order and direction of work,

§ clerk on instructions,

§ employee on time and cost,

§ an employee for the observance of shop discipline.

The same applies to management activities at the shop level:

§ Shift Supervisor,

§ receiver,

§ head of the repair shop,

§ Head of rationing.

The functional leadership of the group has given rise to specialization of managers. It was assumed that the production process would improve, since neither the worker himself, nor any of the team leaders can be an expert in all sub-functions. On the other hand, the worker who tries to follow the instructions of all the specialized managers can hardly satisfy them all. The bulkiness of such a structure explains its low distribution in industry.

Research in action and time

The most important feature of scientific management is system analysis of work. Taylor and his followers suggested that the way to improve work, namely to make it more efficient, is to define:

1) the best way to complete the task;

2) standard execution time.

The relationship between research and time is so strong that it is impossible to separate one from the other.

Improvement of work includes an analysis of the external environment and the conditions under which the work is performed. The purpose of the study is to determine the preferred method of work, taking into account the raw materials used, production plan, work procedure, tools, equipment, work location and manual labor required.

Motion Study is a process in which the movement of the main elements related to the machines and tools necessary to perform the work is examined.

Temporary about e study is a fixation of the time required to complete the task after the preferred way of solving it is chosen. There are two methods of research in time that replace the arbitrary estimates of the leader: timing and rationing.

Bonus salary system

An integral aspect of the definition of standard methods and time is the wage system. Taylor abandoned all forms of collective wages, using only an individual form of wages (piecework wages), that is, payment in proportion to the contribution. At the same time, he believed that workers who produced more than the daily quota should be paid more than those who failed to meet the quota. He took the average productivity among the best workers as the norm. If the task was not completed, a fine of 50% was imposed, and if it was overfulfilled, a bonus of 15% was given.

Offering differentiated piecework wages, Taylor proceeded from the fact that the main motivational factor for an employee is the opportunity to earn money. Differentiated piecework wages encourage workers to apply about greater labor effort.

Selection and training

Proponents of the theory of scientific management considered the selection of people capable of meeting the requirements of the job, and then training them so that they can do the job as prescribed, as the most important task of the manager. Previously, workers learned a new trade from experienced workers, traditional work habits were passed from one to another. Business leaders did not consider training as their function. There were no systematized, scientifically substantiated methods of personnel selection. Since the beginning of the century (1910-1915), psychological methods have been used in industry to select workers whose mental and physical abilities had to meet the requirements of practical work.

Training in working professions, in predetermined ways, is part of scientific management. Without training, efforts to improve performance will be in vain.

The history of the formation of the school scientific management is directly related to the name of Taylor and the results of his practical work. Taylor noted that in the 90s. 19th century American goods could not compete with European counterparts, losing in price and quality. He believed that the problem lay in the management of people. In this regard, he set himself the following tasks, the solution of which was to establish the management of people:

§ increase in labor productivity;

§ removal of social conflicts.

These tasks were relevant at that time, since until the mid-30s. 20th century The US economy was in crisis, social conflicts were growing in the country.

Taylor proceeded from the fact that the worker is by nature stupid, lazy and greedy. Taylor, believed that the worker is a limited, unambitious being, incapable of rationally organizing his own labor, not cooperating with the administration, immensely lazy, cunning when trying to get out of the control of the administration, for the most part reacting to "carrot and stick". At the same time, he said that: "God did not give us another type of resource, we will have to work with them." From here his 4 main principles of management were born (see above).

Until the end of the XIX century. the management structure in the organizations was linear. It had a number of advantages: centralization, a single connection of all links, and a disadvantage: it was impossible to build functional specialists into it. Taylor refuses to apply this structure. And offers a new functional structure aimed at working with performers. It divides and standardizes management functions. It divides all managers into administrators and functional specialists. In this structure, the administrative workers are the foremen in charge of the fu planning function works (see above 4 functions).

Functional specialists work in departments (human resources, accounting) and the main thing they do is to fulfill control functions: the development of new forms of work, the organization of labor of workers, the creation of conditions for management, the training of workers, although they also have the right to give instructions down.

As a result, we get that each subordinate has several bosses. And although the undoubted advantage of the functional structure was that it made it possible for the first time to find a place for functional specialists, its disadvantage is that it created a situation of positional conflict in which the subordinate receives conflicting tasks from different managers.

What gave Taylor the introduction of functional organizational structure?

1) he eliminated the social conflict at the enterprise;

2) he removed trade unions to enterprises (since, according to Taylor, the main incentive to work is money, his workers managed to increase productivity by 6 times, and wages increased by 2.5-3 times)

3) he singled out the leaders (“Stakhanovists”), who fulfilled the norm by 600-800%, these achievements were sanctified in the media, and the leaders were created all the conditions for work and paid huge salaries;

4) he presented his structure as the embodiment of social harmony and believed that he had achieved it.

During the years of the Soviet five-year plans, they tried to introduce the methods of scientific management at Soviet enterprises. But Taylorism has never been applied in its purest form. No one has achieved increased productivity without changing technology.

Taylor's system gave a big gain in productivity, but divorced an unwieldy managerial apparatus. At the same time, Taylor, while optimizing the performance of individual functions and operations, did not improve the management of the organization as a whole.

Management in 1920-1950

Management thought is influenced by the achievements of many sciences, and the evolution of management in the twentieth century. is precisely to use these achievements to solve the main problem - how to get desired results based on the concerted actions of many people producing products and services and using diverse resources.

The first breakthrough in management thought that occurred at the beginning of the twentieth century. and related to Taylorism, was based on the premise that it was possible to govern scientifically. This was both an insight and an illusion, but in fact it consisted in transferring the ideas of engineering science to management at the lower production level. True, quite soon the world of management realized the fundamental limitations of Taylorism.

The next major step in the development of Western managerial thought, closely related to the previous one, was the dissemination of the principles of management formulated by A. Fayol, which can be recognized as the first independent result of the science of administration in its now classic version focused primarily on building formal organizational structures and systems.

The third breakthrough in managerial thought, comparable in significance to the first two, was the emergence of E. Mayo's "human relations" school at the turn of the 1930s. In the 40-60s of the last century, this direction was continued by the development theories of organizations as social systems, but in its nature it was nothing more than the use of the achievements of psychology and sociology - the sciences of human behavior - in management.

Coursework on the subject

History of management

Taylor School of Scientific Management

taylor management streamlining labor

Introduction

Biography of F. Taylor and the main provisions of his "science of production management"

Development of F. Taylor's ideas in the works of his followers

Conclusion

List of used literature

Introduction

emergence modern science administration dates back to the beginning of the 20th century. and is associated with the names of Frederick Winslow Taylor, Frank and Lily Gilbreth and Henry Gantt. An important merit of this school was the position that it is possible to manage "scientifically", relying on economic, technical and social experiment, as well as on the scientific analysis of the phenomena and facts of the management process and their generalization.

This research method was first applied to a single enterprise by the American engineer F.W. Taylor (1856-1915), who should be considered the founder of the scientific management of production.

In fairness, it should be noted that F. Taylor had predecessors. These are, first of all, C. Babbage, as well as T. Metkolf, whose main work “Costs of production and management of public and private workshops” was published in 1885. Moreover, despite the fact that Taylor is considered to be the founder of modern management, not if it were, Fayol, Emerson, or someone else would have become such a founder, since by the time the “school of scientific management” appeared, the idea scientific organization labor was literally in the air. Technological progress and machine production demanded the standardization and unification of the entire production process, which until now has been managed by handicraft, handicraft, "old-fashioned" methods. Further growth in production efficiency has become unthinkable without its comprehensive rationalization, saving time and resources.

The main theoretical provisions of the concept of F.U. Taylor are set out in his works: The Piecework System (1895), Factory Management (1903), Principles of Scientific Management (1911), Testimony Before a Special Committee of Congress (1912). Taylor's writings are a generalization of his own practical experience. In 1885, Taylor became a member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, which played a large role in organizing the movement for scientific methods of production management in the United States.

Taylor called the system he created differently: "piecework system", "worker management system based on tasks." The term "scientific management" was first proposed in 1910 by L. Bridays. Since Taylor's death, the name has gained general acceptance in relation to his concept.

In our country, during the period of the domination of the dictatorship of the proletariat, there was an extremely negative attitude towards the Taylor system. In the scientific works of that time, one could often hear such unflattering epithets about it as “sweatshops”, “inhuman exploitation of workers”, etc. During the years of perestroika, the attitude towards much of the Western experience began to change from “minus” to “plus”, there was a danger of another extreme - uncritical perception and exaltation of everything that contradicted the “experience of building socialism”.

Author of this term paper on the topic “Taylor School of Scientific Management”, therefore, aims to independently understand what the Taylor system really was, and whether the provisions of the “School of Scientific Management” can be useful in our country on present stage development. To achieve this goal, the author has worked out not only a number of sources on the history of management, but also - most importantly - the primary source, namely the work of F.U. Taylor Principles of Scientific Management. This made it possible not only to familiarize oneself with the elements of the biography and directly with the system of Taylor's scientific management itself, but also to form one's own opinion about the latter.

The work consists of an introduction, two chapters of the main part, a conclusion and a list of references.

The first chapter provides some biographical information about F.U. Taylor, and also reveals the main features of the mode of production and management prevailing in his time. The material about Taylor's experiments and the conclusions drawn by him is also presented here. Thus, in the first chapter, an idea of ​​F.U. Taylor as a researcher-practitioner and about his system of scientific approach to management. It should be noted that a significant part of this chapter is built exclusively on the primary source - the work of F.U. Taylor Principles of Scientific Management.

The second chapter contains material on how the "school of scientific management" was further developed. It tells about both direct students and associates, and just about the followers of Taylor, who applied the basics of his approach to management and achieved significant success, which confirmed the viability of Taylor's teachings. The basis for writing the second chapter was the work of I.I. Semenova "History of Management".

In conclusion, the author, using the words of F.U. Taylor, characterizes the main features of the mechanism and philosophy of the "school of scientific management", and also expresses his own opinion on the usefulness of using the foundations of Taylorism today.

The list of references, one way or another, which served for a selection of material on the topic, is given at the end of the term paper.

1. Biography of F. Taylor and the main provisions of his "science of production management"

Frederick Winslow Taylor was born in 1856 in Germantown, Pennsylvania (USA). He received his secondary education in Europe. Studying in absentia at the Institute of Technology, in 1878 he received a diploma in mechanical engineering. In the same year, Taylor entered the machine shop of the Midwell Steel Company, having completed an apprenticeship as a modeller and mechanic. It was towards the very end of the long period of economic depression that followed the Panic of 1873, and things were so bad that many mechanical specialists could not find work in their trade. As a consequence, Taylor had to start his job as a day laborer instead of getting a job as a mechanic. Luckily for him, shortly after he entered the factory, the factory clerk was caught stealing. There was no one who could replace him, and so, being more educated than all the other factory workers (as he was preparing for college), Taylor was appointed as a clerk. Shortly thereafter, he was given a job as a mechanic at one of the milling machines, and as it turned out that he gave much larger size development in comparison with other mechanics at the same machines, after a while he was made the chief mechanic over all milling machines.

Almost all the work at this plant for several years has been carried out on a piece-rate basis. As was common at the time, the factory was in fact run not by the administration, but by the workers themselves. The workers, by common agreement, carefully limited the speed with which each particular type of work was to be carried out; they fixed a rate of work for every machine in the whole plant, which averaged about half of the real daily output. Each new worker entering the factory received precise instructions from other workers how much of each given type of work he was to do, and if he did not obey these instructions, he could be sure that in the not too distant future he would be forced to leave the place by the workers themselves. .

As soon as Taylor was promoted to chief mechanic, one by one individual workers began to approach him and say to him, something like this: “Well, Fred, we are very pleased that you have been appointed chief mechanic. You know the game well... If you pay by the piece, you will be with us on good terms, and everything will be fine; but if you try to change even one of our norms, then you can be quite sure that we will put you out.

Taylor simply and plainly told them that he was now on the side of the administration and that he intended to make every effort to get the maximum possible output from each machine. This immediately started a war - in most cases a friendly war, since many of the workers subordinate to the author were his personal friends - but still a war that escalated more and more. Taylor used every means to get them to give a good day's work, even to the extent of firing or lowering the wages of the most stubborn workers who staunchly refused to increase their productivity. He also acted by lowering the rates of piece wages by hiring new workers and personally teaching them production, with the promise on their part that, having learned, they would always give a good daily output. At the same time, workers put such pressure (both inside and outside the factory) on all those who began to increase their productivity that the latter were eventually forced to either work like everyone else or leave work. No person who has not experienced this himself can form an idea of ​​the bitterness that is gradually developed in the course of this kind of struggle. In this war, the workers use one means, usually leading to an end. They use all their ingenuity, deliberately adjusting different ways supposedly accidental or due to the regular course of work, breakage and damage to the machines they operate, and then blame the overseer or foreman, who allegedly forced them to put the machine into operation with such tension, which caused it to wear and damage. Indeed, very few craftsmen could resist such a collective pressure from all the workers of the plant. In this case, the issue was further complicated by the fact that the plant worked day and night.

However, Taylor showed enviable tenacity and courage and continued to insist on his demands, despite the fact that he was repeatedly warned that he was risking his life. As a result, after three years of such a struggle, the productivity of the machines increased dramatically, in many cases doubling, and, as a result of this, Taylor was transferred several times, as chief mechanic, from one artel of workers to another, until he was appointed chief foreman. However, the “reward” for success for him was the very bad relationship that Taylor was forced to establish with everyone around him. His worker friends were constantly coming and asking him in personal friendly inquiries if he would give them instructions, in their own best interest, how to increase their productivity. And, as a truthful man, he had to tell them that if he were in their place, he would fight against any increase in productivity in exactly the same way as they do, since under the piece wage system they will still not be allowed to earn more than that. than they have earned so far, and they will have to work harder.

In view of this, soon after Taylor was appointed chief foreman, he decided to make one last effort to radically change the very system of management so that the interests of workers and management become identical, instead of being opposed. This led, three years later, to the practical origin of the type of management organization described by Taylor in his papers presented to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and entitled "Piece-Wage System" and "Factory Management".

In the course of the preparatory work for the development of this system, Taylor came to the conclusion that the main obstacle to the implementation of harmonious cooperation between workers and management was the complete ignorance of the management of what constitutes the proper daily rate for each individual worker. He was well aware that, although he was the chief foreman, the combined knowledge and skills of the workers subordinate to him undoubtedly exceeded his own by ten times. He obtained, therefore, permission from the president of the Midvale Steel Company to spend some money on a careful scientific study of the normal length of time required for the performance of various kinds of work.

Among the series of studies undertaken by Taylor at that time, one was to find some rule or law that would allow the master to determine in advance how much of this or that kind of hard work a person well adapted to its production is able to perform during working day. In other words, the aim was to study the effect of fatigue exerted by hard work on a first-class worker. Taylor's first step was to study the world's scientific achievements available by that time on this problem. It turned out that the results of these investigations were so meager that no law of any value could be deduced from them. For this reason, Taylor undertook a number of experiments of his own. He chose two first-class workers - men who showed great physical strength and who were at the same time good and hardy workers. These men were paid double wages throughout the duration of the experiments and were told that they should always work as well as they could, and that we would test them from time to time to see if they worked "with cool" or not, and as soon as one of them tries to deceive the observer, he will be immediately fired. They actually worked as well as they could during the entire time they were being watched.

In these experiments, Taylor sought to find out not the maximum amount of work that can be performed by a person under short-term exceptional stress for several days. His efforts were directed towards finding out what really constitutes the proper daily rate of work for a first-class worker: the maximum daily productivity that a worker can consistently give from one year to the next and feel good about it.

Both subjects were given various kinds of work, which they performed daily under the direct supervision of a young man who had graduated from college. He directed the experiments and at the same time noted, with a stopwatch in hand, the proper duration of each movement of both workers. Every single element, in any way related to the work, which, in Taylor's opinion, could influence the result, was subjected to careful study and quantitative accounting. The ultimate goal of the experiment was to determine the percentage of horsepower that one person could produce, that is, how many pound-feet of work one person could do in a day.

At the end of this series of experiments, the work of each worker for each day was converted into pound-feet of mechanical energy, and to his surprise, Taylor found that there was no constant or uniform relationship between the number of pound-feet of energy expended by a person during day, and the effect of his work in the sense of fatigue. In the course of some types of work, a person was tired to the point of exhaustion, expending perhaps no more than 1/8 of a horse power, while in the production of other types of work, he was tired no more, expending half a horse power of energy. Taylor was thus unable to discover any law which could give an exact criterion for determining the maximum daily productivity of a first-class worker.

Nevertheless, the experiments cannot be considered a failure: in the course of them, a significant amount of very valuable data was found, which allowed Taylor to establish the proper daily rate for a number of branches of labor. However, at that moment it did not seem prudent to spend more money on trying to establish the exact law that he was striving for. A few years later, when for this purpose it was possible to obtain more money, a number of experiments were undertaken, similar to those previously described, but somewhat more thorough. These experiments also resulted in new valuable data, but again did not give Taylor any law. A few years later, a third series of experiments was undertaken, and this time the researchers spared no effort in their desire to do the job thoroughly. Every smallest element that could in any way influence the solution of the problem was subjected to the most careful consideration and study, and two young scientists devoted about three months to the production of experiments. Once this data was re-translated into the number of pound-pounds of energy expended by one person in one day, it became quite clear that there is no direct relationship between the proportion of horsepower expended by an individual per day (i.e. of energy in pound-feet), and the effect of fatigue produced on him by this work.

However, Taylor was still firmly convinced that there was some definite, perfectly precise law that established the standard of full daily productivity for a first-class worker. All data was so carefully collected and taken into account that, in his opinion, the law sought was undoubtedly hidden somewhere in these facts. The problem of deriving this law from the collected facts was therefore referred by Taylor to an acquaintance, the mathematician C.J. Bart, and he himself decided to investigate the problem with a new method: by graphic image of each individual element of the work, with the help of curves, which gave us, as it were, a bird's eye view of each individual element. In a relatively short time, Barthes discovered the law governing the effect of fatigue exerted by hard work on a first-class worker. This law turned out to be so simple that it was surprising that it had not been discovered and clearly established many years earlier. This law applies only to this kind of work in which the limit of a person's working capacity is reached due to his physical fatigue. This is the law of hard work, which rather corresponds to the work of a draft horse. Almost all such work comes down, ultimately, to the effort of a person’s hands in order to move or push something, that is, a person’s strength is spent on lifting or pushing some weight that he holds in his hands. And this law consists in the fact that, with the expenditure of any such effort of the hands for a shift or push of a certain gravity, a person can do actual work only during a certain percentage of the entire length of the working day. So, for example, when carrying pig iron in pigs (assuming each pig weighs 92 pounds), a first-class worker can be under the load for only 43% of the working day. He must be completely unloaded for the remaining 57% of the day. The lighter the severity of the load, the longer the percentage of the working day during which the worker can be under the load. So, for example, if a worker is carrying half-blanks, each weighing 46 pounds, he may be under load for 58% of the day, and rest only for the remaining 42%. The lighter the load, the greater becomes the percentage of the working day during which the worker can be under the load, until finally a degree of load is reached that he can carry without fatigue in his hands all day. When this limit is reached, the law in question ceases to serve as a criterion for the endurance of the worker, and one should look for some other law that defines here the limits of a person's ability to work.

When a workman carries in his hands a cast-iron block weighing 92 pounds, he is almost as tired standing still under the load as when he walks with him, since the muscles of his hands are in a state of just as much tension, indifferently whether he moves from place to place or not. On the other hand, a person standing still under a load does not give up any fraction of the horse power of energy, which explains the fact that it is impossible: no constant relationship has been established in various branches of hard work between the amount of pound-feet of energy expended and the effect of fatigue, produced by work per person. It is also clear that, in all kinds of work of this kind, the hands of the worker must, of necessity, be completely free from load (i.e., the worker must rest) at certain frequent intervals. As long as the worker is under heavy load, the muscle tissues of his arms are undergoing a process of destruction, and frequent periods of rest are necessary so that the blood can again restore these tissues to their normal state.

So, Taylor concluded that it was necessary to train workers in the methods of work and the distribution of work during the day, so that the work performed did not cause irreparable harm to his health.

In addition, he considered it obvious that even in relation to even the most elementary of the known varieties of labor, there is a special science that governs it. And if people the best way adapted to the production of this kind of work, were the subject of careful selection, if the science underlying this work was specially developed and carefully selected workers were trained in labor skills in accordance with the laws of this science, then the results obtained must, by necessity, be immeasurably large, compared to those that can be achieved with traditional systems for the time of the production process.

In the course of Taylor's experiments, it turned out that a first-class worker is able to overload 47.5 tons of cargo per day without overwork. Is it possible with the usual type of enterprise management to achieve the same results? Taylor posed this problem to many eminent directors and asked them if they could, on a bonus basis, piece rate, or some other conventional system payment, to achieve at least an approximation of productivity to 47.5 tons per person per day? However, they were all forced to admit that by any of the usual means it was possible to achieve a productivity of at most 25 tons per day per person, and usually this figure was only 12-18 tons.

However, Taylor noted that in the experimental artel, which consisted of 75 porters, “on average, only one person out of eight was physically able to carry 47.5 tons of pig iron per day. With the best of intentions, the other seven of those eight people were physically unable to work at that pace." This one person out of eight capable of such work was simply physically stronger and more resilient than the rest. Thus, Taylor concluded that it is necessary to pre-select for this or that job people who are obviously capable of coping with it.

Almost immediately after the publication of the results of the research, accusations rained down on Taylor that because of his "experiments on people" seven iron porters out of every eight lost their jobs. However, in his rebuttal, he wrote that “... this sympathy is completely in vain, since almost all of these people immediately got another job in the same Company. And indeed it should be considered an act of kindness towards these people that they were removed from the work of carrying iron, for which they were completely unsuited, since this was the first step towards finding them a job for which they would be specially adapted and, after appropriate training, would be able to constantly and legitimately receive higher pay.

Despite the fact that Taylor drew his conclusions on the basis of experiments in only some types of labor, nevertheless he was convinced that a similar scientific basis could be clarified for each individual action of any worker. Taylor developed his system in relation to industries with heavy physical labor. At the same time, Taylor believed that every worker should:

receive as a task (lesson) the amount of work that he can perform with high quality;

develop, especially without straining, the highest labor productivity;

working with the highest labor productivity, the worker should receive pay increased by 30-100%, depending on the nature of his work;

be sure that if he does not complete his lesson, he will suffer a loss in pay.

Based on his own experience, Taylor knew that not always greater productivity of the labor process is achieved by increasing the efforts of workers. He was convinced that the worker was ready to give as much "honest daily work" as it would provide him with "honest daily wages." Taylor made an attempt to resolve the constantly arising disputes between the administration and the workers about the size of the norms of output, the amount of wages, etc. To this end, he developed many different instructions, guidelines, standards, cards, etc. The analysis of the activities of workers was accompanied by a revision of wage systems.

Creating his own management system, Taylor was not limited only to the issues of rationalizing the work of workers. Taylor paid considerable attention best use production assets of the enterprise. Of great importance, in his opinion, were right choice equipment for performing certain work, maintenance of this equipment and its repair, preparation of tools for operation and timely provision of jobs for them, as well as sharpening, repair and exchange of tools, etc.

The requirement for rationalization also extended to the layout of the enterprise and workshops. This, in particular, concerned the rational placement of equipment and jobs, the choice of the most optimal ways of moving materials and semi-finished products within the enterprise and workshops, i.e. along the shortest routes and least cost time and money.

Taylor's system provided not only ways to rationalize each element of production separately, but also determined the most appropriate interaction between them.

The functions of carrying out the interaction of elements of production were assigned to the planning or distribution bureau of the enterprise, which was given a central place in the Taylor system. The Bureau established methods for manufacturing products, the composition of equipment, tools, fixtures, and control methods. In addition, it developed job descriptions for each performer, from the worker to the administrative staff. The job description specified the scope of work, the methods of its implementation and the timing of its completion. Every day, each worker should receive an instruction card, which indicated the list of operations performed, the equipment used, tools and fixtures, methods for installing the product on the machine and methods for fixing it, processing modes (feed rate, cutting speed, etc.).

In the Taylor system, much attention was paid to the organization of accounting and reporting in the enterprise. This work was entrusted to a special executor as part of the distribution bureau, who kept daily records both for workers and for all parts of the enterprise, and for administrative personnel. According to the results of accounting, it was necessary to draw up various schedules with the help of which it is possible to monitor the progress of production in terms of key indicators and take the necessary measures in case of violation of the established tasks. The receipt and processing of correspondence (letters, telegrams, orders, etc.) were also subject to regulation.

Taylor invented the "tipping ruler" to measure optimal modes metal cutting.

According to the Taylor system, a staff of craftsmen was provided to manage the entire enterprise. Part of this staff of masters was assigned to the distribution bureau and carried out communications with the workers, set prices and rates, and supervised the general order in the workshop. Another part of the foremen staff included four categories of foremen who supervised the exact implementation of the instructions of the distribution bureau: inspector; serviceman; master setting the pace of work; foreman.

Thus, workers received instructions from several masters. In turn, the masters also acted on the basis of instructions developed for them, which precisely defined their functions, powers (rights) and responsibilities. All masters had to strictly adhere to these instructions, and in the case of replacing one master with another, the succession of their instructions to the workers was observed.

Taylor's concept was based on the division of labor into two components: performing labor and managerial labor. "Obviously," Taylor wrote, "one type of person must first draw up a plan of work, while a completely different type of person must complete it."

Taylor's important contribution was the recognition that management work is a specialty. This approach differed sharply from the previously existing management practice, when workers were forced, along with their direct work, to resolve many issues related to the administrative and economic and administrative and production areas of activity.

Thus, “the following main provisions (principles) of Taylor's concept can be distinguished:

replacement of empirical methods by scientific research of elements of work;

development of optimal methods for carrying out work on the basis of a scientific study of the costs of time, effort, movements, etc. Measurement of working time using "time units";

specialization of functions both in production and in management. Every worker and every managerial worker must know for what function he is responsible;

selection, training and placement of workers in those jobs where they can bring the greatest benefit;

planning and preparation of work;

development of precise instructions for each employee, in which, for each job, a description is given of the best methods for their implementation;

pay based on performance. Additional payment for exceeding the norms (lesson). Self-interest is the driving force for most people;

separation of administrative work from production. Managers carry out the planning function, and workers carry out the execution function. Use instead of linear functional masters who manage workers;

cooperation between the administration and workers in the practical implementation of the scientifically developed system and methods of labor organization.

Taylor discovered the shortcomings of the linear control principle, which he saw overcome in the transition to a more progressive one. functional principle. Especially great importance he devoted to the functional division of labor. So, he considered it necessary to introduce eight masters instead of one, each of which was to be responsible for a certain work (management function), for example, for preparing production, repairing and maintaining equipment, etc. However, this approach did not receive practical implementation. Subsequently, the “principle of unity of command” began to be widely promoted, according to which each employee should receive instructions from one leader (foreman).

Taylor considered the convergence of the interests of all the personnel of the enterprise to be the main task of the system proposed by him. In his opinion, not only the administration, but also the workers are interested in achieving the goals of the enterprise through close cooperation with each other. Increasing the productivity of their labor, workers increase the output of their products and, consequently, wages. The living conditions of workers are improving. And this will ultimately lead to an increase in the welfare of the whole country. He noted: "The principles of scientific management remain valid if both parties are satisfied - and there is no scientific management where both parties do not feel satisfied."

Speaking in a special committee of the House of Representatives of the US Congress on January 25, 1912, Taylor called scientific management an "intellectual revolution" not only in relation to the scientific approach to the use of workers' labor, but also in relation to the joint activity of the administration and workers on the basis of their common mutual interests. He considered scientific management as a process of merging material resources of production, technology and human resources to achieve production efficiency and enterprise goals.

Among the factors contributing to the increase in production efficiency, Taylor assigned the main place to the growth of labor productivity of workers by improving the methods of organizing and managing production. The administration played a secondary role in this process. At the same time, Taylor acknowledged that the administration was taking direct involvement in planning, recording and monitoring tasks for workers, and therefore the productivity of workers is in a certain way dependent on the improvement of the work of the administration itself. Therefore, scientific management, Taylor believed, is an "intellectual revolution" in relation not only to workers in any industry, but also to the management of the enterprise. He noted that workers and employers "jointly turn their attention to the increase in the size of the surplus product, until it increases so much that there is no need for disputes about how to divide it."

Taylor formulated two main tasks of management:

ensuring the greatest prosperity of the entrepreneur;

improving the well-being of every employee.

Taylor understood each of these tasks quite broadly.

The prosperity of entrepreneurship is not only getting high dividends on invested capital, but also the further development of the business.

Improving the well-being of employees is not only high wages in accordance with the efforts expended, but also the development in each employee of the potential that is inherent in him by nature itself.

Taylor was deeply convinced that the fundamental interests of workers and employers coincide. Moreover, he believed that the prosperity of entrepreneurs is impossible without the growth of the well-being of workers. Attaching great importance to solving the problems of the scientific organization of production and labor, Taylor well understood the importance of the influence of the environment on the enterprise, i.e. external factors, "which are beyond the control of any group of people or whole country and the state."

The philosophical basis of Taylor's system was the concept of the so-called economic man, which became widespread at that time. This concept was based on the assertion that the only driving stimulus of people is their needs. Taylor believed that with the help of an appropriate wage system, maximum productivity could be achieved. Another, also unjustified, principle of the Taylor system was to proclaim the unity of the economic interests of workers and managers. These goals were not achieved. Taylor himself wrote that you can never look a worker in the face without seeing hatred in him, and then you feel that each of them is actually your enemy. This conclusion was due to the fact that from the very first days, the Taylor system aroused the fierce resistance of the workers, who rallied, in their opinion, against the inhuman "scientific" sweatshops. Unfortunately, stereotypes change slowly, and therefore the scientific system of rationalization did not automatically lead to that climate of mutual trust between workers and capitalists, in which Taylor saw one of the conditions for rationalization. Taylor was mistaken in believing that rationalization, leading to an increase in the profits of the capitalists, would be accepted by the workers when their incomes also increased.

"Taylor's concept of scientific management was received with hostility not only by workers, but also by many managers," who were afraid of the complexities that abounded in the proposed system, especially since rumors spread in society that soon all managers would be replaced by a miraculous "scientific technology”, and they will be unemployed. However, all these fears turned out to be unfounded. In practice, the Taylor system contributed to the strengthening of the hierarchical structure of production and increased control over the activities of workers, whose work was strictly regulated in accordance with the "laws of science."

The name of Taylor is associated with the first breakthrough in management thought, which occurred at the beginning of the century and consisted in the fact that management can be "scientifically".

Taylor's principles of "scientific management" have found wide application not only in industry, but in all spheres of human activity. In Taylor's time, workers were not well educated, so his developments helped educate workers and improve their skills. In addition, Taylor's principles of labor organization formed the basis for the organization of mass-flow production, the creation of conveyors.

Development of F.Taylor's ideas in the works of his followers

The ideas of F. Taylor were developed by his followers, among whom, first of all, Henry Gantt (1861-1919), his closest student, should be mentioned.

In his research, Gantt paid special attention to the issues of labor stimulation and production planning. He made a significant contribution to the development of leadership theory. He developed the methodology of the bonus system, compiled charts for the convenience of planning, called gantt-schemes.

Most famous following works Gantt: "Labor, wages and income" (1910), "Industrial leadership" (1916), "Organization of labor" (1919).

Following Taylor, Gantt believed that it was necessary to bring a specific production task to each worker. In addition, the worker must know that in the case of timely and high-quality performance, he will receive a bonus. In addition, the worker is rewarded for overfulfillment of production standards. The first bonus system was developed by him in 1901. A worker who completed a daily task was paid a bonus of 50 cents. Subject to the completion of all work tasks, the master also received an additional bonus. The introduction of this system at a number of enterprises made it possible to double the productivity of workers.

The peculiarity of the bonus system of remuneration was to maintain the minimum wage, regardless of the degree of underfulfillment of the norm.

Gantt proposed a schedule (Gantt chart), according to which each worker could track the results of his work and the amount of earnings per hour, day, week. The Gantt chart is the predecessor network graphics, for the calculation of which computers are currently widely used. To train workers in new techniques, special schemes for performing operations were developed.

Gantt considered the human factor as the main engine for increasing production efficiency. But at the same time, he believed that production should not be considered only as a source of existence for the worker. The worker must be satisfied with the work he performs. He wrote: “Everything we undertake must be in harmony with human nature. We cannot goad people; we have a responsibility to guide their development.”

Gantt believed that the time of forcing workers to work is a thing of the past. The focus now needs to be on training workers in new skills to reduce non-productive time. Raising their qualifications, the workers consciously and better perform the tasks entrusted to them. They begin to realize their responsibility for the work they do. All this is accompanied by an improvement in their physical form and appearance. These thoughts were reflected in the article "Education of Workers in the Skills of Industrial Labor and Cooperation" (1908), in which Gantt noted that managers who have mastered the progressive methods of scientific management have no desire to return to the old methods. The use of industrial labor skills contributes to the establishment of cooperation, (cooperation) between workers and clerks.

Gantt outlined his thoughts on the social responsibility of business in the work "Organization of Labor". The main content of the problem is as follows: society is in need of goods and services provided by various enterprises. For businessmen, profit is of primary importance, and not the provision of goods and services to society. At the same time, society believes that if an enterprise does not provide it with the necessary goods and services, then such an enterprise has no right to exist. Based on these considerations, Gantt concluded that “the business system must assume social responsibility and devote itself primarily to the service of society; otherwise, society will eventually attempt to crush it in order to act freely in accordance with its own interests. Gantt dreamed of "democracy in the workplace", believing that "of all the problems of management, the most important is the problem of the human factor."

Among Taylor's followers, Frank Gilbreth (1868-1924) and his wife Lillian Gilbreth (1878-1958) stand out. They dealt with the issues of rationalizing the work of workers, studying the physical movements in the production process and exploring the possibilities of increasing output through increasing labor productivity.

All the efforts of Frank and Lillian Gilbreth were concentrated on the direction, which was later called "the study of movements."

Starting his life as a bricklayer's apprentice, F. Gilbreth noticed that all the movements with which people lay bricks can be combined into three bundles. He carefully studied all these movements and singled out those that are the most effective. The result of the study of movements and the tools used was a proposal to reduce the number of movements required for laying one brick from 18 to 4.5 with an increase in labor productivity from 120 to 350 bricks laid per hour.

F. Gilbreth continued Taylor's research, which consisted in the fact that Taylor carefully measured the amount of iron ore and coal that a person could lift with shovels of various sizes. Gilbreth also carried out similar studies with the transfer of bulk materials with shovels. Gilbreth found it inappropriate to move different materials with the same shovel. In the case of transferring light material, the shovel will rake too little and the labor of the worker will be unproductive, despite the effort expended. When transferring heavy material, the shovel will capture too much of it and the work will be too tiring for the worker. After a considerable amount of research, Gilbreth determined the shapes and sizes of various shovels suitable for transferring a variety of materials. By choosing a shovel according to the weight and volume of materials to be thrown, the worker could complete the planned work with less effort and at the highest labor productivity.

The work of Frank and Lillian Gilbreth had a significant impact on the development of the organization and technical regulation of labor. In our country, their best-known books are The ABC of the Scientific Organization of Labor and Enterprises, The Study of Movements (1911), Psychology of Management (1916), which were translated into Russian and reprinted several times in 1924-1931.

In his research, F. Gilbreth paid considerable attention to the study of movements during work, which suggests the presence of three phases:

identifying best practices;

generalization in the form of rules;

the application of these rules to normalize working conditions in order to increase its productivity.

Analytical work on the study of movements is as follows:

describes the current practice in this profession;

the applicable movements are listed (their nomenclature);

lists the variable factors influencing each movement;

describes the best practice in the profession;

the applied movements are listed;

lists the variable factors influencing each movement.

All factors affecting the productivity of the worker are divided into three groups:

variable factors of the worker (physique, health, lifestyle, qualifications, culture, education, etc.);

variable factors of the environment, equipment and tools (heating, lighting, clothing, quality of materials used, monotony and difficulty of work, degree of fatigue, etc.);

variable factors of movement (speed, amount of work performed, automaticity, direction of movements and their expediency, cost of work, etc.).

Each factor is studied separately, its influence on labor productivity is revealed. The most important of these, Gilbreth considered the factors of movement. He studied in detail the influence various factors on the duration, intensity and direction of work movements.

In his construction firm, F. Gilbreth introduced a strict set of written rules for masonry and concrete work, as well as for the relationship of workers with the firm's office. "All employees must follow these rules to the last letter until they receive written permission to waive certain rules."

In the early 1900s, Frank and his wife Lillian began to use a movie camera in combination with a microchronometer to make time observations to study work operations. The microchronometer is a watch that Frank invented that could record intervals up to 1/2000 of a second. With the help of freeze-frames, the Gilbreths were able to identify and describe 17 basic hand movements. They called these movements terbligs. This name comes from the surname Gilbreth, if read backwards. In addition to filming, the Gilbreths used scale charts and other devices. F. Gilbreth is the inventor of maps and schemes of technological processes, cyclograph.

Proposed by the Gilbreths new method, based on the study of the simplest operations, is currently widely used in the West on the basis of the rationing of production operations. The application of this method in the firm of F. Gilbreth gave a significant increase in labor productivity. The analysis of micromotions during the performance of production operations allows eliminating unnecessary, irrational movements. Therefore, the analysis precedes the work on labor rationing.

In addition to the study of movements, Gilbreth paid especially great attention to the study and analysis of the whole process as a whole. As a result of the analysis, it could turn out that a number of movements were redundant and could be excluded from the process under consideration. A further increase in performance could be achieved by speeding up the movements.

Rationalization and normalization, Gilbreth believed, concern not only movements, but also lighting, heating, clothing, recreation, eating, entertainment, furniture, the tool used. These factors also have a significant impact on the normalization of movements and their optimal combination.

The Gilbreths paid great attention to the training of workers. The maximum use of the knowledge and abilities of the workers should be aimed at improving the welfare of the country. Enterprise managers must also have sufficient ability, experience and knowledge. The activities of enterprises should without fail be planned and managed. Without compliance with these conditions, it is impossible to achieve an increase in production efficiency.

G. Emerson (1853-1931) made a significant contribution to the development of the Taylor system. Widely known was his work "The Twelve Principles of Productivity", in which he outlined his views on the rationalization of production. Emerson explored the principles of labor activity in relation to any production, regardless of the type of its activity. This is the main difference between the methods used by him and those used by Gilbreth, Gantt, Bart, Thompson, who studied the methods of organizing labor within one enterprise in relation to individual professions.

Emerson focused on theoretical questions study of the problem of labor organization. To this end, he divided the process of organizing labor into its component parts and carefully studied each of them. The analysis carried out allowed him to formulate twelve principles of productivity, which make it possible to maximize labor productivity in any field of activity: in production, in transport, in construction, in the household, etc.

The twelve principles for improving productivity are as follows:

The presence of clearly defined goals or ideals, as the main prerequisite for effective work.

Presence common sense in every job. Without this it is impossible to implement creative work in the organization, the development of goals and control over their implementation.

The possibility of obtaining qualified advice, competent advice. Every organization needs to create a department of rationalization, which would develop recommendations for improving management in all departments.

Compliance with strict discipline based on standard written instructions, complete and accurate accounting, use of the reward system. To achieve the required discipline, various methods can be applied: from “life lessons” to punishments.

Fair treatment of staff (through "fair" pay). This principle is based on careful selection of employees. At the same time, Emerson advised the main attention "to pay attention to internal inclinations and abilities, to character - to what ultimately defines a person."

A fair attitude towards the personnel implies the improvement of their qualifications, the improvement of working and living conditions.

Availability of timely, complete, reliable and constant, accurate accounting.

Emerson paid particular attention to accounting issues. “Only he who takes into account all quantities and all prices, who takes into account the effectiveness of both, only he can really apply all the other principles and achieve high productivity.”

Production regulation (scheduling), which Emerson considered as an integral part of the organization's activities.

Dispatching and planning were considered by him in direct connection and unity.

Planning (schedule) of works.

Rationing of operations on the basis of rational methods of their implementation.

Emerson noted that piecework wages lead to excessive strain on the worker. To establish labor standards, it is necessary to use the timing of all operations. Rationing allows you to set time standards and prices, taking into account the identification of unused reserves for increasing labor productivity. The level of mechanization and automation of production processes directly affects the value of the norms. Norms and prices should not be revised without changing the conditions of labor organization. Psychologists and physiologists should be involved in their development.

Normalization of working conditions.

Without the normalization of working conditions, neither accurate planning nor complete and timely accounting is possible. Emerson considered the normalization of working conditions as a necessary prerequisite for the growth of labor productivity.

Availability of developed instructions and standards in writing.

Emerson considered completely groundless the existing opinion that "as if the standard instructions kill the initiative in the worker, turn him into an automaton." On the contrary, he wrote, "an enterprise devoid of standard written instructions is not capable of steady progress."

The presence of a rational system of remuneration for increasing labor productivity. At the same time, Emerson noted that "daily wages are contrary to the basic principle of remuneration and justice." Emerson noted that the growth of labor productivity of wage workers is largely determined by their "ideals". Therefore, you should not reduce remuneration only to an increase in wages.

“The ideal of the 12 principles of productivity,” Emerson wrote, “is the elimination of waste, and it is for this purpose that they are formulated. In what particular case to eliminate losses - this is of fundamental importance.

Emerson acted as an ideologist for the elimination of all losses in general in the interests of all mankind and the common good. His theory was aimed at finding such ways and methods of organizing labor that would make it possible to increase labor productivity not as painfully as it was intended by the Taylor system.

Emerson noted that following the principles he developed significantly increased the productivity of workers. Emerson owns the famous saying: “To work hard means to put maximum effort into the matter; to work productively means to apply the minimum effort to the work.

Emerson made a distinction between strenuous work and productive work. Piece wages are based on the principle of tension, and on the principle of productivity - the rationing of output and the bonus system of wages.

Emerson paid much attention to the study of the staff principle in management. He supported Taylor's idea that the linear principle of building an organization should be supplemented by a staff principle, which becomes especially important in large firms. Staff personnel have a large amount of specialized knowledge necessary for line workers in the process of making managerial decisions. Emerson saw the main purpose of the headquarters units in the organization as "that each member of the line division could at any time benefit from staff knowledge and staff assistance."

G. Emerson was educated in Europe. His views were greatly influenced by the ideas of the Prussian General von Moltke, who developed the concept of the General Staff, on the basis of which the Prussian army turned into a monstrous war machine second half of the 19th century

According to the general staff concept, when a complex military problem arises, it is divided into several separate questions, each of which is studied by one of the staff officers. Then the entire body of information on this problem is collected and summarized at the headquarters, and then reported to the military leader (line manager), who is vested with the right to make a final decision on this problem and bears personal responsibility for the consequences of making this decision.

Emerson believed that the staff principle applied to organizations of all types, not just the military. Emerson gave unlimited powers to one person. Subsequently, these functions were assigned to the headquarters of managerial employees, which made it possible to achieve a combination of the principle of unity of command with collegiality (collection and processing of information) in the process of making managerial decisions.

Emerson noted that the linear (military) principle of building organizations cannot be used in enterprises, since the goals of modern enterprises are significantly different from the goals of enterprises in the past. He formulated the position that each hierarchical level of management is created to improve the service of the lower level, and not to facilitate the position of higher levels of management.

On many issues of management, Emerson went further than Taylor. This, apparently, explains the fact that many of his thoughts and 12 principles of productivity have not lost their relevance at the present time.

Henry Ford (1863-1947) continued Taylor's ideas in the field of industrial organization. Ford is the author of two books: My Life, My Achievements and Today and Tomorrow. The first book was translated into Russian in 1924, the second - in 1928.

Ford was born to a Michigan farmer, an immigrant from Ireland. Two of the most important events of his childhood made a deep impression on him. At the age of 12, he first saw a moving locomobile on the road, and in the same year he was presented with a watch. From childhood, he was a "born technician". The locomobile he saw determined his future fate.

In 1891, he developed the design of a gasoline cart and worked on improving its engine for several years. For the first time, Ford managed to drive it in 1893. A gasoline cart, having a tank with a capacity of 12 liters, ran sixty miles at a speed of 20 miles per hour. On the basis of this gasoline truck, a Ford car was subsequently created - the “Model T”, which already had four cylinders, an automatic starting device and was simpler than its predecessor with an increase in convenience and practicality in use.

Since 1893, Ford has been working as chief engineer of the Edison Company of Detroit, specializing in lighting the city. In 1899, he became the chief engineer of the Detroit Automobile Company and worked in it until 1902. Activities in this company brought him fame as an inventor speed models cars.

In 1903, Ford creates the Ford Signer Company, a controlling stake in which (51%) he acquires in 1916. In 1919, his son acquires the rest - 41% of the shares. The entire stake was in the hands of the Ford family. With the creation of the “T” car, Ford broke all the previous concepts that existed in the automotive industry. This model enjoyed unlimited popularity among buyers and over the period 1908-1927, over 15 million cars of this model were sold.

When creating automobile production, Ford wrote that his goal was "to produce with a minimum expenditure of material and human power and sell with a minimum profit." He noted that "greed is a kind of short-sightedness." However, he made huge profits by increasing sales. The following principles were put in the basis of the production organized by him:

one should not be afraid of possible failures, since “failures only give a reason to start again and smarter”;

you should not be afraid of competition and at the same time you should not strive to harm the business and life of another person who is your competitor;

Profit should not be prioritized over customer service. “In essence, there is nothing wrong with profit. A well-established enterprise, bringing great benefits, should bring a lot of income”;

“Producing does not mean buying cheap and selling expensive.” Raw materials and materials should be purchased “at fair prices”, adding insignificant additional costs in the production process, but at the same time achieving the production of high-quality products. "To gamble, to speculate and to act dishonestly is to impede only the said process."

Following the principles he formulated. Ford was able to dramatically increase the annual production of automobiles from 18,664 in 1909 to 1,250,000 in 1920. At the same time, the price of a car steadily decreased, in ten years it fell from $950 to $355.

Taylor's system was dominated by manual labor. Ford replaced manual labor with machines, that is, he took a further step in the development of the Taylor system. He formulated the basic principles of the organization of production:

The maximum division of labor, specialization.

Wide use of high-performance special equipment, tools and fixtures.

Tutoring

Need help learning a topic?

Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Submit an application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

Modern views on management theory, the foundation of which was laid scientific schools management are very diverse. The article will tell about the leading foreign management schools and the founders of management.

The birth of science

Management has ancient history, but management theory began to develop only at the beginning of the 20th century. The emergence of management science is credited to Frederick Taylor (1856-1915). The founder of the school of scientific management, Taylor, along with other researchers, initiated the study of the means and methods of leadership.

Revolutionary thoughts about management and motivation arose earlier, but were not in demand. For example, the project of Robert Owen (beginning of the 19th century) turned out to be very successful. His factory in Scotland was highly profitable by creating working conditions that encouraged people to effective work. Workers and their families were provided with housing, worked in best conditions were rewarded with prizes. But the businessmen of the time were not ready to follow Owen.

In 1885, in parallel with the Taylor school, an empirical school arose, whose representatives (Druker, Ford, Simons) were of the opinion that management is an art. And successful leadership can only be based on practical experience and intuition, but is not a science.

It was in the United States at the dawn of the 20th century that favorable conditions developed in which the evolution of scientific management schools began. A huge labor market has formed in a democratic country. The availability of education has helped many smart people to show their qualities. The development of transport and the economy contributed to the strengthening of monopolies with a multi-level management structure. New ways of leadership were needed. In 1911, Frederick Taylor's book "The Principles of Scientific Management" was published, which marked the beginning of research in the field of a new science - leadership.

Taylor School of Scientific Management (1885-1920)

The father of modern management, Frederick Taylor, proposed and systematized the laws of rational organization of work. With the help of research, he conveyed the idea that labor must be studied

• Taylor's innovations are methods of motivation, piecework, rest and breaks at work, timing, rationing, professional selection and training of personnel, the introduction of cards with the rules for performing work.
• Together with his followers, Taylor proved that the use of observations, measurements and analyzes would help facilitate manual labor, make it more perfect. The introduction of achievable norms and standards made it possible to increase the wages of more efficient workers.
• Supporters of the school did not ignore the human factor. The introduction of incentive methods made it possible to increase the motivation of workers and increase productivity.
• Taylor dismembered labor practices, separated the management functions (organization and planning) from the actual work. Representatives of the school of scientific management believed that people with this specialty should perform managerial functions. They were of the opinion that concentration different groups employees on what they are more capable of makes the organization more successful.

The system created by Taylor is recognized as more applicable to the lower management level in the diversification, expansion of production. The Taylor School of Scientific Management has created a scientific foundation to replace obsolete practices. The supporters of the school included such researchers as F. and L. Gilbert, G. Gantt, Weber, G. Emerson, G. Ford, G. Grant, O.A. Yermansky.

Development of the school of scientific management

Frank and Lillian Gilbreth studied the factors that affect productivity. To fix movements during operations, they used a movie camera and a device of their own invention (microchronometer). Research allowed to change the course of work, eliminating unnecessary movements.

The Gilbreths applied standards and equipment in production, which later led to the emergence of work standards, which were introduced by scientific management schools. F. Gilbreth studied the factors influencing labor productivity. He divided them into three groups:

1. Variable factors related to health, lifestyle, physique, cultural level, education.
2. Variable factors related to working conditions, environment, materials, equipment and tools.
3. Variable factors associated with the speed of movements: speed, efficiency, automaticity and others.

As a result of research, Gilbert came to the conclusion that the factors of movement are the most significant.

The main provisions of the scientific management school were finalized by Max Weber. The scientist formulated six principles for the rational functioning of an enterprise, which consisted in rationality, instruction, regulation, division of management, regulation of functions and subordination to a common goal.

The F. Taylor school of scientific management and his work were continued by the contribution of Henry Ford, who supplemented Taylor's principles by standardizing all production processes, dividing operations into stages. Ford mechanized and synchronized production, organizing it on the principle of a conveyor, due to which the cost decreased by 9 times.

The first scientific schools of management became a reliable foundation for the development of management science. Taylor's school is distinguished not only by many strengths, but also by shortcomings: the study of management from the angle of a mechanical approach, motivation through the satisfaction of the utilitarian needs of workers.

Administrative (classical) school of scientific management (1920-1950)

The administrative school laid the foundation for the development of the principles and functions of management, the search for systematic approaches to improve the efficiency of managing the entire enterprise. A. Fayol, D. Mooney, L. Urvik, A. Ginsburg, A. Sloan, A. Gastev made a significant contribution to its development. The birth of the administrative school is associated with the name of Henri Fayol, who worked for more than 50 years for the benefit of a French company in the field of coal and iron ore processing. Dindall Urwick served as a management consultant in England. James Mooney worked under Alfred Sloan at General Motors.

The scientific and administrative schools of management developed in different directions, but complemented each other. Supporters of the administrative school considered it their main goal to achieve the effectiveness of the entire organization as a whole, using universal principles. The researchers were able to look at the enterprise from the point of view of long-term development and identified characteristics and patterns common to all firms.

In Fayol's book General and Industrial Administration, management was first described as a process that includes several functions (planning, organization, motivation, regulation and control).

Fayol formulated 14 universal principles that allow an enterprise to succeed:

• division of labor;
• combination of powers and responsibilities;
• maintaining discipline;
• unity of command;
• common direction;
• subordination of own interests to collective interests;
• employee remuneration;
• centralization;
• interaction chain;
• order;
• justice;
• job stability;
• encouraging initiative;
• corporate spirit.

School of Human Relations (1930-1950)

Classical scientific schools of management did not take into account one of the main elements of the organization's success - the human factor. The shortcomings of previous approaches were resolved by the neoclassical school. Her significant contribution to the development of management was the application of knowledge about interpersonal relationships. The Human Relations and Behavioral Sciences movements are the first scientific schools of management to make use of advances in psychology and sociology. The development of the school of human relations began thanks to two scientists: and

Ms. Follett was the first to think that management is getting work done with the help of other people. She believed that the manager should not only formally treat his subordinates, but should become a leader for them.

Mayo proved through experiments that clear standards, instructions and decent pay do not always lead to increased productivity, as the founder of the Taylor school of scientific management believed. Team relationships often trump management efforts. For example, the opinion of colleagues may become a more important incentive for an employee than instructions from a manager or material rewards. Thanks to Mayo, the social philosophy of management was born.

Mayo carried out his experiments for 13 years at the plant in Horton. He proved that it is possible to change the attitude of people to work through group influence. Mayo advised the use of spiritual incentives in management, for example, the connection of an employee with colleagues. He urged leaders to pay attention to relationships in the team.

The Horton Experiments were the beginning of:

• studying collective relationships in many enterprises;
• accounting for group psychological phenomena;
• identification of labor motivation;
• studies of relationships between people;
• identifying the role of each employee and a small group in the work team.

School of Behavioral Sciences (1930-1950)

The end of the 1950s is the period of the transformation of the school of human relations into the school of behavioral sciences. It was not methods for building interpersonal relationships that came to the fore, but the effectiveness of the employee and the enterprise as a whole. Behavioral scientific approaches and management schools have led to the emergence of a new management function - personnel management.

Significant figures in this direction include: Douglas McGregor, Frederick Herzberg, Chris Argyris, Rensis Likert. The objects of research of scientists were social interactions, motivation, power, leadership and authorities, organizational structures, communications, quality of working life and work. The new approach moved away from the methods of building relationships in teams, and focused on helping the employee to realize his own capabilities. The concepts of the behavioral sciences began to be applied in the creation of organizations and management. Supporters formulated the goal of the school: the high efficiency of the enterprise due to the high efficiency of its human resources.

The emergence of the school was due to the development of cybernetics and operations research. Within the framework of the school, an independent discipline arose - the theory of managerial decisions. Research in this area is related to the development of:

• methods of mathematical modeling in the development of organizational decisions;
• algorithms for selecting optimal solutions using statistics, game theory and other scientific approaches;
• mathematical models for phenomena in the economy of an applied and abstract nature;
• scale models imitating a society or an individual firm, balance models for costs or output, models for making forecasts of scientific, technological and economic development.

empirical school

Modern scientific schools of management cannot be imagined without the achievements of the empirical school. Its representatives believed that the main task of management research should be to collect practical materials and making recommendations for managers. Peter Drucker, Ray Davis, Lawrence Newman, Don Miller became prominent representatives of the school.

The school contributed to the separation of management into a separate profession and has two directions. The first is the study of enterprise management problems and the implementation of the development of modern management concepts. The second is a study of the job responsibilities and functions of managers. "Empirists" argued that the leader creates something unified from certain resources. When making decisions, he focuses on the future of the enterprise or its prospects.

Any leader is called upon to perform certain functions:

• setting the goals of the enterprise and choosing ways of development;
• classification, distribution of work, creation of an organizational structure, selection and placement of personnel, and others;
• stimulation and coordination of personnel, control based on relations between managers and the team;
• rationing, analysis of the work of the enterprise and all those employed on it;
• motivation based on performance.

Thus, the activity of a modern manager becomes complex. The manager must be knowledgeable different areas and apply proven methods. The school has solved a number of significant managerial problems that arise everywhere in large-scale industrial production.

School of Social Systems

The social school applies the achievements of the "human relations" school and considers the worker as a person with a social orientation and needs that are reflected in the organizational environment. The environment of the enterprise also influences the formation of the needs of the employee.

To prominent representatives schools include Jane March, Amitai Etzioni. This current in the study of the position and place of a person in an organization has gone further than other scientific schools of management. Briefly, the postulate of "social systems" can be expressed as follows: the needs of the individual and the needs of the collective are usually far from each other.

Thanks to work, a person gets the opportunity to satisfy his needs level by level, moving higher and higher in the hierarchy of needs. But the essence of the organization is such that it often contradicts the transition to the next level. The obstacles that arise on the way of the employee's movement towards their goals cause conflicts with the enterprise. The task of the school is to reduce their strength with the help of studies of organizations as complex socio-technical systems.

Human Resource Management

The history of the emergence of "human resource management" dates back to the 60s of the XX century. The model of the sociologist R. Milles considered the staff as a source of reserves. According to the theory, good management should not become the main goal, as the scientific schools of management preached. Briefly, the meaning of "human management" can be expressed as follows: the satisfaction of needs should be the result of the personal interest of each employee.

A great company always manages to retain great employees. Therefore, the human factor is an important strategic factor for the organization. It's vital important condition to survive in a difficult market environment. The goals of this type of management include not just hiring, but stimulating, developing and training professional employees who effectively implement organizational goals. The essence of this philosophy is that employees are the assets of the organization, capital that does not require much control, but depends on motivation and stimulation.

The school of scientific management was finally formed and became widely known at the beginning of the 20th century. It is connected, first of all, 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 manual labor operations, to achieve their more efficient implementation.

Main principles of scientific management school:

1. 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 methods.
2. Development of the formal structure of the organization.
3. Determination of measures for cooperation between the manager and the worker, i.e., the distinction between 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— an engineer-practitioner and a 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, put into practice scientific approaches to the selection, placement and stimulation of workers.

Taylor developed and implemented a complex system of organizational measures:

• timing;
• instructional cards;
• methods of retraining workers;
• planning office;
• 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, were rewarded more.

A look at piecework and bonus wage systems:

• F.Taylor: workers should be paid in proportion to their contribution, i.e. piecework. Workers who produce more than the daily quota should be paid more, i.e. differentiated piecework wages;
• G. Gantt: The worker is guaranteed a weekly wage, but if he overfulfills the norm, he earns a bonus plus a higher payment per unit of output.

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 explored the ability to increase output by reducing effort spent on their production.

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

F. Gilbert's studies on the rationalization of workers' labor provided a threefold increase in labor productivity.

L. Gilbert laid the foundation for the field of management, which is now called "personnel management". She explored 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 interest workers in increasing the volume of production.

Taylor's closest student was G. Gantt, who was engaged in developments in the field of bonus payment methods, compiled charts for production planning (Gantt's tape 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 the management of production. She was engaged in efficiency improvement at the level below the managerial level, the so-called non-management level.

Criticism of the scientific management school: a mechanistic approach to management: the teaching of management was reduced to the teaching of industrial engineering; reduction of labor motivation to the satisfaction of the utilitarian needs of workers.

The concept of scientific management was a turning point. It almost instantly became a subject of general interest. Many branches of business activity began to apply scientific management not only in the USA, but also in England, France and other countries.

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

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

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 school of scientific management, Taylor, using observations, measurements 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 work. The results of his research served as the basis for revising the norms for the production and remuneration of workers.

Taylor's followers Frank and Lillian Gilbreth dealt with the rationalization of the work of workers, the study of physical movements in the production process and the study of opportunities to increase output by increasing labor productivity. A significant contribution to the development of the Taylor system was made by Emerson, who studied the staff principle in management and the rationalization of production. Ford formulated the basic principles of the organization of production, for the first time separated the main work from its service.

From the studies and experiments carried out, the authors of this school deduced a number of general principles, methods and forms of organizing production and stimulating the work of workers. The main principles of the school of scientific management:

• development of optimal methods for the implementation of work based on the study of the cost of time, movements, efforts, etc.;
• absolute adherence to the developed standards;
• selection, training and placement of workers in those jobs where they can give the greatest benefit;
• pay based on performance;
• allocation of managerial functions to a separate area of ​​professional activity;
• maintaining friendly relations between workers and managers.

The contribution of the scientific management school to management theory:

• use of scientific analysis to study the labor process and determine better ways task completion;
• selecting workers best suited to the tasks and providing them with training;
• providing workers with the resources required to effectively perform their tasks;
• the importance of fair material incentives for workers to increase productivity;
• department 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 man, his place in the organization and the essence of his activity;
• 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;
• in the doctrine, only the material needs of the workers were considered and taken into account;

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

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

However, this theory became a major turning point, thanks to which management became widely recognized as an independent field of scientific research. For the first time, practitioners and scholars saw that the methods and approaches recommended by the school could be used effectively to achieve organizational goals.

Representatives of this school created the scientific foundations of production and labor management. In the 1920s independent sciences emerged from this scientific direction: the scientific organization of labor (SOT), the theory of organization of production, etc.

Frederick Winslow Taylor (1856-1915) is a well-known practical engineer and manager, who is rightly called the father of management. Taylor's main views are set forth in the books Enterprise Management (1903) and Principles of Scientific Management (1911).

Taylor actively addressed the problem of rationalizing production and labor in order to increase productivity and efficiency. According to the opinion and experience of F. Taylor, the limited (minimum) productivity of labor in many shops seemed to the workers as a kind of norm (which they were not going to overfulfill). This approach was called by him "pretense" (soldiering-pretend that you are working, "cheat", "blame"). At the same time, he divided pretense into natural and systemic. Natural pretense - the tendency of workers to lighten the load. Systemic pretense is, on the one hand, a decrease in productivity by workers due, as F. Taylor put it, to their short-sighted assessment of their own interests, and on the other hand, the willingness of managers to accept this significantly lower optimal level of worker productivity as normal.

In his work "Enterprise Management" F. Taylor divided workers into middle and first class workers. In his opinion, the workers of the middle class, which are the majority, when given any opportunity, tend to evade the proper performance of duties. In particular, Taylor noted that “the tendency of the average man (in all walks of life) is expressed in his tendency to plod along with a leisurely gait; he can quicken his pace only after long reflections and observations, or, say, experiencing pangs of conscience or under the influence of external circumstances ... This tendency to relax is clearly enhanced when practicing a large number workers in the same job and at the same work rate. With such an organization of work, the best people slowly but surely merge with the main indifferent and inert mass.

Taylor believed that the problem of poor performance could be solved by applying a method he called "scientific timing". One of the original goals of developing this method was to determine the actual time required to complete a particular operation. The essence of the method was to divide the work into a sequence of elementary operations, which were timed and recorded with the assistance of workers. The method proposed by Taylor made it possible to obtain accurate information about necessary costs time to perform a particular job, thereby optimizing the algorithm of employees' activities and providing new opportunities for control over all aspects of production related to tooling, machines, materials and work methods.

Later, in Principles of Scientific Management, Taylor advanced three fundamental principles scientific management:

• 1) replacement of decisions made by the worker performing this function with scientifically based decisions;
• 2) scientific selection and training of workers, requiring the study of their qualities, education and training, instead of their unsystematic selection and training;
• 3) close cooperation between managers and workers, allowing them to carry out their work in accordance with established scientific laws and patterns, and not an arbitrary solution of each individual problem by an individual worker. The application of the F. Taylor method in various companies gave

significant economic results. At the same time, this led to significant job cuts and layoffs of workers, which caused both workers and trade unions justified concern. As a result, Taylor had a lot of critics who accused him of allegedly considering workers to be something like robots and only striving to increase the level of production, while completely neglecting the human factor. There were also concerns that the full implementation of scientific management would inevitably lead to the devaluation of existing skills and crafts, to a gradual decrease in the need for skilled labor, which would be algorithmized so that any person "from the street could replace the master."

The methods provoked such a strong reaction from the American trade unions that they launched a joint campaign against the introduction and spread of scientific management. As a result, Taylor even appeared before a special committee of Congress, specially created in order to deal with "this kind of production management systems." Despite Taylor's perfectly rational and logical objections, his assertions were little heard under the noisy din of criticism. As a result, clauses were introduced into the Appropriations Bill prohibiting the use of such methods, and above all the use of a stopwatch.

Nevertheless, despite harsh criticism and resistance from trade unions, by 1930 Taylor's system of scientific management was known and widely used in all developed countries. His idea of ​​dividing work into the simplest operations led to the creation of the assembly line, which played such a significant role in the growth of US economic power in the first half of the 20th century.

F. Taylor's works have been reprinted all over the world. In the USSR, his works were published in 1925 and 1931, and his methods of scientific management were studied and implemented within the framework of labor rationing and the scientific organization of labor. They found their ardent supporters among the organizers of the socialist construction of that time.

In conclusion, it can be noted that, despite the controversy of some of Taylor's provisions and methods, his contribution to the development of managerial theory is significant. It can be recognized that he was the first to synthesize and systematize the existing ideas about managing people and proposed methods through which this art received its further development. And although Taylor considered the motivation of workers too simplistic and underestimated the role of the team in the organization of activities (which corresponded to the degree of development of the socio-psychological theory of that time), his ideas about the mutual responsibility of managers and workers, as well as his idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe "mental revolution" made a significant contribution to the formation new thinking in management.

According to P. Drucker, a well-known theorist in the field of management and management psychology, F. Taylor is one of those few people who had the greatest influence on the development of science, and whose ideas at the same time faced such stubborn misunderstanding and zealous misrepresentation.

It can be argued that it was precisely the ambiguity of his methods and the controversy of some provisions that Taylor so excited the scientific and professional public opinion of its time, that this served as a powerful impetus to the further development of management theory.

• TaylorF.W. shop management. N.Y., 1903.
• Drucker P.F. Post-capitalist society / New post-industrial wave in the West. M.: Academia, 1999. S. 87.