A Comparison between Taylorism and the scientific method Essay

When roughly people think of Scientific Management, they think of Frederic Winslow Taylor. He guide a movement against waste and soldiering which revolutionized the Industrial age. He called his theory Scientific Management, although more(prenominal) who come after debate the appropriateness of the title. It seems more appropriate to call the theory Taylorism, as many a(prenominal) do. There atomic number 18 others who have also contributed to the school of Scientific Management, well-nigh notably Frank and Lillian Gilbreth, hydrogen Gantt, and Henry Ford. There are mutual characteristics of each of these approaches, which create the style of management called Scientific Management.This paper, however, leave focus on Taylor and what he called Scientific Management. First, we ordain timber at the scientific method, however, so that an accurate answer to the oppugn Is scientific management scientific? Can be found. Then we will look at the ways in which Scientific Managem ent, as espoused by Taylor, was not scientific. Finally, we will look at the ways in which Scientific Management is related to the scientific community. First, a brief overview of the scientific method. The scientific method can be broken down into five basic steps1. Observation, lead story to naming of the Problem or Question. 2. Form a Hypothesis (educated guess) which may explain the observations, and make predictions establish on the hypothesis. 3. Testing of the Hypothesis to examine if it is true(a), using proper controls. 4. Check and Interpret the contributes. 5. Publishing expirations to be verified by others . Of course, when testing the hypothesis, all relevant test information must be include so that the results can be tested by others. In science, a hypothesis which cannot be dis-proved, becomes a theory.It is the role of science to prove a hypothesis wrong when a hypothesis can harbor attempts to disprove it, its status as a theory grows until it is accepted as a law. A common example is northwards theory of gravity. He observed that objects always fell down to the ground. He formed a hypothesis that in that respect was a force acting on the object to perpetrate it to the earth. He predicted that this force would act equally on all objects. He tested this hypothesis and record his results. He published these results for review, and they have been bear outd time and again by scientists, giving them the status of Newtons LAW of Gravity.Scientific Management, as seen by Taylor, did not really follow the scientific method. However, it did use scientific tools. This is a careful distinction. Essential in the verification of a scientific hypothesis, there must be testing which can be reproduced by other scientists. This means that the same effect of tools for measurement must be available, the same mathematical formulas used, and the same population sample for testing. First, lets examine the relationship between Taylor and the scientific met hod. As stated by Taylor himselfThe majority of these men deliberate that the fundamental interests of employes and employers are necessarily antagonistic. Scientific management, on the contrary, has for its very foundation the firm conviction that the true interests of the two are one and the same that prosperity for the employer cannot exist through a long terminal figure of years unless it is accompanied by prosperity for the employee, and vice versa and that it is possible to give the take shapeman what he most wants high wages and the employer what he wants a low labor salutefor his manufactures.Taylors observation is that most people view the fundamental interests of employers and employees as antagonistic. His hypothesis is that this is not the case, in fact, that the goal of the employers for low cost manufacturing and the goal of the employee for high wages are compatible. Already, there is a mistake in his logic, he does not set out a hypothesis to answer the fundament al question Do employees and management assign the same objective? However, Taylors real hypothesis (although not stated) is that labor can be performed more efficiently. He sets out to test this hypothesis.His motion and time studies can all be performed by others to validate the results. He used these studies to dramatically improve production and efficiency, however, he had the opposite goal in fact, the result was so extreme there was an investigation of the practice lead by the United States Congress against claims of de- human beingsization another(prenominal) scholar notes Nevertheless, the industrial engineer with his stop watch and clip-board, standing over you measuring each lilliputian part of the job and ones movements became a hated figure and lead to much pervert and group resistance. In many ways, Scientific Management is very scientific. First, it relies upon measurements and replication of results. Second, it has the same ethical questions as medical sciences. Finally, scientific management as espoused by Taylor has been modified by new hypothesis. A result of measurements and replication of results was the revolutionizing of the labor force from a rule-of-thumb or trial and error process to a demonstrable, conventional process for the completion of each step in the production process. However, this result brought up the ethical question of humans being viewed as machines.As what is happening in modern times with stem cell research and other human scientific inquiries, the notion of man as machine raised rough serious ethical concerns in America. However, this concern also opened the door for competing hypothesis to explain what the relationship is between employers goals and employees goals and how they can be brought together. The school of Human Relations came from this line of inquiry, exemplified by the results of the Hawthorne Study (which also followed scientific principles in how it was conducted ).The following contrasts the assumptions of Taylors Scientific Management with the results of the Hawthorne study tralatitious Hypothesis (Scientific Management) people try to satisfy one class of need at work scotch need no conflict exists between soul and organizational objectives people act rationally to maximize rewards we act individually to satisfy individual needs Human relations Hypothesis organizations are mixer systems, not just technical frugal systems we are motivated by many needs we are not always logical we are interdependent our behavior is often shaped by the fond context. informal work group is a major factor in determining attitudes and performance of individual workers management is only one factor affecting behavior the informal group often has a stronger impact job roles are more complex than job descriptions would suggest people act in many ways not covered by job descriptions there is no automatic correlation coefficient between individual and organizational needs commu nication channels cover both logical/economic aspects of an organization and feelings of people teamwork is essential for cooperation and sound technical decisions leadership should be modified to include concepts of human relations. job satisfaction will lead to higher job productivity management requires effective cordial skills, not just technical skills Frederic Taylor introduced great advantages into modern production and efficiency. However, he deformed his theory when he called it Scientific Management. It is well understood that he was referring to the techniques he used to create benchmarks and quality procedures for work processes. However, as a general theory, he does not set out to answer the question he claims he is answering Do management and employees share the same goals? In this way he has misrepresented himself.However, he opened the door to scientific evaluation and inquiry into this own theory. His use of measurements and work-units follows mathematics dead and augments a science of human motion. He also shared his theories with his contemporaries, which allowed for discussion of the hypothesis and challenge scour before Congress, much like stem cell research today. Finally, he created a theory which could be challenged by others. Mayo, Barnard, and the Hawthorne Studies all set out to show the differences between what the employers want and what the employees want, and how to reach an equitable solution.Bibliography displace MBA Business Knowledge Center. Frederic Taylor and Scientific Management, Internet Center for Management and Business Administration, Inc, . Taylor, F. W, The Principles of Scientific Management, Harper & Row, London, 1911 Walker, Michael, The genius of Scientific Thought, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1963 Wertheim, E. G. Professor, Historical Background of Organizational Behavior, Northeastern University, College of Business Administration, Boston, MA,