Criticism on Scientific Management 1

Abstract

It is a literature review based article; the purpose is to examine and analyze literatures published

on “criticism of scientific management”. This article begins with an introduction showing in

brief words about emergence of scientific management and its brief but main concept; next it

proceeds directly to criticism: this section depicts precise summary of different critics presented

by various literatures, the commonalities and contrasted views (if any). The later section portrays

findings; furthermore it proceeds towards another part: criticism, the present scenario and finally

it ends with concluding remarks. The limitation is that it doesn‟t cover all criticisms due to time

and words limit; but it covers the major and significant ones.

Keywords: F.W. Taylor, scientific management, rule of thumb, research, standardization.

Criticism on Scientific Management 2

Introduction

After the end of the civil war, the American economy grew up, industry expanded and faced for

challenges to keep up with the demand from huge population. To handle such complex situation,

the following changes emerged:-

i) Separation between management & labor in big businesses

ii) Growth of management class

So, management was not confined in HIT OR MISS or TRIAL & ERROR based rule of thumb.

It was the call of time which required that management be based on scientific and systematic

methods. So, scientific management (management of science, of precision) emerged and

replaced the traditional and obsolete rule of thumb method (methods that supports decision

making based on personal experience and intuition rather than proven facts.)

Scientific management involves setting standards (for process, operation, tools, time & cost)

conducting extensive research and study, systematic planning, controlling whether standards are

met or not and ensuring labor-management cooperation directing towards achieving

organizational objectives.

Between 1880s & 1890s, observing inefficient management practice which was based on

arbitrary decision making, Frederick Winslow Taylor abolished such rule of thumb principle and

conducted extensive research and study and based on his findings, he established standard rules

and regulations „the one best way to do one‟s task‟; which was popularly known as scientific

management. It got into maturity and influential in 1910. In 1911, in United States, F.W. Taylor

published his famous book, “Principles of Scientific Management” through which the concept

was brought to light in front of public. Taylor‟s standard scientific techniques reshaped and

redefined factory system.

Scientific management is established on the base of these four principles:-

Scientifically designing tasks (replacing rule of thumb)

Scientific selection of personnel & scientifically developing personnel

Criticism on Scientific Management 3

Management-worker cooperation

Equal division of work (among management & workers)

So, in the end of introduction part, here is presented more précised definition of scientific

management:-

Scientific management= Science+ management: - shaping the management (planning, control,

cooperation) by use of scientific methods based on research and study.

Core concepts on which scientific management is based: - research, standards, planning,

control & cooperation.

Although, Taylor‟s theory of scientific management played a significant role in shaping the

factory system, this theory has been criticized on different ground by different scholars.

Criticism of Scientific Management

F.W. Taylor was right in the sense that he could understand the fact that a true environment for

application of scientific management exists provided that both labor and management pursue for

same goal; as labor management harmonious relationship can avoid conflict. Criticism arises

here because of his mistake as he believed that there would be no conflict “over how to divide

the pie as long as the pie was large enough” (Taylor as cited in Locke, 1982).

Besides Locke, John Commons and Robert Hoxie also argued that scientific management would

incite conflict between employees and employers. Both commons and Hoxie nicely clarified the

reason of conflict. In the findings of Commons; intense standardization of process and system is

responsible for the conflict (Frey, 1913). Commons also questioned: “Can scientific management

deal scientifically with organizations as well as individuals?” (Commons, 1911: 464).

Robert Hoxie came by a fact „organized labor opposes scientific management‟ and pursued for

the reason behind such „opposition‟ (Hoxie, 1916a).

Hoxie found that time and motion study resulted in origination of standard time within which

workers had had to complete their task otherwise they were negatively reviewed. Here they

Criticism on Scientific Management 4

could not „take it easy‟ and could not find scope for soldiering, so workers coldly accepted

scientific management and they collectively opposed it. So it is clear that scientific management

has failed to escape labor-management conflict which is the mother of all criticism that are being

proved throughout this article.

While Locke, John Commons and Robert Hoxie accused standardization for labor-management

conflict; English economist John Hobson in Work and Wealth: A Human Valuation (1914)

critically stated that improved tools and techniques and improved working methods presents

conflict between goal of business and interest of workers; workers had to work hard to achieve

organizational objective (Hobson, 1914: 207).

Although scientific management leads to high productivity by increased output, such output is

gained at the expense of the labor. Scientific management is highly criticized here. Scientific

management is viewed widespread as “exploiting employees as much as possible to gain

maximum benefits for employers” (Maqbool, Zakariya & Naveed Paracha, 2011:846).

“…. a method of squeezing the last ounce of blood from men”

(Trade Union Congress Report, 1910: 28)

“….The new system is unfair and inhuman”

(The Engineer, 1911)

Workers have to work for hours and hours, weeks and weeks to meet standards; they are greatly

affected both physically and mentally for rushing towards meeting standard output within

standard time (Managementstudyguide.com, 2015). Very often, many industries face workplace

accidents due to such dehumanization. In 2010 a major producer of Apple products; Foxconn,

had an outbreak in factory worker suicides due to the exhausting working conditions and an

average of 120 overtime hours per month (Moore, 2010).

An economist named Philip Sargant Florence questioned the „scientific nature‟ of scientific

management. He claimed that although scientific management had had proved its worth as a

science by resulting in material efficiency, but it had failed on the track of human science as it

had neglected human factor (Florence 1924: 95).

Criticism on Scientific Management 5

So, it is truly treats workers as tools or machines rather than as human being; it focuses on

physical efficiency rather than on social efficiency (S. J. Ralston, 2012).

It is clear from the literatures and citations that is, scientific management may be claimed as

“efficient” from the viewpoint of increased output; but it is unscientific in the field of sociology

and study of human aspects because scientific management aims at achieving as many outputs as

possible by forcefully compelling workers to do as they are told.

As scientific management emerged with the demand of the highly subordination by the labor

towards the management; workers could not put their claims over management against inhuman

orders, sub-standard working condition and gradually such alienation created a resentment

among labor class towards management. So, very often strike broke out as for example of a real

case: a notable strike that broke out by workers against U.S. Steel in 1909 whereby more than

3500 workers protested against inhuman working condition (Backer, 1998).

Scientific management defines motivation very narrowly; it states that productivity of workers

can be insured by only monetary incentives. But in reality workers care about not only money

but also about social well-being, their development opportunity (Priestley, 2005).

Maslow in his hierarchy of need theory mentioned that people move towards achieving higher

order needs after fulfillment of lower order needs. But in the case of scientific management,

workers have to work for the same position (standard position) at standard rate following

standard instructions prescribed by management; here although the workers can fill up their

financial or monetary needs, they fail to achieve esteem and self-actualization needs

(hubpages.com, 2013).

So, it is clear that the view of scientific management is not sufficient to define human need.

Another criticism is scientific management creates platform for discrimination. Although the

output was the result of toil of workers, they had very little or almost no scope for using their

judgement and voice; they had to do as they were told by management. (Hobson, 1914: 209). It

was regarded as “a loss or injury to the workers” (Hobson 1914: 212). The separation of

planning from implementation had clearly created a platform for discrimination as it restricted

Criticism on Scientific Management 6

workers from voicing suggestion or opinion to improve planning process and the result was very

dangerous: resentment (Robertson 1923: 97)

Scientific management is also criticized for authoritarianism. Alfred Marshall pointed out that

although planning department was established for efficiency, actually this department was

proved cumbersome; planning department took all the decisions and foremen and workmen had

to implement them without any saying. Scientific management exists if mental revolution that is

labor-management harmonious relationship exists. But in reality, management opts for

dictatorship; they instruct foremen and workers and they are bound to implement the

instructions. (Marshal, 1919)

So, scientific management clearly supports autocracy; workers are bound to do as their bosses

order to do, they have no scope to voice against wage policy, working environment and nature of

work (Reich, 2007).

In traditionally organized large business firms, one foreman had to handle large no of workmen

and had to communicate with them; in the modern scientific management system, there were

some foremen each had a narrow area (they could handle particular narrow issue). Here, no

opportunity for direct or personal control/supervision. Personal relationship was replaced by

written form of order (Marshall 1919:366). But personal relationship bestows with good assets

that are trust and esteem of staff and workers that even a machine cannot provide (Marshall

1919: 351).

Standardization is one of the major bases of scientific management. But standardization of

complex structure or organization structure is not always a sign of good mark. Such

standardization of structure defines large firms and most probably that‟s the reason why small

firms can respond and adapt to changed economy and environment and large businesses collapse.

Moreover in industries where there requires high involvement of innovation, standardization of

structure proves to be ineffective (Marshall 1919: 243).

Standardization has another pitfall that is to be a prominent industrial leader, creativeness is

necessary (Marshal). Managers are created leaders rather than inborn leaders; so we can call

managers as „leaders‟. A manager‟s efficiency can‟t be judged through merely précising

standards, rather by how managers can react to situational changes; how their decision making

Criticism on Scientific Management 7

impacts on the planning and operation on the face of changed situation. So in this case

standardization is a bad yardstick.

Although it is claimed that replacing need of human handicraft by automatic and semi-automatic

machines is a „advanced system‟; from human point of view, it actually make the work of human

easy at the expense/price of killing labor skill (Marshall 1919: 683).

Besides Marshall, other scholars also criticized scientific management on the ground of

“deskilling of labor”. According to him, as works are broken down into smaller tasks and

workers find tasks are made easier to them by proper instruction and division of labor, workers

get little scope for developing themselves (Priestley, 2005).

Apart from innovation and creativity a worker may have some other potential that would have

been a source of competitive advantage for the business, but such latent potential becomes

overlooked by the management as the management measures the worker‟s efficiency by merely

his or her operation that is how many output he or she can produce. But a worker‟s productivity

of output is not the only measure of efficiency (Marshall 1919: 662).

Another evidence of rigidness is that restraints flexibility and change is that instructions are final

and not subject to change.

Workers or operatives each are provided with instructions card in which instructions are written

stating which have to be done by each worker; such instructions are provided by the planning

department and are fixed. Once provided, it cannot be changed by the worker or operative unless

the planning department further announces any decision regarding this. Marshall criticizes this

inflexibility or non-adaptability (Marshal 1919: 51)

Again, Marshall stated that an inflexible firm structure is proved to be efficient in the short run,

but the long run effect ends in inefficiency.

Rigid standardization not only restricts innovation and change but also makes turns workers less

committed; as the goals and purpose are not shared with them by management, workers can‟t

understand why they are carrying out “one best way to do” type orders from management.

Therefore they are not “self-motivated” (S. J. Ralston, 2012).

Criticism on Scientific Management 8

Another notable criticism of scientific management is that it focuses on individual performance

rather than group performance; but today‟s business world is more complex whereby team work

is needed to be succeeded.

Marshall criticized another drawback of scientific management that is fixation of absolute wage

rate by planning department; because wage rate is needed to be modified in response to changes

in economic circumstances (Marshall 1919: 384).

Under scientific management system workers are treated as low ranked and are maltreated with

disrespect. Taylor stated that unless flow of instruction from experts of planning department

towards the workers, no worker can perform any task (1998). The experts consider workers as

very poorly educated and too dull to work without any instructions.

In the words of Taylors, workers have to obey instructions from their bosses and it is

unnecessary to explain to workers why they have to follow, that is “do as you are told”. But in

modern world, companies precisely explain employees about its vision and mission and goals,

that is, they are aware of what they do and why they do (Peters & Waterman).

It is difficult and unwise to apply scientific management in the entire organization. It may be

useful in some departments but may be proved ineffective for others.

“One system might be applied advantageously to some departments while in others an attempt to apply

the same system would prove disastrous”

(“Case studies in business”, 2009:108).

Based on presenting criticism in the words of different authors the major

findings are:-

Scientific management incites conflict among management and workers as it

characterized by autocracy, dehumanization of labor, discrimination and oppression.

Scientific management fails to value human resource; it fails to depict the fact that

internally motivated workforce are automatically involved with the organization and

works for organizational value creation.

Criticism on Scientific Management 9

Due to labor-management conflict, strike breaks out.

Scientific management poorly defines motivation and it can‟t fully understand human

need.

Severe autocracy; workers are bound to abide by what they are told by management and

planners.

Functional foremanship a concept brought about by scientific management, restricts

opportunity of direct personal relationship; 8 bosses (foremen) had different roles; they

were busy in performing their roles, so direct personal relationship with each and workers

were not possible

Scientific management is a tool for maximizing interests of management and owners at

the expense of labor.

Scientific management creates discrimination in the society by creating division in the

workplace as management class and labor class.

There is no opportunity for career development as workers have to follow same

instructions all the time; those who can go beyond performing same rigid duties all the

time can develop their career and scientific management restricts such opportunity

Scientific management is inflexible to changes that may happen due to sudden

environmental breakthrough or change; moreover innovation and creativity is not

possible here. Businesses operating based on mass customization can‟t apply scientific

management due to variation in demand. Moreover, inflexible and fixed wage rate is not

effective for all situations as during downturn or economic recession wage rate is needed

to be adjusted.

Scientific management fails to create a sense of respect in the workplace; management

treats all workers as less educated and “too dull to decide what to do.”

Workers don‟t know why they are following orders by management; they simply do as

they are told.

Scientific management focuses on individual performance; but now-a-days most

organizations focus on working in teams and groups.

An organization should decide to apply scientific management only in those sections or

department that it fits with; total organization can‟t comply with scientific management.

Criticism on Scientific Management 10

Notable criticism considering present scenario of business world and

workplace:

Labor-management conflict is largely seen in organizations now-a-days. Scientific

management is the base of present industrial breakthrough.

In present world, team work is necessary for completing complex projects and tasks; so

individualistic scientific management approach is not effective.

Motivation and human needs are not confined in merely money. Moreover, workplaces

are more and more competitive and offering high incentives (extending beyond

monetary) to attract talented workforce; if workers don‟t get incentives beyond merely

money they leave their current organization and switch to a better one.

Many organizations today train employees beyond their routined job through job

enrichment and job rotation; that would not be possible if workers have little chance of

diversification.

Now in most organizations, goals are set up and shared by both management and lower

levels; such goals sharing helps to formulate realistic goals. If only managers could

involve in planning and lower levels couldn‟t know the purpose and couldn‟t participate,

many established successful business of todays would have fallen.

Now customers are more sophisticated and fast changing; so demand of customized

products are more than standardized products.

Conclusion

Scientific management is the father of modern business and industry. It is a science that contains

knowledge based on research and study and an art as its application shaped the industry.

Basically the criticisms are related with its careful application, not the theory itself; the

explanation is that if the theory is applied prudently in the right place in a right way then the

result can be distinguishable. But the theory is applied in the wrong area and in a wrong way

then it will backfire.

Criticism on Scientific Management 11

References:-

Backer, Patricia, Ryaby (1998). Scientific MGT. Available at:

http://www.engr.sjsu.edu/pabacker/scientific_mgt.htm [Accessed on 17 May, 2015].

Caldari, Katia (2007), Alfred Marshall’s critical analysis of scientific management. [Accessed

on: May 4, 2015]

“Case studies in business”. (2009). Harvard Business Review, 4(1), p-108.

George Jr., Claude S. The History of Management Thought. 2nd ed. Prentice-Hall of India

Private Ltd, New Delhi. p-81-82, 90, 93

HubPages.com, 2013. Scientific Management: Application of Frederick Winslow Taylor's theory

in Contemporary Management. Available at: wowguidemaster.hubpages.com/.../Scientific-

Management-Application-of-Frederick Winslow-Taylor's-theory-in-Contemporary-

Management. [Accessed on May 15, 2015.]

Locke, A. (1982) The ideas of Frederick W. Taylor: An evaluation. Academy of Management

Review, 7(1), 14-24.

Managementstudyguide.com, (2015). Criticism of Scientific Management. Available at:

http://www.managementstudyguide.com/criticism_scientificmanagement.htm [Accessed

on: 06 May, 2015].

Maqbool, M., Zakariya, A, & Paracha, A. N. (2011). A critique on scientific management,

Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research In Business, 3(4), 844-851

Mindtools.com, (2015). Frederick Taylor and Scientific Management: Understanding Taylorism

Criticism on Scientific Management 12

and Early Management Theory. Available at:

http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTMM_Taylor.htm [Accessed on May 06, 2015].

Peters, Tom & Waterman, Robert (1988). In Search of Excellence. Harper & Row Publications.

Ralston, Shane. “Doing versus Thinking: John Dewey’s Forgotten Critique of Scientific

Management”. Academia.edu. Available at:

http://www.academia.edu/.../Doing_versus_Thinking_John_Dewey‟s_Forgotten_

Critique_of_Scientific_Management. [Accessed on May 16, 2015]

Reich, J. (2007). Criticism of Infant Swimming Practice Is Political, Not Scientific.

PEDIATRICS.

Taylor, Frederic. (1998), The Principles of Scientific Management. Re-published. Originally

published in 1911. Dover Publications.

Criticism on Scientific Management 13

Plagiarism test status:

First 1300 words

Next 1700 words

Criticism on Scientific Management 14