Re-Tayloring Management

Scientific Management a Century On

Leonard Holmes, Christina Evans, Christina Evans

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781317064442
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Industrial Management
• Index: Business

Over a century has passed and yet there is growing evidence that knowledge workers across the globe today are as constrained by F.W. Taylor's much-maligned The Principles of Scientific Management, as factory workers were in the early twentieth century. Re-Tayloring Management looks critically at Taylor's philosophy on management and contrasts it with other perspectives that have since emerged, along with the professionalization of management and the growth in business and management education. The contributors demonstrate that despite the complexity and uncertainty that organizations face, instead of designing work systems where knowledge and service workers have the freedom to apply knowledge and skills at the point they are most needed, managers are obsessed with maintaining tighter control. This approach conflicts with contemporary job design principles, which emphasise 'job crafting', whereby individuals are encouraged to craft their role in a way that is congruent with their identity. Drawing on insights from academics with diverse backgrounds and interests, and organised around 'past', 'present' and 'future' themes, this book is a thought-provoking read for professional managers, as well as for postgraduate students and academics teaching and researching organizational studies and management.

1 Introduction

Christina Evans and Leonard Holmes

A centenary on from the publication of Taylor’s Principles of Scientific Management, there is continuing debate as to whether ‘scientific management’, although much maligned, has yet become an historical artefact (Cooper and Taylor 2000, Adler 2007, Brown et al. 2011).

In this edited collection we take a critical look at Taylor’s philosophy on management, contrasting this with other perspectives on management that have emerged over the past century in response to the changing landscape of global business and thus changing organizational structural forms. We present a number of case examples to illustrate how the ‘ghost of Taylor’ is still very much alive in ‘high value’ (so high skill) knowledge and service sector organizations, highlighting how contemporary knowledge workers are just as constrained by Taylor’s principles of scientific management as the industrial workers that Taylor studied in the early twentieth century. This is despite the business imperative of attracting skilful and talented individuals so engaged with what they do that they unquestionably go the ‘extra mile’ to satisfy the ever-demanding needs of customers and management; hence the ‘grand managerial discourse’ of empowering workers (Mabey 2009) and building an engaged workforce (Macleod and Clarke 2009).

Thus, in contrast to the low-involvement employment relationship in Taylor’s era, high-commitment human resource management has been a prominent feature of many organizations (particularly in Western economies) in the latter part of the twentieth century. In Taylor’s era, the only commitment that workers needed to demonstrate was the discipline of keeping themselves physically fit for work. But as Yvonne Guerrier points out later in this volume (see Chapter 9), there are some remarkable similarities between the expectations of workers in Taylor’s era and those of contemporary professional workers, particularly those employed in the newer professions such as management consultancy.

Perhaps these similarities are understandable given the continuing debates on the extent to which developed economies have transitioned from de-industrialization (long-term decline of manufacturing) to post-industrial, knowledge-based economies (see Gamble et al. 2004, and Sinha and Gabriel later in this volume): this is perhaps understandable, given that the different definitions and interpretations of the scope of the knowledge economy make it difficult to build a definitive picture. International knowledge industry definitions for example encompass three broad areas: high-tech manufacturing (pharmaceuticals, aerospace, electronics); medium high-tech manufacturing (chemicals, motors, other transport equipment); and knowledge services (telecommunications, business services, finance, education and health) (see Brinkley 2008: 26).

Despite these difficulties with definitions and measurement within the UK, as with other OECD economies, there has been a reported rise in the number of people employed in knowledge-intensive businesses, as opposed to in manufacturing. However, what remains of the manufacturing sector appears to have been through significant transformation in response to global competition. Thus the boundaries between traditional manufacturing and contemporary knowledge and service work have become somewhat blurred: ‘firms do not consider themselves to be in “services” or “manufacturing” but providing solutions for customers that involve a combination of products and services’ (BERR 2008: 26).

So although the number of people employed in the manufacturing sector has been falling, the skills expectations have been changing, with a reported shift towards higher-skilled occupations (BERR 2008, Brinkley 2008). The contemporary workforce then, unlike in Taylor’s era, appears to be valued (in theory at least) for their brains, not brawn. Drawing on The Employment in Britain (EIB) Survey, Tomlinson (1999: 25) points out that the transformation of the manufacturing sector has had consequences for management; thus ‘knowledge embodied in people in manufacturing dispersed throughout the rest of the economy during the 1980s. A substantial proportion of these managers actually became professional … This implies that the management skills that these people possessed became augmented with skills normally associated with professionals.’ Furthermore, there is some evidence of the adoption of high-trust, high-commitment HRM practices within manufacturing environments within newly industrialized economies, similar to those adopted in knowledge-intensive firms (Gamble et al. 2004).

Given this changing economic and employment landscape we might assume that the managerial imperative – of systematically extracting and codifying knowledge, so that the issue of worker initiative no longer presents a problem to management (Taylor’s Principle One), as highlighted in this exert from Taylor’s original work – has no place in the contemporary workplace:

The managers assume, for instance, the burden of gathering together all of the traditional knowledge which in the past has been possessed by the workmen and then of classifying, tabulating and reducing this knowledge to rules, laws and formulae which are immensely helpful to the workmen in doing their daily work … The development of a science, on the other hand, involves the establishment of many rules, laws and formulae that replace the judgment of the individual workman and can be effectively used only after having been systematically recorded, indexed etc. (Taylor 1911: 26–9)

Yet when we and our co-contributors started to investigate Taylor’s management and the solutions proposed, comparing this with the way in which contemporary knowledge and professional workers are managed, we discovered some interesting paradoxes. Despite a key assumption by policymakers and employers of the increasing economic importance of intangible assets, hence requiring a more highly skilled and educated workforce, many contemporary knowledge workers find that they have increasingly less scope for exercising discretionary behaviour.

Brown and Hesketh (2004) are highly critical of the current preoccupation with high-skilled employment, arguing that the demand for high-skilled jobs (especially graduate-level jobs) has been exaggerated and question whether there are sufficient jobs for highly educated individuals to go into, and whether employers have sufficiently well-developed human resource management systems to utilize the diverse talents that these individuals bring into the workplace. Brinkley (2008) points out that although knowledge-based businesses are graduate-intensive, not all jobs in this sector are of graduate level. As will be discussed in Chapter 10, the adoption of standardized work routines introduced to improve efficiency and quality, for example Lean Six Sigma, in sectors that fall into the high-tech manufacturing sector, creates tensions for managers and employees alike, given that this is a sector that typically expects its employees to be of graduate calibre (Taylor’s Principle Two).

Thus, despite the complexity and operational uncertainty that organizations now face, instead of designing work systems where knowledge and service workers have the freedom to apply knowledge and skills at the point where it is most needed, organizations have become obsessed with maintaining tighter control in the false assumption that this will be more productive. This is a managerial approach that seems to fly in the face of contemporary job design, which emphasizes the importance of viewing operational uncertainty as a contingency which requires structuring work to ensure maximum opportunities for shared learning (Parker et al. 2001).

One potential positive outcome of the expansion of the knowledge economy is that this appears to have created more opportunities for female graduates (Brinkley 2008). Yet despite this optimism, occupational segregation continues to affect women’s longer-term employment and career prospects. Whilst women appear to be gaining parity with men in professional, associate professional and technical roles (Glover and Kirton 2006), they are still under-represented in senior managerial roles and in board-level positions (Broadbridge 2000, Sealy and Vinnicombe 2012). The latest Female FTSE Board Index indicates that although there has been a 25 per cent increase in the number of women on FTSE 100 boards, the picture regarding the extent to which organizations are making progress in developing the female managerial pipeline is still mixed (Sealy and Vinnicombe 2012).

There is clear evidence of occupational segregation in Taylor’s era too: whilst men were employed in physically demanding work (such as pig iron handling and bricklaying), women (referred to as ‘girls’ by Taylor) were felt to be better employed in more delicate work (such as inspecting ball bearings used in the production of bicycles). Although not stated implicitly, there was an assumption that these girls were ‘under-working’. But in contrast to their male counterparts, this was perhaps understandable as there were not the jobs available for ‘these girls’ to demonstrate that they could work at peak performance – a not too dissimilar experience, then, from that of women in contemporary society who choose to work part-time; as a consequence part-time workers invariably find that they are working below potential (Grant et al. 2006).

Taylor’s scientific management ‘Principle Three’ refers to management’s responsibility for the ‘careful selection and subsequent training of the bricklayers into first-class men, and the elimination of all men who refuse or are unable to adopt the best methods’ (Taylor 1911: 66). However, when trying to ascertain what constituted the ‘best’ worker for the role of inspector of ball bearings, Taylor was left with a bit of a conundrum. This was work that required ‘the closet attention and concentration, so that the nervous tension of the inspectors was considerable’ (Taylor 1911: 68): yet this was not men’s work. However, the selection criteria were derived from experiments with male workers, using scientific methods conducted in a laboratory setting, that ascertained that the best person for the job of inspector of ball bearings was someone with a ‘low personal coefficient’, plus the ‘ordinary qualities of endurance and industry’ (1911: 70). Taylor then went on to state that for the good of the girls, and the company, any girls who could not meet this criteria would need to be laid off. The use of systematic and sophisticated selection methods has become a feature of many contemporary organizations. In Chapter 9, Yvonne Guerrier discusses the sophisticated selection methods adopted in consultancy firms (arguably an elitist type of knowledge company), yet the methods adopted seem designed to select individuals who are skilled at analysing in a particular type of way, rather than demonstrating any independent thought.

Drawing on insights from academics with diverse backgrounds and interests in management and organizational studies, we hope that this book will provide a thought-provoking read for professional managers and postgraduate students, as well as academics teaching and researching organizational studies and management. By adopting a historical perspective on management (past, present and future) it is intended that this book will appeal to the ‘curious’ management practitioner seeking something different from traditional management texts. We hope that it will encourage you to be more reflexive about what constitutes effective management in different contexts, rather than opting for the universalist one best way of managing, which Taylor clearly believed was the case:

This paper [Principles of Scientific Management] was originally prepared for presentation to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. The illustrations chosen are such as, it is believed, will especially appeal to engineers and to managers of industrial and manufacturing establishments … It is hoped, however, that it will be clear to other readers that the same principles can be applied with equal force to all social activities: to the management of our homes … our philanthropic institutions our universities and our governmental departments. (Taylor 1911: 3)

Structure of the Rest of this Volume

The rest of this volume is structured into three main sections. Part I (consisting of three chapters) sets the scene for the nature of organizations and management in the twentieth century, drawing out the key influences of Taylor’s principles of management, contrasting these with alternative perspectives on management. It will also provide a historical perspective on the effect and impact of Taylor’s work on business and management education in the UK, as well the professionalization of management more broadly. Part II (consisting of five chapters) provides evidence that each of Taylor’s five principles of management still exist in the contemporary knowledge and service economy, despite contemporary ‘grand managerial discourse’ of empowering the workers (Mabey 2009). Part III (containing the final three chapters) draws on some of the themes in Taylor’s original work that have received less coverage in contemporary management writing. These include the notion of ‘the biddable disciplined worker’, hence the use of prescriptive recruitment and selection methods designed to select employees who demonstrate the right behavioural dispositions to remain ‘fit for work’ and the way that biddable workers are then shoe-horned into roles that threaten their identity (hidden voice – gender). In the final part, we draw together key continuities and change in management practice since Taylor’s original work, before considering a future-orientated perspective on management, discussing what it might take for ‘new’ ways of managing (in other words, that reflect an increasing desire for workplaces with a strong purpose) to become as entrenched in management thinking as Taylor’s principles of scientific management. An overview of each chapter now follows.

Colin Hales (Chapter 2) sets the scene by making the case for how Taylor’s obsession with the notion of ‘rationalization of work’ reflects ‘a continuing work in progress’ in managerial work. He eloquently argues how Taylor’s management ideology, that work and workers must be managed using rationale scientific methods, still underpins contemporary management thinking, despite the pathogenic flaws in this ideology. The twist, as Colin Hales points out, is that contemporary managers (specifically middle managers) now find themselves in a situation where an unquestioned adoption of scientific methods has robbed them of their discretionary elements; as Hales points out, ‘the rationalizers are themselves being rationalized’.

Huw Morris (Chapter 3) compares and contrasts the spread of Taylorism within the US and in the UK, tracing the major influences on the take-up of Taylor’s Shop Management and Scientific Management ideas in each of these contexts. He points out that whilst businesses in the US were quick to pick up on Taylor’s principles of scientific management – an early form of ‘best practice’ management – businesses in the UK seemed more reluctant to adopt this rationale prescriptive approach. Several explanations are provided for this apparent difference: the speed at which industrialization took off in the US compared to the UK; greater receptivity by employers and managers to the management philosophy of Taylor and his followers, who appeared less concerned with the impact on workers from rationalistic management, and differences in the growth in consultancy and business schools in the US compared to the UK. In tracing the roots of Taylor and Taylorism, Huw Morris debates the role that business and management education has played in transmitting and possibly reinforcing the ‘myths surrounding the “Taylorisation” of work in the USA and the UK’. Furthermore, he points out how ‘Taylor’s achievement was not the invention or identification of new management approaches, but rather the synthesis and documenting of established best practice’. Finally, this chapter surfaces tensions with the nature of managerial knowledge – codified, prescriptive – and the best place/way for such knowledge to be developed; as an abstract activity that occurs in educational institutions, or as a situated activity that is best located within the workplace: a debate that persists amongst contemporary management educationalists.

Leonard Holmes (Chapter 4) builds on Huw Morris’s chapter by examining accounts of managerial expertise (knowledge, skill, competence, etc.) and of (purportedly) underpinning accounts of managerial behaviour/performance, and how these have been presented and evolved over the past century. Over this period the occupation of management has certainly grown in terms of economic, social and political significance, as has the numbers of people employed as managers. Accompanying the growth in the numerical size of the occupation, and of education, training and development, is the large-scale publication of textbooks and other literature, aimed at both students of management and practising managers. Underlying such provision, as with that of non-qualification-bearing training and development, is the assumption that there is some distinctive form of expertise (knowledge, skills, etc.) appropriate to managing. But to what extent is that assumption valid? This chapter then examines various attempts over the past century to present appropriate and valid accounts of the expertise of managing. In particular, it examines the types of such accounts, broadly classifying these into prescriptions, (claimed) descriptions, and ascriptions. The chapter argues that prescriptive and descriptive accounts have yielded problematic results. An approach based on the notion that expertise is ascribed is then elaborated through consideration of processes by which managers’ behaviour is construed as managerial performance, implicating issues of identity and practices. Processes of identity construction and identity work are examined as inescapable aspects of modern forms of organizational life.

Shuchi Sinha and Yiannis Gabriel (Chapter 5) expose opportunities and tensions with managing in the contemporary service sector, drawing on empirical data from an investigation into management practices within call centres in India. Despite the facade of ‘high-commitment’ human resource management practices, the work in these env...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half-Title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of Figures and Tables
• About the Editors
• Notes on Contributors
• Acknowledgements
• Chapter 1 Introduction
• Part I Management In an Historical Context
• Chapter 2 Stem Cell, Pathogen or Fatal Remedy? The Relationship of Taylor's Principles of Management to the Wider Management Movement
• Chapter 3 The Influence of Taylor on UK Business and Management Education
• Chapter 4 Managerial Performance and the Expertise of Managing: Prescriptive, Descriptive or Ascriptive?
• Part II Taylor's Legacy in The Contemporary Knowledge and Service Economy
• Chapter 5 Call Centre Work: Taylorism with a Facelift
• Chapter 6 Digital Taylorism: Hybrid Knowledge Professionals in the UK ICT Sector
• Chapter 7 ‘Taylorism' without ‘Taylor'? Some Reflections on ‘Taylorism’ and New Public Management
• Chapter 8 If It Moves, Measure It: Taylor's Impact on UK Higher Education
• Part III Management a Century On: Contradictions, Dilemmas and Prospects
• Chapter 9 Modern-Day ‘Schmidts': The Legacy of Taylorism in Elite ‘Professional' Roles
• Chapter 10 Job Design: From Top-Down Managerial Control to Bottom-Up ‘Job Crafting'
• Chapter 11 Continuities, Discontinuities and Prospects for the Future of Management
• Index