Skip to main content

Über dieses Buch

Many of those interested in the effect of industry on contemporary life are also interested in Frederick W. Taylor and his work. He was a true character, the stuff of legends, enormously influential and quintessentially American, an award-winning sportsman and mechanical tinkerer as well as a moralizing rationalist and early scientist. But he was also intensely modem, one of the long line of American social reformers exploiting the freedom to present an idiosyncratic version of American democracy, in this case one that began in the industrial workplace. Such as wide net captures an amazing range of critics and questioners as well as supporters. So much is puzzling, ambiguous, unexplained and even secret about Taylor's life that there will be plenty of scope for re-examination, re-interpretation and disagreement for years to come. But there is a surge of fresh interest and new analyses have appeared in recent years (e. g. Wrege, C. & R. Greenwood, 1991 "F. W. Taylor: The father of scientific management", Business One Irwin, Homewood IL; Nelson, D. (Ed. ) 1992 "The mental revolution: Scientific management since Taylor", Ohio State University Press, Columbus OH). We know other books are under way. As is customary, we offer this additional volume respectfully to our academic and managerial colleagues, from whatever point of view they approach scientific management, in the hope that it will provoke fresh thought and discussion. But we have a more aggressive agenda.



Chapter 1. Villain, Victim or Visionary?: The Insights and Flaws in F. W. Taylor’s Ideas

Taylor’s theory of organization has never been properly delineated even though it has given rise to much passion, both supportive and critical. Some would argue that Taylor had no clear idea of the organization, working only at the level of the individual workers. But this is to forget Taylor’s considerable experience and success as a senior executive and investor, and as a leading management consultant. Taylor could not have had these successes without a powerful set of ideas about how successful firms should work. His concept of functional foremen and his disputes with Henri Fayol, the French industrialist and organizational theorist with whom he is often compared, and with Edwin Gay, the first Dean of the Harvard Business School, also suggest that Taylor had a distinctive theory in mind.
J.-C. Spender

Chapter 2. Machine-Shop Engineering Roots of Taylorism: The Efficiency of Machine-Tools and Machinists, 1865–1884

In 1903, Frederick W. Taylor, one of the pioneers of science-based shop management, wrote that “There is a close analogy between the methods of modern engineering and this type of management” (Taylor, 1903:66). The analogy he referred to was in fact between the improvement of the efficiency of labor and the improvement of the efficiency of machine-tools in mechanical engineering shops; for, underlying his innovative ideas in management were the technical methods the economic concerns, and even the cultural values of science based mechanical engineering of the mid-to-late nineteenth century. Taylor’s essential methods and ideas derive from the mentality of the machine shop, from his workplace and its engineering theory and practice in the years before the period 1880 – 1884 when he conducted his first metal cutting and stopwatch time-studies. During those years and earlier, advanced American machine-tool engineering manufacturers had promoted the rationalization of machines to make them more efficient and more profitable. These machine-tool engineers, proprietors of industries and employers of machinists in shops, led the movement for the application of scientific methods to mechanical engineering as opposed to older rule of thumb methods.
Geoffrey W. Clark

Chapter 3. Time and Motion Study: Beyond the Taylor — Gilbreth Controversy

Frederick Winslow Taylor introduced stop watch time study in 1881 in the MIDvale Steel Company in Philadelphia (1). The IDea was not his, but came from one of his instructors at the Phillips — Exeter academy in Massachusetts, the mathematician (Bull) Wentworth, who used a stopwatch to determine how long it would take an average student to solve a specific problem. In 1895, at a meeting of the American Society of Industrial Engineers (ASME), Taylor mentions his experiments for the first time. In a lecture, entitled, “A Piece Rate System” he talks about the “estimating department” at MIDvale, also described as “rate-fixing department”, which has the task of setting elementary rates. The term “elementary” refers to elementary operations of which any job is a combination. The times in which the study of elementary operations result are called “unit-times”. The combination of elementary operations may be unique, but similar elementary operations will be performed in differing combinations almost every day, and according to Taylor “a man whose business it is to fix rates soon becomes so familiar with the time required to do each kind of elementary work performed by the men, that he can write down the time from memory” (Taylor, 1895, 16). The method may seem complicated, but is in fact more simple and effective than what Taylor calls the “ordinary system of rate-fixing”, where a rate-fixer would look through his records until he finds a piece of work as nearly as possible similar to the job for which he has to set a time-standard, and then guess the time required to do the new piece of work.
Hugo J. Kijne

Chapter 4. Standards and the Development of an Internal Labor Market

In this chapter we argue that the twin related objectives of the Taylor-system are (a) the standardization of throughput and (b) the development of an internal labor market. It is a simple thesis. Its implications, though, ramify into a series of topics on the architecture of production, on professional and managerial discretion, and on the nature of the employment relationship, topics which will be dealt with in later paragraphs.
Ton Korver

Chapter 5. The Movement for Scientific Management in Europe between the Wars

In the summer of 1924, a group of fifty American management experts traveled to Prague, amongst them some of the big names in the field such as H. S. Person, director of the Taylor Society, L. W. Wallace, secretary of the American Engineering Council and Lillian Gilbreth. They were the guests of honor on a congress that was proudly announced as the first international management congress. The purpose of the congress was “the building up of a single world-system of activity for the scientific management of work”. This first congress would be followed by many others. Before World War II, the management experts gathered in Brussels (1925), Rome (1927),Paris (1929), Amsterdam (1932), London (1935) and Washington (1938). In total some 9000 people attended these meetings, an average of 1300 at each conference. The organization soon came torest in the hands of a permanent board, the Comite International de l’Organisation Scientifique (CIOS), which was officially installed on 27 September 1927. This organization still exists, now under the name World Council of Management (but the old abbreviation CIOS is still being used).
Erik Bloemen

Chapter 6. Scientific Management in Central Eastern Europe — Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Poland

The history of Scientific Management (SM) in Central and Eastern (CE) Europe was partly determined by the different levels or lack of industrialization in the different regions. The pre-W.W.I Austro-Hungarian empire included most of modern Hungary, Czechoslovakia and the Southeastern part of Poland, the German empire included the western part of Poland, and the Czarist Russian empire included part of Eastern Poland. In the Austro-Hungarian empire, the reigning Habsburgs chose to industrialize the Czech lands of Bohemia and Moravia, which had the raw material resources to support industrialization, rather than the Austrian and Hungarian regions of their empire. In practice, the Hungarian lands were ruled by the Hungarian nobles and recognized as the Greater Kingdom of Hungary. Some industry developed around Budapest, which had good transportation facilities, but other parts of Hungary did not have the resources to support industry. The Slovak part of Czechoslovakia, also dominated by the Hungarians, was kept agricultural, as well as the portion of Poland (Galicia) ruled by the Hungarians. The western part of Poland, under the domination of the Germans, began to industrialize as Germany moved towards industrialization. This part of Poland had plentiful natural resources. Russia was also just beginning to industrialize and the eastern half of Poland had a chance to follow suit.
John Mihalasky

Chapter 7. Scientific Management and Japanese Management, 1910 – 1945

The success of the post-war Japanese industry in international competition has attracted the attention of business executives, economists and management scholars throughout the world. In trying to explain the phenomenal growth of productivity and the achievement of high quality standards at the same time, frequent mention is made of the Japanese management style (Thompson, 1989, p.221). As Japanese firms establish production facilities overseas, the Japanese management style is becoming increasingly familiar to non-Japanese employees of Japanese firms, and through publicity to a large number of other people as well. It has been proposed that in order for other firms to compete effectively with Japanese firms, they will have to adopt the Japanese management style.
Seishi Nakagawa


Weitere Informationen