Scientific Management Era Versus the Human Relations Era
Mark Phelan
11303456
Business & Law
In critically comparing and contrasting the Scientific Management Era and the Human Relations Era it is quite clear that there were completely different focuses, views and indeed goals at the time of writing for each. The Scientific Management Era was developed solely as a means to increase productivity and maximise the work potential of an employee. Frederick Winslow Taylor is massively credited as the father of Scientific Management (Rosen, 1993) and he believed in the organization of the workplace as a whole. The Human Relations Era focused solely on the human factor involved in the work, and the social element strongly studied and an element of fairness also observed by leading figures at the time such as Mary Parker Follet and Elton Mayo.
Taylor had a degree in mechanical engineering and was also working as a chief engineer at the Midvale Steel Works in Philadelphia, thus it is clear he was very knowledgeable and had a very technical mind. Taylor begun his research in the factory he was working in at the time, and he searched for a system that would enable workers to be rewarded fairly for their work. He rejected the idea of profit sharing as:
“There will always be some who work hard and conscientiously and some who drag their feet and do not contribute their fair share of labour” (Witzel, 2012).
Taylor’s approach was atomistic – start with the smallest possible units: one man and one task; and determine how quickly in optimal conditions one could perform the task. This became known as the time management study. As he optimised the tasks, he believed he had found a solution to the overall organization. He was a firm believer in the organization as a whole, saying that:
“…a good organisation with a poor plant will give better results than the best plant with a poor organisation” (Witzel, 2012).
Taylor’s system was widely received and he wrote many books and articles on the topic of organizations and scientific management.
11303456
Business & Law
In critically comparing and contrasting the Scientific Management Era and the Human Relations Era it is quite clear that there were completely different focuses, views and indeed goals at the time of writing for each. The Scientific Management Era was developed solely as a means to increase productivity and maximise the work potential of an employee. Frederick Winslow Taylor is massively credited as the father of Scientific Management (Rosen, 1993) and he believed in the organization of the workplace as a whole. The Human Relations Era focused solely on the human factor involved in the work, and the social element strongly studied and an element of fairness also observed by leading figures at the time such as Mary Parker Follet and Elton Mayo.
Taylor had a degree in mechanical engineering and was also working as a chief engineer at the Midvale Steel Works in Philadelphia, thus it is clear he was very knowledgeable and had a very technical mind. Taylor begun his research in the factory he was working in at the time, and he searched for a system that would enable workers to be rewarded fairly for their work. He rejected the idea of profit sharing as:
“There will always be some who work hard and conscientiously and some who drag their feet and do not contribute their fair share of labour” (Witzel, 2012).
Taylor’s approach was atomistic – start with the smallest possible units: one man and one task; and determine how quickly in optimal conditions one could perform the task. This became known as the time management study. As he optimised the tasks, he believed he had found a solution to the overall organization. He was a firm believer in the organization as a whole, saying that:
“…a good organisation with a poor plant will give better results than the best plant with a poor organisation” (Witzel, 2012).
Taylor’s system was widely received and he wrote many books and articles on the topic of organizations and scientific management.
Bibliography: Rosen, E. (1993), Improving Public Sector Productivity: Concepts and Practice, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications Witzel, M 1. Grey, C. (2009) “A Very Short, Fairly Interesting and Reasonably Cheap Book about Studying Organizations” London, UK. SAGE Publications Inc.