1/22/2021 Review Article

“Criticism on Scientific Management”

Duaa Zahra 70109323

Introduction
Scientific management requires setting standards (for method, service, instruments, time & cost)
for rigorous analysis and review, systematic preparation, monitoring whether or not standards
are followed, and maintaining collaboration in labor relations to meet organizational goals.
Frederick Winslow Taylor discarded such a rule of thumb theory during the 1880s and 1890s,
discovering inefficient management procedure based on discretionary decision-making, and
undertook thorough research and analysis and, based on his observations, developed standard
rules and regulations "the best way to do one's task"; this was popularly known as science
management. In 1910, it became mature and influential. F.W. Taylor wrote his famous book,
"Principles of Scientific Management" in the United States in 1911, in which the idea was
brought to light in front of the public. The standard scientific methods of Taylor remodeled and
redefined the factory method.
Scientific management is based on these four principles:-
 Scientifically designing tasks (replacing rule of thumb)
 Scientific selection of personnel & scientifically developing personnel
 Management-worker cooperation
 Equal division of work (among management & workers)

Although, Taylor’s theory of scientific management played a significant role in shaping the
factory system, different scholars have criticized this theory on different ground.

Criticism on 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 if 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 could not ‘take it easy’ and could not find
scope for soldiering, so workers coldly accepted scientific management and they collectively
opposed it. Therefore, it is clear that scientific management has failed to escape labor-
management conflict, which is the mother of all criticisms that are being proved throughout this
review.
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).

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).
Scientific management defines motivation very narrowly; it states that productivity of workers
can be insured by only monetary incentives. However, 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).
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 management told them. (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 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 established for efficiency, actually, this department proved
awkward; planning department took all the decisions and supervisors and workers had to
implement them without any saying. Scientific management exists if mental revolution that is
labor-management harmonious relationship exists. However, in reality, management opts for
dictatorship; they instruct supervisors, workers, and they are bound to implement the
instructions. (Marshal, 1919)

Therefore, 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 supervisor had to handle large no of workers
and had to communicate with them; in the modern scientific management system, there were
some supervisors 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). However, 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. However, 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 is 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 leaders rather than inborn leaders; so we can call managers
as leaders. A manager’s efficiency cannot be judged through merely précising standards, rather
by how managers can react to situational changes; how their decision-making affects the
planning and operation on the face of changed situation. Therefore, 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 proper
instruction and division of labor make workers find tasks easier to them, 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. However, a worker’s
productivity of output is not the only measure of efficiency (Marshall 1919: 662).
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.
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 treated 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”. However, 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.
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.
 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 cannot 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 need 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 do not 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 cannot comply with scientific management.

Criticism considering present scenario of business world and workplace:

 Labor-management conflict is largely seen in organizations now days. Scientific
management is the base of present industrial breakthrough.
 In present world, teamwork is necessary for completing complex projects and tasks; so
individualistic scientific management approach is not effective.
 Motivation and human needs are not limited in just money. Moreover, workplaces are
more and more competitive and offering high incentives (extending beyond monetary) to
attract talented workforce; if workers do not get incentives beyond money they leave their
 current organization and switch to a better one.
 Many organizations today train employees beyond their routine 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 could not know the purpose and could not 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
It is possible to consider science management in a number of ways. Firstly, regarded as an
implied philosophy of operational productivity, certain essential concepts can be applicable to
public administration and organizational performance: waste disposal; sound management basis;
job standardization and economic incentives. Secondly, science management, as a general
business orientation, is a way of doing things that are important and useful to all companies,
transcending the initial factory climate. This will include systematization of tasks, waste control,
and research into new ways of doing it, and the use of output results to retain attention. This is in
accordance with "good practice of management" and is considerable use to public bodies.
Thirdly, the view, with its intrinsic mistrust of human intentions and emphasis on orderliness and
power, is more divisive as a prescriptive, value-laden management philosophy. Many conclude
that, in this light, science management ultimately destroys the company of the full benefit of its
human capital and destroys its capacity to change.
References:
Caldari, K. (2007). Alfred Marshall's critical analysis of scientific management. The European Journal of
the History of Economic Thought, 14(1), 55-78.

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

Kanigel, R. (2005). The one best way: Frederick Winslow Taylor and the enigma of efficiency. MIT
Press Books, 1.Ross, D. B., Matteson, R., & Exposito, J. (2014). Servant leadership to toxic
leadership: Power of influence over power of control.
Huang, K. P., Tung, J., Lo, S. C., & Chou, M. J. (2013). A review and critical analysis of the principles
of scientific management. International Journal of Organizational Innovation (Online), 5(4), 78.

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

Taylorism and Early Management Theory.