Principles, advantages and disadvantages of the school of scientific management

The founder of the school of scientific management, Taylor, using observations, measurements and analysis, improved many of the manual labor operations of workers and, on this basis, achieved an increase in the productivity and efficiency of their work. The results of his research served as the basis for revising the norms for the production and remuneration of workers.

Taylor's followers Frank and Lillian Gilbreth dealt with the rationalization of worker labor, the study of physical movements in the production process, and the study of opportunities to increase output by increasing labor productivity. Ford formulated the basic principles of the organization of production, for the first time separated the main work from its service.

The main principles of the school of scientific management:

development of optimal methods for the implementation of work based on the study of the cost of time, movements, efforts, etc.;

Absolute adherence to the developed standards;

selection, training and placement of workers in those jobs where they can give the greatest benefit;

pay based on performance;

allocation of managerial functions to a separate area of ​​professional activity;

maintaining friendly relations between workers and managers.

The contribution of the scientific management school to management theory:

use of scientific analysis to study the work process and determine the best ways to complete the task;

selecting workers best suited to the tasks and providing them with training;

providing employees with the resources required to effectively perform their tasks;

· the importance of fair material incentives for workers to increase productivity;

separation of planning and organizational activities from the work itself.

The disadvantages of this theory include the following:

The doctrine was based on a mechanistic understanding of man, his place in the organization and the essence of his activity;

Taylor and his followers saw in the worker only a performer of simple operations and a means to an end;

· did not recognize disagreements, contradictions, conflicts between people;

· the doctrine considered and took into account only the material needs of the workers;

2.G. Gantt is one of Taylor's closest associates.

F. Taylor was not alone in his pioneering work. Among them, first of all, we should highlight Henry Lawrence Gantt (1861-1919), Taylor's closest student, an American engineer who was engaged in developments in the field of bonus payment methods, who compiled scheme maps for production planning (which, by the way, received his name - the so-called gantt -schemes), as well as contributed to the development of the theory of leadership.

Unlike Taylor, Gantt pointed to the social responsibility of business and management, which have broad obligations to society. This explains his deep interest in the Russian revolution of 1917, its social and economic philosophy. There is a well-known system of payment according to Gantt, which provides bonuses for high performance, ideas of income distribution
evenly and proportionately to the factors of production, the taking of superprofits from monopolies for the benefit of society or the philanthropy of business companies, which betrays the influence that the Quaker tradition had on Gantt. Democratic views of power and the world of work have caused strained relations between Gantt and Taylor and his alienation from business people.
The discipline and training for hard work that Gantt received at this school stayed with him for the rest of his life. Gantt was successful at McDonagh School and qualified to study at Johns Hopkins University. He continued to live at school, and went to the university every day on suburban ambassadors. After graduating from university in 1880, he spent 3 years at the McDonough School teaching science and physics. He then resumed his studies, this time at the Stevens Institute of Technology. Gantt entered there in 1983, majored in physics and electricity, and graduated as a mechanical engineer in 1884. After graduating from Stevens, Gantt returned to Baltimore and spent 2 years as a draftsman at Poole & Hunt, a ferrous metals firm.
Gantt, unlike Taylor, was no longer interested in individual operations and movements, but in production processes as a whole. He attributed low productivity to the fact that tasks and methods for solving them are formulated based on what has been done before, or someone else's opinion on how to do the job. Gantt's management philosophy can be summed up in his own words: "The main differences between the best systems today and those of the past lie in the way tasks are planned and distributed, and the way rewards are distributed for completing them." Following this principle, Gantt set a goal to improve the functioning of enterprises by updating the systems for formulating tasks and distributing incentives and bonuses.
He wrote the books "Labor, wages and income" (1910), "Industrial leadership" (1916), "Organization of labor" (1919). Gantt's work is characterized by the consciousness of the leading role of the human factor in industry and the conviction that the working person should be given the opportunity to find in his work not only a source of existence, but also a state of satisfaction. He wrote: “Everything we undertake must be in harmony with human nature. We cannot goad people; we have an obligation to guide their development.” Gantt believed that this ideal could be achieved by setting each worker a specific production task with the prospect of receiving a bonus for its timely and accurate performance. As early as 1901, Gantt developed the first bonus payment system for early and high-quality completion of production tasks. With its introduction at a number of enterprises, labor productivity has more than doubled.
In the article “Teaching workers the skills of industrial labor and cooperation” (1908), Gantt noted that with the formation of industrial labor skills, the task of acquiring knowledge and qualifications is greatly simplified. If workers are systematically taught the skills of industrial labor, it becomes possible not only to improve their productive abilities, but also to develop an effective system of cooperation between workers and clerks.
In the book "Organization of Labor" Gantt developed thoughts on the social responsibility of business. The course of his reasoning is briefly as follows: society needs services and goods, regardless of who gets the profit from their sale, since its very existence depends on the mass of commodities; businessmen claim that profit is more important for them than return to society; however, in the eyes of society, apart from the services and goods they provide, entrepreneurs have no other reason to exist. Therefore, “the business system must assume social responsibility and devote itself above all to the service of society, otherwise society will eventually attempt to overwhelm it in order to act freely in accordance with its own interests.”
mi".
Gantt is a pioneer in the field of operational management and scheduling of enterprises; he developed a whole system of planned schedules - gantt cards, which, thanks to their high information content, made it possible to control the
planned and make plans for the future. These schedules are a short list of work planned for certain periods of time. Charts are based on time spent rather than volume produced. Many enterprises still use Gantt charts as an important tool for formulating and setting goals.
Gantt emphasized the leading role of the human factor in industry and expressed the conviction that the worker should be given the opportunity to find in his work not only a source of existence, but also a source of satisfaction.
But Gantt is known not only for his chart, but also for the first who spoke about the social responsibility of business.
In 1886 Gantt, before joining Midvale Steel in 1887, returned to the McDonagh School once more, this time as an instructor of labor training. At the time Gantt arrived at Midvale Steel as an engineering assistant, F.

Taylor was already the plant's chief engineer. In 1888, Gantt was elected a member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, and he also became Taylor's assistant. According to Urwick and Brech, Gantt "was more involved in the work of identifying more economical methods of operating machinery than in technical work." Very different Gantt and Taylor found each other, which resulted in a working relationship that lasted several years and included work on experiments in metallurgy, as well as the development of scientific management principles. As Warren writes, it went like this: “Gantt's ideas were greatly influenced by Taylor, elements like Taylor were in Gantt's early work. Emphasizing the importance between work and management, scientific selection of workers, an incentive system designed to improve productivity, detailed instructions for the work performed, and other concepts were reflected in the works of Gantt. .
However, Gantt added more attention to human psychology to Taylor's work and dealt more with the method than with the opposite of the method - measurement. Like Taylor, Gantt was a practical inventor, and between 1901 and 1904, the two of them brought to life six joint inventions that concerned the setting of control temperatures in the hardening of metal products of labor. Gantt also collaborated with Taylor and Karp Barth on the development of the slide rule, which was patented in 1904. His most significant invention was an invention concerning the development of patterns for steel ingots, which reduced their brittleness, which reduced costs. Asford commented that by 1934, approximately 25%, and probably almost 50%, of all steel ingots in the United States were cast according to the pattern developed by Gantt.
Both Taylor and Gantt were fired from Bethlehem Steel in 1901. From that time on, Gantt, in the words of his biographer, "began the real work of his life as a modern industrial management consultant." In 1901, Gantt read his work in the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, namely, The Bonus Pay System, which was the basis for his book Work, Wages, and Income, published in 1913. He then reads his next work in 1903, this time related to a schematic diagram of the flow of production, entitled "The Graphical Daily Balance in Manufacturing", which was later developed into the "Gantt Chart". In addition, he undertook several projects at the American Locomotive Company, Briggon Mile, William Brothers, Portland and Tabor Manufacturing, establishing Taylor's management system as he adopted it at Midvale, Simonde and Bethlehem, but with the addition of his own task-and-reward methods and a graphical daily balance presentation procedure. In 1904, he became the first "efficiency expert" working in a textile factory at a time when, on Taylor's recommendation, he did assignments at Sales Bleachers, Salesville, and Road Island.
Gantt also reorganized the plant (Sales) to shatter the informal control exercised by shop supervisors. Resistance to the changes he introduced eventually led to a strike in one of the departments, which spread to the point of shutting down the entire plant. Gantt responded by introducing a new workforce, including a foreman who was trained and deployed in the plant so that production could recover.
This prompted him to write his next work, The Training of the Labor Force in Industry, which he read to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers in December 1908. Gantt would later take his manuscript to Taylor for his opinion on whether Gantt should print the work. Despite the fact that Taylor's work had a negative opinion, Gantt decided to ignore it and print it, which caused a final break between them. Gantt later expounded his views in Modern Methods of Training and Preparation, which was written in 1915.
During the war, Gantt fully developed his "Gantt Chart". His assignment of coordinating the work of the various factories and departments involved in the war helped him develop a bar chart for careful planning. Gantt used his charts (maps) to graphically reflect time rather than volume, which enabled the manager to display the progress of the project and take appropriate action in case of falling behind the plan. Gantt said that the principles behind his charting methods are easy to understand.
First principle: All actions can be measured by the amount of time required to complete them.
The second principle: The place representing the time spent on one operation can be marked on the diagram so as to reflect also the number of actions that must be done in this period of time.
If you understand and remember these two principles, then the whole system becomes understandable - it offers a universal means of depicting on a diagram all types of actions, the common measure of which is time.
In 1916, he formed an organization called the New Machine, whose membership was made up of engineers and other representatives who were interested in finding the causes of limited industrial democracy.
This chart was never patented, and after Gantt's death in 1919, Wallace Clark - one of the members of the Gantt consulting firm - developed the idea of ​​the Gantt Chart, calling it in his work "Management's Working Tool", which was published in 1922. This book did much to promote international dissemination and acceptance of the practical aspects of Gantt's work. According to Warren, this book “was translated into 8 languages, being the basis for the Russian central planning (five-year plan), became for the whole world a graphic tool for planning and controlling work. All subsequent diagrams and production control schemes were based on the work of Gantt.

3. Lillian and Frank Gilbreth - creative union

Spouses Frank Gilbreth (1868-1924) and Lillian Gilbreth (1878-1972) were mainly engaged in the study of physical work in production processes and explored the possibility of increasing output by reducing the effort spent on their production.
F.

Gilbreth passed his MIT entrance exams, but instead decided to take up contract work. Starting as an apprentice bricklayer, he soon became interested in the various types of labor movements that were used in the training of bricklayers. His wife Lillian was the explorer's constant companion and companion.
Gilbreth wondered: could unnecessary movements be eliminated, thereby reducing the effort and time required when laying bricks? After numerous experiments, he was able to reduce the number of movements required when laying exterior bricks from 18 to 4.5 and from 18 to 2 when laying interior bricks. He designed the adjustable stand to eliminate the need to bend over to pick up bricks. Similarly, he taught the workers to use a mortar of a certain consistency to avoid setting. Thus, he was able to increase the number of bricks a worker could lay per shift from 120 to 350.
He believed that the national welfare depends on the individual training of workers, on their knowledge and ability to contribute to social wealth. To be profitable, any production activity must be planned and managed, behind it must be the ability, experience and knowledge of managers.
In 1904, Lillian Müller and F. Gilbreth, who became known as the father of labor movement timing, married. Lilian had a good education in management and psychology, and the couple combined their abilities to develop new methods of work. “It was the finger of fate! Lindell Urwick exclaimed about this. “They needed a person of just such a warehouse.” Lillian Gilbreth contributed to the study of the psychological factor of the technical process and the formation of labor psychology as a scientific discipline.
One of their most famous methods was the use of photographs of labor movements. Gilbreth identified 3 phases of labor movements:
identifying best practices;
their generalization in the form of rules;
the application of these rules to normalize working conditions in order to increase its productivity. By filming individual people doing work and then running the film backwards, they could analyze a person's labor movements and determine which ones were redundant.
Since at that time cameras were turned by hand, Frank Gilbreth invented the microchronometer, i.e. a watch with a large minute hand that recorded the time with an accuracy of 1/2000 min. These watches were placed in the field of view of labor operations filmed on film. (Today, if the camera does not have a motor that rotates at a constant speed, a microchronometer is still used when photographing labor operations.) Based
film recordings, maps of the cycle of simultaneously performed micromovements were compiled - simocards (“maps of simultaneous movements”).
Using their invention, the Gilbreths could analyze individual labor movements, determining exactly how long it would take to complete an operation (timekeeping). In addition, they went even further and were able to systematize all the movements, which they called terblig (Gilbreth's surname in reverse order). Initially, 16 terbligs were installed - 13 action elements and 3 non-action elements. He then added the 17th terblig - "to plan". Other specialists later added the 18th terblig - "hold". Movement, according to Gilbreth, should be simultaneous, symmetrical, natural, rhythmic, habitual, etc. These ideas have proven useful for all industries. They have gained popularity in medicine, especially in hospitals.
They presented the results of their research in the books “Study of Movements” (1911) and “Psychology of Management” (1916), “The Beginnings of Scientific Management” (1912), “Fatigue Factors” (1916), “Practical Application of Movements” (1917), “ Study of Movements for the Disabled” (1920), which were translated into Russian and reprinted several times in 1924-1931. These writings emphasized the importance of the connection between the science of management and the data of sociological and psychological research. Table 4 Terblig System
Symbol Designation Color<3>Look for Black<П>Find Gray Select Draw Light Gray Crimson 7G Move Weight Arm Green 9 Set Cyan FF Place Violet and Process Magenta 1+ Dismantle Light Violet 0 Check Burnt Ocher 6 Position Sky Blue Drop Weight Red Carmine eG Move Hand unloaded Olive green Hold Golden ocher Off Rest to eliminate fatigue Orange JD Non-working break
Break depending on worker Yellow ocher Lemon yellow R Plan Brown Each terblig has a specific symbol.

For clarity, the designation of terbligs on the sim card, each symbol has a certain color.
Gilbreth made a report on terbligs in 1912 at a meeting of the Society for the Improvement of the Organization of Production founded by F. Taylor. Then it was about the visual study of movements.
In 1916, at the annual ABME congress, Gilbreth made a report on the problem of studying micromotions. He prepared this report jointly with his wife, Lillian Gilbreth. This report talked about three methods they developed for studying micromotion norms:
1. map of the production process;
2. study of micromovements directly;
3. chronocyclography.
Gilbreth pointed out that these methods are not mutually exclusive, but, on the contrary, complement each other and should be used together.
It should be noted that these methods in various modifications are used now. The study of movements received a large and fruitful development in Soviet works of the 20-30s.
dov. .
The Gilbreths were also interested in the social aspects of scientific management. In particular, they insisted on the following thesis: no organization can count on sustainability if it does not care both for the well-being of the organization as a whole and for the well-being of each of its members.
In addition to the study of motor activity, the Gilbreths paid great attention to the study of the organization of the workplace as a whole. They developed a promotion plan for the workers, which included three parts:
the worker has done his work;
the worker taught his follower;
the worker has acquired new skills and prepared himself to advance to more difficult work.
All factors affecting the productivity of the worker were divided into three groups:
variable factors of the worker (physique, health, lifestyle, qualifications, culture, education, etc.);
variable factors of the environment, equipment and tools (heating, lighting, clothing, quality of materials used, monotony and difficulty of work, degree of fatigue, etc.);
variable factors of movement (speed, amount of work performed, automaticity, direction of movements and their expediency, cost of work, etc.).
In the 1940s, there were attempts to implement a system of microelement standards at various US enterprises. In 1945, the engineers of the American Radio Corporation published the results of the development of a system of microelement standards in the journal Factory Management. The authors called these results the “Work Factor System”.
In 1948, under the editorship of G. B. Maynard, a book entitled "MTM" was published, devoted to the system for determining the method and duration of work. The book presents the results of Maynard's development of a system of microelement standards, obtained, in particular, during research at the Westinghouse Electric Corporation plant in 1940. The National Association for the Development of Standards and Research in the field of MTM was created in the USA. Congresses of this association are held.
G. B. Maynard, who was one of the presidents of CIOS, is also known as the editor of the encyclopedia of industrial organization, compiled by a team of 81 specialists and published
forged in the USA in 1956. This encyclopedia is characterized by an engineering approach to all factors of production and distribution of goods and services.
L. Gilbreth put forward the idea of ​​workers' participation in planning. This idea was perceived by many managers as quite practical and useful in that it provided the workers with perceptions of decisions made at the top and made it easier for them to evaluate their performance on the basis of previously agreed goals.
Much later, in 1954, at the Tenth International Congress on Scientific Management in São Paulo, Lillian Gilbreth was awarded the CIOS gold medal. There is no doubt that in awarding the medal to Lillian Gilbreth, Congress also paid tribute to the memory of her late husband.
Lillian worked closely with her husband, and after his death spread his ideas in the US and abroad. Her concepts in applied psychology, along with her travels around the world, have earned her the title of "First Lady of Management". The first woman, who became a doctor of psychology, defended her dissertation in 1915. Probably, the problems of management and psychology could not help but interest her, since she was the mother of 12 children.

4. The famous 12 principles of labor productivity of H. Emerson

One of the recurring themes in management is the foundations of efficiency, most developed by Emerson in his book Efficiency as a Basis for Management and Wages. Our inefficiency, as opposed to the high efficiency of nature, is the cause of our poverty, Emerson believed.

There are two ways to overcome inefficiency: to teach people to work correctly by analyzing the elements of work and to set tasks in such a way that they motivate maximum productivity.
Why, he asked, do small businesses with a wide variety of small-scale products compete successfully with large corporations, which, it would seem, are more competitive due to economies of scale? These corporations are able to purchase large quantities of goods, receive significant price discounts and widely mechanize production processes. Emerson saw the reason for the success of small companies in the inefficiency of large corporations, resulting from the uncontrollability of too large companies, their excessive bureaucratization. At the same time, along with the scale parameters, particular importance is attached to the optimal interaction of the staff, expert-technical and line personnel of the company. Although line personnel have the right to take the initiative, the success of the case is largely determined by the competence of the expert technical staff in terms of the optimal allocation of resources, technical equipment or work organization.
Emerson knew about the activities of Taylor's group and the work of the Gilbreths, although Taylor never trusted Emerson's new generation of efficiency engineers. For this reason, Emerson's contributions were independent of other scientific management researchers, despite the fact that Emerson shared many (if not most) of their beliefs.
Of particular importance to Emerson was that he had to defend the ideas of scientific management to the workers. In 1921, he was appointed a member of the Hoover Committee for the Elimination of Industrial Waste.
Emerson, like Taylor, believed that in achieving their work goals, most people work with an efficiency of no more than 60%. He believed that ways should be developed to set goals that demand maximum performance. Emerson believed that our operations were so inefficient that we didn't produce even 1% of what we could.
One of the most significant differences between Emerson's ideas and those of other authors of the scientific management school is his view of the relationship between efficiency and organizational structure.
Emerson recommended the use of cost accounting standards to evaluate the performance of an organization. The cost accountant, who works closely with the performance engineer (technologist), performs the following functions:
gives the "industrial and business world" certain standards and a dollar system of measures applicable to the assessment of all services, materials and equipment;
conducts accurate quantitative analysis and determines the market value of all current operations in order to inform the degree of economic efficiency;
puts at the disposal of workers the means and methods that would ensure 100% productivity.
Since the birth of life on our planet, there have been and are only two types of organization. These are the ones that Frederick Winslow Taylor defines as functional and military types. The first type can be otherwise called the organization of creation, and the second - the organization of destruction. Primitive economic life (to which our American trade with Madagascar belongs) was so closely connected with raids, assaults, with sea and land robbery, with the slave trade, that the business economic organization was everywhere and inevitably built on a military type, and yet now we are already we know that this type can by no means be consistent with the essence and tasks of a modern enterprise. The colossal blessing bestowed on the world by Field Marshal Moltke is that he, a military man bound by military traditions, nevertheless organized the army according to a new type, according to a functional type - the same one that should always be used in economic enterprises.
Since the only chance of success in the great game he played with Bismarck lay in the highest productivity, he was forced to understand for himself all the principles on which this productivity is built. In exactly the same way, he was forced to introduce the only type of organization that allows their use. And all this was done so imperceptibly that even the most astute of Moltke's opponents saw nothing in the entire German army, except for all the same helmets, epaulettes, gold cords and rattling sabers, to which they had long been accustomed to pay attention; no one understood that, without changing names, without touching ranks and orders, Moltke, for his predatory purposes, destroyed the old predatory organization and would replace it with a new one - functional, creative, productive. What are all the splendid achievements of the great American railroad companies worth to the calm, preconceived plans of Moltke, which passed without a hitch the great test of practical implementation? What does the largest American enterprise stand as a working unit before the perfect organization of Moltke, before the perfect organization of that handful of leaders who made Japan a great world power?
The leaders of large industrial enterprises and railways in England, France, Germany, America are all people of great will, exceptional abilities, inexhaustible energy, and, moreover, people wholly devoted to the interests that are entrusted to them. But these people know the principles of productivity only empirically, they apply these principles only occasionally and irregularly, and therefore the factories, plants and railways, to which they devote so much effort and talent, work incredibly wastefully. The unproductive expenses of the American railroads amount to a million dollars a day; and meanwhile, accounting, recognition and persistent application of the principles of productivity would save us from these losses, for they are as avoidable as yellow fever on the Isthmus of Panama, as the waste of fuel in well-designed machines, boilers and furnaces.
Even if it possesses first-class technology, American industry cannot use it properly, because the very organization, copied from obsolete English models, is so imperfect in essence that it excludes any possibility of applying true principles and using excellent technology (pp. 97-98).
Thirty years ago, a whole 800 miles of road stretched from the plains of Texas to the spurs of the Platte mountain range. I easily recognized this road by its deep potholes, even in
darkest nights. Every year, up to half a million long-horned, vicious, narrow-hipped Texas bulls, carrying Texas fever, slowly passed north along it. The cows stayed in Texas and gave birth to new long-horned bulls of the same bad breed. Now all this has changed. Short-legged Herford and Galloway bulls produced excellent short-legged offspring, well-fed and calm. These new bulls are carried north in the finest carriages, and Texas fever is under strict quarantine.
The best basis for peaceful and harmonious relations, for high labor productivity is the careful selection of first-class human material and the complete exclusion of "long-horned Texas bulls" in human form.
It is in this way that officer cadres of the army and navy are completed in our country. First, candidates are carefully selected, taking into account education, health, and even a biography that gives indications of some moral properties, and then those accepted are treated honestly and fairly. It is to these elementary and clearly insufficient methods that we owe the fact that in the army and navy there is much less dishonesty, rudeness, and obvious dishonesty than in other organizations: both in state and municipal, and in private ownership. If an officer behaves well, then he will remain in the service and slowly but surely rise in the ranks. His social position is very high, he is a welcome guest in any society, in the most demanding club.
Why, one wonders, does our production so systematically neglect the elementary method of selection, which has thousands of years of experience behind it?
The captain of a whaling ship recruits his motley crew by deception and violence, and then manages them with the help of Old Testament discipline: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, blow for blow. In a word, here we see the lex talionis in all its undisguised ugliness. An administrator who recruits workers with the same indifference, who does not even try to find out whether the young candidate is suitable for the job ahead of him in terms of his inclinations, physical development and, most importantly, abilities, who does not want to determine whether the person who came for work is suitable for membership in the labor organization whether he possesses the appropriate moral principles, knowledge and skills - such an administrator is of necessity forced to rely entirely on masters as headstrong and undisciplined as himself. He involuntarily has to rely not so much on moral as on physical impact.
Seeing ill-bred children, we do not blame them, but their parents. In the harsh winter of 1900, while crossing the terrible Yukon roads, some gold diggers beat and maimed their naughty dogs so cruelly that they had to stand up for the mounted police. But with a good owner, carefully selected dogs listened to every word. Showing that greedy and affectionate nature that Maeterlinck ascribes to them, they merrily jumped around the owner and were ready to go to death for him (pp. 148-149).
Hummingbirds winter in Central America, and nest in Alaska in the spring, which does not prevent them from raising beautiful, courageous and strong offspring. The petrel flies 4,000 miles in the fog and hits its nest straight; in South America it happened to catch storks noted in Norway; it is believed that loaves and waders fly at 4 miles per minute.
If frightened away, a poultry will flap its wings frantically, fly over a low fence and fall to the ground in complete exhaustion.

The rooster uses its wings to flap when it sings, and the hen to hatch its chicks.
“Who ever heard that, after having fun, a woman complained of fatigue, even if she danced all night until light?” Nietzsche asked. On March 20, 1910, the police forcibly stopped dancing at the request of doctors, after six people, competing with each other, danced continuously for 15 hours and 6 minutes.
Professor William James argues that after the first fatigue, a secondary rise occurs: at first, the chicken only flaps its wings to exhaustion, and then the strength to fly can arise in it.
Rules and Schedules! They are of two kinds: on the one hand, physical and chemical standards recognized and established in the last century, distinguished by mathematical precision, and, on the other hand, such timetables that are based on standards or norms whose limits we still do not know. We have five external senses. With the help of taste, we clearly distinguish the smallest impurity in food,
by smell we feel a millionth of a grain of musk, by touch we feel a ten-thousandth of an inch, the eruption of Krakatau was heard by one person 2390 miles away, we see stars in the sky burning billions of kilometers away. But there is a region not even ten miles distant from us, and we know less about this region than about the stellar nebulae, because neither our external senses, nor our physics and mathematics penetrate into it. This area is under our feet, ten or less miles deep.
Using precise instruments: barometers that measure a millionth of a degree of heat, ultramicroscopes that almost allow us to see individual atoms, tuning forks whose vibration captures a millionth of a second, using all the subtleties of physics and chemistry, we penetrate into the true essence of material nature. Using a stopwatch, we time and study the work of machines in the most accurate way. But when we want to put the work of intelligent people into a precise schedule, then all our mathematics is powerless, and we have to turn to experiments inspired by faith. The flight speed of a small bird is 4 miles per minute; in the flight of a firefly - 99 percent or more of productivity; the blind bat has some kind of sixth sense that we don't understand; a gray bear runs at full speed on the darkest night - and suddenly stops abruptly, running a foot to the thinnest wire connected to a photographic apparatus for shooting with a flash of magnesium.
Everything around us, all nature teaches that high results are created by reducing, not by increasing efforts. But we are still not smart enough to understand these lessons. It takes one pound of coal for one horsepower, and 2 for 2 horsepower; jumping 4 feet is harder than 2, and jumping 5 feet is even harder than 4. On this basis, we quite wrongly believe that effort is measured by the result. Such an opinion agrees with a certain range of experimental data, but wider experience forces us to adopt a completely opposite opinion. When we measure any kind of effort by its results, we see that it falls from a maximum to a minimum, and then rises again to a new maximum, so that throughout this curve there is only one point where the maximum result coincides with the minimum effort. This item corresponds to one hundred percent productivity (pp. 172-173).
Finally, consider the principle of performance rewards. To produce maximum results and be accompanied by a healthy joyful upsurge, all human work requires three conditions.
Work should be enjoyable; it should not be hard labor, but a game. A man must work as a boy learns to ride a bicycle or skate, as a girl learns to dance, as an old man learns to play golf, as a motorist picks up speed.
Every work must have a certain end in mind, it must not be an indefinite, endless slack, but demand such and such results within such and such a period. We cannot endure either endless day or endless night; both overwhelm and irritate us, like the unfailingly good weather, the unfailingly calm sea. A person needs constant change, he needs rain and a hurricane - but only so that at the end of the transition a camp, a fire and dinner are waiting for him. It is very difficult for an untrained person to hold his breath for a whole minute, but as soon as he sets himself a certain goal, pulls himself together - and from the very first lesson he learns not to breathe for one and a half, two, three and even four minutes. He, as the athletes say, acquires a "class".
"Class" is the last thing needed for easy, graceful and enjoyable work. Compare an experienced skater with a novice, compare the movements of a good rider or cyclist, tensing perhaps no more than one muscle at a time, with the desperate efforts of a beginner. Compare, finally, the ease of a professional juggler with the clumsiness of an amateur.
The steel trust introduced a system of profit sharing, but did it take into account the full need for performance rewards for its huge army of workers? Has he set performance standards for operations? Did he make the work joyful? Do his workers show a high "class" in their work?
If the work is done with the minimum of effort and, moreover, in the best way, giving the specified norm by a certain date, then it becomes joyful, and this joy is further increased by a special reward for high productivity. Such
What are the working conditions of the workers of the Steel Trust? If not in such, then their labor cannot be fully productive and is inevitably associated with losses.
Whether we consider the manufacture of a single pin or the operation of the world's greatest enterprise for decades, weak points and the need for improvement are revealed by the same method. In a manufacturing plant, the principles of productivity play the same role that hygiene plays in life. If a person, whether a man, a woman or a child, does not breathe enough fresh air, does not have enough healthy food and drink, bodily exercises, sufficient rest and sleep, lively interests and variety of environment, then whatever such a person may do, his health will inevitably suffer. .
Whatever the enterprise does, if it lacks the principles on which productivity is built, then none of its actions can be productive to the end.
Franklin worked out 13 principles of petty daily virtue. These principles are: restraint, silence, order, determination, thrift, activity, frankness, justice, moderation, cleanliness, calmness, chastity and modesty. For each week he took one of these virtues for himself, and for the whole week he practiced it earnestly in order to make it a habit. Every three months he devoted one full week to all the virtues, so that in total each of them accounted for four weeks a year. So he kept himself for many years in a row. And the ridiculous, eccentric young Franklin, who quarreled with his wife because she served him milk not in an earthenware mug, but in a porcelain cup, and, moreover, not with a pewter, but with a silver spoon, this eccentric became a world statesman who deserved respect the British, the admiration of the French, and the gratitude of the Americans. Similarly, one should apply and re-apply/apply all the principles of performance (pp. 220-221).
"The Twelve Principles of Productivity". Garrington Emerson // Management is a science and art: A. Fayol, G. Emerson, F. Taylor, G. Ford M. Republic Publishing House 1992- 351 p.
Emerson developed the ideas of time standards and bonuses. For any profession, as Emerson believed, there should be a standard time for completing a work task.
In 1900, his book "Efficiency as a basis for management and wages" was published, and in 1912, the main work of his life, "The Twelve Principles of Productivity." In this work, he formulated the following 12 management principles that ensure the growth of labor productivity, which have not lost their significance to this day:
Clearly defined goals as the starting point for management.
Common sense, including the recognition of individual errors and the search for their causes.
Competent consultation of professionals and improvement of the management process based on their recommendations.
Discipline, provided with a clear regulation of people's activities, control over it, timely encouragement.
Fair treatment of staff.
Fast, reliable, accurate, complete and permanent accounting.
Dispatching according to the principle “it is better to dispatch at least unplanned work than to plan work without dispatching”.
Norms and schedules that facilitate the search and implementation of reserves.
Normalization of working conditions.
Rationing of operations, which consists in standardizing the methods of their implementation and regulating the time.
Availability of written standard instructions.
Performance reward.
According to Emerson, “to work hard means to put maximum effort into the matter; to work productively means to apply the minimum effort to the work.
Emerson paid great attention to the selection of personnel, moreover, he considered it necessary to manage it, as if anticipating the emergence of the profession of a personnel manager in the future: “It is extremely important to have at least a few specialists with intuition, observation, understanding on the one hand, and all the wealth physiological, psychological and anthropological scientific knowledge, on the other. Only such a specialist can give the administration and the job candidate really competent advice, only he can correctly say whether the candidate is suitable for this job.

School of Scientific Management

It has been noted that organization and management become an independent subject of study for science at a time when the level of development of engineering and technology comes into sharp conflict with the established system of production relations. This was revealed with all obviousness in the era of the transition of classical capitalism to its highest, monopolistic stage, i.e. at a time when the objective prerequisites for the emergence of scientific management in the United States and the activities of its leader F.U. Taylor.

The emergence of modern management science dates back to the beginning of the 20th century. And associated with the names of FW Taylor, Frank and Lily Gilbreth and Henry Gantt. An important merit of this school was the position that it is possible to manage "scientifically", relying on economic, technical and social experiment, as well as on the scientific analysis of the phenomena and facts of the management process and their generalization.

This research method was first applied to a single enterprise by the American engineer F.W. Taylor, who should be considered the founder of scientific production management.

The term "scientific management" was first proposed in 1910 by L. Bridays. Since Taylor's death, the name has gained general acceptance in relation to his concept.

Taylor's research method consisted in dividing the process of physical labor and its organization into its component parts (performing labor and managerial labor) and the subsequent analysis of these parts. Taylor's goal was to create a system of scientific organization of labor based on experimental data and analysis of the processes of physical labor and its organization.

Creating his system, Taylor was not limited only to the issues of rationalization of workers' labor. Taylor paid considerable attention to the best use of the production assets of the enterprise. The requirement for rationalization also extended to the layout of the enterprise and workshops.

The functions of carrying out the interaction of elements of production were assigned to the planning or distribution bureau of the enterprise, which was given a central place in the Taylor system.

Taylor's important contribution was the recognition that management work is a specialty. Taylor considered the convergence of the interests of all the personnel of the enterprise to be the main task of the system proposed by him.

The philosophical basis of Taylor's system was the concept of the so-called economic man, which became widespread at that time. This concept was based on the assertion that the only driving stimulus of people is their needs. Taylor believed that with the help of an appropriate wage system, maximum productivity could be achieved. Another false principle of the Taylor system was to proclaim the unity of the economic interests of workers and managers. The goals were not achieved.

The ideas of F. Taylor were developed by his followers, among whom, first of all, Henry Gantt, his closest student, should be mentioned. Gantt made a significant contribution to the development of leadership theory.

Frank Gilbreth and his wife Lillian Gilbreth dealt with the rationalization of the work of workers and the study of opportunities to increase output through increased labor productivity.

G. Emerson made a significant contribution to the development of the Taylor system. Emerson explored the principles of labor activity in relation to any production, regardless of the type of its activity.

Henry Ford continued Taylor's ideas in the field of industrial organization. Taylor's system was dominated by manual labor. Ford replaced manual labor with machines; took a further step in the development of the Taylor system.

Second half of the 19th century - an era of significant changes in the structure and organization of business entrepreneurship in the United States: the creation of huge national and multinational corporations in transport and industry, which absorbed everything new and advanced.

On the contrary, the change in the organization of labor in the shop and at the enterprise proceeded extremely slowly. That was one of the contradictions that determined the need for the emergence of scientific management. However, within the factory system itself, no less contradiction was revealed. The transition from handicraft production of the 18th century to machine production of the 19th century was uneven and protracted. By the second half of the 19th century, a system of industry was generally formed, which historians call the first, or old factory system (the second factory system is called in-line production of the beginning of the 20th century). True, by the beginning of the 20th century, it no longer satisfied the needs of social production and did not correspond to the latest achievements of science and technology. The social organization of labor at the enterprise, the central figure of which was the foreman, was also outdated.

The basic principles of Taylor and his school can be formulated as follows:

Creation of a scientific approach (methodology) to the organization of the implementation of specific work. This approach included dividing the work into separate elements and determining a scientifically based way of doing it, based on the scientific study of each element, replacing the old traditional and practically established methods of work.

Selecting workers for a specific job based on scientific criteria, training them and teaching them new ways to do it.

Cooperation between the administration and workers in the practical implementation of a scientifically developed system of labor organization.

Equal distribution of labor and responsibility between management and workers.

An important contribution of this school was the systematic use of incentives to motivate workers to increase productivity and output. The key element in this approach was that people who produce more should receive higher rewards.

Thus, the concept of scientific management has become the initial stage in the formation and recognition of management as a science and an independent field of study. The beginning of the development of the school of scientific management was laid by Taylor's book "Principles of Scientific Management".

His power was practically unlimited: he was responsible for production management, production costs, and personnel management. The master single-handedly hired and fired workers, promoted them or demoted them, controlled the system of training workers, the distribution of tasks, was responsible for maintaining discipline, set working hours, attendance times and production rates. It is clear that his real role in production was not much inferior to that of a manager.

Classical (administrative) school in management

The classical or administrative school in management occupies a period of time from 1920 to 1950. The founder of this school is Henri Fayol, a French mining engineer, an outstanding practical manager, one of the founders of management theory.

Unlike the school of scientific management, which was mainly concerned with the rational organization of the labor of an individual worker and increasing the efficiency of production, representatives of the classical school began to develop approaches to improve the management of the organization as a whole.

The goal of the classical school was to create universal principles of government. Fayol and others belonged to the administration of organizations, which is why the classical school is often called administrative.

Fayol's merit lies in the fact that he divided all management functions into general, related to any field of activity, and specific, related directly to the management of an industrial enterprise.

Fayol's followers, who developed and deepened the main provisions of his doctrine, are Lindal Urvik, L. Gyulik, M. Weber, D. Mooney, Alfred P. Sloan, G. Church.

Based on the developments of Fayol and his followers, a classical model of organization was formed, based on the main principles:

Division of labor. Specialization is the natural order of things. The purpose of the division of labor is to do more and better work with the same effort. This is achieved by reducing the number of goals to which attention and efforts must be directed.

Authority and responsibility. Authority is the right to give orders, and responsibility is its opposite. Where authority is given, there responsibility arises.

Discipline. Discipline offers obedience and respect for the agreements reached between the firm and its employees. Establishing these agreements binding the firm and employees from which disciplinary formalities arise must remain one of the chief tasks of managers. Discipline also implies fair application of sanctions.

Unity of command. An employee should receive orders from only one immediate supervisor.

unity of direction. Each group operating within the same goal must be united by a single plan and have one leader.

Subordination of personal interests to the general. The interests of one employee or group of employees should not prevail over the interests of a company or organization of a large scale.

Staff remuneration. Workers should receive a fair wage for their service.

Centralization. Like the division of labor, centralization is the natural order of things. However, the appropriate degree of centralization will vary depending on specific conditions. Therefore, the question arises about the right proportion between centralization and decentralization. It is a problem of determining the measure that will provide the best results.

Scalar chain. A scalar chain is a series of individuals in leadership positions, ranging from the person holding the highest position in this chain to the bottom manager. It would be a mistake to abandon a hierarchical system unnecessarily, but it would be an even greater mistake to maintain this hierarchy when it harms business interests.

Order. A place for everything, and everything in its place.

Justice. Justice is a combination of kindness and justice.

Workplace stability for staff. High employee turnover reduces the efficiency of the organization. A mediocre manager who holds on to a position is certainly preferable to an outstanding, talented manager who leaves quickly and does not hold on to his position.

Initiative. Initiative means developing a plan and ensuring its successful implementation, this gives the organization strength and energy.

corporate spirit. Union is the force that results from the harmony of the staff.

Thus, according to A. Fayol, management is a universal process consisting of several interrelated functions. The implementation of the basic principles of management contributes to improving the efficiency of production management.

All the above principles of building an organization are valid for the present, despite the fact that the achievements of the scientific and technological progress have left a certain imprint on them. Thus, the widespread use of electronic computers in practical activities has simplified the links between the management bodies (links) in the organization by accelerating the processing of information.

In general, the classical school of management is characterized by ignoring the person and his needs. For this, representatives of the school are justly criticized by theorists and practitioners of management.

School of Psychology and Human Relations

One of the shortcomings of the scientific management school and the classical school was that they did not fully understand the role and importance of the human factor, which is ultimately the main element in the effectiveness of the organization. Therefore, the school of psychology and human relations that eliminated the shortcomings of the classical school is often called the neoclassical school.

The first attempt to apply psychological analysis to practical problems of production was made by G. Munsterberg, a professor at Harvard University in the USA.

In the 20-30s of our century, a school of human relations was born, in the center of which is a person. The emergence of the doctrine of "human relations" is usually associated with the names of American scientists E. Mayo and F. Roethlisberger, who are known for their research in the sociology of industrial relations.

One of the main differences between the school of psychology and human relations is the introduction of behaviorism into it, i.e. theories of human behavior.

One of the founders of the School of Psychology and Human Relations is Harvard University Business School Professor Elton Mayo.

Representatives of the school of "human relations" recommended that serious attention be paid to changing the informal structure while restructuring the formal structure of the organization. A formal manager should strive to become an informal leader by winning the "affections of the people." This is not an easy task, but "social art".

The disadvantages of the school of psychology and human relations include ignoring the issues of self-government and self-organization of workers in production; scientists clearly overestimated the level of impact on workers using socio-psychological methods.

However, despite the criticism that the school of psychology and human relations was subjected to, its main provisions were subsequently reflected in new, more complex and modern concepts of management.

A large place in the research of scientists adjoining the school of psychology and human relations is occupied by the problems of motivating people in an organization. Among the researchers who paid considerable attention to these problems are: A. Maslow, F. Herzberger, D. McClelland, K. Alderfer.

The concept of motivation was most consistently developed by a prominent representative of the school of psychology and human relations, Professor of the School of Management at the University of Michigan Douglas McGregor. McGregor made a significant contribution to the development of the content of the theory of human resources, focusing on issues of leadership, leadership style, and the behavior of people in organizations.

School of Behavioral Sciences and Human Resource Theory. The School of Behavioral Sciences emerged in the 1930s. The revitalization of the school's activity falls on the 1950-1960s. The school got its name from the well-known psychological terms "behavior", "behaviorism" (behavior, the science of behavior). The basic premise of behaviorism is that it is necessary to study not consciousness, but human behavior, which is a response to a stimulus.

In management, this approach was transferred to the working person and specifically to the relationship between managers and workers. The essence of these relations is based on the fact that the employee, receiving a good reward (material and moral) from the manager, responds to it with a positive reaction - a good job.

The school of behavioral sciences can be seen as a development and deepening of the concept of human relations, but at the same time, other concepts have emerged within the framework of the new school that are significantly different from the school of human relations.

The beginning of a new concept in the science of management was laid by W. Barnard, who published the work "Administrator's Functions" in 1938. Among the later followers of this concept, it should be noted: R. Likert, F. Herzberg, A. Maslow, D. McGregory. These and other researchers dealt with the issues of social interaction in the enterprise, the motivation of needs, the nature of management, forms of communication in the team, leadership in the organizational structure. The main goal of this school was to find ways to increase the efficiency of the organization by increasing the efficiency of its human resources. Therefore, the new concept was called the theory of human resources. The new approach was aimed at developing such management techniques that would contribute to a person's awareness of his capabilities based on the application of the basic concepts of the behavioral sciences to the management of an organization.

Within the framework of this theory, a number of concepts and provisions were developed about the individual and "cooperation", formal and informal systems, motivation and needs, and leadership in the organization.

Thus, the merit of the school is the study of the problem of motives and needs, as well as the possibilities of their effective use in management. Employee motivation has three levels: needs, goals, rewards. For the effective use of an employee, two more factors should be taken into account: the factors of human effort and ability.

The conclusion of this school that a person's work will be successful if positive motivation is accompanied by sufficient effort and certain abilities became the program for effective workforce management, and the scientific concept became known as human resource theory.

Schools 1940-1960s

1940-1960 characterized by the development of management within several schools other than the school of behavioral sciences. These schools were: the empirical or pragmatic school of management, the schools associated with the theories of technocratic management, and the school of management science. These schools left a certain mark in the development of managerial thought, but basically they were in the nature of a private development of certain areas and problems of managing an organization.

Empirical (pragmatic) school of management. The founders of the school: E. Petersen, G. Simon, R. Davis and others. Representatives of big business took part in the development of the school. The specialists of this school did not deny the importance of theoretical principles and the use of the achievements of specific sciences, but considered it more important to analyze the direct experience of management. The main contribution of the school to the development of managerial thought can be defined as follows:

• 1. Development of in-house management, including the development of recommendations on management structures, on the organization of line and functional services, technical and information management systems and other management issues.
• 2. Research and introduction into management practice of new, effective methods of training managers (example: Sloan school of managers).
• 3. The ideologists of the school made an attempt to develop a number of problems that became especially relevant in the 70-80s (issues of centralization and decentralization of management, the introduction of target management, the classification of management functions, the organization of work of managers, etc.).
• 4. Professionalization of management.

Theories of technocratic management. In the 1950s-1960s. the most famous were the concepts (schools): the theory of elites, the theory of technocracy and the theory of industrial society.

• 1. Theory of elites. This concept is based on the division of society into an omnipotent elite and a crowd subordinate to it; in management, this approach corresponds to the allocation of qualified leaders and unskilled masses.
• 2. Theory of technocracy. The essence of the concept: the coming era will be the era of the state of engineering and technical intelligentsia. The management of the future will be the management of the technocracy (representatives of science and technology).
• 3. The theory of industrial society. The provisions of the theory include two key points: the contradictions in society are explained by the different degrees of education of people, and the leading role in management is given to technocratic management. The factor of education is basic in the economic life of society. When solving the problem of effective management, preference is given to a group solution.

Theories of technocratic management have introduced new elements into management thought with their focus on improving the quality (educational) level of society and management.

School of Management Science. It was developed in the 50s as a result of the use of the achievements of applied mathematics and engineering sciences in the development of managerial thought. Attention should be paid to the difference in the translations of the two concepts scientific management (scientific management), which in American literature is directly associated with the Taylor school and his followers, and management science (management science), which is associated with the use of quantitative methods in management.

Quantitative methods under the general name "operations research" were developed to solve applied problems during the Second World War (effective use of air defense systems, submarine warfare while escorting convoys, mining Japanese ports, etc.).

Operations research, at its core, was the use of scientific research methods to solve management problems based on situation models. The use of models has made it possible to simplify complex problems for their deeper study and understanding.

A key characteristic of the school of management science is the use of mathematical models to quantify and analyze the processes and problems under study. The development of computer technology significantly influenced the development of quantitative methods in management, which made it possible to develop and use in practical research mathematical models of increasing complexity, approaching real processes.

Thus, we can draw the following conclusion on the considered chapter: the school of scientific management, the classical (administrative) school, the school of psychology and human relations, the school of management science (quantitative school), as well as outstanding representatives of these schools, such like F. Taylor, A. Fayol, E. Mayo and others.

The efforts of the founders of the school of scientific management were aimed at creating universal management principles based on personal observations and aimed at rationalizing production, while ignoring social relations in the production process and not paying due attention to the human factor.

School of Scientific Management (1885 - 1920). The founder of management science is an American engineer and researcher Frederick Taylor. 1911 - F.Taylor's book "Principles of Scientific Management". The essence of the approach: “Management must have its own laws, methods, formulas, principles. It should be based on measurements, rationalization, systematic accounting.” Taylor and his contemporaries recognized that management work was a specialty. There are 4 groups of managerial functions: choice of purpose, choice of means, preparation of means and control of results. Taylor developed methods for rationalizing the work of workers. Henry Ford (mechanic, entrepreneur, organizer of mass production of automobiles in the United States). The organization of management is based on the following principles: maximum division of labor; specialization, widespread use of high-performance equipment and tooling, arrangement of equipment along the technological process; mechanization of transport operations, regulated rhythm of production. Harrington Emerson - developed an integrated systems approach to organizing management. 1912 - the main work "The Twelve Principles of Productivity".

The main provisions of the school of scientific management:

1. Using scientific analysis to determine the best way to accomplish a task.

2. Selecting workers best suited to the task and providing them with training.

3. Providing employees with the resources required to effectively complete tasks.

4. Systematic and correct stimulation to increase labor productivity.

5. Separation of planning and thinking from the work itself.

Questions for consolidation:

1. What is the essence of the school of scientific management?

2. What is the merit of F. Taylor in the development of management as a science?

3. What is the merit of G. Ford in the development of management as a science?

4. What is the merit of G. Emerson in the development of management as a science?

1. What were the efforts of the founders of the scientific management school aimed at?

A) creation of universal principles of management

B) social relations

B) the human factor

D) rationalization of production

2. Who is the founder of management as a management science?

A) E. Mayo;

B) G. Ford;

C) G. Emerson

D) F. Taylor

3. In what years did the school of scientific management exist?

A) 1880 - 1885

B) 1885 - 1920

C) 1920 - 1930

A) Harrington Emerson

B) Elton Mayo

B) Frederick Taylor

D) Henry Ford

5. What are the four managerial functions identified by F. Taylor?

A) choice of goal, choice of means, preparation of means, control of results

B) planning, organization, motivation, control

C) choosing a goal, developing a mission, completing tasks, monitoring results

D) planning, choice of means, motivation, control

More on the topic 2. School of scientific management, its main provisions and principles. The development of management in the works of F. Taylor, G. Ford, G. Emerson.:

1. 3. Classical administrative school of management, its main provisions and principles. Henri Fayol's contribution to the development of the classical school of management
2. 4. Neoclassical school of management, its main provisions
3. School of Scientific Management. The main characteristics of the views of its founders
4. 14. Organization as the main function of management. Principles of building the organizational structure of management. Types of organizational management structures

The School of Scientific Management is chronologically the very first school of management. Its creator, F. Taylor, believed that an analytical approach to work helps to increase its effectiveness.

The Essence of the School of Scientific Management consists in the rational organization of labor, the analysis of manual labor operations and their further improvement. Supporters of this school were the first to talk about the fact that management is a science that is built according to certain laws and rules.

Features of the School of Scientific Management

For this direction of management, several features can be distinguished. For example:

1. approval of management as an independent science;
2. the primary task is to increase the efficiency of the organization;
3. approach to the organization as an integral system;
4. separation of executive and managerial functions;
5. selection of workers according to scientific criteria, their further systematic training;
6. rigid hierarchy in the organization.

Representatives of the scientific school of management

Representatives of the scientific school of management are:

• F. Taylor
• F. and L. Gilbert
• G. Gantt.

Main scientific schools of management

Approaches to scientific management differ somewhat among different scientists, although, of course, they have common features. Therefore, the names of representatives are associated with the corresponding concepts within the school of scientific management.

F. Taylor worked on the standardization of manual operations, and also laid the foundation for labor rationing. In addition, he advocated piecework wages (“as much as he did, so much he received”), since such incentives are more stimulating for workers.

F. and L. Gilberts explored how to increase labor efficiency by reducing effort. They own the term "personnel management", which implies scientifically based selection, training and placement of workers.

Unlike F. Taylor, G. Gantt advocated fixed wages, but for overfulfillment of the norm, the employee was entitled to a bonus. He also wrote about the importance of the human factor, so he paid great attention to the theory of leadership.

Positions of the school of scientific management

In the theory of the school of scientific management, there are four main provisions developed by F. Taylor:

• development of knowledge about work activity - the employer needs to know how much work an employee can theoretically perform under ideal conditions. This will help to calculate the production rates and optimize the work as a whole.
• selection and retraining of workers - hiring of employees should be carried out according to scientific criteria.
• close cooperation - the interaction of employees, building a hierarchy that will help increase efficiency.
• separation of administration and workers - delineation of duties of managers and managed, specialization of labor.

Briefly about the school of scientific management

In short, the fundamental idea of ​​the school of scientific management in the classical sense is that work should be studied using objective scientific methods.

According to the principles of F. Taylor, the organization should be built on a rigid hierarchy, differentiation of managerial and executive functions, introduction of a rational organization of labor, selection and training of personnel according to scientific criteria.

People often read this material: articles in the section on the Aspect portal

TOPIC 2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE THEORY OF MANAGEMENT

Target. Tell students when management arose, when a person felt the need for management, how it developed and what changes took place in it, how it affected the development of the person himself, his production activities and society as a whole. In its development, management went through a number of periods and used certain research methods.

Topic questions:

1. School of scientific management.

2. Administrative (classical) school.

3. School of human relations.

4. School of Behavioral Sciences.

School of Scientific Management.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, one of the first arose school of scientific management. Frederick Winslow Taylor, Frank and Lillian Gilbert, Henry Gant, Henry Ford are considered its creators. (1885-1920)

They believed that almost any manual labor operation could be improved using observation, measurement, logic, and analysis. First, they analyzed the content of the work and determined its main components (operations, transitions, techniques, individual movements. Then they measured the work operations: they eliminated unnecessary, unproductive movements, introduced standard procedures and equipment into them. As a rule, the gain from improving operations was obvious. that the amount of time allocated to certain tasks should be realistic and take into account the possibility of a little rest.At the same time, production standards were feasible, and those who exceeded them were rewarded more.

This school recognized the importance of selecting people physically and intellectually appropriate for the work performed, attached great importance to training; the separation of managerial functions of thinking and planning from the direct performance of work was advocated (this was sharply stated with the container system, in which the workers themselves planned their work). Through this school, management became widely recognized as a field of scientific research in its own right.

Contribution of the school of scientific management:

using scientific analysis to determine the best way to accomplish a task;

selecting workers best suited to the tasks and providing them with training;

providing employees with the resources required to effectively perform their tasks;

• systematic and correct use of financial incentives to increase productivity;

If the school of scientific management was concerned primarily with efficiency gains at the workplace level, then classical (administrative) school (1920-1950) paid attention to efficiency in the broader sense of the word - in relation to the work of the entire organization. The "classics" who ranked Henri Fayol, Lyndall Urwick, James Mooney (1920-1950) tried to look at the organization from a broad perspective, trying to determine the general characteristics and patterns of organizations.

Henri Fayol ran a large French coal mining company and is called the "father of management". Lindall Urwick is a management consultant in England. James Mooney worked for General Motors. Adherents of this school, like the previous one, did not care much about the social aspects of government. Their work was largely based on personal observations and was not based on scientific methodology. The goal of the classical school was to create universal principles of management that would undoubtedly lead the organization to success. Fayol's main contribution to management theory was that he viewed management as a universal process consisting of interrelated functions. To build the structure of the organization, he developed 14 principles of management. Many of them are still useful today.

The aim of the classical school was to create universal principles of governance.

Fayol's principles of management:

1. Division of labor; (Specialization is the natural order of things. The goal of the division of labor is to do more and better work with the same effort. This is achieved by reducing the number of goals to which attention and effort must be directed.)

2. Authority and responsibility; (Authority is the right to give an order, and responsibility is its opposite. Where authority is given, there responsibility arises.)

3. Discipline; (Discipline implies obedience to and respect for the agreements reached between the firm and its employees. It also implies fair application of sanctions.)

4. unity of command;(An employee should receive an order from only one immediate supervisor.)

5. Unity of direction; (Each group operating under the same goal should be united by a single plan and have one leader.)

6. Subordination of personal interests to the general; (The interests of one employee or group of employees should not prevail over the interests of a company or a larger organization).

7. Reward persona la; (In order to ensure the loyalty and support of workers, they must receive a fair wage for their service.)

8. Centralization; (Centralization is the natural order of things. The appropriate degree of centralization will vary according to specific conditions. So the question arises as to the right proportion between centralization and decentralization. This is the problem of determining the measure that will provide the best possible results.)

9. Scalar chain– a range of persons in leadership positions, ranging from the highest position to the lowest level manager;

10. order;(A place is for everything and everything in its place.)

11. Justice;(Combination of kindness and order.)

12. Workplace stability for staff; (High turnover reduces the effectiveness of an organization. A mediocre leader who holds on to his position is certainly preferable to an outstanding, talented one who quickly leaves and does not hold on to his position.)

13. Initiative;(Means developing a plan and ensuring its successful implementation. This gives the organization strength and energy.)

14. corporate spirit. (Union is strength. And it is the result of staff harmony.)

Contribution of the classical school: development of management principles; description of control functions; a systematic approach to managing the entire organization.

School of Human Relations 1930-1950 (Mary Parker Follet, Elton Mayo) in the 1930s was born in response to the inability (of other schools) to fully recognize the human factor as a basic element of organizational effectiveness.

Experimentally, it was found that well-designed work operations and good wages did not always lead to an increase in labor productivity (as the representatives of the school of scientific management believed before). The forces that arise in the course of interaction between people could and often exceeded the efforts of the leader. Sometimes employees reacted more strongly to pressure from colleagues in the group than to the desires of management and financial incentives. The cause of these phenomena, as it turned out, is mainly not economic forces (as the supporters of the school of scientific management believed), but various needs that can only be partially and indirectly satisfied with the help of money.

The researchers of this school believed that if management takes more care of their employees, then their motivation will increase, which will lead to increased productivity. They recommended the use of human relations management techniques, including more effective action by immediate supervisors, consultation with workers, and giving them more opportunities to communicate at work.

School of Behavioral Sciences(1950 to present) (Chris Algiris, Rensis Likert, Douglas McGregor, Frederick Herzberg) moved away from the school of human relations, which focused primarily on methods for establishing interpersonal relationships. The new approach sought to assist the worker to a greater extent in understanding his own capabilities through the application of the concepts of the behavioral sciences to the construction and management of organizations. The main goal is to increase the efficiency of the organization by increasing the efficiency of its human resources. Like earlier schools, this approach advocated a "single best way" to solve managerial problems. His main postulate was that the correct application of the science of behavior will always increase the efficiency of both the individual employee and the organization as a whole. However, it turned out that such methods of this school as changing the content of work and the participation of the employee in the management of the enterprise are effective only for some workers.

Contributions from the School of Human Relations and the School of Behavioral Sciences:

· Applying interpersonal relationship management techniques to improve satisfaction and performance;

· The application of the sciences of human behavior to the management and formation of an organization so that each worker can be fully utilized in accordance with his potential.

A significant contribution to the theory of management, especially in the post-war period, was made by mathematics, statistics, engineering, knowledge in the field of quantitative methods, grouped under the general name: operations research. The latter are essentially the application of scientific research methods to the operational problems of the organization. After the problem is formulated, the operations research team develops models of the situation.

Such a model simplifies complex problems by reducing the number of variables to be considered to a manageable amount. A key characteristic of management science (and the scientific management school of the same name) is the replacement of verbal reasoning and descriptive analysis with models, symbols, and quantitative values. With the advent of the computer, operations researchers have been constructing mathematical models of increasing complexity that come closest to reality and are therefore more accurate.

Process approach.

This concept, which marks a major turn in management thought, is widely used today. The process approach was first proposed by adherents of the classical (administrative) school, who tried to describe the functions of a manager. However, these authors tended to view such functions as independent of each other. The process approach, in contrast, considers management functions as interrelated.

Management is seen as a process because working to achieve goals with the help of others is not some one-time action, but a series of continuous interrelated actions. These activities, each of which is a process in itself, are essential to the success of the organization. They are called managerial functions. Each managerial function is also a process, because it also consists of a series of interrelated actions. The control process is the sum total of all functions.

Systems approach.

The system approach considers all processes and phenomena in the form of certain integral systems with new qualities and functions that are not inherent in its constituent elements. All systems have a stable internal structure and consist of interconnected elements (subsystems) with specific functions.

Systems are divided into closed, functioning independently of changes in the external environment (for example, clocks) and open, connected with the outside world (all socio-economic objects - enterprises, organizations, teams, etc.).

The systems approach views the organization as an open system.

Conversion inputs outputs

The first major systems approach was Chester I. Barnard (1886-1961), who was closely associated with the behavioral school of management. His basic premise was that an organization is "a system of consciously coordinated action in which the leader is the most important strategic factor."

IN systems approach it is emphasized that managers should consider the organization as a set of interrelated elements, such as people, structure, tasks and technology, which are focused on achieving different goals in a changing external environment.