管理類留學生作業-科學管理-Scientific Management
Scientific Management這個問題需要定義的實質,理論上,它的優勢和劣勢,并找出是否還運用了今天。
首先,有必要指出泰勒的理論是完全創新的因為他試圖發展科學的方法去管理,制定措施可以幫助私人企業提高性能(《,105)。事實上,他的理論是基于四個主要的價值觀,他認為是頭等的重要性。有如下幾點:效率、合理性、生產力和利潤。根據理論家的努力工作的人們都在組織內應該集中發展的四個基本價值觀的框架,創造出了他的理論。與此同時,他堅持的必要性,建立一個嚴格的系統中,所有的過程控制和命令下公司的管理,員工的作用減小,其實他們是當作某個機器。事實上,員工應該只發展和提高的技能和能力,獲得基本經驗并完美地做常規雖然高生產力的工作。此永久物提高職業素養、習得的經驗,和發展的技能和能力是專業成長的基礎上的雇員。它值得提到泰勒站在地上,雇員們很自然感興趣的提高他們的工作,它的效率和生產力,以及利潤,因為他們的收入取決于他們生產的物品的數量(Milakovich和戈登,158)。
然而,過去的理論進步,科學管理是現代組織管理幾乎適用。無論如何,現在它是基本不可能的地方找一個組織科學管理應用到純形式。有多種原因,例如這是泰勒的降解的觀念。首先,應該說,優勢明顯,隨著理論的思想提供了必要性等提高生產力和效率的正向影響工作的利潤,應用到生產的合理方法等有缺點提醒仍然很大注意到這個理論被應用到實踐(Milakovich和戈登,158)。實際應用的理論揭示了我們很多的不足的有效性逐漸削弱了這一理論和目前泰勒的想法了廣泛的批評。
The appearance of Frederick Taylor’s theory of scientific management was practically revolutionary for that epoch and symbolized the breakthrough in traditional approach to management process. At the same time, as management theory evolved gradually Taylor’s theory was severely criticized and its role decreased dramatically to the extent that nowadays it is argued whether scientific management still exists or probably it totally vanished. To answer this question it is necessary to define the essence of this theory, its advantages and disadvantages, and find out whether it is still applied today.
First of all, it is necessary to point out that Taylor’s theory was quite innovative since he attempted to develop scientific approach to management and work out steps that could help private industry to improve performance (Kanigel, 105). In actuality, his theory was based on four main values that he considered to be of a paramount importance. They are as follows: efficiency, rationality, productivity, and profit. According to the theorist the efforts of all people working within the organization should be focused on the progress of the four basic values that created the framework of his theory. At the same time, he insisted on the necessity to establish a strict system in which all processes were under the control and command of a company’s administration while the role of employees were minimized and they were actually treated as cogs of the machine. In fact, employees should only develop and polish their skills and abilities, acquire essential experience and perfectly do the routine though highly productive job. This permanent improvement of professional qualities, acquisition of experience, and development of skills and abilities were the basis of professional growth of employees. It is worthy of mention that Taylor stood on the ground that employees were naturally interested in the improvement of their work, its efficiency and productivity, as well as profit because their earnings depended on the amount of items they produced (Milakovich & Gordon, 158).#p#分頁標題#e#
However, progressive the theory used to be, scientific management is hardly applicable to modern organizations. Anyway, nowadays it is practically impossible to find an organization where scientific management was applied in its pure form. There are several reasons for such a degradation of Taylor’s ideas. First of all, it should be said that along with obvious advantages that the theory offered such as the idea of necessity to increase the productivity and efficiency of work which positively influence profits, application of rational method to production, etc. there remained substantial disadvantages which remained unnoticed until the theory was applied to practice (Milakovich & Gordon, 158). The practical implementation of the theory in the US revealed a number of disadvantages which gradually undermined the effectiveness of this theory and at the present moment Taylor’s ideas are widely criticized.
In this respect, it is worthy of mention that scientific managers practically ignores the human element and the view on an employee is quite simplistic since Taylor limits interests and needs of employees only by financial stimuli. Obviously, in actuality, employees’ needs and interests are much more complex and need more human-oriented approach instead of transforming humans into a part of some machine. Furthermore, Taylor’s belief that there would be no conflicts between managers and employees, if there objectives were the same, turned to be erroneous in practice. Conflicts still remained inevitable and what is more even the financial stimuli of employees was efficient enough, since as a rule profit, including those of employees, depended on the law of supply and demand and profitability could not grow constantly neither it could keep pace with productivity (Milakovich & Gordon, 158).
As a result, nowadays in the epoch when creativity, flexibility and certain independence of employees are extremely important, scientific management is in decline. Nonetheless, it persists in a way and often it is not private but public organizations that apply Taylor’s theory in their work. For instance, the modern navy seems to be an adherent of ideas of scientific management since people working in navy work in accordance with strictly regulated norms and standards and their professional and career growth is realized by means of gradual acquisition and improvement of job-related characteristics, skills and abilities. As a result, as people acquire experience and new skills they get a higher rank. Or else, FEMA also applies elements of scientific management in its work. For instance, people working at FEMA get training on a specific job and while working, looking at damaged homes and determining their safety for instance, they keep training and increase their professional level.
Thus, it is possible to conclude that nowadays scientific management is in decline and it has practically vanished in its pure form in modern organizations. Nonetheless, some of its elements still persist and are applicable in some modern organizations, including public ones.#p#分頁標題#e#
Bibliography:
1. Kanigel, Robert. (1999). The One Best Way: Frederick Winslow Taylor and the Enigma of Efficiency. New York: Penguin, 2000.
2. Milakovich, M.E. & Gordon, G.G. (2003). Public administration in America (9 th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
