管理类留学生作业-科学管理-Scientific Management
Scientific Management这个问题需要定义的实质,理论上,它的优势和劣势,并找出是否还运用了今天。
首先,有必要指出泰勒的理论是完全创新的因为他试图发展科学的方法去管理,制定措施可以帮助私人企业提高性能(《,105)。事实上,他的理论是基于四个主要的价值观,他认为是头等的重要性。有如下几点:效率、合理性、生产力和利润。根据理论家的努力工作的人们都在组织内应该集中发展的四个基本价值观的框架,创造出了他的理论。与此同时,他坚持的必要性,建立一个严格的系统中,所有的过程控制和命令下公司的管理,员工的作用减小,其实他们是当作某个机器。事实上,员工应该只发展和提高的技能和能力,获得基本经验并完美地做常规虽然高生产力的工作。此永久物提高职业素养、习得的经验,和发展的技能和能力是专业成长的基础上的雇员。它值得提到泰勒站在地上,雇员们很自然感兴趣的提高他们的工作,它的效率和生产力,以及利润,因为他们的收入取决于他们生产的物品的数量(Milakovich和戈登,158)。
然而,过去的理论进步,科学管理是现代组织管理几乎适用。无论如何,现在它是基本不可能的地方找一个组织科学管理应用到纯形式。有多种原因,例如这是泰勒的降解的观念。首先,应该说,优势明显,随着理论的思想提供了必要性等提高生产力和效率的正向影响工作的利润,应用到生产的合理方法等有缺点提醒仍然很大注意到这个理论被应用到实践(Milakovich和戈登,158)。实际应用的理论揭示了我们很多的不足的有效性逐渐削弱了这一理论和目前泰勒的想法了广泛的批评。
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#分页标题#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#分页标题#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.
