Scientific management is defined by (Robbins et al., 2012) as ‘an approach that involves using scientific methods to define the “one best way” for a job to be done’. Frederick W. Taylor is said to be the forefather of scientific management, during his time many people criticised Taylor and his work, however it is easy to see that many of his approaches are used in contemporary management systems. This essay will provide a review of the article ‘The Ideas of Frederick W. Taylor’, Academy of Management Review (Locke, E., 1982) which discusses the positives and negatives of Taylor’s theory. A further 3 articles will be analysed on the critiquing or support of scientific management and Taylor.
There have been limited academics that have been
As many more people became interested in Taylor’s principles his book gained more demand which included much of Cooke’s findings.
Blake and Moseley’s journal article regarding the fact that even one hundred years after Taylor’s death he still impacts on human performance supports Taylor and his work agreeing with all his principles. Blake and Moseley write of the international impacts of Taylor and even argue that the effect on mass producing products may have influenced the result of World War 2. Taylor’s theories were so largely incorporated and accepted that their influence will certainly not be abolished. Darmody’s article consists of describing Taylor’s life and his pioneering productions of scientific management, Darmody agrees with Taylor in that at the time the US factory’s productions were very minimal and needed to be changed.
Regarding the articles as a group, they all generally support Taylor in his work of scientific management however there is a small number of negative arguments about the dehumanization of workers and lowering the worker’s chance to excel. The articles in majority write about the same points of scientific management however each one has a different view point or angle from which the base their arguments. Darmody (2007) wrote that Taylor’s and Gantts contributions were considered controversial and even radical but their work influences us even to this day (p15.1). Blake and Moseley (2010), and Darmody’s (2007) articles