å Saturday, October 1st, 2016

In Frederick Taylor’s work on “The Principles of Scientific Management,” he argues that workers could work harder and produce more for their company but because of the payment they receive they make less.  He discussed a term called “soldering” in the U.S, in England it is called “hanging it out” and in Scotland it’s called “ca canae” which is under working or deliberately working slow and safe, putting out less and avoiding doing a day’s work of work.  This proves that it exists in work places around the world and is a problem that he believes is universal and can be found in large establishments.

He stated three reasons for why workers do not produce at maximum capacity. His first reason states that a misconception workers are tossed together in the same environment could lead to a lot of men out of jobs.  Second The system and machines make workers work slower because they are trying to protect themselves and third the rule of thumb method to teach the new workers to perform the task.

Taylor believe that the scientific method would fix the problem of underworking and lower cost of production both home and overseas markets and would even the playing field with the competitors. The rule of thumb method workers is being trained by other workers so there’s a lot of other way of getting the task done. He believes that management should be more hands on and train their employees’ one definite way of doing the job efficiently thus producing more, less time being wasted which will result in more profit and higher wages, elimination of poverty and lower the cost of production. It would also have a better effect on their workers that would allow them to work at the best of their abilities, doubling speed that will eventually double production.

In his article, “The Principles of Scientific Management, 1911”, Frederick Taylor discusses a concept he calls “soldiering” or “underworking”, referring to the ways in which some workers will purposefully work more slowly and less efficiently than they are truly able, in order to lessen their output of work (Taylor, p.4).  Taylor argues that if workers would end this behavior, they could double their production, thus benefitting themselves as well as the companies that they work for (Taylor, p.5).

Since this seems to be an obvious change to make, Taylor hypothesizes three causes as to why workers would still chose to soldier, instead of choosing to increase their output to increase their wages. First, Taylor points out the common theory that increasing output will lead to more people being out of work (Taylor, p.5).  Many people feel that if jobs are able to be done so efficiently, less people will be needed to perform the jobs, leading to higher unemployment rates.  Second, ignorance of management as to how long it should take to perform certain tasks, allows workers to soldier (Taylor, p.7).  Finally, most companies use rule-of-thumb methods to teach new employees how to perform their tasks, not considering new and possibly more efficient methods of working.

Taylor seems to believe that substituting rule-of-thumb methods with scientific methods is the only way to fix this problem of soldiering. He realizes that workers are trained by the other employees that they work with, so there are many different methods of working, with one usually being superior to the others (Taylor, p.9).  This superior method can only be discovered by a strict scientific analysis of each method (Taylor, p.9).

Previously, workers commonly had the burden of figuring out the best way to do their jobs without much help from management, which means they were most likely not using scientific methods (Taylor, p.10). Taylor believes that this could be remedied by sharing more of this burden with management.  Management should be doing more work, especially preparing things in order to make the workers’ jobs easier (Taylor, p.10).  Also, since it is the duty of management to develop a scientific method of working for their employees, they should help their staff use the method as well as take more responsibility for the outcomes of their staff’s work (Taylor, p.10).

Taylor further asserts that under this new type of management, output of products will increase (Taylor, p.10). In addition, higher wages and closer supervision of management will result in less soldiering, as will the eventual realization that increasing output will pave the way for more jobs (Taylor, p.10).

In The Principles of Scientific Management Taylor investigates the process of creating an industry of workers that are essentially used to build efficiency in the workforce. He argues that it is the fault of the nation’s inability to efficiently unitize and manage the growth of the worker. This will result in waste, the waste of materials, production and labor power all of which are needed to create a solid industry. Taylor believes in the possibilities of the “Systemic Management” and how it will get rid of the lack of efficiency within industries while building a solid structure for a better off work place. This style of management will maximize profits and productivity among workers.

Taylor is faced with this realization of differences. He for sees this conflict among employee and their employer while trying to wrap their mind around this new method “Systemic Management”. The point of views of these individuals’ offers troubles— that no one believes they can mutually achieve their perspective goals. This addresses the conflict Taylor argues that both sides are the same. In theory, this defeats the sole purpose of the scientist management, which is represented by teamwork to increase a mutual efficiency in work labor and production. Through this method both the employer and employee can prosper if they work together.

A portion of Taylor’s reasoning for this underlining conflict stems from refocusing on training the employee oppose to this idealized “right man” and the relevance of developing first class men. Three goals were originally directed towards engineers and managers.

1. The whole country in suffering loss through daily acts of inefficiency.
2. The cure of inefficiency is systematic management oppose to this long lasting search for the “right man”.
3. Most effective management is one that is able to balance properly defined laws and principles as a base of workmanship.

He argues that the fundamental principles of the scientific management rules are universal and can be applied throughout all kinds of work. If done properly, both employee and employer can achieve mutual rewards in their work.

Ideally, I feel the possibilities of this method present a win-win scenario for everyone. On paper, it sounds great! However, I find difficult to apply this method in our present society. Capital threatens business and forces the business owner into strong competitive mind set, in order to survive and prosper. The competitive aspect alone would interfere with Taylor’s “Systemic Management”; Realistically this is unobtainable.

I think that work under capitalism, the worker is alienated this is what Karl Marx says. What my understanding is from all three articles is that human beings are separated from their own nature. We are denied from our own nature, we are separated from what makes us human and that is work.  In the Charlie Chaplin video clip, technology forces humans around machines. In order for us to keep going we must engage in this type of work to exceed our own needs. In the video, Chaplin went on a “lunch break” and was immediately sent back to work. I see the worker in a way like a commodity. The worker is paid to give his or herself their energy, The more production that happens the less value the worker has. In capitalism the product of labor is not in the worker, because the worker has no control over the labor. Which It leads us to the Frederick Taylor’s article on “The Principles of Scientific Management,  He wants us to know that in order for a worker to work efficiently he has, the worker has to be involved with his owners to make good business and wages for the workers. In the quote he presents as “himself a quitter in sport”, he believes that workers should be able to perform any task with the right support. The worker should not feel a sense of failure because its about the work. People should feel a sense of manager to worker relationship to improve their contribution to work. The worker shouldn’t feel like he is “soldiering” himself if it is for the satisfaction of work. In a way I reminds me of Marx, where he says, the worker, “only feels himself outside his work, and in his work feels outside himself”, so you know you are working but its not for you. Finally, In the” Tracking sensors, invade the workplace” article, This was a hard article to grasp. I felt like this experiment was strange because these people were being tracked on everything they were doing. I understand that the concept of this was to see how workers interact with each other and work in offices but; Sometimes for me, it is hard to interact with people because I am a shy person. So I feel like in a way this could be forcing people to shut down, because their movements are being recorded. If you think of it in a different matter, it is probably a good thing to see how people process information and show leadership skills, which are beneficial to high corporate companies, But in my opinion It was a tad bit strange.