Mnemonic systems for classifying manufactured products as well as
implements used in manufacturing.
A routing system.
Modern cost system, etc., etc.
These are, however, merely the elements or details of the mechanism of
management. Scientific management, in its essence, consists of a certain
philosophy, which results, as before stated, in a combination of the
four great underlying principles of management:*
[*Footnote: First. The development of a true science.
Second. The scientific selection of the workman.
Third. His scientific education and development.
Fourth. Intimate friendly cooperation between the management and the men.]
When, however the elements of this mechanism, such as time study,
functional foremanship etc., are used without being accompanied by the
true philosophy of management, the results are in many cases disastrous.
And, unfortunately, even when men who are thoroughly in sympathy with
the principles of scientific management undertake to change too rapidly
from the old type to the new, without heeding the warnings of those who
have had years of experience in making this change, they frequently meet
with serious troubles, and sometimes with strikes, followed by failure.
The writer, in his paper on "Shop Management," has called especial
attention to the risks which managers run in attempting to change
rapidly from the old to the new management in many cases, however, this
warning has not been heeded. The physical changes which are needed, the
actual time study which has to be made, the standardization of all
implements connected with the work, the necessity for individually
studying each machine and placing it in perfect order, all take time,
but the faster these elements of the work are studied and improved, the
better for the undertaking. On the other hand, the really great problem
involved in a change from the management of "initiative and incentive"
to scientific management consists in a complete revolution in the mental
attitude and the habits of all of those engaged in the management, as
well of the workmen. And this change can be brought about only gradually
and through the presentation of many object-lessons to the workman,
which, together with the teaching which he receives, thoroughly convince
him of the superiority of the new over the old way of doing the work.
This change in the mental attitude of the workman imperatively demands
time. It is impossible to hurry it beyond a certain speed. The writer
has over and over again warned those who contemplated making this change
that it was a matter, even in a simple establishment, of from two to
three years, and that in some cases it requires from four to five years.
The first few changes which affect the workmen should be made
exceedingly slowly, and only one workman at a time should be dealt with
at the start. Until this single man has been thoroughly convinced that a
great gain has come to him from the new method, no further change should
be made. Then one man after another should be tactfully changed over.
After passing the point at which from one.-fourth to one-third of the
men in the employ of the company have been changed from the old to the
new, very rapid progress can be made, because at about this time there
is, generally, a complete revolution in the public opinion of the whole
establishment and practically all of the workmen who are working under
the old system become desirous to share in the benefits which they see
have been received by those working under the new plan.
Inasmuch as the writer has personally retired from the business of
introducing this system of management (that is, from all work done in
return for any money compensation), he does not hesitate again to
emphasize the fact that those companies are indeed fortunate who can
secure the services of experts who have had the necessary practical
experience in introducing scientific management, and who have made a
special study of its principles. It is not enough that a man should have
been a manager in an establishment which is run under the new
principles. The man who undertakes to direct the steps to be taken in
changing from the old to the new (particularly in any establishment
doing elaborate work) must have had personal experience in overcoming
the especial difficulties which are always met with, and which are
peculiar to this period of transition. It is for this reason that the
writer expects to devote the rest of his life chiefly to trying to help
those who wish to take up this work as their profession, and to advising
the managers and owners of companies in general as to the steps which
they should take in making this change.
As a warning to those who contemplate adopting scientific management,
the following instance is given. Several men who lacked the extended
experience which is required to change without danger of strikes, or
without interference with the success of the business, from the
management of "initiative and incentive" to scientific management,
attempted rapidly to increase the output in quite an elaborate
establishment, employing between three thousand and four thousand men.
Those who undertook to make this change were men of unusual ability, and
were at the same time enthusiasts and I think had the interests of the
workmen truly at heart. They were, however, warned by the writer, before
starting, that they must go exceedingly slowly, and that the work of
making the change in this establishment could not be done in less than
from three to five years. This warning they entirely disregarded. They
evidently believed that by using much of the mechanism of scientific
management, in combination with the principles of the management of
"initiative and incentive," instead of with these principles of
scientific management, that they could do, in a year or two, what had
been proved in the past to require at least double this time. The
knowledge obtained from accurate time study, for example, is a powerful
implement, and can be used, in one case to promote harmony between the
workmen and the management, by gradually educating, training, and
leading the workmen into new and better methods of doing the work, or,
in the other case, it may be used more or less as a club to drive the
workmen into doing a larger day's work for approximately the same pay
that they received in the past. Unfortunately the men who had charge of
this work did not take the time and the trouble required to train
functional foremen, or teachers, who were fitted gradually to lead and
educate the workmen. They attempted, through the old-style foreman,
armed with his new weapon (accurate time study), to drive the workmen,
against their wishes, and without much increase in pay, to work much
harder, instead of gradually teaching and leading them toward new
methods, and convincing them through object-lessons that task management
means for them somewhat harder work, but also far greater prosperity.
The result of all this disregard of fundamental principles was a series
of strikes, followed by the down-fall of the men who attempted to make
the change, and by a return to conditions throughout the establishment
far worse than those which existed before the effort was made.
This instance is cited as an object-lesson of the futility of using the
mechanism of the new management while leaving out its essence, and also
of trying to shorten a necessarily long operation in entire disregard of
past experience. It should be emphasized that the men who undertook this
work were both able and earnest, and that failure was not due to lack of
ability on their part, but to their undertaking to do the impossible.
These particular men will not again make a similar mistake, and it is
hoped that their experience may act as a warning to others.
In this connection, however, it is proper to again state that during the
thirty years that we have been engaged in introducing scientific
management there has not been a single strike from those who were
working in accordance with its principles, even during the critical
period when the change was being made from the old to the new. If proper
methods are used by men who have had experience in this work, there is
absolutely no danger from strikes or other troubles.
The writer would again insist that in no case should the managers of an
establishment ', the work of which is elaborate, undertake to change
from the old to the new type unless the directors of the company fully
understand and believe in the fundamental principles of scientific
management and unless they appreciate all that is involved in making
this change, particularly the time required, and unless they want
scientific management greatly.
Doubtless some of those who are especially interested in working men
will complain because under scientific management the workman, when he
is shown how to do twice as much work as he formerly did, is not paid
twice his former wages, while others who are more interested in the
dividends than the workmen will complain that under this system the men
receive much higher wages than they did before.
It does seem grossly unjust when the bare statement is made that the
competent pig-iron handler, for instance, who has been so trained that
he piles 3 6/10 times as much iron as the incompetent man formerly did,
should receive an increase of only 60 per cent in wages.
It is not fair, however, to form any final judgment until all of the
elements in the case have been considered. At the first glance we see
only two parties to the transaction, the workmen and their employers. We
overlook the third great party, the whole people,--the consumers, who
buy the product of the first two and who ultimately pay both the wages
of the workmen and the profits of the employers.
The rights of the people are therefore greater than those of either
employer or employee. And this third great party should be given its
proper share of any gain. In fact, a glance at industrial history shows
that in the end the whole people receive the greater part of the benefit
coming from industrial improvements. In the past hundred years, for
example, the greatest factor tending toward increasing the output, and
thereby the prosperity of the civilized world, has been the introduction
of machinery to replace hand labor. And without doubt the greatest gain
through this change has come to the whole people--the consumer.
Through short periods, especially in the case of patented apparatus, the
dividends of those who have introduced new machinery have been greatly
increased, and in many cases, though unfortunately not universally, the
employees have obtained materially higher wages, shorter hours, and
better working conditions. But in the end the major part of the gain has
gone to the whole people.
And this result will follow the introduction of scientific management
just as surely as it has the introduction of machinery.
To return to the case of the pig-iron handler. We must assume, then,
that the larger part of the gain which has come from his great increase
in output will in the end go to the people in the form of cheaper
pig-iron. And before deciding upon how the balance is to be divided
between the workmen and the employer, as to what is just and fair
compensation for the man who does the piling and what should be left for
the company as profit, we must look at the matter from all sides.
First. As we have before stated, the pig-iron handler is not an
extraordinary man difficult to find, he is merely a man more or less of
the type of the ox, heavy both mentally and physically.
Second. The work which this man does tires him no more than any healthy
normal laborer is tired by a proper day's work. (If this man is
overtired by his work, then the task has been wrongly set and this is as
far as possible from the object of scientific management.)
Third. It was not due to this man's initiative or originality that he
did his big day's work, but to the knowledge of the science of pig-iron
handling developed and taught him by some one else.
Fourth. It is just and fair that men of the same general grade (when
their all-round capacities are considered) should be paid about the same
wages when they are all working to the best of their abilities. (It
would be grossly unjust to other laborers, for instance, to pay this man
3 6/10 as high wages as other men of his general grade receive for an
honest full day's work.)
Fifth. As is explained (page 74), the 60 per cent increase in pay which
he received was not the result of an arbitrary judgment of a foreman or
superintendent, it was the result of a long series of careful
experiments impartially made to determine what compensation is really
for the man's true and best interest when all things are considered.
Thus we see that the pig-iron handler with his 60 per cent increase in
wages is not an object for pity but rather a subject for congratulation.
After all, however, facts are in many cases more convincing than
opinions or theories, and it is a significant fact that those workmen
who have come under this system during the past thirty years have
invariably been satisfied with the increase in pay, which they have
received, while their employers have been equally pleased with their
increase in dividends.
The writer is one of those who believes that more and more will the
third party (the whole people), as it becomes acquainted with the true
facts, insist that justice shall be done to all three parties. It will
demand the largest efficiency from both employers and employees. It will
no longer tolerate the type of employer who has his eye on dividends
alone, who refuses to do his full share of the work and who merely
cracks his whip over the heads of his workmen and attempts to drive them
into harder work for low pay. No more will it tolerate tyranny on the
part of labor which demands one increase after another in pay and
shorter hours while at the same time it becomes less instead of more
efficient.
And the means which the writer firmly believes will be adopted to bring
about, first, efficiency both in employer and employs and then an
equitable division of the profits of their joint efforts will be
scientific management, which has for its sole aim the attainment of
justice for all three parties through impartial scientific investigation
of all the elements of the problem. For a time both sides will rebel
against this advance. The workers will resent any interference with
their old rule-of-thumb methods, and the management will resent being
asked to take on new duties and burdens; but in the end the people
through enlightened public opinion will force the new order of things
upon both employer and employee.
It will doubtless be claimed that in all that has been said no new fact
has been brought to light that was not known to some one in the past.
Very likely this is true. Scientific management does not necessarily
involve any great invention, nor the discovery of new or startling
facts. It does, however, involve a certain combination of elements which
have not existed in the past, namely, old knowledge so collected,
analyzed, grouped, and classified into laws and rules that it
constitutes a science; accompanied by a complete change in the mental
attitude of the working men as well as of those on the side of the
management, toward each other, and toward their respective duties and
responsibilities. Also, a new division of the duties between the two
sides and intimate, friendly cooperation to an extent that is impossible
under the philosophy of the old management. And even all of this in many
cases could not exist without the help of mechanisms which have been
gradually developed.
It is no single element, but rather this whole combination, that
constitutes scientific management, which may be summarized as:
Science, not rule of thumb.
Harmony, not discord.
Cooperation, not individualism.
Maximum output, in place of restricted output.
The development of each man to his greatest efficiency and prosperity.
The writer wishes to again state that: "The time is fast going by for
the great personal or individual achievement of any one man standing
alone and without the help of those around him. And the time is coming
when all great things will be done by that type of cooperation in which
each man performs the function for which he is best suited, each man
preserves his own individuality and is supreme in his particular
function, and each man at the same time loses none of his originality
and proper personal initiative, and yet is controlled by and must work
harmoniously with many other men."
The examples given above of the increase in output realized under the
new management fairly represent the gain which is possible. They do not
represent extraordinary or exceptional cases, and have been selected
from among thousands of similar illustrations which might have been
given.
Let us now examine the good which would follow the general adoption of
these principles.
The larger profit would come to the whole world in general.
The greatest material gain which those of the present generation have
over past generations has come from the fact that the average man in
this generation, with a given expenditure of effort, is producing two
times, three times, even four times as much of those things that are of
use to man as it was possible for the average man in the past to
produce. This increase in the productivity of human effort is, of
course, due to many causes, besides the increase in the personal
dexterity of the man. It is due to the discovery of steam and
electricity, to the introduction of machinery, to inventions, great and
small, and to the progress in science and education. But from whatever
cause this increase in productivity has come, it is to the greater
productivity of each individual that the whole country owes its greater
prosperity.
Those who are afraid that a large increase in the productivity of each
workman will throw other men out of work, should realize that the one
element more than any other which differentiates civilized from
uncivilized countries--prosperous from poverty--stricken peoples--is
that the average man in the one is five or six times as productive as
the other. It is also a fact that the chief cause for the large
percentage of the unemployed in England (perhaps the most virile nation
in the world), is that the workmen of England, more than in any other
civilized country, are deliberately restricting their output because
they are possessed by the fallacy that it is against their best interest
for each man to work as hard as he can.
The general adoption of scientific management would readily in the
future double the productivity of the average man engaged in industrial
work. Think of what this means to the whole country. Think of the
increase, both in the necessities and luxuries of life, which becomes
available for the whole country, of the possibility of shortening the
hours of labor when this is desirable, and of the increased
opportunities for education, culture, and recreation which this implies.
But while the whole world would profit by this increase in production,
the manufacturer and the workman will be far more interested in the
especial local gain that comes to them and to the people immediately
around them. Scientific management will mean, for the employers and the
workmen who adopt it--and particularly for those who adopt it first--the
elimination of almost all causes for dispute and disagreement between
them. What constitutes a fair day's work will be a question for
scientific investigation, instead of a subject to be bargained and
haggled over. Soldiering will cease because the object for soldiering
will no longer exist. The great increase in wages which accompanies this
type of management will largely eliminate the wage question as a source
of dispute. But more than all other causes, the close, intimate
cooperation, the constant personal contact between the two sides, will
tend to diminish friction and discontent. It is difficult for two people
whose interests are the same, and who work side by side in accomplishing
the same object, all day long, to keep up a quarrel.
The low cost of production which accompanies a doubling of the output
will enable the companies who adopt this management, particularly those
who adopt it first, to compete far better than they were able to before,
and this will so enlarge their markets that their men will have almost
constant work even in dull times, and that they will earn larger profits
at all times.
This means increase in prosperity and diminution in poverty, not only
for their men but for the whole community immediately around them.
As one of the elements incident to this great gain in output, each
workman has been systematically trained to his highest state of
efficiency, and has been taught to do a higher class of work than he was
able to do under the old types of management; and at the same time he
has acquired a friendly mental attitude toward his employers and his
whole working conditions, whereas before a considerable part of his time
was spent in criticism, suspicious watchfulness, and sometimes in open
warfare. This direct gain to all of those working under the system is
without doubt the most important single element in the whole problem.
Is not the realization of results such as these of far more importance
than the solution of most of the problems which are now agitating both
the English and American peoples? And is it not the duty of those who
are acquainted with these facts, to exert themselves to make the whole
community realize this importance?