jim.shamlin.com

6. Scientific Management

Munsterberg considers Frederick Taylor's approach to management, which was a recent development at the time this book was written. The notion of management by measurement had fierce advocates and opponents, and he reckons that the truth lies between the extremes. Whatever the case, no-one can disregard the proof that this methodology has provided a level of scrutiny to which work had not previously been subjected and has made some very successful discoveries that improve the efficiency and effectiveness of labor.

In particular, scientific management takes a close look at work itself, and is much better at assessing the capacities required to perform tasks, though it is largely focused on the physical aspects of leveraging the capabilities of workers within the limits of fatigue. And in particular, it is identifying a better application of labor as opposed to simply demanding men to work harder and somehow achieve greater output.

And as a particular criticism, the scientific approach to management is directed at relentless efficiency of work, without a passing thought to whether the work is satisfactory or rewarding to the worker. There is the fear that it will instead result in soulless monotony, and thereby increase human misery. While that is pessimistic speculation, it is at the same time entirely accurate to state that Taylor's methods pointedly ignore psychological factors, and that what is ignored tends to be neglected in the end.

Psychology is not dispensable to productivity. To quote Emerson, "It is psychology, not soil or climate, that enables man to raise five times as many potatoes per acre as the average in his own state." And it has long been known that miserable slaves do mediocre work, with the least care and effort required to satisfy their masters. The greatest source of quality is the free man who applies himself with zeal to work he finds to be stimulating.

He further mentions a case study of a ball-bearing factory, in which too much emphasis on dexterity led to disaster. The girls who were hired to inspect the balls for size and regularity were assessed according to manual dexterity, and as such the firm laid off the wrong workers. Girls with better visual acuity, the ability to maintain focus and concentration over a longer period of time, and those who were in general more intelligent and productive, were sacked and the output and quality fell.

There are of course other instances in which the correct assessment of the skills required to a task led firms to properly identify the most efficient and skilled workers - and by cutting the dead wood were able to produce more and better work in shorter hours with fewer people without increasing the burden on the workers.

So in all, scientific methods of management have great potential to benefit or to harm, but require management to make a thorough and accurate assessment - not merely to measure, but to know what ought to be measured.