Identify And Compare The Contributions Of Taylor, Fayol And Mayo To Management Today.
Essay Preview: Identify And Compare The Contributions Of Taylor, Fayol And Mayo To Management Today.
Report this essay
Identify and compare the contributions of Taylor, Fayol and Mayo to management today.
Introduction
This essay outlines the main contributions of Taylor, Fayol and Mayo to the study of management. It then evaluates the contribution of these writers to management as it is practiced today. It does this by discussing in turn their work, explicitly and implicitly drawing comparisons between them. It argues that the various contributions reflect the differing circumstances and needs of the theorists, and are complementary in their contributions to modern management.
Management is essential to organized human endeavor, and as such has been practiced for thousands of years (for example see Robbins, Bergman, Stagg and Coulter, 2000, p. 41; Lock and Farrow, 1988, p.4). It is however, only since the early part of the twentieth century that management has been formally studied (Robbins et al., 2000, p. 41).
Frederick W. Taylor (1856-1917), Henri Fayol (1841-1925) and Elton Mayo (1880-1949) are recognized as important early management theorists, although each built to some extent on the work of earlier writers (for example, see Koontz and ODonnell, 1972, p. 21; Robbins et al., 2000, pp. 51-54). They are recognized not only for their own contributions, but as founders of recognized schools of management thought, and as important influences on later theorists (Lock and Farrow, 1988, p. 4).
Taylor
Many writers see the publication of Principles of Scientific Management by Taylor in 1911 as the beginning of modern management theory (for example, Robbins et al., 2000, p. 43; Massie, 1979, p.13), and his book as “perhaps the publication that has influenced management more than any other” (Lock and Farrow, 1988, p. 4). He is recognized as the father of scientific management” (Lock and Farrow, 1988, p. 5), and perhaps his main contribution was “his insistence upon the application of scientific method” (Koontz and ODonnell, 1972, p. 22). It is said that he helped managers move “out of the realm of intuition, toward conscious analysis” (Mintzberg, 1989, p. 55).
Taylor drew upon his own experience working (first as a worker, and then as a mechanical engineer) in American industrial enterprises in the latter part of the nineteenth century (Robbins et al., 2000, p. 43; Massie, 1979, p. 16).
Taylor was struck by the inefficiency of industrial enterprises, and the antagonism between workers and management. Scientific management was a means of addressing these issues (Pugh and Hickson, 1989, p. 91). He was vitally concerned with improving the production efficiency of industrial enterprises, and with the role of managers in achieving this end. The main object of management is to “secure the maximum prosperity for the employer, coupled with the maximum prosperity of each employee” (Taylor, quoted in Pugh and Hickson, 1989, p90).
Taylor devised four principles of management to achieve his aims – “replacing rule-of-thumb methods with scientific determination of each element of a mans job; scientific selection and training of workmen; cooperation of management and labor to accomplish work in accordance with scientific method; and a more equal division of responsibility between managers and workers” (Koontz and ODonnell, 1972, p. 22, see also Robbins et al., 2000, p. 44; Massie, 1979, p. 16).
His ideas were quickly and widely adopted by American industry, and later by other industrialized nations (Robbins et al., 2000, p. 45). However, he faced considerable opposition in his lifetime, particularly from organized labor (due to the real and imagined effect on employment), and appeared before a congressional committee in 1911. There he outlined in some detail his ideas, based on examples of his work (Taylor, 1947, pp. 39-73; Massie, 1979, p. 16). Taylors methods can still be seen in modern workshop practice (Lock and Farrow, 1988, p. 4).
Taylor also had some interest in organizational structure, proposing a matrix structure, which was a radical departure from the one worker/one boss concept, although this was never taken up (Saskin, 1981, p. 208; Massie, 1979, p. 19, 81). He was an early advocate of the separation of planning and performance (Massie, 1979, p. 87), and of setting standards for workers (Massie, 1979, p. 198).
“Taylors contributions, however, were not an unmixed blessing. Through his stress on efficiency at the shop level and economies gained through time and motion study, he caused attention to be drawn so completely to the shop that for a time the study of management became in effect the study of shop management, while the more general aspects were overlooked. had the work of Henri Fayol not been overshadowed by enthusiasm for Taylorism, the history of management theory might well have been different and the principles of general management advanced much earlier” (Koontz and ODonnell, 1972, pp. 22-23).
Fayol
Henri Fayol drew upon his experiences as the managing director of a large French coal-mining firm (Robbins et al., 2000, p. 47; Koontz and ODonnell, 1972, p. 23). Deploring the lack of managerial teaching available, he set himself the task of providing a developed theory of management (Koontz and ODonnell, 1972, pp. 24, 426).
Fayol focused on the entire organization and was specifically interested in describing and analyzing management (Robbins et al., 2000, p. 46). He was not just interested in industrial enterprise, but in all forms of organized human cooperation (Massie, 1979, p. 22; Pugh and Hickson, 1989, p. 85). His was the “first attempt at a complete theory of management” (Loch and Farrow, 1988, p. 5), and Koontz and ODonnell (1972, p. 23) for example have no difficulty in describing him as “the real father of modern management theory”.
Although a contemporary of Taylor, his work did not become integrated into wider management theory until the 1950s, (Luthans, 1978, p. 40; Loch and Farrow, 1988, p. 5; Koontz and ODonnell, 1972, p. 36).
Fayol analyzed industrial undertakings and identified 6 main groups of activities – technical, commercial, financial, security, accounting and managerial. He devoted most of his book to the managerial activity, reasoning that much was already known about the other five (Koontz and ODonnell, 1972, p. 24; Pugh and Hickson, 1989, pp. 85-86). His five management functions – to forecast and