500 words,2 outside references,the references are to be sited at end of paper,cant use wikipedia as a references,the questions at the beginning of paper are just a guide for the paper,you are to cite your source,it must be typed,doubled spaced 12 pt fontthe pages are to be numbered,it has to be microsoft word documented,

“
Fundamentals of Scientific Management
”
(1919)
By Frederick Winslow Taylor
Questions:
Who was Frederick Winslow Taylor and why did he write this document?
What
were the advantages of Scientific Management for employers and for workers? W
ould you feel
more productive working according to these principles? What is
“
soldiering
”
and how was it
incompatible with scientific management? Are the interests of the employer and employee really
the same?
The
principal object of management should be to secure the maximum prosperity for the
employer, coupled with the maximum prosperity for each employee.
The words “maximum prosperity” are used, in their broad sense, to mean not
only large
dividends for the company or owner, but the development of every branch of the business to its
highest state of excellence, so that the prosperity may be permanent.
In the same way maximum prosperity for each employ, means not only higher wages
than are usually received by men of his class, but, of more importance still, it also means the
development of each man to his state of maximum efficiency, so that he may be able to do;
generally speaking, the highest grade of work for which his natural a
bilities fit him, and it further
means giving him, when possible, this class of work to do.
It would seem to be so self
–
evident that maximum prosperity for the employer, coupled
with maximum prosperity for the employee, ought to be the two leading objects
of management,
that even to state this fact should be unnecessary. And yet there is no question that, throughout
the industrial world, a large part of the organization of employers, as well as employees, is for
war rather than for peace, and that perhaps
the majority on either side do not believe that it is
possible so to arrange their mutual relations that their interests become identical.
The majority of these men believe that the fundamental interests of employees and
employers are necessarily antagoni
stic. Scientific management, on the contrary, has for its very
foundation the firm conviction that the true interests of the two are one and the same; that
prosperity for the employer cannot exist through a long term of years unless it is accompanied by
pr
osperity for the employee and vice versa; and that it is possible to give the workman what he
most wants
–
high wages
–
and the employer what he wants
–
a low labor cost
–
for his manufactures.
It is hoped that some at least of those who do not sympathize with ea
ch of these objects
may be led to modify their views; that some employers, whose attitude toward their workmen
has been that of trying to get the largest amount of work out of them for the smallest possible
wages, may be led to see that a more liberal poli
cy toward their men will pay them better; and
that some of those workmen who begrudge a fair and even a large profit to their employers, and
who feel that all of the fruits of their labor should belong to them, and that those for whom they
work and the cap
ital invested in the business are entitled to little or nothing, may be led to
modify these views.
No one can be found who will deny that in the case of any single individual the greatest
prosperity can exist only when that individual has reached his high
est state of efficiency; that is,
when he is turning out his largest daily output.
The truth of this fact is also perfectly clear in the case of two men working together. To
illustrate: if you and your workman have become so skillful that you and he toget
her are making
two pairs of shoes in a day, while your competitor and his workman are making only one pair, it
is clear that after selling your two pairs of shoes you can pay your workman much higher wages
than your competitor who produces only one pair of
shoes is able to pay his man, and that there
will still be enough money left over for you to have a larger profit than your competitor.
In the case of a more complicated manufacturing establishment, it should also be
perfectly clear that the greatest per
manent prosperity for the workman, coupled with the greatest
prosperity for the employer, can be brought about only when the work of the establishment is
done with the smallest combined expenditure of human effort, plus nature’s resources, plus the
cost fo
r the use of capital in the shape of machines, buildings, etc. Or, to state the same thing in a
different way: that the greatest prosperity can exist only as the result of the greatest possible
productivity of the men and machines of the establishment
–
that
is, when each man and each
machine are turning out the largest possible output; because unless your men and your machines
are daily turning out more work than others around you, it is clear that competition will prevent
your paying higher wages to your wo
rkmen than are paid to those of your competitor. And what
is true as to the possibility of paying high wages in the case of two companies competing close
beside one another is also true as to whole districts of the country and even as to nations which
are
in competition. In a word, that maximum prosperity can exist only as the result of maximum
productivity. Later in this paper illustrations will be given of several companies which are
earning large dividends and at the same time paying from 30 per
cent
to
100 per
cent
higher wages
to their men than are paid to similar men immediately around them, and with whose employers
they are in competition. These illustrations will cover different types of work, from the most
elementary to the most complicated.
If t
he above reasoning is correct, it follows that the most important object of both the
workmen and the management should be the training and development of each individual in the
establishment, so that he can do (at his fastest pace and with the maximum of e
fficiency) the
highest class of work for which his natural abilities fit him.
These principles appear to be so self
–
evident that many men may think it almost childish
to state them. Let us, however, turn to the facts, as they actually exist in this countr
y and in
England. The English and American peoples are the greatest sportsmen in the world. Whenever
an American workman plays baseball, or an English workman plays cricket, it is safe to say that
he strains every nerve to secure victory for his side. He d
oes his very best to make the largest
possible number of runs.
The universal sentiment is so strong that any man who fails to give out
all there is in him in sport is branded as a
“quitter,” and treated with contempt by those who are
around him.
When the sa
me workman returns to work on the following day, instead of using every
effort to turn out the largest possible amount of work, in a majority of the cases this man
deliberately plans to do as little as he safely can
–
to turn out far less work than he is wel
l able to
do
–
in many instances to do not more than one
–
third to one
–
half of a proper day’s work. And in
fact if he were to do his best to turn out his largest possible day’s work, he would be abused by
his fellow
–
workers for so doing
,
even more than if he h
ad proved himself a “quitter” in sport.
Underworking, that is, deliberately working slowly so as to avoid doing a full day’s work,
“soldiering,” as it is called in this country, “hanging it out,” as it is called in England, “ca canae,”
as it is called in S
cotland, is almost universal in industrial establishments, and prevails also to a
large extent in the building trades; and the writer asserts without fear of contradiction that this
constitutes the greatest evil with which the working
–
people of both Englan
d and America are
now afflicted.
It will be shown later in this paper that doing away with slow working and “soldiering” in
all its forms and so arranging the relations between employer and employ,
that each workman
will work to his very best advantage and
at his best speed, accompanied by the intimate
cooperation with the management and the help (which the workman should receive) from the
management, would result on the average in nearly doubling the output of each man and each
machine. What other reforms,
among those which are being discussed by these two nations,
could do as much toward promoting prosperity, toward the diminution of poverty, and the
alleviation of suffering?
America and England have been recently agitated over such subjects as
the tariff,
the control of the large corporations on the one hand, and of hereditary power on the
other hand, and over various more or less socialistic proposals for taxation, etc. On these subjects
both peoples have been profoundly stirred, and yet hardly a voice has
been raised to call
attention to this vastly greater and more important subject of “soldiering,” which directly and
powerfully affects the wages, the prosperity, and the life of almost every working
–
man, and also
quite as much the prosperity of every indu
strial establishment in the nation.
The elimination of “soldiering” and of the several causes of slow working would so lower
the cost of production that both our home and foreign markets would be greatly enlarged, and we
could compete on more than even te
rms with our rivals. It would remove one of the fundamental
causes for dull times, for lack of employment,
and for poverty, and therefore would have a more
permanent and far
–
reaching effect upon these misfortunes than any of the curative remedies that
are n
ow being used to soften their consequences. It would insure higher wages and make shorter
working hours and better working and home conditions possible.
Why is it, then, in the face of the self
–
evident fact that maximum prosperity can exist only
as the re
sult of the determined effort of each workman to turn out each day his largest possible
day’s work, that the great majority of our men are deliberately doing just the opposite, and that
even when the men have the best of intentions their work is in most ca
ses far from efficient?
There are three causes for this condition, which may be briefly summarized as:
First
. The fallacy, which has from time immemorial been almost universal among workmen, that
a material increase in the output of each man or
each machine in the trade would result in the end
in throwing a large number of men out of work.
Second
. The defective systems of management which are in common use, and which make it
necessary for each workman to soldier, or work slowly,
in order that he
may protect his own best
interests.
Third
. The inefficient rule
–
of
–
thumb methods, which are still almost universal in all trades, and
in practicing which our workmen waste a large part of their effort
…
It is not here claimed that any single panacea exist
s for all of the troubles of the working
–
people or of employers. As long as some people are born lazy or inefficient, and others are born
greedy and brutal, as long as vice and crime are with us, just so long will a certain amount of
poverty, misery, and u
nhappiness be with us also. No system of management, no single
expedient within the control of any man or any set of men can insure continuous prosperity to
either workmen or employers.
Prosperity depends upon so many factors entirely beyond the
control of
any one set of men, any state, or even anyone country, that certain periods will
inevitably come when both sides must suffer, more or less. It is claimed,
however, that under
scientific management the intermediate periods will be far more prosperous, far ha
ppier, and
more free from discord and dissension. And also, that the periods will be fewer, shorter and the
suffering less. And this will be particularly true in any one town, any one section of the country,
or any one state which first substitutes the pri
nciples of scientific management for the rule of
thumb.
That these principles are certain to come into general use practically throughout the
civilized world, sooner or later, the writer is profoundly convinced, and the sooner they come the
better for all
the people.
Source:
Frederick W. Taylor,
The Principles of Scientific Management
(New York: Harper
Bros., 1911): 5
–
29
Time and
m
otion st
udies were the
basis for Taylor
’
s theories.