F. Taylor School of Scientific Management

The school of scientific management was finally formed and became widely known at the beginning of the 20th century. It is associated, first of all, with the names of F. Taylor, Frank and Lillian Gilbreath, G. Emerson, G. Ford.

Creators schools of scientific management We proceeded from the fact that, using observations, measurements, logic and analysis, it is possible to improve most manual labor operations and achieve more efficient performance.

Basic principles of the school of scientific management:

1. Rational organization - involves the replacement of traditional work methods with a number of rules formed on the basis of job analysis, and the subsequent correct placement of workers and their training in optimal work methods.
2. Developing a formal structure for the organization.
3. Determining measures for cooperation between manager and worker, i.e., distinguishing between executive and managerial functions.

The founders of the school of scientific management are:

• F. W. Taylor;
• Frank and Lilia Gilbert;
• Henry Gantt.

F. W. Taylor- a practical engineer and manager who, based on an analysis of the content of the work and determining its main elements developed methodological basis labor rationing, standardized work operations, introduced into practice scientific approaches to the selection, placement and stimulation of workers.

Taylor developed and implemented a complex system of organizational measures:

• timing;
• instruction cards;
• methods of retraining workers;
• planning bureau;
• collection of social information.

He attached considerable importance to the correct system of disciplinary sanctions and labor incentives. in his system is the main source of efficiency. A key element of this approach was that people who produced more, were rewarded more.

A look at piecework and bonus wage systems:

• F. Taylor: workers should receive wages in proportion to their contribution, i.e. piecework. Workers who produce more than the daily quota should receive more pay, i.e. differentiated piecework wages;
• G. Gantt: the worker is guaranteed a weekly salary, but if he exceeds the norm, he earns a bonus plus a higher payment per unit of production.

Scientific management is most closely associated with the work of Frank and Lilia Gilbert, who were primarily concerned with the study of physical work in production processes and researched the ability to increase production output by reducing effort spent on their production.

Gilberts studied work operations using movie cameras in combination with a microchronometer. Then, using freeze frames, they analyzed the elements of operations, changed the structure of work operations in order to eliminate unnecessary, unproductive movements, and sought to increase work efficiency.

Research into the rationalization of workers' labor conducted by F. Gilbert ensured a threefold increase in labor productivity.

L. Gilbert laid the foundation for the field of management, which is now called "personnel management." She explored issues such as personnel placement and training. Scientific management did not neglect the human factor.

An important contribution of this school was systematic use of incentives in order to interest workers in increasing production volume.

Taylor's closest student was G. Gantt, who was involved in developments in the field of bonus payment methods, compiled charts for production planning (Gantt strip charts), and also contributed to the development of leadership theory. Gantt's works are characterized by the consciousness of the leading role of the human factor.

Representatives of the school of scientific management mainly devoted their work to what is called production management. She was involved in improving efficiency at a level below management, the so-called extra-managerial level.

Criticism of the school of scientific management: mechanistic approach to management: teaching management was reduced to teaching industrial engineering; reducing labor motivation to satisfying the utilitarian needs of workers.

The concept of scientific management was a turning point. It almost instantly became a subject of general interest. Many branches of business activity began to apply scientific management not only in the USA, but also in England, France and other countries.

G. Ford, a mechanic and entrepreneur, organizer of mass production of cars in the USA, was a continuator of Taylor’s teachings and implemented his theoretical principles in practice.

G. Ford's principles of production organization: replacement self made machine; maximum division of labor; specialization; placement of equipment along the technological process; mechanization of transport work; regulated rhythm of production.

The ideas laid down by the school of scientific management were developed and applied to the management of organizations as a whole, primarily by representatives.

Principles, advantages and disadvantages of the school of scientific management

The founder of the school of scientific management, Taylor, using observations, measurements and analysis, improved many manual labor operations of workers and on this basis achieved an increase in the productivity and efficiency of their work. The results of his research served as the basis for revising production standards and wages for workers.

Taylor's followers, Frank and Lillian Gilbreth, dealt with the rationalization of workers' labor, the study of physical movements in the production process, and the study of the possibilities of increasing output by increasing labor productivity. Emerson made a significant contribution to the development of the Taylor system, who explored the staff principle in management and the rationalization of production. Ford formulated the basic principles of organizing production and for the first time separated the main work from its maintenance.

From the research and experiments carried out, the authors of this school derived a number of general principles, methods and forms of organizing production and stimulating the work of workers. Basic principles of the school of scientific management:

• development of optimal methods for carrying out work based on studying the costs of time, movements, effort, etc.;
• absolute adherence to developed standards;
• selection, training and placement of workers in those jobs where they can give greatest benefit;
• payment based on performance;
• separating management functions into a separate area of ​​professional activity;
• maintaining friendly relations between workers and managers.

Contribution of the school of scientific management to management theory:

• using scientific analysis to study the work process and determine the best ways to complete a task;
• selecting workers best suited to perform tasks and providing them with training;
• providing workers with the resources required to effectively perform their tasks;
• the importance of fair financial incentives for workers to increase productivity;
• planning department and organizational activities from the work itself.

The disadvantages of this theory include the following:

• the teaching was based on a mechanistic understanding of man, his place in the organization and the essence of his activity;
• in the worker, Taylor and his followers saw only the performer of simple operations and a means to achieve a goal;
• did not recognize disagreements, contradictions, conflicts between people;
• in the teaching only the material needs of workers were considered and taken into account;

Taylor tended to treat workers as uneducated people and ignored their ideas and suggestions.

The founder of this school, Taylor, devoted many years to increasing the productivity of workers. Essentially, he was trying to find an answer to the question: how to make a worker work like a machine? The set of principles and provisions of this school later received the name “Taylorism”.

At the same time, this theory became a major turning point, thanks to which management became widely recognized as an independent field of scientific research. For the first time, practicing managers and scientists saw that the methods and approaches recommended by the school could be effectively used to achieve the goals of the organization.

Representatives of this school created the scientific foundations of production and labor management. In the 1920s From this scientific direction, independent sciences emerged: scientific organization of labor (SLO), theory of production organization, etc.

MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF F. TAYLOR'S SCHOOL OF SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT AND A. FAYOL'S SCHOOL OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT

The founder of the school of scientific management is Frederick Taylor. Taylor originally called his system "task control." The concept of “scientific management” was first used in 1910 by Louis Brandweis.

Frederick Taylor believed that management as a special function consists of principles that can be applied to types of social activities.

Frederick Taylor's Basic Principles:

1. Scientific study of each individual type of work activity.

2. Selection, training and education of workers and managers based on scientific criteria.

3. Equal and fair distribution of responsibilities.

4. Interaction between the administration and workers. Taylor believed that it was the responsibility of a manager to select people who could meet job requirements and then prepare and train those people for a particular job.

He developed differential payment system, according to which workers received wages in accordance with their output. The system of differentiated piece rates should stimulate greater productivity of workers, since this increases the piece rate of wages.

Taylor's main idea was that management should become a system based on certain scientific principles and should be carried out by specially developed methods and measures.

Administrative (classical) school of Henri Fayol.

The founder of the administrative school of management is Henri Fayol (1826–1926).

Representatives of the administrative school considered management as a universal process, consisting of management functions such as planning, organization, motivation, control and coordination, and proposed a systematic theory of managing the entire organization (by dividing the organization into divisions that perform basic functions - finance, production, marketing) . The main task of the administrative school is to create universal principles management, observing which the organization will function successfully.

Management principles formulated by Henri Fayol: unity of command (ensures unity of point of view, unity of action and unity of management), division of labor (specialization), discipline, unity of leadership (activities pursuing the same goal must have one leader and be guided by a common plan), justice, authority and responsibility , remuneration, initiative (thinking about and executing a plan), order, centralization, corporate spirit, etc.

The most famous creator of scientific management methods was Frederick Winslow Taylor (1856-1915). It is on his grave that it is written: “Father of Scientific Management.”
At 35, Taylor was already a renowned management consultant. He left Midwell Steel and one of his admirers offered him a new job as general manager. Taylor couldn't handle it and started moving from one place to another. In some cases his ideas were successfully implemented, in others they failed. Because of his character, he could not calmly endure ups and downs and therefore suffered two nervous shocks.
Just when everything seemed hopeless, one of his former bosses at Midwell Steel, who had by then become vice president of Beetlechem Steel, offered him a new job. Things got better here. Taylor surrounded himself with enthusiastic followers, such as Henry Gantt, and was given ample freedom to implement his ideas. Taylor became dogmatic whenever any aspect of his system was touched upon. When he took a short leave, his enemies took the opportunity to "change the lock on his door." As a result, he found himself unwelcome at Bitlechem Steel and his loyal colleagues were also fired. Even the vice president who hired him had to leave.
After this incident, Taylor could no longer “afford to work for money.” He consulted, wrote serious articles on production management and mechanics, and enjoyed life.
The beginning of Taylor's experiments (1888) was an analysis of the work of two bulk material loaders who agreed to an experiment in anticipation of the promised higher earnings. The movements of the arms, legs, and the whole body were studied; the load on the shovel, the shape of the shovel itself, etc. changed. From these experiments, the “science of shoveling” arose, which described methods for loading each material into different conditions and production standards for a physically strong “first-class worker.”
In parallel with the development of daily tasks on a scientific basis, Taylor also improved the wage system. In the first period of his activity, he introduced a system of double prices - increased when standards were met and exceeded, and decreased when they were not met. Subsequently, Taylor, under the influence of the developments of his contemporary and follower G. Gantt, switched to a piece-rate bonus system, in which failure to meet production standards retained the minimum wage for the worker, and overfulfillment provided an addition to the piece rate. Taylor stated that in remuneration he strives for the principle that first-class work entails high earnings.
Work and rest hours were regulated. Provision was also made for normal provision of workers with tools and everything necessary to complete tasks. Management personnel were responsible for timely maintenance of work stations, including issuing tasks a day in advance, training workers, etc.
Taylor planned to complete his experiment in six months. In fact, his work in this direction covered more and more new areas of production and lasted about 30 years. It is believed that Taylor was the first to see the shortcomings of a purely linear, “military” principle of management and proposed a more progressive functional principle. His achievements amazed the imagination of entrepreneurs.
Taylor made his first report to the American Society of Mechanics30 in 1895, “Piece-piece wages” (Piece-piece system). In it, as an alternative to incentive payment systems, he proposed introducing differentiated piecework wages based on a study of labor movements and time costs. Based on the results of the study, the daily production rate was established. If the norm was not met, the worker received a certain payment, and if the norm was exceeded, he received a higher payment for each product manufactured.
The speaker's conclusions were:
Wages are paid to the person, not the place.
Establishing prices should be based on accurate knowledge and not on guesswork.
Prices based on accurate knowledge are uniform and fair.
Thanks to the prices thus fixed, products are produced cheaper and at the same time the workers receive higher wages than they are usually paid.
Wages based on accurate knowledge create better workmen, enable them to earn more, destroy the causes of deliberate sluggishness in work, create friendly relations between workmen and employers, and awaken the common interest of both employers and workmen to cooperate in everything.
13 members of the society discussed the terms of payment in detail, and only 2 people made comments regarding the study of prices. In his closing remarks, the speaker expressed regret that his idea of ​​“rates based on accurate knowledge” had not received sufficient attention.
So, in 1898, Taylor entered the Bethlehem Steel company and conducted an experiment on loading cast iron there. 75 people took part in it; Each worker loaded 12.5 tons of cast iron per day. Taylor proved that it was possible to load 42 tons of pig iron per day, working 42% of the time and being free 58%.
hungry. A worker was selected, tentatively named Schmidt. So what was done: work instructions were drawn up, a description of the tasks for the day was written, the tasks were described, and by evening Schmidt had loaded 47.5 tons. In the second experiment of loading ore and coke, the means of doing the work were provided. Taylor determined that maximum labor productivity is achieved with a bucket capacity of 10 kg. As a result of the experiment, the number of workers was reduced from 600 to 140 people, output was increased from 16 to 59 tons per day and the cost of loading 1 ton was reduced from 7.2 to 3.3 cents, wages were increased from 1.15 to 1, 88 d. per day.
In 1903, Taylor gained extensive experience in a number of enterprises. Taylor began to consistently apply his methods at the Midvale Steel Company plant, at a paper mill in Maine, at the Bethlehem Steel Company, at the Massachusetts Bicycle Parts Plant and other enterprises. These years included joint studies of construction work by F. Taylor and S. Thompson.
The joint work of S. Thompson and F. Taylor on the introduction of elements of scientific management in construction dates back to 1895-1896. Taylor's methods, being well theoretically substantiated, were intersectoral in nature and were implemented in a wide variety of industries. During construction, excavation, stone, concrete, carpentry and other works were studied. Each job was broken down into elements, and then the time needed to complete each element was determined. At the same time, rational designs for a number of construction tools were developed. For example, standards for nails were determined, and the number of types used was significantly reduced. The practice of employing laborers to do some of the rough work previously performed by skilled workers was introduced.
The work of F. Taylor at Tabor is also very indicative. The company had a small engineering plant in Philadelphia that operated at a loss. The company president turned to Taylor for help. The reorganization of the plant began, to which Taylor's closest like-minded people were involved - K. Barth and H. Hathaway.
Hathaway and Barth were among the main representatives of the Taylor school. At the Teybor plant, they first of all brought the equipment (some of it had been removed from the plant), fixtures, tools, tooling and storage facilities into exemplary condition. Next, daily “lessons” for workers were introduced, a functional management system was introduced, and a distribution bureau was organized, for which the most qualified workers were selected. About the work carried out at the Tabor plant, in Hathaway's testimony in the promotion case
railway tariffs (we will return to this matter) states: “Formerly, when a worker set to work, he had to catch the older worker in advance in order to find out what he needed to do. He then had to receive the materials and deliver them to the machine. After this, he had to decide how the work should be done and look for a tool for this. He had to sharpen his tools, and he had to do all the things himself that we now do for him. The machine stood idle all this time. Nowadays, when the machine is busy with some kind of work, we already prepare another one for it in advance.”
The Tabor plant became, as it were, a testing ground for Taylor's methods; it was at that time an example of the application of scientific management. People came here to get acquainted with new methods, and the results achieved by the plant became important arguments in favor of introducing scientific management.
Taylor, while studying the production team and the relationships within this team that develop between people in the production process, at the same time very carefully examined the work of the production unit - the metal-cutting machine. In other words, Taylor approached the consideration of the “man and machine” system. Initially, F. Taylor intended to carry out a small job and complete it in a few months. In fact, he spent about 26 years on this. He conducted more than 50,000 experiments, in which several hundred tons of chips were removed, all practically feasible modes of cutting speeds and feeds, all kinds of cutters, and chip parameters were studied.
Of course, this huge work, which cost up to 200 thousand dollars, could only be completed with the support of companies. The director of the Midvale Steel Company plant, where F. Taylor began his experiments in metal cutting, was W. Sellers, a major specialist in the field of mechanical engineering, known for his work on interchangeability (“Sellers thread”). Sellers adhered to a somewhat exaggerated principle: “the profitability of an enterprise is at the tip of its incisors,” he himself began research on incisors and widely supported the initiatives of F. Taylor. The work then continued at other enterprises. In the process of carrying it out, F. Taylor (together with M. White) proposed in 1900 a completely new tool steel. This steel, called "high-speed", was capable of maintaining its cutting properties at temperatures two to three times higher than those previously used by tool steels. The most rational forms of incisors were also proposed.
To process the enormous statistical material, F. Taylor recruited K. Barth, who derived empirical formulas for the most advantageous cutting conditions. The creative collaboration of an engineer and a mathematician was also an innovation, and a very progressive one at that. Taylor and Bart also took care of the “office equipment.” They developed a ruler to quickly determine cutting conditions in the shop.
In 1903, Taylor made his second report, “Enterprise Management” (Workshop Management). Taylor showed the need to achieve high wages and low product costs. He believed that this would ensure scientific selection and vocational training of workers, combined with cooperation between managers and workers. Those. he called for joint action between managers and workers based on a community of mutual interests using scientific methods. By the way, the division, cooperation and organization of labor in enterprises and their compliance with the level of concentration of production became the subject of attention of the English mathematician C. Babbage, the author of the world's first computer circuit. F. Taylor in the book “Enterprise Management” used certain provisions from his works.
However, the audience to which Taylor spoke did not understand or accept these reports, believing that money was more important than systematic work using scientific management methods.
In 1911, his book “Principles of Scientific Management” was published, in which he formulated 4 principles that went beyond the study of labor movements and time expenditure. These principles (he called them laws of control) are a combination of mechanical, conceptual and philosophical ideas. The core of Taylor’s entire concept was the thesis that the day-
The given task for the worker and the methods for performing the functions assigned to him must be scientifically substantiated.
1. Develop a scientific approach for each element of work assignments to replace the empirical method.
Carry out scientific selection, training, vocational training and improving the employee’s qualifications, whereas in the past he independently chose his job and prepared for it as best he could.
Friendly cooperation with people to ensure work in accordance with established scientific principles.
Almost equal distribution of labor and responsibilities between staff and managers. Managers take on the part of the work that they are better equipped to do than their staff, and in the past, almost all the work and most of the responsibility was assigned to the staff.
:

It is characteristic that Taylorism was initially opposed by large businessmen and Wall Street. One of the reasons was the so-called “Eastern Rate” case, which caused great controversy in the press about the meaning of the principles of “scientific management”. In 1912, the US House of Representatives created a special commission to study the Taylor system. In 1915, an amendment to the law on the allocation of appropriations for the army was adopted, prohibiting timing and payment of bonuses or awards in military arsenals. This law remained in force until the Second World War.
The Taylor system was also the subject of a special investigation conducted by Professor Robert Hoxie for the US Industrial Relations Commission. Hoxie's report emphasized that this system focuses only on the mechanical, and not on the human aspects of the work process, and the timing, task system, etc. are subject to all kinds of errors, inevitable in all cases where the decision is made by a specific individual - the timekeeper, master, etc.
Initially, Taylor himself did not call his system “scientific management,” characterizing the set of administrative techniques he created as a “system of tasks” or “management by tasks.”
Taylor was the first to introduce the analytical method of rationing operations into the organization of labor and carried out the separation of preparatory, executive and managerial functions. According to Taylor's concept, the worker's function is to do exactly what he is told to do.
By creating ideal straight movements of workers, cutting off any bends and deviations, Taylor ultimately sought to find the ideal of effective labor, the most correct method. The principle of economy of force - the driving mechanism of his labor geometry - required that the maximum result be achieved at the lowest cost. Under experimental conditions, eliminating unnecessary movements resulted in a 2-3-fold increase in labor productivity. True, the expenditure of human physical strength increased almost proportionally. At the same time, wages grew by only 60%.
The essence of the Taylor system is that in its mechanism, like in a watch, all the components and parts are so precisely selected that their coordinated interaction, according to the author, in principle excludes any arbitrariness and lawlessness. He assumed that shortcomings in the organization of work are not noticeable because productivity standards are too low. And this gives rise to an irresponsible attitude towards fulfilling their duties both among workers (consciously slowing down the pace of work) and among the administration (shifting their functions onto the shoulders of subordinates). At the same time, “working lukewarmly” is not the cause, but the consequence of problems in the control system. Taylor found a fairly reasonable and effective solution that can be considered an axiom of labor. He believed: if labor in all levels and areas of production is organized on a scientific basis (everything necessary is available at the workplace, rational methods and techniques of labor are applied, fairly high standards are established), then production efficiency can be increased only by solving the dual problem of developing technical and organizational and socio-psychological management methods.
Today it is customary to look down on Taylor somewhat, the famous American sociologist P. Drucker wrote in the mid-70s, and to blaspheme his old-fashioned psychology. However, he was the first person in the foreseeable period of history, the American sociologist concludes, who did not take work for granted.
Can idle pastime be called work? Unlike the physical concept of “work,” which is measured in joules, the economic category “labor” and the professional qualification term “work” mean any useful activity of a worker, engineer, or manager. Well, if a person spends half of his working day on idle pastime, can his work be assessed as socially useful?
But what about those who know how, but for one reason or another do not want to work better? Moreover, he himself does not work with full dedication and persuades others to do the same.
The name of such a “disease” is restrictionism (from English word"restrict" - to limit). The phenomenon of “restrictionism”, or, in the phraseology of modern sociologists, “work with
coolness” (for brevity we will denote this expression as RSP), Taylor denoted the word “soldiering”, which in direct translation means “soldier”. Having thoroughly analyzed the causes and mechanism of the emergence of RSP, he was one of the first to touch upon the “holy of holies” of industrial sociology of the 20th century.
The reasons for RSP, according to Taylor, are rooted not only in management, but also in production conditions: long working hours, dirt and cramped premises, the nature of work - work that requires great nervous tension and excessive concentration of attention, labor organization, untimely provision of materials.
Taylor proposed to distinguish between natural and systematic RSP. The first is based on the natural instinct of people to make their work easier, on the desire to spend less physical effort and save it. It is inherent in every person and manifests itself not only at work, but in all areas of his life. In addition, it is expressed in different people to varying degrees: among energetic people to a lesser extent, and among phlegmatic and lazy people to a greater extent. Thus, natural RSP characterizes a person as a natural being and extends not only to joint, but also to individual work.
Taylor substantiated the role of the group factor. Having summarized observations of the worker’s behavior - outside of work he was in a hurry, moved quickly, and in work time, on the contrary, was in no hurry - Taylor discovered a contradiction in him. Using timekeeping, he analyzed behavior only during working hours and found that the worker tried to spend as little time as possible with a loaded wheelbarrow and, conversely, when without a load, he sharply slowed down. Wanting to be sure that he would not have to work harder than his lazy neighbor, Taylor writes, he became positively tired in his effort to walk slowly.
What is characteristic here is that Taylor timed the work not of some lazy person, for whom “hurrying slowly” is inherent in his very nature, but deliberately chose a naturally energetic person who, going to work and returning from it, walked at a speed of 4.5 - 6 km per hour, and sometimes after a whole day of work - running. Arriving at work, he immediately slowed down his walking speed to about 1.5 km per hour. The same picture was observed when he moved with a loaded wheelbarrow.
The first guess that flashed through Taylor explained the slowness due to insufficient intensity of work, the presence of many pauses, stops and unnecessary movements. He drew the attention of the foreman, under whose leadership the worker being examined and another group of similar loaders worked. The supervisor responded that he could deprive workers of unnecessary pauses and breaks. But no measures will make them move faster in the process of labor itself. After many observations and careful analysis, Taylor comes to the conclusion: the natural laziness of man is a serious evil, but even more serious illness- systematic RSP, deliberate slowness. It became a universal phenomenon under the old system of government.
Taylor sought to interest both workers and administration in more intensive work. The former, spending additional energy, received a proportional increase in salary (from 30 to 100%). For entrepreneurs, this resulted in an increase in the volume of products and an increase in their quality and, naturally, high profits.
In his theoretical discussions, Taylor took the principle of functional division of work to extremes. He believed that instead of one master, workers should be “served” by eight masters responsible for production preparation, equipment condition, discipline
41
etc.
A careful analysis of the social and ideological aspects of Taylor’s works allows us to see in them the first outlines of a general psychological approach to stimulating the worker, development
twisted later by the theory of “human relations”. The idea of ​​psychological stimulation, which Taylor presented in an undeveloped form, was based on the economic interests of the worker and the economic motives for increasing his labor productivity.
The idea of ​​specialization became one of the cornerstones of Taylor's teaching.
He insisted on the functional division of the complex work of a craftsman, requiring a rare combination of abilities, between several specialized craftsmen in the workshop (team leaders, craftsmen responsible for speed, for repairs, for quality, for compliance with standards and production discipline, standard setters, accountants, etc. .). From this idea, the functional specialization of departments in enterprise management subsequently grew, including the separation of the functions of supervision and management of people into the departments of “labor” and “human relations”
sheny".
Compliance with these conditions should have led, according to Taylor, to the fact that workers would “work more cheerfully, be less embittered by criticism of the owners,” and the activities of trade unions would gradually lose their meaning. These ideas were adopted and developed in detail later by the “human relations” school.
The introduction of a functional administration, which replaced the old apparatus (jack of all trades) with new management personnel (competent specialist), had psychological significance. All foremen performing one function must have a special boss over them. He had a very unusual role, being responsible for training each foreman "in the exact nature of his duties." In addition, he taught them the correct application of various sanctions and disciplinary measures. Note that we were not talking about production functions, but rather about socio-psychological ones. Before us is a kind of “foreman” of interpersonal relationships. In turn, the foremen were assigned new responsibilities that went beyond the highly specialized ones: training workers in the style of interpersonal behavior, changing ingrained habits of working “the old fashioned way.” The foreman became (like his boss) an arbiter in interpersonal conflicts.
In the functional administration, a special place was given to the “personnel department.” In other words, the HR department. Its task is to recruit people to “fill vacancies and newly created positions.” Such difficult functions must be entrusted to a “competent person” who must “take an interest in the experience, special abilities and characters of the candidates, and also maintain constantly revised lists of people suitable for various positions in the plant.” The new department is part of the planning department, where a special “official” was located "or "disciplinary inspector". He was obliged to determine whether the candidate’s qualities corresponded to the specifics of the job or not. He did not have any special education, so he expanded his knowledge about people during daily supervision of labor discipline, as well as expert interviews. The inspector must "continually question the various superiors and foremen, both for disciplinary functions and for appointments."
Today the words “social information” are becoming fashionable. This is generalized (most often questionnaire) information about the demographic and professional composition of the workforce. It was Taylor who first introduced the collection of social information. In the "personnel department" - a section of the planning department - data is collected about each employee, showing his neatness, unexcused absences, violation of factory rules, damage to work, machines or tools, as well as his skill in various types of work, in addition, his average earnings, as well as all his good qualities." Of course, Taylor did not set out to create a comprehensive social information system as it exists today. Nevertheless, it is curious that he singled out production, socio-economic and psychological indicators in it. Taylor's role in the development of social psychology of personnel should not be exaggerated. However, one cannot ignore the obvious facts. For example, he consciously included in the personnel policy the problems of career advancement, selection, professional training, study of qualities and abilities.
candidates' performance, assessment of the manager's performance and suitability for his position. This is, in general terms, the psychological (not to be confused with the organizational) mechanism of “scientific management”.
One of the fundamental principles of modern personnel policy is that a manager should move to the next job level only after he has prepared his replacement. And here is what Taylor wrote in this regard: “No one should expect to be promoted until he has prepared a deputy for himself.”
Another principle of promising abilities requires the manager to have sufficiently broad capabilities and a desire to develop his current abilities to the maximum level. For Taylor, this principle looks like a broader requirement to study all the “best qualities” with a view to developing them. They sound different, but the essence is the same: a promising manager is a person constantly working on himself.
Addressing graduates of technical universities before being assigned to industry, Taylor said that all of them would have to primarily manage people and only then engage in production itself. Future managers deal with “one and only material - workers.” Instead of management and psychology, students are nevertheless taught chemistry, physics, and mechanics. As a result, American universities graduate from half-educated students: at the age of 22, they do not know how to communicate with colleagues and subordinates, clients and superiors.
The need to turn to the study of human behavior was dictated by the fact that Taylor’s motives are as important factors of production as labor methods, tools, and machines. In this we see a definite indication of an attempt at a deeper... a thorough study of the inner world of a person and various aspects of his production behavior. In fact, when analyzing Taylor’s work “The Scientific Organization of Labor” and the collection “Taylor on Taylorism”, one constantly comes across references to the fact that he widely used the methods of interviewing, participant observation, and finally, questionnaires and experiments. It seems interesting to consider in basic terms the application of one of them, say interviews.
He used it to clarify attitudes hidden from an outside observer, in particular, attitudes towards work. Consciously slow work met the interests of the workers, was part of their behavior and even their worldview, a certain value position. In the presence of the administration, the workers pretended to work as hard as they could, without showing a true attitude towards the work. The scientist faced a rather difficult task. Indeed, in contrast to motives hidden from the subject himself and unconscious to him, the deliberate limitation of productivity was a completely conscious installation, hidden from outsiders, including scientists. If the worker feels that his information could harm others, then a frank conversation will not work. And this happened more than once with his less experienced assistants. Taylor believed that for this it is necessary to become close to the worker, to delve into his concerns and problems, to know production and the intricacies of wages well, in order to earn trust from the first ten words. Only in this case is it achieved reliable information and there is confidence that the interviewer is examining actual beliefs and attitudes. In Taylor's works one can find many examples of interviews in which either a complete recording of the conversation is given, or individual and most important passages, or, finally, the topic is simply indicated.
Thus, Taylor set the study of socio-psychological problems of human relationships as an independent task. To solve it, i.e. studying “the motives influencing the behavior of workers,” it is necessary to create a special field of scientific activity, which would be based not on arbitrary observations and ordinary opinion, but on conducting regular and accurate scientific experiments. Apparently, therefore, even in terms of posing the problem, he needed to determine subject, nature of patterns and methods of research in this area.
Taylor goes beyond general criticism and gives practical advice. The basic rules of successful management require knowledge of: 1) the way of thinking of workers, the way of reasoning and manner of expression, even their prejudices; 2) attitudes towards the proposed tasks. Here you can also include the following rule: “conversations between bosses and workers should be conducted in a tone appropriate to their level.” To make this possible, a special official first collected necessary information. In particular, he found out the “personal history” of each worker and, through questioning, established the main characteristics, habits and aspirations of each individual. Associated with it is the “unshakable” principle of speaking and dealing with only one worker at a time. In this case, the conversation should be clear, as short as possible and aimed at a specific topic, for example, clarifying the worker’s attitude to a particular organizational innovation.
Why did Taylor prefer to deal with workers one-on-one, recommending young managers to do the same? Face-to-face conversations are more productive. Firstly, group pressure does not affect. In front of others, a person behaves completely differently than in private. He is less sincere and trusting, but more prone to radical actions. Each of us has observed that teenagers often behave more aggressively when in company. Negative emotions in a crowd seem to accumulate and, without being censored by reason, immediately come to the surface. Among our own kind, we tend to act according to the laws of this environment rather than obey our own conscience.
In addition (and this is the second side of the matter), in an individual conversation you get to know a person much more deeply. You talk to him longer, you get to know his strengths and weaknesses better. In a group conversation, there may not be enough time for everyone individually. Here it is worth limiting yourself to general phrases, achieving agreement, but not finding out everyone’s position.
Communication between the manager and subordinates, according to Taylor, should result in a discussion of the most acute problems: Every worker should be encouraged to discuss with his boss any difficulties he is experiencing in the factory. The opportunity “for every worker to freely express his opinion and discuss it with his employers” is not a thesis of abstract humanism that shares the concept of human values ​​and democratic rights, but a postulate of utilitarian philosophy. It can be found in any modern textbook on personnel management in the United States. “The worker values ​​no charity so much,” says Taylor, “as small manifestations of personal goodwill and sympathy that establish a friendly feeling between him and his boss.” He sees the opportunity to speak out as “the best safety valve; If, moreover, the bosses are reasonable people and listen attentively to what the worker wants to tell them, then there is absolutely no reason for a strike...”
If leadership style is considered as a component of specific methods used in relationships with subordinates, then Taylor includes: 1) a technique by which motivation of behavior is achieved, and 2) certain social sanctions and disciplinary measures. The style of a supervisor (foreman, foreman) is characterized by an orientation toward learning through “object lessons.” The old method of management was that the worker himself was given the opportunity to complete the task and, if he did not cope with it, he was fired. Taylor, on the contrary, proposed to first understand the mistakes made by the worker, and then show rational and quick way their elimination. He called this approach “kindness and help instead of pushing.”
The style of behavior of a leader in his relations with subordinates is undoubtedly the most important condition for successful management. The general climate in the enterprise depends on the personal qualities of the person occupying the top step of the hierarchy. But Taylor’s main emphasis was not on the individual, but on the system. He brought to the fore organizational measures, which, of course, are refracted through this or that personality and acquire, so to speak, a personal interpretation.
“Disciplinary techniques” are a set of leadership methods that Taylor represented a certain system. In the application of various measures of influence on a person, he
demanded adherence to a “carefully tested plan.” After all, the trial and error method leads to chaos and uncontrollability. Human behavior is difficult to predict, but it can be influenced if you have a focused program. The starting point for its construction was the principle that the variety of disciplinary measures should correspond to the variety of characters (or types) of people. In other words, different people it is necessary to apply unequal measures of influence. In turn, this principle grows out of another principle - the correspondence of types of people to types of work. For example, Taylor considered it necessary to select physically healthy people for routine work, and creatively and intellectually developed people for qualified work.
The first type in terms of the degree of disciplinary influence consists of “people so conscientious, conscientious and ready to do everything as it should” that they “actually do not need any discipline.” This is a fairly large category of workers. The methods of influence here are “a faint hint, a few explanatory words.” This leads to the rule of interpersonal relationships that should be followed when adapting young workers: “with any new person you should always start by talking in the most friendly tone.” Already here the contours of a new principle are visible, which will then receive full development; apply strong measures only from the moment when weaker ones no longer work.
Second type. “Some people,” writes Taylor, “are very thick-skinned and quarrelsome; such persons tend to mistake gentle treatment for timidity or weakness.” The measures of influence change accordingly. “In relation to such people, severity in conversation and treatment should gradually increase until either the desired result is achieved or the means of the English language are exhausted.”
Let's compare disciplinary measures, say, a decrease in earnings, removal from work for a while, and a number of “bad points.” Taylor considered the system of fines to be the most effective. Like other controls, it is being implemented gradually and systematically. “To begin with, only the most egregious actions should be fined, especially those that threaten the interests of the workers themselves... Fining is best done in the form of a demand... with an explanation that if the demand is not met, he will be fired.”
Revealing the essence of his system, Taylor wrote: “Science instead of traditional skills; harmony instead of contradiction; cooperation instead individual work; maximum performance instead of limiting performance; development of each individual worker to the maximum productivity and maximum well-being available to him"
F. Taylor proposed replacing the individual assessment of each worker with a scientific approach to management. Managers had to separate the planning of work from its direct execution and reserve the right to choose methods for performing a specific task. By analyzing all stages of the workflow and creating standards for each of them, they could determine best method completing the task, guaranteeing maximum efficiency.

Coursework on the subject

History of management

Taylor School of Scientific Management

Taylor management labor rationalization

Introduction

2. Development of F. Taylor’s ideas in the works of his followers

Conclusion

List of used literature

Introduction

The emergence of modern management science dates back to the beginning of the 20th century. and is associated with the names of Frederick Winslow Taylor, Frank and Lilia Gilbreath and Henry Gantt. An important merit of this school was the position that management can be “scientific”, relying on economic, technical and social experiment, as well as on scientific analysis of the phenomena and facts of the management process and their generalization.

This research method was first applied to a single enterprise by the American engineer F.W. Taylor (1856-1915), who should be considered the founder of scientific production management.

To be fair, it should be noted that F. Taylor had predecessors. These are, first of all, C. Babbage, as well as T. Metcolf, whose main work, “Production Costs and the Management of Public and Private Workshops,” was published in 1885. Moreover, despite the fact that Taylor is generally considered the founder of modern management, not if he had been, such a founder would have been Fayol, Emerson or someone else, since by the time the “school of scientific management” arose, the idea of ​​a scientific organization of labor was literally in the air. Technological progress and machine production required standardization and unification of the entire production process, which was still managed by artisanal, artisanal, “old-fashioned” methods. Further growth in production efficiency has become unthinkable without its comprehensive rationalization, saving time and resources. See: History of Management / Ed. D.V. Gross. - M.: Infra-M, 1997. - P. 171.

The main theoretical provisions of the concept of F.U. Taylor is set out in his works: “The Piece System” (1895), “Factory Management” (1903), “Principles of Scientific Management” (1911), “Testimony before a Select Committee of Congress” (1912). Taylor's works are a generalization of his own practical experience. In 1885, Taylor became a member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, which played a major role in organizing the movement for scientific methods of production management in the United States.

Taylor called the system he created variously: “piecework system,” “task-based worker management system.” The term “scientific management” was first proposed in 1910 by L. Brides. After Taylor's death, the name gained general acceptance for his concept.

In our country, during the period of dominance of the dictatorship of the proletariat, there was an extremely negative attitude towards the Taylor system. In scientific works of that time one could often hear such unflattering epithets about it as “sweatshop system”, “inhumane exploitation of workers”, etc. About this, see, for example, in the book: Kravchenko A.I. Classics of management sociology: F. Taylor. A. Gastev. - St. Petersburg: RKhGI, 1999. - pp. 37-38. During the years of perestroika, the attitude towards much of the Western experience began to change from “minus” to “plus”; the danger of the other extreme arose - an uncritical perception and glorification of everything that contradicted the “experience of building socialism.”

The author of this course work on the topic “Taylor School of Scientific Management” therefore sets as his goal to independently understand what the Taylor system actually was, and whether the provisions of the “School of Scientific Management” can be useful in our country at the present stage of development. To achieve this goal, the author has studied not only a number of sources on the history of management, but also - most importantly - the primary source, namely the work of F.U. Taylor "Principles of Scientific Management". This allowed him not only to independently familiarize himself with the elements of the biography and Taylor’s system of scientific management itself, but also to form his own opinion about the latter.

The work consists of an introduction, two main chapters, a conclusion and a list of references.

The first chapter provides some biographical information about F.U. Taylor, and also reveals the main features of the dominant method of production and management in his time. Material about Taylor's experiments and the conclusions he made is also presented here. Thus, in the first chapter, an idea of ​​F.U. is formed. Taylor as a practical researcher and his system of scientific approach to management. It should be noted that a significant part of this chapter is based solely on the primary source - the work of F.W. Taylor "Principles of Scientific Management".

The second chapter contains material on how the “school of scientific management” received its further development. It tells about both direct students and associates, and simply about Taylor’s followers who applied the basics of his approach to management and achieved significant success, which confirmed the viability of Taylor’s teaching. The basis for writing the second chapter was the work of I.I. Semenova “History of Management”.

In conclusion, the author, using the words of F.U. Taylor, characterizes the main features of the mechanism and philosophy of the “school of scientific management”, and also expresses his own opinion on the usefulness of using the foundations of Taylorism in our days.

A list of references that in one way or another served for the selection of material on the topic is given at the end of the course work.

1. Biography of F. Taylor and the main provisions of his “science of production management”

Frederick Winslow Taylor was born in 1856 in Germantown, Pennsylvania (USA). He received his secondary education in Europe. Studying by correspondence at the Institute of Technology, in 1878 he received a diploma as a mechanical engineer. In the same year, Taylor entered the machine shop of the Midwell Steel Company plant, completing an apprenticeship as a patternmaker and mechanic. It was towards the very end of the long period of economic depression that followed the Panic of 1873, and business was so bad that many mechanical specialists could not find work in their field. As a consequence, Taylor had to begin his work as a day laborer, instead of obtaining a position as a mechanic. Fortunately for him, shortly after he joined the factory, the factory clerk was caught stealing. There was no one who could replace him, and so, being more educated than all the other workers in the plant (since he was preparing for college), Taylor was appointed clerk. Soon after this he was given a job as a mechanic on one of the milling machines, and since it turned out that he gave much larger size performance in comparison with other mechanics on the same machines, after a while he was made the chief mechanic over all milling machines.

Almost all the work at this plant for several years was carried out on a piecework basis. As was common at the time, the plant was not actually run by management, but by the workers themselves. The workers, by general agreement, carefully limited the speed with which each particular type of work was to be done; they set a rate of work for each machine in the entire plant that produced, on average, about half the actual daily output. Each new worker entering the factory received precise instructions from the other workers as to how much of each given type of work he was to perform, and if he did not obey these instructions, he could be sure that in the not too distant future he would be forced to leave the place by the workers themselves. .

As soon as Taylor was appointed chief mechanic, individual workers began to approach him one by one and say to him something like this: “Well, Fred, we are very glad that you were appointed chief mechanic. You know the game well... When paying by the piece, be on good terms with us, and everything will be fine; but if you try to change even one of our norms, then you can be quite sure that we will throw you out.” Taylor F.W. Principles of scientific management / Transl. from English A.I.Zak. - M.: Controlling, 1991. - P. 37.

Taylor told them simply and clearly that he was henceforth working on the management side and that he intended to make every effort to get the maximum possible output from each machine. This immediately marked the beginning of a war - in most cases a friendly war, since many of the workers subordinate to the author were his personal friends - but still a war, which, the further it went, the more aggravated. Taylor used every means to force them to produce a good daily output, even going so far as to fire or reduce pay for the most stubborn workers who resolutely refused to increase their productivity. He also acted by lowering the rates of piece payment by hiring novice workers and personally training them in production, with a promise on their part that, having learned, they would always produce a good daily output. At the same time, the workers put such pressure (both inside and outside the factory) on all those who began to increase their productivity that the latter were eventually forced to either work like everyone else or quit their jobs. Not a single person who has not experienced this himself can form an idea of ​​the bitterness that is gradually developed in the course of this kind of struggle. In this war the workers use one means, which usually leads to an end. They use all their ingenuity to deliberately adjust different ways supposedly accidental or due to the regular course of work breakdown and damage to the machines they operate, and then blame it on the overseer or foreman, who allegedly forced them to operate the machine with such stress, which led to its wear and tear. And indeed, only very few craftsmen could resist such collective pressure from all the factory workers. In this case, the issue was further complicated by the fact that the plant worked day and night.

However, Taylor showed enviable tenacity and courage and continued to insist on his demands, despite the fact that he was repeatedly warned that he was risking his life. As a result, after three years of such struggle, the productivity of the machines was greatly increased, in many cases doubling, and as a result of this, Taylor was transferred several times, as chief mechanic, from one team of workers to another, until he was appointed chief foreman of the shop. However, the “reward” for his success was the very bad relationships that Taylor was forced to establish with everyone around him. His working-class friends constantly came and approached him with personal, friendly inquiries whether he would give them instructions, in their own best interests, on how to increase their productivity. And, as a truthful man, he had to tell them that if he were in their place, he would fight against any increase in productivity in exactly the same way as they did, since under the piece-rate system they would still not be allowed to earn more than that than they have earned so far, and they will have to work more.

In view of this, soon after Taylor was appointed chief foreman of the shop, he decided to make one last effort to radically change the very system of management so that the interests of workers and management would become identical, instead of being opposed. This led, another three years later, to the practical emergence of the type of management organization described by Taylor in his reports presented to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and entitled “The Piece Wage System” and “Factory Management.”

In progress preparatory work In order to work out this system, Taylor came to the conclusion that the main obstacle to the implementation of harmonious cooperation between workers and management was the utter ignorance on the part of management of what constituted the proper rate of daily output for each individual worker. He was well aware that although he was the chief foreman of the shop, the combined knowledge and skills of the workers subordinate to him were undoubtedly ten times greater than his own. He received, therefore, permission from the President of the Midvale Steel Company to spend a certain amount of money on a careful scientific study of the question of the normal length of time required for the production of various types of work.

Among the series of investigations undertaken by Taylor at this time, one had in mind to find some rule or law which would enable the craftsman to determine in advance how much of any particular kind of heavy work a man well adapted to its production would be able to produce within a period of time. working day. In other words, the aim was to study the effect of fatigue on a first-class worker from hard work. Taylor's first step was to study the world's scientific achievements on this problem that were available at that time. It turned out that the results of these studies were so meager that no law of any value could be derived from them. For this reason, Taylor undertook a number of his own experiments. He chose two first-class workers - people who showed great physical strength and who were at the same time good and hardy workers. These people were paid double pay during the entire production of the experiments and were told that they had to work as well as they could at all times, and that we would test them from time to time in order to find out if they worked "with cool" or not, and as soon as one of them tries to deceive the observer, he will be immediately fired. They actually worked as well as they could for the entire time they were being supervised.

In these experiments, Taylor sought to find out the maximum amount of work that can be performed by a person under short-term exceptional stress over several days. His efforts were aimed at finding out what really constituted a proper daily work rate for a first-class worker: the maximum daily output that a worker could produce consistently year after year and still feel good about it.

Both subjects were assigned various types of work, which they performed daily under the direct supervision of a young man who had graduated from college. He supervised the experiments and at the same time noted, with a stopwatch in his hands, the proper duration of each movement of both workers. Every single element, in any way connected with the work, which, in Taylor's opinion, could influence the result, was subjected to careful study and quantitative accounting. The final goal of the experiment was to establish the proportion horsepower that one person can produce, that is, how many foot-pounds of work one person can do in a day.

At the end of this whole series of experiments, the work done by each of the workers for each day was converted into pounds-feet of mechanical energy, and, to his surprise, Taylor discovered that there was no constant or uniform relationship between the number of pounds-feet of energy expended by a man during the day. day, and the effect of his work in the sense of fatigue. In the process of some types of work, a person became tired to the point of exhaustion, having expended perhaps no more than 1/8 of a horsepower, while in the production of other types of work he became tired no more, having expended half a horsepower of energy. Taylor was thus unable to discover any law which could provide an exact criterion for determining the maximum daily productivity of a first-class worker.

And yet the experiments cannot be considered a failure: in the course of them, a significant amount of very valuable data was found that allowed Taylor to establish the proper daily production rate for a number of branches of labor. However, at that moment it did not seem prudent to spend any more money on trying to establish the exact law he was aiming at. A few years later, when more money could be obtained for this purpose, a series of experiments similar to those previously described, but somewhat more thorough, were undertaken. These experiments also resulted in new valuable data, but again did not give Taylor any law. A few years later, a third series of experiments was undertaken, and this time the researchers spared no effort in their quest to do the work thoroughly. Every minute element that could in any way influence the solution of the problem was subjected to the most careful consideration and study, and the two young scientists devoted about three months to carrying out the experiments. Once these data were again converted into the number of pound-pounds of energy expended by one person in one day, it became quite clear that there was no direct relationship between the proportion of horsepower expended by a person per day (i.e. the amount expended him of energy in pound-feet), and the effect of fatigue produced on him by this work.

However, Taylor still remained firmly convinced that there was some definite, absolutely precise law establishing the standard of full daily productivity for a first-class worker. All the data was so carefully collected and taken into account that, in his opinion, the law he was looking for was undoubtedly hidden somewhere in these facts. The problem of deriving this law from the collected facts was therefore transferred by Taylor to his mathematician acquaintance K.J. Barth, and he himself decided to explore the problem with a new method: by graphically depicting each individual element of the work, using curves that gave us a kind of bird's eye view of each individual element. In a comparatively short time Barth discovered the law governing the effect of fatigue exerted by hard work on the first-class worker. This law turned out to be so simple that it was surprising that it had not been discovered and clearly established many years earlier. This law applies only to this type of work in which the limit of a person’s performance is reached due to his physical fatigue. This law of hard work, more like the work of a draft horse. Almost all such work ultimately comes down to the effort of a person’s hands in order to move or push something, that is, a person’s strength is spent on lifting or pushing some kind of weight that he holds in his hands. And this law is that, with the expenditure of any such effort of the hands to move or push a certain weight, a person can perform actual work only during a certain percentage of the entire duration of the working day. Thus, for example, when carrying pig iron in ingots (assuming each ingot weighs 92 pounds), a first-class worker may be under the load for only 43% of the working day. It should be completely free of load for the remaining 57% of the day. The lighter the load, the longer the percentage of the workday during which the worker can be under load. So, for example, if a worker is carrying half-bars weighing 46 pounds each, he may be under load for 58% of the day and resting only for the remaining 42%. The lower the severity of the load, the greater the percentage of the working day during which the worker can be under the load, until finally a level of load is reached that he can carry in his hands all day long without fatigue. When this limit is reached, the law in question ceases to serve as a criterion for the worker’s endurance, and one should look for some other law that defines the limits of a person’s working capacity.

When a workman carries in his hands a piece of cast iron weighing 92 pounds, he is almost as tired while standing still under the load as when he walks with it, since the muscles of his arms are in a state of just as great tension, no matter whether he moves from place to place or not. On the other hand, a man standing still under a load does not give up any part of a horse's power of energy, which explains the fact that no constant relation could be established in the various branches of heavy work between the number of pound-feet of energy expended and the effect of fatigue, produced by work per person. It is also clear that, in all types of work of this kind, the worker’s hands must, of necessity, be completely free from the load (that is, the worker must rest) at certain frequent intervals. As long as the worker is under heavy strain, the tissues of the muscles of his arms are subject to a process of breakdown, and frequent intervals of rest are necessary to enable the blood to restore these tissues to their normal condition. See: Taylor F.W. Principles of scientific management / Transl. from English A.I.Zak. - M.: Controlling, 1991. - P. 37-43.

So, Taylor concluded that it was necessary to compulsorily train workers in work techniques and load distribution during the day, so that the work performed did not cause irreparable harm to his health.

Moreover, he considered it obvious that even in relation to even the most elementary of known varieties of work, there is a special science that governs it. And if the men best fitted for the performance of a given kind of work have been the subject of careful selection, if the science underlying this work has been specially developed, and carefully selected workmen have been trained to work in accordance with the laws of this science, then the results obtained should, by necessity, to be immeasurably greater than those that could be achieved with the traditional systems of the production process at that time.

During Taylor's experiments, it turned out that a first-class worker was able to reload 47.5 tons of cargo per day without overwork. Is it possible to achieve the same results with the usual type of enterprise management? Taylor put this problem before many eminent directors and asked them whether, on the basis of bonus, piecework, or some other conventional system of payment, they could achieve even an approximate productivity of 47.5 tons per man per day? However, they were all forced to admit that any of the conventional means It was possible to achieve a productivity of, at most, 25 tons per day per person, but usually this value was only 12-18 tons.

However, Taylor noted that in an experimental artel consisting of 75 porters, “on average, only one person out of eight was physically capable of carrying 47.5 tons of cast iron per day. With the best of intentions, the remaining seven of these eight people were physically unable to work at that pace." Taylor F.W. Management / Transl. from English A.I.Zak. - M.: Controlling, 1992. - P. 55. This only person out of eight capable of such work was simply physically stronger and more resilient than the rest. Thus, Taylor concluded that it is necessary to select in advance for a particular job people who are obviously capable of handling it.

Almost immediately after the publication of the research results, reproaches fell on Taylor that, due to his “experiments on people,” seven out of every eight iron porters lost their jobs. However, in his refutation, he wrote that “... this sympathy is completely in vain, since almost all of these people immediately got another job in the same Company. And indeed it must be considered an act of kindness towards these people that they were removed from the work of carrying pig iron, for which they were completely unsuited, since this was the first step towards finding for them work for which they would be specially adapted and, after appropriate training, could permanently and legally receive higher pay.” Taylor F.W. Principles of scientific management / Transl. from English A.I.Zak. - M.: Controlling, 1991. - P. 47. .

Despite the fact that Taylor made his conclusions on the basis of experiments only in certain types of labor, he was nevertheless convinced that a similar scientific basis could be elucidated for each individual action of any worker. See: Taylor F.W. Principles of scientific management / Transl. from English A.I.Zak. - M.: Controlling, 1991. - P. 38-47. Taylor developed his system in relation to industries with heavy physical labor. At the same time, Taylor believed that every worker should:

* receive as a task (lesson) the amount of work that he can complete efficiently;

* develop, especially without straining, the highest labor productivity;

* working with the highest productivity, the worker must receive payment increased by 30-100% depending on the nature of his work;

* be sure that if he fails to complete his lesson, he will suffer a loss in wages.

Based on my own experience, Taylor knew that greater productivity of the labor process is not always achieved through increased efforts of workers. He was convinced that the worker was ready to give as much “honest daily work” as it would provide him with an “honest daily wage.” Taylor made an attempt to resolve the constantly arising disputes between the administration and workers regarding the size of production standards, wages, etc. For this purpose, he developed many different instructions, guidelines, standards, cards, etc. An analysis of the workers’ activities was accompanied by revision of remuneration systems.

When creating his management system, Taylor did not limit himself only to the issues of rationalizing the work of workers. Taylor paid considerable attention to the best use production assets enterprises. Of great importance, in his opinion, were right choice equipment to perform a certain job, caring for this equipment and its repair, preparing tools for work and timely providing them with jobs, as well as sharpening, repairing and exchanging tools, etc.

The requirement for rationalization also extended to the layout of the enterprise and workshops. This, in particular, concerned the rational placement of equipment and workplaces, the selection of the most optimal ways to move materials and semi-finished products within the enterprise and workshops, i.e. along the shortest routes and with the least amount of time and money.

Taylor's system provided not only ways to rationalize each element of production separately, but also determined the most appropriate interaction between them.

The functions of implementing the interaction of production elements were assigned to the planning or distribution bureau of the enterprise, which was given a central place in Taylor’s system. The bureau established methods for manufacturing products, the composition of equipment, tools, devices, and control methods. In addition, it developed job descriptions for each performer, from workers to administrative personnel. The job description specified the scope of work, methods for performing it and deadlines for its completion. Every day, each worker must receive an instruction card, which indicates the list of operations performed, the equipment, tools and devices used, methods of installing the product on the machine and methods of its fastening, processing modes (feed rate, cutting speed, etc.).

In Taylor's system, much attention was paid to the organization of accounting and reporting at the enterprise. This work was entrusted to a special executor as part of the distribution bureau, who kept daily records of both workers and all parts of the enterprise, as well as administrative personnel. Based on the accounting results, it was necessary to draw up various schedules with the help of which it was possible to monitor the progress of production according to key indicators and take the necessary measures in case of violation of established tasks. The receipt and processing of correspondence (letters, telegrams, orders, etc.) were also subject to regulation.

Taylor invented the “counting ruler” to determine the optimal cutting conditions for metals. See: Chudnovskaya S.N. History of management. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2004. - pp. 418-419.

According to Taylor's system, a staff of foremen was provided to manage the entire enterprise. Part of this staff of craftsmen was assigned to the distribution bureau and communicated with workers, set prices and rates, and monitored the general order in the workshop. Another part of the staff of foremen included four categories of foremen who oversaw the exact implementation of the instructions of the distribution bureau: inspector; serviceman; the master who sets the pace of work; foreman

Thus, workers received instructions from several masters. In turn, the craftsmen also acted on the basis of instructions developed for them, which precisely defined their functions, powers (rights) and responsibilities. All craftsmen had to strictly adhere to these instructions, and in the event of one master being replaced by another, the continuity of their instructions to the workers was observed. See: .: Semenova I.I. History of management. - M.: UNITY, 1999. - P. 35-36.

Taylor's concept was based on the division of labor into two components: executive labor and managerial labor. “It is obvious,” wrote Taylor, “that one type of man must first plan the work, and a completely different type of man must carry it out.” Taylor F.W. Principles of scientific management / Transl. from English A.I.Zak. - M.: Controlling, 1991. - P. 29.

Taylor's important contribution was the recognition that management work is a specialty. This approach was sharply different from the previously existing management practice, when workers were forced, along with their direct work, to resolve many issues related to the administrative-economic and administrative-production spheres of activity.

Thus, “we can distinguish the following main provisions (principles) of Taylor’s concept:

* replacement of empirical methods with scientific research of work elements;

* development of optimal methods for carrying out work based on the scientific study of the costs of time, effort, movements, etc. Measuring working time using “time units”;

* specialization of functions both in production and in management. Every worker and every manager must know what function he is responsible for;

* selection, training and placement of workers in those jobs where they can bring the greatest benefit;

* planning and preparation of work;

* development of precise instructions for each employee, which for each job describes the optimal methods for their implementation;

* payment based on work results. Additional payment for exceeding the standards (lesson). Self-interest is the driving motivator for most people;

* separation of administrative work from production. Managers perform the planning function, and workers perform the execution function. Using instead of linear functional foremen who supervise workers;

* cooperation between the administration and workers in the practical implementation of a scientifically developed system and methods of labor organization.” Management / Ed. M.M. Maksimtsova, A.V. Ignatyeva. - M.: UNITY, 1998. - P. 234-235.

Taylor discovered the shortcomings of the linear management principle, which he saw as overcoming in the transition to a more progressive functional principle. He attached particular importance to the functional division of labor. Thus, he considered it necessary to introduce, instead of one foreman, eight, each of whom had to be responsible for a specific job (management function), for example, for production preparation, repair and maintenance of equipment, etc. However, this approach was not put into practice . Subsequently, the “principle of unity of command” began to be widely promoted, according to which each employee should receive instructions from one manager (foreman).

Taylor considered the main objective of the system he proposed to be the convergence of the interests of all enterprise personnel. In his opinion, not only the administration, but also the workers are interested in achieving the goals of the enterprise through close cooperation with each other. By increasing the productivity of their labor, workers increase their output and, consequently, their wages. The living conditions of workers are improving. And this will ultimately lead to an increase in the well-being of the entire country. He noted: “The principles of scientific management remain valid if they satisfy each of the parties, and there is no scientific management where both parties do not feel satisfied.” Taylor F.W. Principles of scientific management / Transl. from English A.I.Zak. - M.: Controlling, 1991. - P. 28-29.

Speaking before a select committee of the US House of Representatives on January 25, 1912, Taylor called scientific management an “intellectual revolution” not only regarding the scientific approach to the use of workers' labor, but also regarding the joint activities of management and workers based on the community of their mutual interests. He viewed scientific management as a process of merging material resources of production, technology and human resources to achieve production efficiency and enterprise goals.

Among the factors contributing to increased production efficiency, Taylor gave the main place to the growth of worker productivity through improving methods of organizing and managing production. The administration in this process was given a secondary role. At the same time, Taylor recognized that the administration is directly involved in the planning, accounting and control of tasks for workers, and therefore the productivity of workers is to a certain extent dependent on the improvement of the work of the administration itself. Therefore, scientific management, Taylor believed, is an “intellectual revolution” in relation not only to workers in any field of industry, but also to the administration of the enterprise. He noted that workers and entrepreneurs “jointly turn their attention to increasing the size of the surplus product until it increases so much that there is no need for disputes about how to divide it.” Quote according to the book: Semenova I.I. History of management. - M.: UNITY, 1999. - P. 38-39.

Taylor formulated two main objectives of management:

* ensuring the greatest prosperity of the entrepreneur;

* increasing the well-being of each employee.

Taylor understood each of these tasks quite broadly.

Prosperity of entrepreneurship means not only receiving high dividends on invested capital, but also further development of the business.

Increasing the well-being of workers means not only high wages in accordance with the efforts expended, but also the development in each employee of the potential that is inherent in him by nature itself.

Taylor was deeply convinced that the fundamental interests of workers and employers coincided. Moreover, he believed that the prosperity of entrepreneurs is impossible without an increase in the well-being of workers. Attaching great importance to solving problems of the scientific organization of production and labor, Taylor well understood the importance of the influence of the environment on the enterprise, i.e. external factors “beyond any control on the part of any group of people or an entire country or state.” Taylor F.W. Principles of scientific management / Transl. from English A.I.Zak. - M.: Controlling, 1991. - P. 23.

The philosophical basis of Taylor's system was the concept of the so-called economic man, which became widespread at that time. This concept was based on the idea that people's only motivation is their needs. Taylor believed that with the help of an appropriate wage system, maximum productivity could be achieved. Another, also unjustified, principle of the Taylor system was the proclamation of the unity of economic interests of workers and managers. These goals were not achieved. Taylor himself wrote that you can never look a single worker in the face without seeing hatred in him, and then you feel that each of them is actually your enemy. This conclusion was due to the fact that from the very first days the Taylor system aroused fierce resistance from the workers, who, in their opinion, rallied against the inhumane “scientific” sweatshop system. Unfortunately, stereotypes change slowly, and therefore the scientific system of rationalization did not automatically lead to that climate of mutual trust between workers and capitalists, in which Taylor saw one of the conditions for rationalization. Taylor was mistaken in believing that rationalization, which leads to an increase in the profits of the capitalists, will be accepted by the workers when their incomes also increase.

“Taylor’s concept of scientific management was received with hostility not only by workers, but also by many managers” Utkin E.A. History of management. - M.: Tandem, 1997. - P. 314. , who were afraid of the difficulties with which the proposed system abounded, especially since rumors were spreading in society that soon all managers would be able to be replaced with miraculous “scientific technology”, and they will find themselves unemployed. However, all these fears turned out to be in vain. In practice, Taylor's system contributed to the strengthening of the hierarchical structure of production and increased control over the activities of workers, whose work was strictly regulated in accordance with the “laws of science.”

Taylor's name is associated with the first breakthrough in management thought, which occurred at the beginning of the century and concluded that management can be “scientific.”

Taylor's principles of "scientific management" have found wide application not only in industry, but in all areas human activity. In Taylor's time, workers did not have sufficient education, so his developments contributed to the training of workers and their improvement of skills. In addition, Taylor's principles of labor organization formed the basis for the organization of mass production and the creation of conveyors. See: Kravchenko A.I. History of management. - M.: Academic project, 2003. - P. 286.

2. Development of F. Taylor’s ideas in the works of his followers

F. Taylor's ideas were developed by his followers, among whom, first of all, Henry Gantt (1861-1919), his closest student, should be named.

In his research, Gantt paid special attention to the issues of labor incentives and production planning. He made significant contributions to the development of leadership theory. He developed a methodology for the bonus system and drew up maps for ease of planning, called Gantt charts.

The most famous works of Gantt are: “Labor, Wages and Income” (1910), “Industrial Management” (1916), “Labor Organization” (1919).

Following Taylor, Gantt believed that each worker must be given a specific production task. In addition, the worker must know that if his work is completed on time and with high quality, he will receive a bonus. In addition, the worker is rewarded for exceeding production standards. The first bonus system was developed by him in 1901. A worker who completed a daily task was paid a bonus of 50 cents. Provided that all workers completed their tasks, the foreman also received an additional bonus. The introduction of this system at a number of enterprises made it possible to double the productivity of workers.

The peculiarity of the bonus wage system was to maintain the minimum wage, regardless of the degree of underfulfillment of the norm.

Gantt proposed a schedule (Gantt chart), according to which each worker could track the results of his work and the amount of earnings per hour, day, week. The Gantt chart is the predecessor of the network chart, for the calculation of which computers are now widely used. To train workers in new techniques, special schemes for performing operations were developed.

Gantt considered human factor as the main engine for increasing production efficiency. But at the same time, he believed that production should not be considered only as a source of livelihood for the worker. The worker must receive satisfaction from the work he does. He wrote: “Everything we undertake must be in accordance with human nature. We cannot push people; we have a responsibility to guide their development.” Quote according to the book: Semenova I.I. History of management. - M.: UNITY, 1999. - P. 42.

Gantt believed that the time of forcing workers to work was a thing of the past. The focus now needs to be on training workers in new skills to reduce wasted time. By improving their skills, workers consciously and better perform the tasks assigned to them. They begin to realize their responsibility for the work they do. All this is accompanied by improvement physical fitness And appearance. These thoughts were reflected in the article “Training Workers in the Skills of Industrial Labor and Cooperation” (1908), in which Gantt noted that managers who have mastered the progressive methods of scientific management have no desire to return to previous methods. The use of industrial labor skills helps to establish cooperation between workers and clerks.

Gantt outlined his thoughts regarding the social responsibility of business in his work “Organization of Labor.” The main content of the problem is as follows: society has a need for goods and services provided by various enterprises. For businessmen, profit is of primary importance, not providing goods and services to society. At the same time, society believes that if an enterprise does not provide it with the necessary goods and services, then such an enterprise does not have the right to exist. Based on these considerations, Gantt concluded that “the business system must embrace social responsibility and devote itself first and foremost to serving society; otherwise society will ultimately attempt to crush it in order to be free to act in accordance with its own interests.” Quote according to the book: Semenova I.I. History of management. - M.: UNITY, 1999. - P. 43. Gantt dreamed of “democracy in production,” believing that “of all management problems, the most important is the problem of the human factor.”

Among Taylor's followers, Frank Gilbreth (1868-1924) and his wife Lillian Gilbreth (1878-1958) stand out. They dealt with the rationalization of workers' labor, the study of physical movements in the production process, and the study of the possibilities of increasing production output by increasing labor productivity.

All the efforts of Frank and Lillian Gilbreth were concentrated in a direction that later became known as “motion studies.”

Starting your life path As a mason's apprentice, F. Gilbreth noticed that all the movements with which people lay bricks can be combined into three bundles. He carefully studied all these movements and identified those that were most effective. The result of studying the movements and tools used was a proposal to reduce the number of movements required to lay one brick from 18 to 4.5 while increasing labor productivity from 120 to 350 bricks laid per hour.

F. Gilbreth continued Taylor's research, which involved Taylor carefully measuring the amount of iron ore and coal that a man could lift with different sized shovels. Gilbreth also conducted similar studies involving shoveling bulk materials. Gilbreth found that it was not practical to move different materials with the same shovel. In the case of transferring light material, the shovel will rake too little and the worker’s work will be unproductive, despite the effort expended. When transferring heavy material, the shovel will grab too much of it and the work will be too tiring for the worker. After a considerable amount of research, Gilbreth determined the shapes and sizes of various shovels suitable for moving a variety of materials. By selecting a shovel according to the weight and volume of materials being moved, the worker could complete the planned job with less effort and greater productivity.

The work of Frank and Lillian Gilbreath had a significant influence on the development of labor organization and technical regulation. In our country, the best known are their books “The ABC of the Scientific Organization of Labor and Enterprises” and “Study of Movements” (1911), “Psychology of Management” (1916), which were translated into Russian and reprinted several times in 1924-1931.

F. Gilbreth paid considerable attention in his research to the study of movements during work, which assumes the presence of three phases:

* identifying best practices;

* generalization in the form of rules;

* application of these rules to normalize working conditions in order to increase its productivity.

Analytical work on the study of movements is as follows:

* describes the current practice in this profession;

* the movements used are listed (their nomenclature);

* lists the variable factors influencing each movement;

* describes the best practice in this profession;

* the movements used are listed;

* lists the variables that influence each movement.

All factors influencing worker productivity are divided into three groups:

* variable worker factors (physique, health, lifestyle, qualifications, culture, education, etc.);

* variable factors of the environment, equipment and tools (heating, lighting, clothing, quality of materials used, monotony and difficulty of work, degree of fatigue, etc.);

* variable factors of movement (speed, amount of work performed, automaticity, direction of movements and their feasibility, cost of work, etc.).

Each factor is studied separately, its influence on labor productivity is revealed. Gilbreth considered the most important of them to be the factors of movement. He studied in detail the influence of various factors on the duration, intensity and direction of labor movements.

In his construction company F. Gilbreth introduced a strict set of written rules on bricklaying and concrete work, as well as on the relationship of workers with the company's office. “All employees must follow these rules to the letter unless they receive written permission to waive certain rules.”

In the early 1900s, Frank and his wife Lillian began using a movie camera in combination with a microchronometer to make time observations to study work operations. The microchronometer was a clock invented by Frank that could record intervals of up to 1/2000 of a second. Using still images, the Gilbreths were able to identify and describe 17 basic hand movements. They called these movements therbligs. This name comes from the surname Gilbreth, when read backwards. In addition to filming, the Gilbreths used scale charts and other devices. F. Gilbreth is the inventor of maps and diagrams technological processes, cyclograph. See: Management / Ed. M.M. Maksimtsova, A.V. Ignatyeva. - M.: UNITY, 1998. - P. 416-418.

Proposed by the Gilbreths new method, based on the study of simple operations, is currently widely used in the West on the basis of standardization of production operations. The use of this method in F. Gilbreth's company resulted in a significant increase in labor productivity. Analysis of micro-movements during production operations allows eliminating unnecessary, irrational movements. Therefore, analysis precedes work on labor standardization.

In addition to studying movements, Gilbreth paid particular attention to the study and analysis of the entire process as a whole. As a result of the analysis, it could turn out that a number of movements were unnecessary and could be excluded from the process under consideration. Further improvements in performance could be achieved by speeding up the movements.

Rationalization and normalization, Gilbreth believed, concern not only movements, but also lighting, heating, clothing, rest, eating, entertainment, furniture, and tools used. These factors also have a significant impact on the normalization of movements and their optimal combination.

The Gilbreths paid great attention to employee training. Maximum use of the knowledge and abilities of workers should be aimed at improving the welfare of the country. Enterprise managers must also have sufficient abilities, experience and knowledge. The activities of enterprises must be planned and managed. Without compliance with these conditions, it is impossible to achieve an increase in production efficiency. See: History of Management / Ed. D.V. Gross. - M.: Infra-M, 1997. - P. 362.

G. Emerson (1853-1931) made a significant contribution to the development of the Taylor system. His work “The Twelve Principles of Productivity,” in which he outlined his views on the rationalization of production, became widely known. Emerson explored the principles of labor activity in relation to any production, regardless of its type of activity. This is the main difference between the methods he used and those used by Gilbreth, Gantt, Barth, Thompson, who studied methods of organizing labor within one enterprise in relation to individual professions.

Emerson focused on theoretical issues in the study of the problem of labor organization. To this end, he divided the process of labor organization into its component parts and carefully studied each of them. The analysis allowed him to formulate twelve principles of productivity, which make it possible to maximize labor productivity in any field of activity: in production, transport, construction, households, etc.

The twelve principles for increasing labor productivity are as follows:

Similar documents

General prerequisites for the emergence of the theory of scientific management by F.U. Taylor, its essence and basic principles. Basic models of enterprise and personnel management. Development of ideas by F.U. Taylor in the works of his followers and their influence on modern management.

course work, added 07/30/2013


Using a system of differential pay for labor productivity. Research on the scientific organization of labor. Publication of F. Taylor's book "Principles of Scientific Management". Taylor's Basic Principles of Management. Two main tasks of management.

presentation, added 06/11/2016


Prerequisites for the emergence of scientific management. F. Taylor - founder of scientific management. "Machine model" of Philadelphia engineers, ideas of "labor reformers". Development of Taylor's concepts by his followers. Reflection of scientific management in modern times.

course work, added 03/12/2011


Psychological aspect in the theory of scientific organization of labor by F. Taylor. The provisions of the school of scientific management and their contribution to organization theory. Delegation of powers and administrative activities, transfer of control over the process to the employee.

test, added 01/29/2010


Prerequisites for the emergence of the concept of scientific management. The development of Taylor's concept of management by his followers and its modern significance. Organizational and technological approach in management. Modern system of vocational training.

course work, added 09/19/2013


Prerequisites for the emergence of scientific management, the main ideas and theories set forth in the works of F.U. Taylor. Causes of insufficient labor productivity according to Taylor. Development of measures to improve personnel management at Energo-Service LLC.

course work, added 07/08/2013


Fundamentals of scientific management methodology. Frederick Taylor's contribution to the development of management as the founder of the school of scientific management. The evolution of management activities and management. Scientific Management by Frederick Taylor. Criticism of the school of scientific management.

abstract, added 07/28/2010


The basic principles of the school of scientific management, which was formed and became widely known at the beginning of the 20th century. Assessment of the contribution of each of the founders of the school of scientific management to the development of management: F.U. Taylor, G. Emerson, G.L. Gantt, G. Ford.

presentation, added 01/25/2016


F. Taylor's theory of scientific management, its focus on increasing production efficiency through labor organization, rationalization and intensification of the labor process. A. Fayol's theory of administration. Basic functions and principles of management.

presentation, added 03/11/2014


Directions for development of SD by the school of management science. Founders and history of the school of scientific management. Taylor control system. Basic concepts and provisions of the analysis of the external environment, its influence on the choice, implementation of alternatives. Factors for choosing a strategy.

Course work

subject: Control Theory

on the topic: F. Taylor Scientific School of Management

Management as a historical process developed from the moment when the need arose to regulate the joint activities of groups of people. History knows many examples of rational management not only of individual groups, but also of entire states and empires. At the same time, the level of management and its quality were the determining beginning in the successful development of entire nations, but we have not received any reliable data on the development of management theory, and the boom of theoretical thought began in the beginning. XX century. It is connected with the fact that in 1911 the engineer Taylor published his research in the book “Principles of Scientific Management”. This year is traditionally considered the beginning of the recognition of science management and an independent field of study. There are basically 5 directions: the school of scientific management, the school of administrative management, the school from the perspective of human relations and human psychology, the school from the perspective of human behavior in production, quantitative approach. True, in some sources of literature the relationship between schools is very smooth, the classical school is called administrative, and the administrative school is called scientific.

The purpose of this work is to consider scientific school management of F. Taylor, as the founder of the scientific management system. I think for this it is necessary to disclose the biography of the scientist. 20.3.1856, Germantown, Pennsylvania - 21.3.1915, Philadelphia - American engineer, inventor, founder of the scientific labor organization. Born into a lawyer's family with deep cultural traditions; traveling around Europe, he was educated in France and Germany, then at the F. Exter Academy, New Hampshire, in 1874 he graduated from Harvard Law College, but due to deteriorating eyesight he was unable to continue his education and got a job as a press worker in industrial workshops hydraulic plant in Philadelphia, in 1878, thanks to his perseverance (at that time there was the peak of the economic depression), he received a job as a laborer at the Midval steel mill, and was a patternmaker and mechanic. And from 1882 to 1883 - head of mechanical workshops. At the same time, studying in the evenings, he received a technical education (degree of mechanical engineer, Stevens Institute of Technology, 1883). In 1884 Taylor became chief engineer, in which year he pioneered the use of differential pay for productivity. He filed patents for about 100 of his inventions and innovations. From 1890 to 1893, Taylor, general manager of the Manufacturing Investment Company, Philadelphia, owner of paper presses in Maine and Wisconsin, organized his own management consulting business, the first in management history. From 1898 to 1901 he was a consultant to the Bethlehem Steel Company, pc. Pennsylvania. In 1906, Taylor became president of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, and in 1911 he founded the Society for the Advancement of Scientific Management (later called the Taylor Society).

Research. Since 1895, Taylor began his world-famous research on labor organization. His first experiments, carried out on the famous worker Schmidt, were aimed at solving the question of how much iron ore or coal a person could lift with shovels of various sizes, so as not to lose working capacity for a long time (as a result of scrupulous measurements, the optimal weight was determined = 21 pounds), at the same time he came to a very important conclusion that it is necessary to set not only the time for performing work, but also the time for rest. His system of scientific organization of labor included a number of basic provisions: scientific foundations of production, scientific selection of personnel, education and training, organization of interaction between managers and workers. Introduced specific requirements for the scientific study of the elements of the production process: dividing the entire process into minimal parts, observing and recording all these elements and the conditions under which they occur, precise measurement of these elements in terms of time and effort. For this purpose, he was one of the first to use timing of executive work actions. His idea of ​​dividing work into the simplest operations led to the creation of the assembly line, which played such a significant role in the growth of US economic power in the first half of the twentieth century.

1.1 Prerequisites for the emergence of scientific management

Management, managerial work, turning it into special kind activities other than direct production are associated with labor cooperation. Labor cooperation in a primitive form already existed in primitive communal system: as a simple combination of the efforts of numerous workers. But researchers of the history of management emphasize that certain signs of management appear already in the most ancient societies - Sumer, Egypt, Akkad - the transformation of the highest caste of priests into religious functionaries, and essentially speaking, managers, takes place. This was facilitated by a change in religious principles - instead of human sacrifices, symbolic sacrifices began to be presented in the form of donations of money, livestock, oil, and handicrafts. As a result, among the priests there appears new type business people who, in addition to observing ritual honors, were in charge of collecting taxes, managed the state treasury, and were in charge of property affairs. They kept business documentation, accounting calculations, carried out supply, control, planning and other functions that today determine the content of the management process. By-products of such management activities were the emergence of writing, since it was impossible to remember the entire volume of business information, and the need for calculations. Thus, at the very beginning, management was formed as an instrument of commercial and religious activity, turning over time into a social institution and professional occupation.

The next leap in the development of management is associated with the name of the Babylonian ruler Hammurabi (1792-1750 BC). For effective management With his vast possessions, he first developed the so-called Code of Hammurabi, which contained 285 laws of government, regulated the diversity of social relations and served as a guide for administrators throughout the empire. Another innovation was that Hammurabi developed an original leadership style, constantly maintaining the image of himself as a guardian and protector of people. So, for the first time during the reign of Hammurabi, a purely secular style of management appeared, a formal system of organizing and regulating people’s relations emerged, and, finally, the first sprouts of a leadership style emerged.

Much later, King Nebuchadnezzar 11 (605-562 BC), author of the projects of the Tower of Babel and the Hanging Gardens, introduced the system production control in textile factories and granaries, using in particular colored labels to determine the timing of yarn receipt and storage.

A significant number of management innovations took place in Ancient Rome. The most famous among them are the system of territorial government of Diocletian (243-316 BC) and the administrative organization of the Roman Catholic Church, which has remained unchanged to this day.

The Great Industrial Revolution of the 17th century had a much more significant impact on the theory and practice of management than all previous revolutions. As industry outgrew the boundaries of manufacture and the modern system of joint stock capital matured, the owners of capital increasingly removed themselves from the pursuit of business. The owner-manager was replaced by hundreds and thousands of shareholders. A new, diversified (dispersed) form of ownership has emerged. Instead of a single owner, there were many shareholders, i.e. joint (and equity) owners of one capital. Instead of a single owner-manager, several hired managers appeared, recruited from all, not just privileged classes. At the same time, administration was understood as the formulation of the general goals and policies of the company, and management in the original and narrow technical sense was understood as control over their implementation.

The growth of production volume, acceleration of capital turnover, expansion of banking operations, and the influence of modern scientific and technological revolution make management extremely difficult. It could no longer be the sphere of application of common sense alone, but required special knowledge, skills and abilities of experts. The language of guesswork and intuition acquires a clear calculation basis - everything is translated into formulas and money.

Each production process is separated into an independent function and sphere of management activity. The number of functions is increasing, and the problem of their coordination and connection on a new basis is becoming more acute. To unite them, a staff of specialists (department, division) is assigned to each function, and general coordination functions are assigned to management.

It is important to note the following pattern here. Initially, the owner and manager are represented by one person. Management is then separated from capital and production. Instead of one capitalist manager, two communities arise: shareholders and hired managers. The next stage of development: there are many managers and each one monitors a specific function. After this, the single specialist manager is fragmented again, and a community of specialists appears in his place. Now the manager coordinates the work of specialists, using special coordination tools for this, in particular, the decision-making system, company policy goals, etc.

Management originated in the private sector as business management, but rose to its feet as a scientific and social force not in medium and small firms, although free enterprise is very developed there, but in large corporations. The annual revenues of some corporations often exceed the budgets of many states. The well-being of both the state and the private sector increasingly depended on the quality of management. Management attracts best forces nation. Even people of average ability, having gone through the difficult path of a manager, become outstanding personalities. If in the middle of the 19th century the main battles were between labor and capital, then in the 20th century the confrontation became managerial. It is not the capitalist who now confronts the worker, but the leader who opposes the subordinate. If in the pre-capitalist period of development of society the management function was not yet isolated from direct productive activity and was reduced mainly to the function of supervision and coercion of labor, now the development of capitalism leads to an increase in the role of production management functions, which is becoming more and more complex, differentiated, becoming independent, specific area of ​​activity. A large staff of specialists appears who have undergone special training in business schools and systems vocational training. An institute of professional managers appears, who become the main figure in private and public enterprises.