Text 1. Comments on the Scientific Management School.

The benefits arising from scientific management can be summarised as follows:

• Its rational approach to the organisation of work enabled tasks and processes to be measured with a considerable degree of accuracy.

• Measurement of tasks and processes provided useful information on which to base improvements in working methods, plant design etc.

• By improving working methods it brought enormous increases in productivity.

• It enabled employees to be paid by results and to take advantage of incentive payments.

• It stimulated managements into adopting a more positive role in leadership at the shop-floor level.

• It contributed to major improvements in physical working conditions for employees.

• It provided the foundations on which modern work study and other quantitative techniques could be soundly based.

The drawbacks to scientific management were principally the following:

• It reduced the worker's role to that of a rigid adherence to methods and procedures over which he had no discretion.

• It led to the fragmentation of work on account of its emphasis on the analysis and organisation of individual tasks or operations.

• It generated a “carrot-and-stick” approach to the motivation of employees by enabling pay to be geared tightly to output.

• It put the planning and control of workplace activities exclusively in the hands of the management.

• It ruled out any realistic bargaining about wage rates since every job was measured, timed and rated “scientifically”.

Whilst it is true that business and public organisations the world over have benefited from, and are continuing to utilise, techniques which have their origins in the Scientific Management movement, it is also a fact that, in the West at any rate, a reaction against the basic philosophy of the creed has taken place. Tasks and processes are being re-integrated, the individual is demanding participation in the key decision-making processes, and management prerogatives are under challenge everywhere by individuals and organised groups alike. Yet, Japanese companies in particular have taken up many of the beneficial aspects of scientific management and combined them with other approaches to produce a highly successful production system.

On balance, the most important outcome of scientific management was that it stimulated ideas and techniques for improving the systematic analysis of work at the workplace. It also undoubtedly provided a firm launch-pad for a wide variety of productivity improvements in a great range of industries and public services.

Its major disadvantage was that it subordinated the worker to the work system, and so divorced the 'doing' aspects of work from the planning and controlling aspects. This led to:

• the creation of boring, repetitive jobs;

• the introduction of systems for tight control over work; and

• the alienation of shop-floor employees from their management.

Text 2. L.F.Urwick.

Lyndall F.Urwick was an enthusiastic and prolific writer on the subject of administration and management. His experience covered industry, the Armed Forces and business consultancy. He was strongly influenced by the ideas of Henri Fayol, in particular. He was convinced that the only way that modern Man could control his social organisations was by applying principles, or universal rules, to them. In one of his best-known writings – “The Elements of Administration” – published in 1947 he set out numerous principles which, in his view, could be applied to organisations to enable them to achieve their objectives effectively. Like other classical writers, Urwick developed his “principles” on the basis of his own interpretation of the common elements and processes which he identified in the structure and operation of organisations. On this basis, the principles represented a “code of good practice”, which, if adhered to should lead to success in administration, or management as we would call it today.

In 1952 Urwick produced a consolidated list of ten principles, as follows:

1. The Principle of the Objective – the overall purpose or objective is the raison d'etre of every organisation.

2. The Principle of Specialisation – one group, one function!

3. The Principle of Coordination – the process of organising is primarily to ensure coordination.

4. The Principle of Authority – every group should have a supreme authority with a clear line of authority to other members of the group.

5. The Principle of Responsibility – the superior is absolutely responsible for the acts of his subordinates.

6. The Principle of Definition – jobs, with their duties and relationships, should be clearly defined.

7. The Principle of Correspondence – authority should be commensurate with responsibility.

8. The Span of Control – no one should be responsible for more than 5 or 6 direct subordinates whose work is interlocked.

9. The Principle of Balance – the various units of the organisation should be kept in balance.

10. The Principle of Continuity – the structure should provide for the continuation of activities.

As a statement of classical organisation theory, Urwick's list would be difficult to better, concentrating as it does on mainly structural issues. Compared with Fayol's Principles of Management, Urwick's list is less concerned with issues such as pay and morale, for example. Its emphasis is very much on getting the organisational mechanisms right.

There is no doubting the rational appeal of Urwick’s “principles”, especially in relation to the internal environment of the organisation. Organisations, however, do not operate in a vacuum. They have to interact with their external environment. That is to say they are open systems. Where modern studies have found weaknesses in Urwick's “principles” is precisely on this point. The “principles” tend to assume that it is possible to exert control over the issues mentioned, but many current trends in Western society in particular, run directly counter to several of the “principles”. For example, attitudes towards greater sharing of authority at work are likely to clash with the Principle of Authority and the Principle of Correspondence. Similarly, attitudes towards the reintegration or enrichment of jobs will conflict with the Principle of Specialisation, the Principle of Definition and the Span of Control.

Organisations are not self-contained. They have to respond to the pressures of an external environment - social, political and economic. Urwick's “principles”, therefore, are not capable of being introduced easily into modern organisations. They can be, and are, adopted with modification in several cases, but will always be suspect because they fall into the category of “what ought to be” rather than “what actually is” in terms of the realities of organisations today.

Urwick's ideas in general achieved considerable popularity with business organisations on both sides of the Atlantic because of their commonsense appeal to managers. In more recent times, however, Urwick's emphasis on purpose and structure has not been able to provide answers to problems arising from social attitudes, external market pressures and rapidly changing technology. His ideas are now a little anachronistic. They prescribe part, but only part, of what is needed for organisational health.