4.Henry l. Gantt, the gilbreths

Henry L. Gantt (1861-1919) worked with Taylor on several projects. But when he went out on his own as a consulting industrial engineer, Gantt began to reconsider Taylor's incentive system.

Abandoning the differential rate system as having too little motivational impact, Gantt came up with a new idea. Every worker who finished a day's assigned work load would win a 50-cent bonus. Then he added a second motivation. The supervisor would earn a bonus for each worker who reached the daily standard, plus an extra bonus if all the workers reached it. This, Gantt reasoned, would spur supervisors to train their workers to do a better job.

Every worker's progress was rated publicly and recorded on individual bar charts,--in black on days the worker made the standard, in red when he or she fell below it. Going beyond this, Gantt originated a charting system for production scheduling; the "Gantt chart" is still in use today. In fact, the Gantt Chart was translated into eight languages and used throughout the world. Starting in the 1920s, it was in use in Japan, Spain, and the Soviet Union. A Gantt chart is a type of bar chart that illustrates a project schedule. Gantt charts illustrate the start and finish dates of the terminal elements and summary elements of a project. Terminal elements and summary elements comprise the work breakdown structure of the project. Some Gantt charts also show the dependency (i.e., precedence network) relationships between activities. Gantt charts can be used to show current schedule status using percent-complete shadings and a vertical "TODAY" line as shown here.

Although now regarded as a common charting technique, Gantt charts were considered revolutionary when they were introduced. In recognition of Henry Gantt's contributions, the Henry Laurence Gantt Medal is awarded for distinguished achievement in management and in community service. This chart is used also in Information Technology to represent data that have been collected.

THE GILBRETHS

Frank B. and Lillian M. Gilbreth (1868-1924 and 1878-1972) made their contribution to the scientific management movement as a husband-and-wife team. Lillian and Frank collaborated on fatigue and motion studies and focused on ways of promoting the individual worker's welfare. To them, the ultimate aim of scientific management was to help workers reach their full potential as human beings.

In their conception, motion and fatigue were intertwined—every motion that was eliminated reduced fatigue. Using motion picture cameras, they tried to find the most economical motions for each task in order to upgrade performance and reduce fatigue. The Gilbreths argued that motion study would raise worker morale because of its obvious physical benefits and because it demonstrated management's concern for the worker.

5.Contributions and problems of scientific management theory

By 1910, Taylor’s system of scientific management had become known and, in many instances, faithfully and fully practised. However, managers in many organizations chose to implement the new principles of scientific management selectively. This decision ultimately resulted in problems. For example, some managers using scientific management obtained increases in performance, but rather than sharing performance gains with workers through bonuses as Taylor had advocated, they simply increased the amount of work that each worker was expected to do. Many workers experiencing the reorganized work system found that as their performance increased, managers required them to do more work for the same pay. Workers also learned that increases in performance often meant fewer jobs and a greater threat of layoffs, because fewer workers were needed. In addition, the specialized, simplified jobs were often monotonous and repetitive, and many workers became dissatisfied with their jobs.

Scientific management brought many workers more hardship than gain, and left them with a distrust of managers who did not seem to care about their well-being.

Although Taylor's method led to dramatic increases in productivity and to higher pay in a number of instances, workers and unions began to oppose his approach because they feared that working harder or faster would exhaust whatever work was available, causing layoffs.

Moreover, Taylor's system clearly meant that time was of the essence. His critics objected to the "speed up" conditions that placed undue pressures on employees to perform at faster and faster levels. The emphasis on productivity—and, by extension, profitability—led some managers to exploit both workers and customers. As a result, more workers joined unions and thus reinforced a pattern of suspicion and mistrust that shaded labor-management relations for decades.

1. Managers frequently implemented only the increased output side of Taylor’s plan.

• Workers did not share in the increased output.

2. Specialized jobs became very boring, dull.

• Workers ended up distrusting the scientific management method.

4. Did not appreciate the social context of work and higher needs of workers.

5. Did not acknowledge variance among individuals.

6. Tended to regard workers as uninformed and ignored their ideas and suggestions.

Criticisms of scientific management

From organized labor

• too much pressure to perform placed on the workers

• unfair division of rewards between management and labor

• did not appreciate the social context of work and higher needs of workers

• specialized jobs became very boring, dull.

• managers frequently implemented only the increased output side of Taylor’s plan.(Workers did not share in the increased output).

From behavioral scientists (later)

• presents an oversimplified approach to worker motivation

• too authoritarian in approach

• demands excessive specialization of jobs and tasks

• did not acknowledge variance among individuals.

• tended to regard workers as uninformed and ignored their ideas and suggestions - focused on the manufacturing environment.

Demise of Scientific Management

• In hands of business – Scientific Management = tool to exploit labor

• By 1915 – growing labor against “Taylorism”

• Union members/100 workers: 1880=1.8; 1900=7.5; 1914=10.5

• Congress investigates and US Commission on Industrial Relations issues Hoxie Report (1915) declaring Scientific Management as exploitive of labor.

• It will influence Management thought – but Scientific Management is dead – until rediscovered in Japan – the 1970/s wave of Quality Management

…………..

Scientific management has been criticised by workers, employees and psychologists. The limitations of the scientific management are nar­rated as under:

1. Scientific management is production oriented. It concentrates too much on the technical aspects of work and undermines the human factor in industry. Trade unions are the critics of scien­tific management. They allege that it results in overspeeding of workers, monotony of job, less of initiative, rate cutting insecu­rity, industrial autocracy and technological unemployment.

2. Scientific management is based upon the assumption that workers are 'rational economic beings'. They are treated as mere extension of machines devoid of any feelings and emotions. It pays little attention to individual freedom and intangible motives like desire to be accepted by others and sense of achievement. Behavioural scientists have objected strongly to the assumptions of scientific management concerning human nature as these assumptions present a narrow view of work motivation.

3. Scientific management is applicable primarily to production operations at the operating level. Its applicability to serve functions is very limited. Scientific management is more a theory of industrial engineering than a general theovy of management. It is more appropriate to call Taylor as The Father of Industrial Management'.

4. Scientific management is more dogmatic than scientific. Human beings differ widely in their capacity and approach and cannot be put into a complete scientific jacket. There can be home best way for all. Dogmatic application of science without consider- ing appropriateness is undesirable.

5. Managers criticised scientific management on the ground that it was difficult and expensive to introduce.

A systematic analysis of Taylor's contribution reveals that the entire philosophy of scientific management and its techniques and principles have considerable influence on modern management theory and practice. More so modern quantitative approach or management science approach is largely based on Taylor's philosophy of scientific