Management thought has developed very inconsistently. There were several approaches, which sometimes coincided, and sometimes differed significantly from each other. The objects of management are people and technology, so success in management largely depended on success in other areas. As society evolved, management professionals learned more and more about the factors influencing the success of an organization.
In addition, the world was becoming the scene of rapid change driven by scientific and technological progress, and governments in many countries were becoming more determined in their attitude to business. These factors have caused management researchers to become aware of the existence of external forces influencing organizational performance. As a result, new approaches have been developed. There are four main approaches that have made a significant contribution to the development of management science.
First of all, an approach from the standpoint of identifying different schools in management. It includes, in turn, five different schools in which management is considered from different points of view: scientific management, administrative management, human relations, behavioral science, and management science, or the quantitative method.
School of Scientific Management. The formation and development of this school, which became widely known throughout the world under the name "scientific organization of labor", coincided with the beginning of the 20th century. F. Taylor (1856-1915), an American practical engineer and manager, was at the origins of this school. In his daily work, he solved the problems of rationalizing production and labor in order to increase productivity and efficiency. His teaching has become the main theoretical source of modern management concepts.
F. Taylor wrote books that glorified his name throughout the world: "Deal System" (1895), "Shop Management" (1903) and "Principles scientific management"(1911). In his writings, he tried to combine the interests of capital and labor, to implement the "philosophy of cooperation" in capitalist enterprises. The method he developed, which ensures the intensification of labor, aroused great interest among managers from different countries.
F. Taylor sought to prove that the methods of scientific organization of labor developed by him and the principles of "scientific management" formulated on their basis could replace outdated authoritarian methods of management.
F. Taylor advocated the transformation of scientific management into a branch of industrial labor similar to engineering. His system consisted in the consistent implementation of the principle of division of labor into performing labor and managerial labor, in the specialization of work. V production system working as a well-coordinated mechanism, each employee must be responsible for his functions. At the same time, one should strive to achieve a correspondence between the types of workers and the types of work. In addition, strict regulation of activities is required. This orients each employee towards the performance of a partial function, but does not require him to understand the overall design.
F. Taylor pointed out the tasks that the administration must perform and due to which the subjectivism and arbitrariness of the old methods of management are replaced by the "scientific logic" of rules, laws and formulas.
F. Taylor considered scientific management as an effective means of bringing together the interests of all employees due to the growth of their well-being and the establishment of close cooperation with the owners and administration to achieve the production and economic goals of the organization. He believed that if the scientific management system is fully accepted, this will resolve all disputes and disagreements between the parties.
Some Russian scientists, first of all, A. A. Bogdanov and A. K. Gastev, should also be attributed to the representatives of the school of scientific management.
This school also has the following features:
using scientific analysis to determine the best way to solve business problems;
purposeful selection of workers best suited to perform tasks, their training;
uniform and fair distribution of duties (responsibility) between workers and managers;
providing employees with resources;
the use of financial incentives;
cooperation between the administration and the workers in the practical implementation of the NOT.
The concept of scientific management was a major turning point, thanks to which management began to be recognized as an independent field of scientific research. A new science was born, identifying methods and approaches that could be effectively used by practitioners to achieve the goals of the organization.
Classical, or administrative, school of government. The greatest contribution to its development was made by the French scientist A. Fayol. Representatives of this school tried to determine General characteristics and patterns of organizations, approaches to improving the management of the organization as a whole.
The purpose of administrative management was to create universal principles of management. This can be recognized as the first independent result of the science of administration. These principles covered two main aspects:
determining the best way to divide the organization into divisions (they considered finance, production, marketing to be such divisions) in order to identify the main management functions;
proposal of principles for building the structure of the organization and managing employees (these are, first of all, the principles of unity of command, authority and responsibility, stability of the workplace, etc.). Many of them are still useful and used in practice.
It should be noted that the representatives of the administrative school did not care about the social aspects of management. They viewed the organization from a broader perspective. The main contribution of A. Fayol to the theory of management was that he considered management to be a universal process, consisting of interrelated functions of planning and organization.
School of human relations in management. Its greatest authorities are M. Follett (England), E. Mayo (USA). Representatives of this school believed that if management increases concern for its employees, then the level of employee satisfaction should increase, which will inevitably lead to an increase in productivity. They recommended the use of human relations management techniques, including more effective action by immediate supervisors, consultation with workers, and giving them more opportunities to communicate at work.
According to the modern management doctrine, 3 significant factors matter in the management system: people, finances and technology, and the first place is occupied by the "people" factor. Among the dominant goals of management (relationships between people and the fulfillment of tasks), the human factor prevails. It is this management system, where the focus is on the human factor, that is the most optimal in the market.
Management is a psychologically rich management system, the main functions of which are directly related to psychology. Therefore, for the effective implementation of these functions, a manager needs to master the psychological components of managerial skills: to be able to interact with people, speak to an audience, convince, etc.
In the harsh conditions of market competition, only the ability to communicate with people ensures success in business. Well-known Japanese, European and American managers achieve enviable success in the production of goods precisely because of the careful attitude to the staff.
The school of behavioral sciences has departed significantly from the school of human relations. According to this approach, the worker should be assisted to a greater extent in understanding his own capabilities through the application of the concepts of the behavioral sciences to the management of organizations. The main goal of this school was to increase the efficiency of the organization by improving the efficiency of the use of human resources, creating all necessary conditions to realize the creative abilities of each employee, to realize their own importance in the management of the organization.
The main postulate of the school: the correct application of the science of behavior should always increase the efficiency of both the individual employee and the organization as a whole.
It is of great importance for managers to study the various behavioral approaches that general management recommends and to explore the possibility of their application in the process of analyzing the organization. It must be remembered that man is the most important element in the control system. A well-chosen team of like-minded people and partners who are able to understand and implement the ideas of their leader is the most important condition for economic success.
The school of management science, or the quantitative method, is based on the use of data in the hard sciences - mathematics, statistics, engineering sciences - and involves the widespread use of the results of operations research and situation models. In addition, the use of quantitative measurements in decision making. However, before the Second World War, quantitative methods were not used enough in management.
A very strong impetus to the application of these methods in management was the development of computer technology and management information systems. This made it possible to design mathematical models increasing complexity, which are closest to reality and therefore more accurate.
situational approach. The development of this approach has made a great contribution to the theory of management, since it became possible to directly apply science to specific situations and conditions. The main point of the situational approach is the situation, i.e. specific circumstances that have a significant impact on the organization at this particular time. Since there are many such factors, both within the organization itself and in the environment, there is no single “best” way to manage an organization's performance. The most effective method of management is the one that best suits the current situation.
M. Follett back in the 20s. spoke of the "law of the situation." However, this approach was developed properly only in the late 1960s.
The situational approach is not a simple set of prescribed recommendations, but rather a way of thinking about organizational problems and their solutions. Using it, managers can better understand which techniques are most conducive to achieving the goals of the organization in a particular situation.
The situational approach retains the concept of the management process applicable to all organizations. However, according to this approach, the specific techniques that managers must use to effectively achieve the goals of the organization can vary significantly. Therefore, it is necessary to link specific techniques and concepts to specific situations in order to most effectively achieve the goals of the organization.
The situational approach focuses on situational differences between and within organizations. In this regard, it is necessary to determine the significant variables of the situation and their impact on the performance of the organization.
Systems approach. Application of systems theory in management in the late 50s. was the most important contribution to the management of the school of management science and, in particular, the American scientist J. Paul Getty. A system is a kind of integrity, consisting of interdependent parts, each of which contributes to the characteristics of the whole. Because this approach is relatively recent, it is currently impossible to fully appreciate the true impact of this school on management theory and practice. Nevertheless, its influence is already great and will continue to grow in the future. On a systematic basis, it will probably be possible to synthesize new knowledge and theories that will be developed in the future.
The definition of variables and their impact on the effectiveness of the organization is the main contribution to the management of the systems approach, which is a logical continuation of systems theory.
The system approach allows a comprehensive assessment of the activities of any management system at the level of specific characteristics. This helps to analyze any situation within a single system, to identify the nature of input, process and output problems. The application of a systematic approach allows the best way organize the decision-making process at all levels in the management system.
Managers need to know organization variables as systems in order to apply systems theory to the management process. They must view the organization as a set of interdependent elements such as people, structure, tasks and technology that are oriented towards achieving different goals in a changing environment.
Process approach. This approach is widely used today. It was first proposed by representatives of the school of administrative management, who tried to describe the functions of a manager. The initial development of this concept is attributed to A. Fayol.
The process approach to management reflects the desire of management theorists and practitioners to integrate all types of activities to solve management problems into a single chain, broken as a result of "excessive enthusiasm" for the functional approach, in which each of the functions is considered out of touch with others.
According to this approach, management is considered as a process of continuous interrelated actions (functions), each of which, in turn, also consists of several interrelated actions. They are united by the connecting processes of communication and decision making. At the same time, management (leadership) is considered as an independent activity. It involves the possibility of influencing employees in such a way that they work towards achieving goals.
From a brief overview of the approaches, it can be seen that management thought has been constantly evolving, which contributed to the emergence of new ideas about the effective management of the organization.
Representatives of each approach or school believed that they managed to find the key to the most effective achievement of the goals of the organization. However, later studies and management practice have shown that these studies concerned only certain aspects of the management process, and the results obtained were true only for certain situations. In addition, the practice of management has always turned out to be more complex, deeper and more diverse than the corresponding theoretical thought. From time to time, researchers discovered new, previously unknown aspects of the management process and overthrew the truths that seemed unshakable from the pedestal. Despite this, it should be recognized that representatives of each approach or school have made their own, invaluable contribution to the development of management science.
It should also be noted that the presence of a significant number of scientific schools and approaches, each of which offers its own principles and models, is an important feature of management, its difference from other sciences.
TOPIC 2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE THEORY OF MANAGEMENT
Target. Tell students when management arose, when a person felt the need for management, how it developed and what changes took place in it, how it affected the development of the person himself, his production activities and society as a whole. In its development, management went through a number of periods and used certain research methods.
Topic questions:
1. School of scientific management.
2. Administrative (classical) school.
3. School of human relations.
4. School of Behavioral Sciences.
School of Scientific Management.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, one of the first arose school of scientific management. Frederick Winslow Taylor, Frank and Lillian Gilbert, Henry Gant, Henry Ford are considered its creators. (1885-1920)
They believed that almost any manual labor operation could be improved using observation, measurement, logic, and analysis. First, they analyzed the content of the work and determined its main components (operations, transitions, techniques, individual movements. Then they measured the work operations: they eliminated unnecessary, unproductive movements, introduced standard procedures and equipment into them. As a rule, the gain from improving operations was obvious. that the amount of time allocated to certain tasks should be realistic and take into account the possibility of a little rest.At the same time, production standards were feasible, and those who exceeded them were rewarded more.
This school recognized the importance of selecting people physically and intellectually appropriate for the work performed, attached great importance to training; the separation of managerial functions of thinking and planning from the direct execution of work was advocated (this was sharply stated with the container system, in which the workers themselves planned their work). Through this school, management became widely recognized as a field of scientific research in its own right.
Contribution of the school of scientific management:
using scientific analysis to determine the best way to accomplish a task;
selecting workers best suited to the tasks and providing them with training;
providing employees with the resources required to effectively perform their tasks;
• systematic and correct use of financial incentives to increase productivity;
If the school of scientific management was primarily concerned with improving efficiency at the workplace level, then classical (administrative) school (1920-1950) paid attention to efficiency in the broader sense of the word - in relation to the work of the entire organization. The "classics" who ranked Henri Fayol, Lyndall Urwick, James Mooney (1920-1950) tried to look at the organization from a broad perspective, trying to determine the general characteristics and patterns of organizations.
Henri Fayol ran a large French coal mining company and is called the "father of management". Lindall Urwick is a management consultant in England. James Mooney worked for General Motors. Adherents of this school, like the previous one, did not care much about the social aspects of government. Their work was largely based on personal observations and was not based on scientific methodology. The goal of the classical school was to create universal principles of management that would undoubtedly lead the organization to success. Fayol's main contribution to management theory was that he viewed management as a universal process consisting of interrelated functions. To build the structure of the organization, he developed 14 principles of management. Many of them are still useful today.
The aim of the classical school was to create universal principles of governance.
Fayol's principles of management:
1. Division of labor; (Specialization is the natural order of things. The goal of the division of labor is to do more and better work with the same effort. This is achieved by reducing the number of goals to which attention and effort must be directed.)
2. Authority and responsibility; (Authority is the right to give an order, and responsibility is its opposite. Where authority is given, there responsibility arises.)
3. Discipline; (Discipline implies obedience to and respect for the agreements reached between the firm and its employees. It also implies fair application of sanctions.)
4. unity of command;(An employee should receive an order from only one immediate supervisor.)
5. Unity of direction; (Each group operating under the same goal should be united by a single plan and have one leader.)
6. Subordination of personal interests to the general; (The interests of one employee or group of employees should not prevail over the interests of a company or a larger organization).
7. Reward persona la; (In order to ensure the loyalty and support of workers, they must receive a fair wage for their service.)
8. Centralization; (Centralization is the natural order of things. The appropriate degree of centralization will vary according to specific conditions. So the question arises as to the right proportion between centralization and decentralization. This is the problem of determining the measure that will provide the best possible results.)
9. Scalar chain– a range of persons in leadership positions, ranging from the highest position to the lowest level manager;
10. order;(A place is for everything and everything in its place.)
11. Justice;(Combination of kindness and order.)
12. Workplace stability for staff; (High fluidity personnel reduces the efficiency of the organization. A mediocre leader who holds on to his position is certainly preferable to an outstanding, talented one who leaves quickly and does not hold on to his position.)
13. Initiative;(Means developing a plan and ensuring its successful implementation. This gives the organization strength and energy.)
14. corporate spirit. (Union is strength. And it is the result of staff harmony.)
Contribution of the classical school: development of management principles; description of control functions; a systematic approach to managing the entire organization.
School of Human Relations 1930-1950 (Mary Parker Follet, Elton Mayo) in the 1930s was born in response to the inability (of other schools) to fully recognize the human factor as a basic element of organizational effectiveness.
Experimentally, it was found that well-designed work operations and good wages did not always lead to an increase in labor productivity (as representatives of the scientific management school had previously believed). The forces that arise in the course of interaction between people could and often exceeded the efforts of the leader. Sometimes employees reacted more strongly to pressure from colleagues in the group than to the desires of management and financial incentives. The cause of these phenomena, as it turned out, is mainly not economic forces(as the supporters of the school of scientific management believed), but various needs that can only be partially and indirectly satisfied with the help of money.
The researchers of this school believed that if management takes more care of their employees, then their motivation will increase, which will lead to increased productivity. They recommended the use of human relations management techniques, including more effective action by immediate supervisors, consultation with workers, and giving them more opportunities to communicate at work.
School of Behavioral Sciences(1950 to present) (Chris Algiris, Rensis Likert, Douglas McGregor, Frederick Herzberg) moved away from the school of human relations, which focused primarily on methods for establishing interpersonal relationships. The new approach sought to assist the worker to a greater extent in understanding his own capabilities through the application of the concepts of the behavioral sciences to the construction and management of organizations. The main goal is to increase the efficiency of the organization by increasing the efficiency of its human resources. Like earlier schools, this approach advocated a "single best way" to solve managerial problems. His main postulate was that the correct application of the science of behavior will always increase the efficiency of both the individual employee and the organization as a whole. However, it turned out that such methods of this school as changing the content of work and the participation of the employee in the management of the enterprise are effective only for some employees.
Contributions from the School of Human Relations and the School of Behavioral Sciences:
· Applying interpersonal relationship management techniques to improve satisfaction and performance;
Application of the sciences of human behavior to the management and formation of the organization in such a way that each employee can be used to the fullest in accordance with his potential.
A significant contribution to the theory of management, especially in the post-war period, was made by mathematics, statistics, engineering, knowledge in the field of quantitative methods, grouped under the general name: operations research. The latter, in essence, is the application of methods scientific research to the operational problems of the organization. After the problem is formulated, the operations research team develops models of the situation.
Such a model simplifies complex problems by reducing the number of variables to be considered to a manageable amount. A key characteristic of management science (and the scientific management school of the same name) is the replacement of verbal reasoning and descriptive analysis with models, symbols, and quantitative values. With the advent of the computer, operations researchers have begun to construct mathematical models of increasing complexity that come closest to reality and are therefore more accurate.
Process approach.
This concept, which marks a major turn in management thought, is widely used today. The process approach was first proposed by adherents of the classical (administrative) school, who tried to describe the functions of a manager. However, these authors tended to view such functions as independent of each other. The process approach, in contrast, considers management functions as interrelated.
Management is seen as a process because working to achieve goals with the help of others is not some one-time action, but a series of continuous interrelated actions. These activities, each of which is a process in itself, are essential to the success of the organization. They are called managerial functions. Each managerial function is also a process, because it also consists of a series of interrelated actions. The control process is the total sum of all functions.
Systems approach.
The system approach considers all processes and phenomena in the form of certain integral systems with new qualities and functions that are not inherent in its constituent elements. All systems have a stable internal structure and consist of interconnected elements (subsystems) with specific functions.
Systems are divided into closed, functioning independently of changes in the external environment (for example, clocks) and open, associated with outside world(all socio-economic objects - enterprises, organizations, teams, etc.).
The systems approach views the organization as an open system.
Conversion inputs outputs
The first major systems approach was Chester I. Barnard (1886-1961), who was closely associated with the behavioral school of management. His basic premise was that an organization is "a system of consciously coordinated action in which the leader is the most important strategic factor."
V systems approach it is emphasized that managers should consider the organization as a set of interrelated elements, such as people, structure, tasks and technology, which are focused on achieving different goals in a changing external environment.
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 of the 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 the norms for the production and remuneration of workers.
Taylor's followers Frank and Lillian Gilbreth dealt with the rationalization of worker labor, the study of physical movements in the production process, and the study of opportunities to increase output by increasing labor productivity. Ford formulated the basic principles of the organization of production, for the first time separated the main work from its service.
The main principles of the school of scientific management:
development of optimal methods for the implementation of work based on the study of the cost of time, movements, efforts, etc.;
Absolute adherence to the developed standards;
selection, training and placement of workers in those jobs where they can give the greatest benefit;
pay based on performance;
allocation of managerial functions to a separate area of professional activity;
maintaining friendly relations between workers and managers.
The contribution of the scientific management school to management theory:
use of scientific analysis to study the work process and determine the best ways to complete the task;
selecting workers best suited to the tasks and providing them with training;
providing employees with the resources required to effectively perform their tasks;
· the importance of fair material incentives for workers to increase productivity;
separation of planning and organizational activities from the work itself.
The disadvantages of this theory include the following:
The doctrine was based on a mechanistic understanding of man, his place in the organization and the essence of his activity;
Taylor and his followers saw in the worker only a performer of simple operations and a means to an end;
· did not recognize disagreements, contradictions, conflicts between people;
· the doctrine considered and took into account only the material needs of the workers;
2.G. Gantt is one of Taylor's closest associates.
F. Taylor was not alone in his pioneering work. Among them, first of all, we should highlight Henry Lawrence Gantt (1861-1919), Taylor's closest student, an American engineer who was engaged in developments in the field of bonus payment methods, who compiled scheme maps for production planning (which, by the way, received his name - the so-called gantt -schemes), as well as contributed to the development of the theory of leadership.
Unlike Taylor, Gantt pointed to the social responsibility of business and management, which have broad obligations to society. This explains his deep interest in the Russian revolution of 1917, its social and economic philosophy. There is a well-known system of payment according to Gantt, which provides bonuses for high performance, ideas of income distribution
evenly and proportionately to the factors of production, the taking of superprofits from monopolies for the benefit of society or the philanthropy of business companies, which betrays the influence that the Quaker tradition had on Gantt. Democratic views of power and the world of work have caused strained relations between Gantt and Taylor and his alienation from business people.
The discipline and training for hard work that Gantt received at this school stayed with him for the rest of his life. Gantt was successful at McDonagh School and qualified to study at Johns Hopkins University. He continued to live at school, and went to the university every day on suburban ambassadors. After graduating from university in 1880, he spent 3 years at the McDonough School teaching natural Sciences and physics. He then resumed his studies, this time at the Stevens Institute of Technology. Gantt entered there in 1983, majored in physics and electricity, and graduated as a mechanical engineer in 1884. After graduating from Stevens, Gantt returned to Baltimore and spent 2 years as a draftsman at Poole & Hunt, a ferrous metals firm.
Gantt, unlike Taylor, was no longer interested in individual operations and movements, but in production processes as a whole. He attributed low productivity to the fact that tasks and methods for solving them are formulated based on what has been done before, or someone else's opinion on how to do the job. Gantt's management philosophy can be summed up in his own words: "The main differences between the best systems today and those of the past lie in the way tasks are planned and distributed, and the way rewards are distributed for completing them." Following this principle, Gantt set a goal to improve the functioning of enterprises by updating the systems for formulating tasks and distributing incentives and bonuses.
He wrote the books "Labor, wages and income" (1910), "Industrial leadership" (1916), "Organization of labor" (1919). Gantt's work is characterized by the consciousness of the leading role of the human factor in industry and the conviction that the working person should be given the opportunity to find in his work not only a source of existence, but also a state of satisfaction. He wrote: “Everything we undertake must be in harmony with human nature. We cannot goad people; we have an obligation to guide their development.” Gantt believed that this ideal could be achieved by setting each worker a specific production task with the prospect of receiving a bonus for its timely and accurate performance. As early as 1901, Gantt developed the first bonus payment system for early and high-quality completion of production tasks. With its introduction at a number of enterprises, labor productivity has more than doubled.
In the article “Teaching workers the skills of industrial labor and cooperation” (1908), Gantt noted that with the formation of industrial labor skills, the task of acquiring knowledge and qualifications is greatly simplified. If workers are systematically taught the skills of industrial labor, it becomes possible not only to improve their productive abilities, but also to develop an effective system of cooperation between workers and clerks.
In the book "Organization of Labor" Gantt developed thoughts on the social responsibility of business. The course of his reasoning is briefly as follows: society needs services and goods, regardless of who gets the profit from their sale, since its very existence depends on the mass of commodities; businessmen claim that profit is more important for them than return to society; however, in the eyes of society, apart from the services and goods they provide, entrepreneurs have no other reason to exist. Therefore, “the business system must assume social responsibility and devote itself above all to the service of society, otherwise society will eventually attempt to crush it in order to freely act in accordance with its own interests.”
mi".
Gantt is a pioneer in the field of operational management and scheduling of enterprises; he developed a whole system of planned schedules - gantt cards, which, thanks to their high information content, made it possible to control the
planned and make plans for the future. These schedules are a short list of work planned for certain periods of time. Charts are based on time spent rather than volume produced. Many enterprises still use Gantt charts as an important tool for formulating and setting goals.
Gantt emphasized the leading role of the human factor in industry and expressed the conviction that the worker should be given the opportunity to find in his work not only a source of existence, but also a source of satisfaction.
But Gantt is known not only for his chart, but also for the first who spoke about the social responsibility of business.
In 1886 Gantt, before joining Midvale Steel in 1887, returned to the McDonagh School once more, this time as an instructor of labor training. At the time Gantt arrived at Midvale Steel as an engineering assistant, F.
Taylor was already the plant's chief engineer. In 1888, Gantt was elected a member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, and he also became Taylor's assistant. According to Urwick and Brech, Gantt "was more involved in the work of identifying more economical methods of operating machinery than in technical work." Very different Gantt and Taylor found each other, which resulted in a working relationship that lasted several years and included work on experiments in metallurgy, as well as the development of scientific management principles. As Warren writes, it was like this: "Gantt's ideas were greatly influenced by Taylor, Taylor-like elements were in early work Gantt. Emphasizing the importance between work and management, the scientific selection of workers, an incentive system designed to improve productivity, detailed instructions for the work performed, and other concepts were reflected in the works of Gantt. .
However, Gantt added more attention to human psychology to Taylor's work and more method than the opposite of the case method - measurement. Like Taylor, Gantt was a practical inventor, and during the period from 1901 to 1904, the two of them brought to life six joint inventions that concerned the setting of control temperatures for hardening metal products. Gantt also collaborated with Taylor and Karp Barth on the development of the slide rule, which was patented in 1904. His most significant invention was an invention concerning the development of patterns for steel ingots, which reduced their brittleness, which reduced costs. Asford commented that by 1934, approximately 25%, and probably almost 50%, of all steel ingots in the United States were cast according to the pattern developed by Gantt.
Both Taylor and Gantt were fired from Bethlehem Steel in 1901. From that time on, Gantt, in the words of his biographer, "began the real work of his life as a modern industrial management consultant." In 1901, Gantt read his work in the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, namely, The Bonus Wage System, which was the basis for his book Work, Wages, and Income, published in 1913. He then reads his next work in 1903, this time related to a schematic diagram of the flow of production, entitled "The Graphical Daily Balance in Manufacturing", which was later developed into the "Gantt Chart". In addition, he undertook several projects at the American Locomotive Company, Briggon Mile, William Brothers, Portland and Tabor Manufacturing, establishing the Taylor management system as he adopted it at Midvale, Simonde and Bethlehem, but with the addition of his own task-and-reward methods and a graphical daily balance presentation procedure. In 1904, he became the first "efficiency expert" working in a textile factory at a time when, on Taylor's recommendation, he did assignments at Sales Bleachers, Salesville, and Road Island.
Gantt also reorganized the plant (Sales) to shatter the informal control exercised by shop supervisors. Resistance to the changes he introduced eventually led to a strike in one of the departments, which spread to the point of shutting down the entire plant. Gantt responded by introducing a new workforce, including a foreman who was trained and deployed in the plant so that production could recover.
This prompted him to write his next work, The Training of the Labor Force in Industry, which he read to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers in December 1908. Gantt would later take his manuscript to Taylor for his opinion on whether Gantt should print the work. Despite the fact that the opinion of Taylor's work was negative, Gantt decided to ignore it and print it, which was the reason for the final break between them. Gantt later expounded his views in Modern Methods of Training and Preparation, which was written in 1915.
During the war, Gantt fully developed his "Gantt Chart". His assignment of coordinating the work of the various factories and departments involved in the war helped him develop a bar chart for careful planning. Gantt used his charts (chart charts) to graphically reflect time rather than output, which enabled the manager to display the progress of the project and take appropriate action in case of falling behind the plan. Gantt said that the principles behind his charting methods are easy to understand.
First principle: All actions can be measured by the amount of time required to complete them.
The second principle: The place representing the time spent on one operation can be marked on the diagram in such a way as to reflect also the number of actions that must be done in this period of time.
If you understand and remember these two principles, then the whole system becomes understandable - it offers a universal means of depicting on a diagram all types of actions, the common measure of which is time.
In 1916 he formed an organization called " New car”, whose members were engineers and other representatives who are not indifferent to the search for the causes of limited industrial democracy.
This chart was never patented, and after Gantt's death in 1919, Wallace Clark - one of the members of the Gantt consulting firm - developed the idea of the Gantt Chart, calling it in his work "Management's Working Tool", which was published in 1922. This book did much to promote international dissemination and acceptance of the practical aspects of Gantt's work. According to Warren, this book “was translated into 8 languages, being the basis for the Russian central planning (five-year plan), became for the whole world a graphic tool for planning and controlling work. All subsequent diagrams and production control schemes were based on the work of Gantt.
3. Lillian and Frank Gilbreth - creative union
Spouses Frank Gilbreth (1868-1924) and Lillian Gilbreth (1878-1972) were mainly engaged in the study of physical work in production processes and explored the possibility of increasing output by reducing the effort spent on their production.
F.
Gilbreth passed his MIT entrance exams, but instead decided to take up contract work. Starting as an apprentice bricklayer, he soon became interested in various types labor movements that were used in the training of masons. His wife Lillian was the explorer's constant companion and companion.
Gilbreth wondered: could unnecessary movements be eliminated, thereby reducing the effort and time required when laying bricks? After numerous experiments, he was able to reduce the number of movements required when laying exterior bricks from 18 to 4.5 and from 18 to 2 when laying interior bricks. He designed the adjustable stand to eliminate the need to bend over to pick up bricks. Similarly, he taught workers to use a mortar of a certain consistency to avoid setting. Thus, he was able to increase the number of bricks a worker could lay per shift from 120 to 350.
He believed that the national welfare depends on the individual training of workers, on their knowledge and ability to contribute to social wealth. To be profitable, any production activity must be planned and managed, behind it must be the ability, experience and knowledge of managers.
In 1904, Lillian Müller and F. Gilbreth, who became known as the father of labor movement timing, married. Lilian had a good education in management and psychology, and the couple combined their abilities to develop new methods of work. “It was the finger of fate! Lindell Urwick exclaimed about this. “They needed a person of just such a warehouse.” Lillian Gilbreth contributed to the study of the psychological factor of the technical process and the formation of labor psychology as a scientific discipline.
One of their most famous methods was the use of photographs of labor movements. Gilbreth identified 3 phases of labor movements:
identifying best practices;
their generalization in the form of rules;
the application of these rules to normalize working conditions in order to increase its productivity. By filming individual people doing work and then running the film backwards, they could analyze a person's labor movements and determine which ones were redundant.
Since at that time cameras were turned by hand, Frank Gilbreth invented the microchronometer, i.e. a watch with a large minute hand that recorded the time with an accuracy of 1/2000 min. These watches were placed in the field of view of labor operations filmed on film. (Today, if the camera does not have an electric motor that rotates at a constant speed, a micro-chronometer is still used when photographing labor operations). Based
film recordings, maps of the cycle of simultaneously performed micromovements were compiled - simocards (“maps of simultaneous movements”).
Using their invention, the Gilbreths could analyze individual labor movements, determining exactly how long it would take to complete an operation (timekeeping). In addition, they went even further and were able to systematize all the movements, which they called terblig (Gilbreth's surname in reverse order). Initially, 16 terbligs were installed - 13 action elements and 3 non-action elements. He then added the 17th terblig - "to plan". Other specialists later added the 18th terblig - "hold". Movement, according to Gilbreth, should be simultaneous, symmetrical, natural, rhythmic, habitual, etc. These ideas have proven useful for all industries. They have gained popularity in medicine, especially in hospitals.
They presented the results of their research in the books “Study of Movements” (1911) and “Psychology of Management” (1916), “The Beginnings of Scientific Management” (1912), “Fatigue Factors” (1916), “Practical Application of Movements” (1917), “ Study of Movements for the Disabled” (1920), which were translated into Russian and reprinted several times in 1924-1931. These writings emphasized the importance of the connection between the science of management and the data of sociological and psychological research. Table 4 Terblig System
Symbol Name Color<3>Look for Black<П>Find Gray Select Draw Light Gray Crimson 7G Move Weight Arm Green 9 Set Cyan FF Place Violet and Process Magenta 1+ Dismantle Light Violet 0 Check Burnt Ocher 6 Position Sky Blue Drop Weight Red Carmine eG Move Hand unloaded Olive green Hold Golden ocher Off Rest to eliminate fatigue Orange JD Non-working break
Break depending on worker Yellow ocher Lemon yellow R Plan Brown Each terblig has a specific symbol.
For clarity, the designation of terbligs on the sim card, each symbol has a certain color.
Gilbreth made a report on terbligs in 1912 at a meeting of the Society for the Improvement of the Organization of Production founded by F. Taylor. Then it was about the visual study of movements.
In 1916, at the annual ABME congress, Gilbreth made a report on the problem of studying micromotions. He prepared this report jointly with his wife, Lillian Gilbreth. This report talked about three methods they developed for studying micromotion norms:
1. map of the production process;
2. study of micromovements directly;
3. chronocyclography.
Gilbreth pointed out that these methods are not mutually exclusive, but, on the contrary, complement each other and should be used together.
It should be noted that these methods in various modifications are used now. The study of movements received a large and fruitful development in Soviet works of the 20-30s.
dov. .
The Gilbreths were also interested in the social aspects of scientific management. In particular, they insisted on the following thesis: no organization can count on sustainability if it does not care both for the well-being of the organization as a whole and for the well-being of each of its members.
In addition to the study of motor activity, the Gilbreths paid great attention to the study of the organization of the workplace as a whole. They developed a promotion plan for the workers, which included three parts:
the worker has done his work;
the worker taught his follower;
the worker has acquired new skills and prepared himself to advance to more difficult work.
All factors affecting the productivity of the worker were divided into three groups:
variable factors of the worker (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 expediency, cost of work, etc.).
In the 1940s, there were attempts to implement a system of microelement standards at various US enterprises. In 1945, the engineers of the American Radio Corporation published the results of the development of a system of microelement standards in the journal Factory Management. The authors called these results the “Work Factor System”.
In 1948, under the editorship of G. B. Maynard, a book entitled "MTM" was published, devoted to the system for determining the method and duration of work. The book presents the results of Maynard's development of a system of microelement standards, obtained, in particular, during research at the Westinghouse Electric Corporation plant in 1940. The National Association for the Development of Standards and Research in the field of MTM was created in the USA. Congresses of this association are held.
G. B. Maynard, who was one of the presidents of CIOS, is also known as the editor of the encyclopedia of industrial organization, compiled by a team of 81 specialists and published
forged in the USA in 1956. This encyclopedia is characterized by an engineering approach to all factors of production and distribution of goods and services.
L. Gilbreth put forward the idea of workers' participation in planning. This idea was perceived by many managers as quite practical and useful in that it provided the workers with perceptions of decisions made at the top and made it easier for them to evaluate their performance on the basis of previously agreed goals.
Much later, in 1954, at the Tenth International Congress on Scientific Management in São Paulo, Lillian Gilbreth was awarded the CIOS gold medal. There is no doubt that in awarding the medal to Lillian Gilbreth, Congress also paid tribute to the memory of her late husband.
Lillian worked closely with her husband, and after his death spread his ideas in the US and abroad. Her concepts in applied psychology, along with her travels around the world, have earned her the title of "First Lady of Management". The first woman, who became a doctor of psychology, defended her dissertation in 1915. Probably, the problems of management and psychology could not help but interest her, since she was the mother of 12 children.
4. The famous 12 principles of labor productivity of H. Emerson
One of permanent themes in management - the foundations of efficiency, most developed by Emerson in the book "Efficiency as the basis of management and remuneration." Our inefficiency, as opposed to the high efficiency of nature, is the cause of our poverty, Emerson believed.
There are two ways to overcome inefficiency: to teach people to work correctly by analyzing the elements of work and to set tasks in such a way that they motivate maximum productivity.
Why, he asked, do small businesses with a wide variety of small-scale products compete successfully with large corporations, which, it would seem, are more competitive due to economies of scale? These corporations are able to purchase large quantities of goods, receive significant price discounts and widely mechanize production processes. Emerson saw the reason for the success of small companies in the inefficiency of large corporations, resulting from the uncontrollability of too much large companies, their excessive bureaucratization. At the same time, along with the scale parameters, particular importance is attached to the optimal interaction of the staff, expert-technical and line personnel of the company. Although line personnel have the right to take the initiative, the success of the case is largely determined by the competence of the expert technical staff in terms of the optimal allocation of resources, technical equipment or work organization.
Emerson knew about the activities of Taylor's group and the work of the Gilbreths, although Taylor never trusted Emerson's new generation of efficiency engineers. For this reason, Emerson's contributions were independent of other scientific management researchers, despite the fact that Emerson shared many (if not most) of their beliefs.
Of particular importance to Emerson was that he had to defend the ideas of scientific management to the workers. In 1921, he was appointed a member of the Hoover Committee for the Elimination of Industrial Waste.
Emerson, like Taylor, believed that in achieving their work goals, most people work with an efficiency of no more than 60%. He believed that ways should be developed to set goals that demand maximum performance. Emerson believed that our operations were so inefficient that we didn't produce even 1% of what we could.
One of the most significant differences between Emerson's ideas and those of other authors of the scientific management school is his view of the relationship between efficiency and organizational structure.
Emerson recommended the use of cost accounting standards to evaluate the performance of an organization. The cost accountant, who works closely with the performance engineer (technologist), performs the following functions:
gives the "industrial and business world" certain standards and a dollar system of measures applicable to the assessment of all services, materials and equipment;
conducts accurate quantitative analysis and determines the market value of all current operations in order to inform the degree of economic efficiency;
puts at the disposal of workers the means and methods that would ensure 100% productivity.
Since the birth of life on our planet, there have been and are only two types of organization. These are the ones that Frederick Winslow Taylor defines as functional and military types. The first type can be otherwise called the organization of creation, and the second - the organization of destruction. Primitive economic life (to which our American trade with Madagascar belongs) was so closely connected with raids, assaults, with sea and land robbery, with the slave trade, that the business economic organization was everywhere and inevitably built on a military type, and yet now we are already we know that this type can by no means be consistent with the essence and tasks of a modern enterprise. The colossal blessing bestowed on the world by Field Marshal Moltke is that he, a military man bound by military traditions, nevertheless organized the army according to a new type, according to a functional type - the same one that should always be used in economic enterprises.
Since the only chance for success in that great game, which he started with Bismarck, was the highest productivity, he was forced to clarify for himself all the principles on which this productivity is built. In exactly the same way, he was forced to introduce the only type of organization that allows their use. And all this was done so imperceptibly that even the most astute of Moltke's opponents saw nothing in the entire German army, except for all the same helmets, epaulettes, gold cords and rattling sabers, to which they had long been accustomed to pay attention; no one understood that, without changing names, without touching ranks and orders, Moltke, for his predatory purposes, destroyed the old predatory organization and would replace it with a new one - functional, creative, productive. What do all the splendid achievements of the great American railroad companies stand before Moltke's calm, preconceived plans, which passed without a hitch the whole great test? practical implementation? What does the largest American enterprise stand as a working unit before the perfect organization of Moltke, before the perfect organization of that handful of leaders who made Japan a great world power?
Heads of large manufacturing enterprises and railways England, France, Germany, America - these are all people of great will, exceptional abilities, inexhaustible energy, and, moreover, people wholly devoted to the interests that are entrusted to them. But these people know the principles of productivity only empirically, they apply these principles only occasionally and irregularly, and therefore the factories, plants and railways, to which they devote so much effort and talent, work incredibly wastefully. The unproductive expenses of the American railroads amount to a million dollars a day; and meanwhile, accounting, recognition and persistent application of the principles of productivity would save us from these losses, for they are as avoidable as yellow fever on the Isthmus of Panama, as fuel losses in well-designed machines, boilers and furnaces.
Even with first-class technology, American industry cannot use it properly, because the very organization, copied from outdated English models, is so imperfect in essence that it excludes any possibility of applying true principles and using excellent technology (pp. 97-98).
Thirty years ago, a whole 800 miles of road stretched from the plains of Texas to the spurs of the Platte mountain range. I easily recognized this road by its deep potholes, even in
darkest nights. Every year up to half a million long-horned, vicious, narrow-hipped Texas bulls, carrying with them the Texas fever, slowly passed north along it. The cows stayed in Texas and gave birth to new long-horned bulls of the same bad breed. Now all this has changed. Short-legged Herford and Galloway bulls produced excellent short-legged offspring, well-fed and calm. These new bulls are carried north in the finest carriages, and Texas fever is under strict quarantine.
The best basis for peaceful and harmonious relations, for high labor productivity is the careful selection of first-class human material and the complete exclusion of "long-horned Texas bulls" in human form.
It is in this way that officer cadres of the army and navy are completed in our country. First, candidates are carefully selected, taking into account education, health, and even a biography that gives indications of some moral properties, and then those accepted are treated honestly and fairly. It is to these elementary and clearly insufficient methods that we owe the fact that in the army and navy there is much less dishonesty, rudeness, and obvious dishonesty than in other organizations: both in state and municipal, and in private ownership. If an officer behaves well, then he will remain in the service and slowly but surely rise in the ranks. His social position is very high, he is a welcome guest in any society, in the most demanding club.
Why, one wonders, does our production so systematically neglect the elementary method of selection, which has thousands of years of experience behind it?
The captain of a whaling ship recruits his motley crew by deceit and violence, and then manages them with Old Testament discipline: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, blow for blow. In a word, here we see the lex talionis in all its undisguised ugliness. An administrator who recruits workers with the same indifference, who does not even try to find out whether the young candidate is suitable for the job ahead of him in terms of his inclinations, physical development and, most importantly, abilities, who does not want to determine whether the person who came for work is suitable for membership in the labor organization whether he possesses the appropriate moral principles, knowledge and skills - such an administrator is of necessity forced to rely entirely on masters as headstrong and undisciplined as himself. He involuntarily has to rely not so much on moral as on physical impact.
Seeing ill-bred children, we do not blame them, but their parents. In the harsh winter of 1900, while crossing the terrible Yukon roads, some gold prospectors beat and maimed their naughty dogs so cruelly that they had to intercede for them by the mounted police. But with a good owner, carefully selected dogs listened to every word. Showing that greedy and affectionate nature that Maeterlinck ascribes to them, they merrily jumped around the owner and were ready to go to death for him (pp. 148-149).
Hummingbirds winter in Central America, and nest in Alaska in the spring, which does not prevent them from raising beautiful, courageous and strong offspring. The petrel flies 4,000 miles in the fog and hits its nest straight; in South America it happened to catch storks noted in Norway; it is believed that loaves and waders fly at 4 miles per minute.
If frightened away, a poultry will flap its wings frantically, fly over a low fence and fall to the ground in complete exhaustion.
The rooster uses its wings to flap when it sings, and the hen to hatch its chicks.
“Who ever heard that, after having fun, a woman complained of fatigue, even if she danced all night until light?” Nietzsche asked. On March 20, 1910, the police forcibly stopped dancing at the request of doctors, after six people, competing with each other, danced continuously for 15 hours and 6 minutes.
Professor William James argues that after the first fatigue, a secondary rise occurs: at first, the chicken only flaps its wings to the point of exhaustion, and then the strength to fly can arise in it.
Rules and Schedules! They are of two kinds: on the one hand, physical and chemical standards recognized and established in the last century, distinguished by mathematical precision, and, on the other hand, such timetables that are based on standards or norms whose limits we still do not know. We have five external senses. With the help of taste, we clearly distinguish the smallest impurity in food,
by smell we feel a millionth of a grain of musk, by touch we feel a ten-thousandth of an inch, the eruption of Krakatoa was heard by one person 2390 miles away, we see stars in the sky burning billions of kilometers away from us. But there is a region not even ten miles distant from us, and we know less about this region than about the stellar nebulae, because neither our external senses, nor our physics and mathematics penetrate into it. This area is under our feet, ten or less miles deep.
Using precise instruments: barometers that measure a millionth of a degree of heat, ultramicroscopes that almost allow us to see individual atoms, tuning forks whose vibration captures a millionth of a second, using all the subtleties of physics and chemistry, we penetrate into the true essence of material nature. Using a stopwatch, we time and study the work of machines in the most accurate way. But when we want to put the work of intelligent people into a precise schedule, then all our mathematics is powerless, and we have to turn to experiments inspired by faith. The flight speed of a small bird is 4 miles per minute; in the flight of a firefly - 99 percent or more of productivity; the blind bat has some kind of sixth sense incomprehensible to us; a gray bear runs at full speed on the darkest night - and suddenly stops abruptly, running a foot to the thinnest wire connected to a photographic apparatus for shooting with a flash of magnesium.
Everything around us, all nature teaches that high results are created by reducing, not by increasing efforts. But we are still not smart enough to understand these lessons. It takes one pound of coal for one horsepower, and 2 for 2 horsepower; jumping 4 feet is harder than 2, and jumping 5 feet is even harder than 4. On this basis, we quite wrongly believe that effort is measured by the result. This opinion is consistent with a certain range of experimental data, but more wide experience forces us to take the opposite view. When we measure any kind of effort by its results, we see that it falls from a maximum to a minimum, and then rises again to a new maximum, so that there is only one point along this curve where the maximum result coincides with the minimum effort. This item corresponds to one hundred percent productivity (pp. 172-173).
Finally, consider the principle of performance rewards. To produce maximum results and be accompanied by a healthy joyful upsurge, all human work requires three conditions.
Work should be enjoyable; it should not be hard labor, but a game. A man must work as a boy learns to ride a bicycle or skate, as a girl learns to dance, old man learns to play golf like a motorist picks up speed.
Every work must have a certain end in mind, it must not be an indefinite, endless slack, but demand such and such results within such and such a period. We cannot endure either endless day or endless night; both overwhelm and irritate us, like the unfailingly good weather, the unfailingly calm sea. A person needs constant change, he needs rain and a hurricane - but only so that at the end of the transition a camp, a fire and dinner are waiting for him. It is very difficult for an untrained person to hold his breath for a whole minute, but as soon as he sets a certain goal for himself, pulls himself together - and from the very first lesson he learns not to breathe for one and a half, two, three and even four minutes. He, as the athletes say, acquires a "class".
"Class" is the last thing needed for easy, graceful and enjoyable work. Compare an experienced skater with a novice, compare the movements of a good rider or cyclist, tensing perhaps no more than one muscle at a time, with the desperate efforts of a beginner. Compare, finally, the ease of a professional juggler with the clumsiness of an amateur.
The steel trust introduced a system of profit sharing, but did it take into account the full need for performance compensation for its huge army workers? Has he set performance standards for operations? Did he make the work joyful? Do his workers show a high "class" in their work?
If the work is done with the minimum effort and, moreover, in the best way, giving the specified norm by a certain date, then it becomes joyful, and this joy is further increased by a special reward for high productivity. Such
What are the working conditions of the workers of the Steel Trust? If not in such, then their labor cannot be fully productive and is inevitably associated with losses.
Whether we consider the manufacture of a single pin or the operation of the world's greatest enterprise for decades, weak points and the need for improvement are revealed by the same method. On the manufacturing plant The principles of productivity play the same role that hygiene plays in life. If a person, whether a man, woman or child, is not breathing enough fresh air, does not have enough healthy food and drink, bodily exercise, sufficient rest and sleep, lively interests and variety of environment, then whatever such a person does, his health inevitably suffers.
Whatever the enterprise does, if it lacks the principles on which productivity is built, then none of its actions can be productive to the end.
Franklin worked out 13 principles of petty daily virtue. These principles are: restraint, silence, order, determination, thrift, activity, frankness, justice, moderation, cleanliness, calmness, chastity and modesty. For each week he took one of these virtues for himself, and for the whole week he practiced it earnestly in order to make it a habit. Every three months he devoted one full week to all the virtues, so that in total each of them accounted for four weeks a year. So he kept himself for many years in a row. And the ridiculous, eccentric young Franklin, who quarreled with his wife because she served him milk not in an earthenware mug, but in a porcelain cup, and, moreover, not with a pewter, but with a silver spoon, this eccentric became the world's statesman who earned the respect of the British, the admiration of the French and the gratitude of the Americans. Similarly, one should apply and re-apply/apply all the principles of performance (pp. 220-221).
"The Twelve Principles of Productivity". Garrington Emerson // Management is a science and art: A. Fayol, G. Emerson, F. Taylor, G. Ford M. Republic Publishing House 1992- 351 p.
Emerson developed the ideas of time standards and bonuses. For any profession, as Emerson believed, there should be a standard time for completing a work task.
In 1900, his book "Efficiency as a basis for management and wages" was published, and in 1912, the main work of his life, "The Twelve Principles of Productivity." In this work, he formulated the following 12 management principles that ensure the growth of labor productivity, which have not lost their significance to this day:
Clearly defined goals as the starting point for management.
Common sense, including the recognition of individual errors and the search for their causes.
Competent consultation of professionals and improvement of the management process based on their recommendations.
Discipline, provided with a clear regulation of people's activities, control over it, timely encouragement.
Fair treatment of staff.
Fast, reliable, accurate, complete and permanent accounting.
Dispatching according to the principle “it is better to dispatch at least unplanned work than to plan work without dispatching”.
Norms and schedules that facilitate the search and implementation of reserves.
Normalization of working conditions.
Rationing of operations, which consists in standardizing the methods of their implementation and regulating the time.
Availability of written standard instructions.
Performance reward.
According to Emerson, “to work hard means to put maximum effort into the matter; to work productively means to apply the minimum effort to the work.
Emerson paid great attention to the selection of personnel, moreover, he considered it necessary to manage it, as if anticipating the emergence of the profession of a personnel manager in the future: “It is extremely important to have at least a few specialists with intuition, observation, understanding on the one hand, and all the wealth physiological, psychological and anthropological scientific knowledge, on the other. Only such a specialist can give the administration and the job candidate really competent advice, only he can correctly say whether the candidate is suitable for the job. this work» .
Main part
The creators of the school of scientific management proceeded from the fact that, using observations, measurements, logic and analysis, it is possible to improve most manual labor operations and achieve their more efficient implementation.
Representatives of the school of scientific management are: F. W. Taylor, Frank and Lillian Gilbert, Henry Gantt.
Frederick Taylor (1856-1915) is considered to be the founder of the school of scientific management, an American engineer who is known for developing the first holistic concept of management, which is called "Taylorism" in his honor. Taylor attended the meeting during which Town read his report. Towne's idea inspired Taylor to create his own concept of management. He formulated his ideas in the books Workshop Management (1903) and Principles and Methods of Scientific Management (1911).
It should be noted that in Taylor's time, monopoly capitalism experienced its heyday. Enterprises grew very quickly, and this required the unification and standardization of production, more efficient use of material resources, time and labor.
Therefore, Taylor saw the main goal of management in increasing labor productivity. To achieve this goal, from Taylor's point of view, it was possible only through the development of numerous rules by which operations are carried out and which should replace the judgment of the worker. In fact, this means that Taylor assigned the main role in the management of production to instructions in accordance with which workers must act. Instructions were developed in the process of studying the operations that workers should perform. This was the shortcoming of Taylor's concept: it did not fully take into account the personality of the worker.
According to Taylor, there are four main principles of the scientific organization of work:
The administration of the enterprise should strive to introduce scientific and technological achievements into the production process, replacing traditional and purely practical methods;
The administration should take on the role of selecting workers and training them in their specialty (before Taylor this was not done, and the worker independently chose a profession and trained himself);
The administration must harmonize the scientific principles of production with the principles operating in the field of production from the very beginning;
Responsibility for the results of labor is distributed evenly between the workers and the administration.
Among Taylor's followers are Henry Gant, as well as the spouses Frank and Lillian Gilbert. Just like Taylor, they sought to improve the work process by developing clear instructions that were based on logical analysis. Gant, for example, developed methods for scheduling the activities of the enterprise, and also formulated the basics of operational management.
Taylor developed and implemented a complex system of organizational measures:
Timing;
instructional cards;
Methods of retraining workers;
Planning Bureau;
Collection of social information.
The Gilberts studied work operations using movie cameras in combination with a microchronometer. Then, with the help of 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.
F. Gilbert's studies on the rationalization of workers' labor provided 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 recruitment, placement and training. Scientific management did not neglect the human factor.
Not everyone knows that Henry Ford, who is best known as the founder of the American automobile industry, is also a major figure in the history of scientific management. The success he achieved in business largely depended on his theory, which was called "Fordism". In his opinion, the task of industry cannot be seen only in meeting the needs of the market (although no industry can exist without this): it is necessary to organize the production process in such a way that, firstly, it is possible to reduce product prices, and secondly, to increase wages. workers' labor.
Ford believed that the correct organization of production involves:
1) replacement of manual labor by machine,
2) care for employees, which consists in creating favorable working conditions (cleanliness in workshops, comfort), as well as
3) improving product quality and
4) development of the service maintenance network.
In his practice, Ford sought to divide the production process into the smallest operations, as a result of which the movement of products from one worker to another would depend only on the speed with which the operation is performed. This is what allowed him to reduce the cost of production.
The scientific management school proceeded from the assumption that the optimal organization of production could be created on the basis of accurate knowledge of how people act. Supporters of this direction believed that with the help of logic, observations, analysis and calculations, it is possible to organize production in such a way that it will be as efficient as possible. In addition, associated with the school of scientific management is the notion that management is a special function that is separate from the actual performance of work.
Pros and cons
The main drawback of the scientific management school and the classical school was that they did not fully understand the role and importance of the human factor, which, ultimately, is the main element in the effectiveness of the organization.
The merit of the management science school lies in the fact that it was able to identify the main internal and external variables (factors) that affect the organization.
A distinctive feature of management science is the use of models. Models become especially important when it is necessary to make decisions in complex situations that require the evaluation of several alternatives.
Representatives
Frederick Winslow Taylor
Born in the family of a lawyer. He was educated in France and Germany, then at the F. Exter Academy in New Hampshire. In 1874 he graduated from Harvard Law College, but due to vision problems he could not continue his education and got a job as a press worker in the industrial workshops of a hydraulic equipment plant in Philadelphia. In 1878, at the peak of the economic depression, he got a job as a laborer at the Midvale steel mill.
From 1882 to 1883 he worked as the head of mechanical workshops. In parallel, he received a technical education (degree of mechanical engineer, Stevens Institute of Technology, 1883). In 1884, Taylor became chief engineer, the same year he first used the system of differential pay for labor productivity.
From 1890 to 1893 Taylor, CEO of the Manufacture Investment Company in Philadelphia, owner of paper presses in Maine and Wisconsin, set up his own management consulting business, the first in management history. In 1906, Taylor became president of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, and in 1911, he established the Society for the Promotion of Scientific Management.
Since 1895, Taylor began his world-famous research on the scientific organization of labor. He issued patents for about a hundred of his inventions and rationalizations.
Henry Lawrence Gant
Gant was born in Culver County, Maryland (Calvert County, Maryland in 1861; after graduating from school in 1878, he entered the Stevens Institute of Technology in New Jersey (New Jersey).
For a time, Henry made a living acting as a teacher and draftsman; then fate brought him into mechanical engineering.
In 1887 he, with Frederick W. Taylor, tried to apply a scientific managerial approach to the functioning of such large organizations as Midvale Steel and Bethlehem Steel. After working in this area until 1893, Gant decided to professionally engage in consulting activities. The charts that made him famous were soon invented; Around the same time, Henry developed a new, rather original system for paying wages and evaluating labor performance. Under the general name "Gantt Charts" hides a number of different schemes. For the first time, Henry began to use a graphical method of presenting information, reporting to his superiors on the work done - his management could always quickly understand how the amount of work already done correlated with the plans set. Diagrams have proven to be incredibly useful - almost all project management systems now include the ability to create them.
Frank and Lillian Gilbert
Frank Bunker Gilbreth -senior (Frank Bunker Gilbreth, Sr.) was born in 1868 in the city of Fairfield, Maine (Fairfield, Maine), in the family of Joseph and Martha Gilbreth (Joseph and Martha Gilbreth). After graduating from school, Frank got a job as a bricklayer, while studying the construction business in order to make the process as easy as possible and reduce the loss of working time. Soon the authorities noticed the work of the young man and promoted him to a building contractor. Around the same time, the extremely active builder began lecturing at Purdue University. At 27, Gilbreth became CEO of a construction company, where he had once worked part-time.
On October 19, 1904, he married Lillian Moller, with whom he had 12 children.
Together with his wife, who was also interested in management, Frank became more and more immersed in the business environment; so, they soon founded their own company "Gilbreth, Inc.", specializing in business assistance.
Throughout his life, Frank worked to improve productivity in various organizations such as hospitals, the military, and the public service. The profession of a nurse who supplies surgical instruments to a surgeon during an operation is attributed to his hand, it was he, as scientists say, who developed methods that have become widespread in the armies of all countries of the world and consist in teaching young soldiers to quickly assemble and disassemble weapons blindfolded or in complete darkness. .
The Gilbreth family gained worldwide fame after the book "Cheaper by the Dozen", written by the son of an economist in 1948. Subsequently, this plot formed the basis of two feature films, one of which, released in 2003, even won several prestigious film awards.
Lillian Moller (Gilbreth) was born May 24, 1878, in Oakland, California (Oakland, California), and was the second of ten children of William Moller (William Moller) and Annie Delger Moller (Annie Delger Moller). Her parents had German roots. Lillian studied at home until she was nine years old, until she entered school, where she had to start all over again.
Moller graduated from the University of California in 1900 with a bachelor's degree in English literature.
After she married Frank on October 19, 1904, the couple planned to have a family of 12 children. The plan was successfully implemented, and only one of the offspring did not live to adulthood. Gilbreth's children often became participants in her experiments.
Her work in government began thanks to a long-standing friendship with Herbert Hoover and his wife, Lou Henry Hoover. At Lou's request, Lillian joined the Girl Scouts as a consultant in 1929, and later became a member of the board of directors of the youth movement. She remained active in this organization for over 20 years.
During the Hoover administration, Gilbreth led the women's sector of the President's Emergency Committee for Employment in 1930, helping to reduce unemployment in cooperation with women's groups. During World War II, she was an adviser to several government groups, sharing knowledge in the field of education and labor, including with the United States Navy (USN).
For the first time, the idea of management as a special specialization, a special profession, was apparently expressed in 1866 by the American businessman G. Town. Town spoke at a meeting of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers with a report in which he spoke about the need to train managerial specialists.
|
Time period |
Nowadays |
||||||
|
Schools of Management | |||||||
|
School of Scientific Management | |||||||
|
Administrative (classical) school | |||||||
|
School of Human Relations | |||||||
|
School of Behavioral Sciences | |||||||
|
School of Management Science (Quantitative School) | |||||||
|
Management approaches | |||||||
|
Process approach to management | |||||||
|
System approach to management | |||||||
|
Situational approach to management |
School of Scientific Management (the school of scientific management) proceeded from the assumption that the optimal organization of production can be created on the basis of accurate knowledge of how people act. Supporters of this direction believed that with the help of logic, observations, analysis and calculations, it is possible to organize production in such a way that it will be as efficient as possible. In addition, associated with the school of scientific management is the notion that management is a special function that is separate from the actual performance of work.
Frederick Taylor (1856-1915) is considered to be the founder of the school of scientific management, an American engineer who is known for developing the first holistic concept of management, which is called "Taylorism" in his honor. Taylor attended the meeting during which Town read his report. Towne's idea inspired Taylor to create his own concept of management. He formulated his ideas in the books Workshop Management (1903) and Principles and Methods of Scientific Management (1911).
Taylor was educated as a mechanical engineer and worked for a steel company that embodied the basic ideas of Taylorism. It should be noted that in Taylor's time, monopoly capitalism experienced its heyday. Enterprises grew very quickly, and this required the unification and standardization of production, more efficient use of material resources, time and labor.
Therefore, Taylor saw the main goal of management in increasing labor productivity. To achieve this goal, from Taylor's point of view, it was possible only through the development of numerous rules by which operations are carried out and which should replace the judgment of the worker. In fact, this means that Taylor assigned the main role in the management of production to instructions in accordance with which workers must act. Instructions were developed in the process of studying the operations that workers should perform. This was the shortcoming of Taylor's concept: it did not sufficiently take into account the personality of the worker.
According to Taylor, there are four main principles of the scientific organization of work:
1) the administration of the enterprise should strive to introduce scientific and technological achievements into the production process, replacing traditional and purely practical methods;
2) the administration should take on the role of selecting workers and training them in their specialty (before Taylor, this was not done and the worker independently chose a profession and trained himself);
3) the administration must harmonize the scientific principles of production with the principles in force in the field of production from the very beginning;
4) responsibility for the results of labor is distributed evenly between the workers and the administration.
Among Taylor's followers are Henry Gant, as well as the spouses Frank and Lillian Gilbert. Just like Taylor, they sought to improve the work process by developing clear instructions that were based on logical analysis. Gant, for example, developed methods for scheduling the activities of an enterprise, and also formulated the basics of operational management. By the way, it was the supporters of scientific management who were the first to use cameras and movie cameras in their research.
Not everyone knows that Henry Ford, who is best known as the founder of the American automobile industry, is also a major figure in the history of scientific management. The success he achieved in business largely depended on his theory, which was called "Fordism". In his opinion, the task of industry cannot be seen only in meeting the needs of the market (although no industry can exist without this): it is necessary to organize the production process in such a way that, firstly, it is possible to reduce product prices, and secondly, to increase wages. workers' labor.
Ford believed that the correct organization of production involves
1) replacement of manual labor by machine,
2) care for employees, which consists in creating favorable working conditions (cleanliness in workshops, comfort), as well as
3) product quality improvement
4) development of the service maintenance network.
In his practice, Ford sought to divide the production process into the smallest operations, as a result of which the movement of products from one worker to another depended only on the speed with which the operation was performed. This is what allowed him to reduce the cost of production.
The disadvantage of scientific management is that it puts at the forefront the technical means with which supposedly it is possible to solve any problems.
Administrative School of Management . Henri Fayol (1841-1925) is another prominent representative of management in the first quarter of the 20th century, who developed the foundations of the administrative approach to management. He, like his like-minded people (L. Urwick, J. Mooney), had experience as a senior manager in a large enterprise. It was this experience that allowed Fayol to formulate the foundations of the science of management based on the general characteristics of the organization and the laws that it obeys. The administrative school is also called the classical school.
From Fayol's point of view, the efficiency of production can be increased not only by improving the devices of work and the operations that the worker must perform, but also by properly organizing the work of the whole enterprise. Consequently, the role of the administration from the point of view of Fayol's concept increased markedly. Under effective administrative management, Fayol understood such management of an enterprise that allows you to extract the maximum possible from the resources at your disposal.
Fayol identified 14 principles of management:
1) the division of labor, thanks to which it is possible to increase its productivity;
2) balance between authority and responsibility; 3) discipline;
4) unity of command, in which the employee is subordinate to only one leader;
5) the unity of the direction of movement of all departments of the organization;
6) dominance common interests over personal;
7) worthy remuneration as a condition for the loyalty of employees;
8) balance between centralization and decentralization;
9) hierarchy of the organization;
10) order in everything;
11) justice, which is a combination of kindness and justice;
12) staff stability and inadmissibility of staff turnover;
13) initiative in the construction and implementation of the plan;
14) corporate spirit - feeling like a member of a team.
Representatives of this school identified three main functions of business: finance, production and marketing. They believed that this separation could form the basis for the optimal division of the organization into divisions.
The concept of scientific bureaucracy. Another scientific school of the classical direction of management was developed by the German scientist Max Weber (1864-1920), which involved the analysis of the company as a bureaucratic organization. Management, according to Weber, should be built on an impersonal, purely rational basis. He defined this form as bureaucracy. Such a concept implied a clear definition of job duties and responsibilities of employees, formal reporting, separation of ownership and management.
Bureaucratic rules and procedures are a standard way of interaction: the same requirements are imposed on each of the employees, they are all guided by the same rules. It was the bureaucracy that allowed many organizations to achieve high performance, and did not carry a negative meaning in Weber's approach.
In his main work, The Theory of Socio-Economic Organization, Weber formulated the principles for building an "ideal" organization. Bureaucratic models of building an organization became widespread in the 1930s and 1940s. XX century. In the future, the passion for this approach (“the organization works like a machine”) led to an increase in the cumbersomeness of managerial structures and began to impede the flexibility and efficiency of entrepreneurial activity.
In general, the period of dominance of the classical direction of management was fruitful - the science of management appeared, a new fundamental concept, efficiency increased.
School of Human Relations . The classical school of management did not adequately take into account the human factor as a fundamental element of the effectiveness of the organization. Therefore, in the 30-50s. 20th century has become widespread classical school, and in its composition - the school of human relations, which transferred the center of gravity in management from the performance of production tasks to relations between people.
The emergence of this school is directly related to the name of the German psychologist Hugo Munspgerberger (1863-1916), who moved to the United States. He actually created the world's first school of industrial psychologists, was one of the founders of psychotechnics (selection, testing, compatibility, etc.). In his work "Psychology and Industrial Efficiency", which received wide popularity, he formulated the principle of selecting people for leadership positions.
A special merit in the creation of the theory and practice of human relations belongs to the psychologist Elton Mayo (1880-1949), who conducted the "Hattorn experiments" in the town of Hatthorn near Chicago at the enterprises of the Western Electric company. They continued from 1927 to 1933. and have no analogues in scale and duration.
Experiments have shown that it is possible to influence people's attitudes towards work through the creation of informal groups. The art of communicating with people was to be the main criterion for the selection of administrators, starting with the master. The works of Mayo and his associates laid the foundation for numerous studies of relationships in organizations, identifying motivations for work, and the role of small groups. This determined the development of management theory and practice for a quarter of a century ahead.
Supporters of the psychological approach believed that the main focus in management should be shifted to the person and human relationships. They proceeded from the indisputable fact that human activity is controlled not by economic forces, but by various needs, and money is by no means always able to satisfy these needs.
Of course, this approach is extreme, since the management process combines a variety of aspects. However, this extreme was legitimate: it was a response to the excessive interest in technology inherent in scientific management.
Representatives of the school of human relations explored management processes using methods developed in sociology and psychology. In particular, they were the first to use tests and special forms of job interviews.
As a result of the research, E. Mayo came to the conclusion that such factors as logical labor operations and high wages, highly valued by supporters of scientific management, do not always affect the increase in labor productivity. He found that labor productivity is no less dependent on relationships with other workers. For this reason, representatives of the school of human relations argued that management can only be effective if leaders are sufficiently aware of the personal characteristics of their subordinates, their strengths and weaknesses. Only in this case, the leader can fully and effectively use their capabilities.
The essence of the concept, which develops in the mainstream of human relations, is the development of work tasks in accordance with the principle of motivation, when employees are given the opportunity to reach their full potential and thereby satisfy their highest needs.
The most famous representatives include Abraham Maslow (1908-1970). A psychoanalyst and theoretical scientist, he came to the conclusion that there is a hierarchy of needs, the basis of which is formed by physiological needs, on which the needs for security, belonging, self-esteem, and, finally, self-actualization are based. Based on this theory, Douglas McGregor formulated Theory X and Theory Y. Classical management is based on the first of them, and the second is more realistic and complete.
The assumptions of Theory Y boil down to the fact that there is no innate dislike for work, external control and sanctions are not the only and not the most effective method control (motivation), most workers are able to show ingenuity and that, finally, the potential of the intellect of the "average" individual is far from being fully used. Their research contributed to the emergence in the 60s of a special managerial function "personnel management". Maslow's theory has been used as the basis for many models of labor motivation, including behavioral approaches (behaviorism).
The merits of the supporters of the school of human relations are very great. Before them, psychology had practically no data on how the human psyche is connected with his work activity. It was within the framework of this school that studies were carried out that significantly enriched our understanding of mental activity.
behavioral school . The traditions of the school of human relations were continued within the framework of the school of behavioral sciences (R. Likert, D. McGregor, K. Argyris, F. Herzberg), whose ideas later formed the basis of such a section of management as personnel management. This concept was based on the ideas of behaviorism - a psychological trend that considered human behavior as a reaction to stimuli from the outside world. Proponents of this approach believed that production efficiency could only be achieved by influencing each specific person with the help of various incentives.
The views of the representatives of this school were based on the idea that an indispensable condition for the effectiveness of the work of an individual worker is his awareness of his own capabilities. A number of methods have been developed to help achieve this goal. For example, in order to increase the efficiency of work, it was proposed to change its content or involve an employee in the management of the enterprise. Scientists believed that with the help of such methods it is possible to achieve the disclosure of the capabilities of the employee.
However, the ideas of the school of behavioral sciences proved to be limited. This does not mean that the developed methods are completely unsuitable. The fact is that they act only in some cases: for example, involving an employee in the management of an enterprise does not always affect the quality of his work, since everything depends primarily on the psychological characteristics of a person.
and their interaction with various forms of human participation in production.
School of Management Science. This school was formed in the 1950s. 20th century and exists, improving, to the present. It has led to a deeper understanding of complex managerial problems through the development and application of models. Quantitative methods are widely used to help managers make decisions in difficult situations.
The most famous representatives of this school are R. Ackoff, S. Beer, A. Goldberger, R. Luce, L. Klein and others.
In the school of management science, two main directions are distinguished: production is considered as a "social system", firstly, and system and situational analysis is used using mathematical methods and computers ("RS"), secondly.
The school has developed a large number of principles, rules, approaches, etc. Scientists believe that the introduction of new management methods reflects the desire of companies to achieve high results in the conditions of scientific and technological revolution, the strengthening of social principles, the growth of post-industrial elements of the life of firms - information, waste-free, space, biological technologies, the expansion and complication of the legal framework, new forms of competition, types of after-sales service, etc.
To name just a few new effective approaches: decision tree, brainstorming, management by objectives, diversification (conglomerates), theory Z, budgeting (zero base), quality circles, portfolio management, intrapreneurship.
In addition to the process approach (developed in the 50s, but originated in the classical school of management), systemic (late 60s - 70s) and situational (80s - 90s) approaches began to be widely used.
The system approach considers processes and phenomena in the form of aggregate integral elements, structures that move them. Systems have a hierarchical structure, horizontal and vertical connections, certain functions, centripetal and centrifugal tendencies, feedbacks (in addition to direct ones), exogenous and endogenous factors of development are inherent in systems.
Systems are divided into closed, functioning in isolation (independently) from the external environment, and open - associated with the metasystem, external influence. Simple and complex systems are distinguished by a tree of goals.
System approach in the 60-70s. becomes a universal ideology of management, and system analysis - a generally recognized toolkit. The application of systems theory to management made it easier for managers to see the organization (firm) in the unity of its constituent parts and their multi-temporal dynamics. The systematic methodology helped to integrate the contribution of all schools that at different times dominated the theory and practice of management, not opposing, but supplementing and supplementing known managerial innovations.
The situational or case approach (case situation) is both a way of thinking and a set of specific actions. Developed at the Harvard Business School (USA), this approach is aimed at developing situational thinking and the direct use of the theoretical knowledge gained, leading to the analysis of real situations and the adoption of typological decisions. The situational approach, in contrast to the process and even system approach, is more often used in non-standard cases, in situations of uncertainty, unexpected non-standard environmental response. An approach of this kind brings up special qualities in managers: flexibility, foresight, the ability to make programmed decisions in non-standard situations, to be original in achieving goals. This is anti-crisis type management, mass disturbances of the typical course of the process, cataclysms, etc.
Consideration of the situation as an important phenomenon was anticipated by Mary P. Follet in the 1920s. However, only much later did it enter the "life of management".
Accounting for situations is also very important when comparing styles of managerial culture in different countries.
During the described period, there were noticeable differences in national (country) approaches. This is most clearly seen when comparing the American, Japanese and European traditions.
At the end of the century, at the turn of the 90s, the following trends were observed in the development of management:
1. In connection with the strengthening of the influence of scientific and technological progress on the achievement of the goals of the organization, the role of product quality in competition and the increasing complexity of the place and role of supply (suppliers) in the economy, there has been a return (at a new historical level) to the problems of production, awareness of the importance material and technical base of modern production.
2. Increasing attention to various forms of democratization of managerial functions, participation of ordinary workers in management, in profits 3. Increasing influence of international external conditions, internationalization of management. There is a problem of "docking" local (national) and international types of management, the limits of the universality of management methods, taking into account the irremovable national styles of management.
History of sky lanterns
Job description: concept, purpose, structure, procedure for compiling and formalizing Purpose and content of job descriptions for managers
Interview questions What job are you going to work on?
What to do if the boss criticizes all the time If the boss does nothing
How to understand: will the kitten be fluffy?