Taylor’s Scientific Management
Written by Dr. Wasim Al-Habil
College of Commerce
The Islamic University of Gaza
Nature of Scientific Management Theory:
Fredrick Taylor (1911) led the school of scientific management which has had a strong influence on PA to follow the positivist logic. Many scholars who came later to participate in establishing PA as a practical and academic field of study were influenced by his scientific logic. He argued in his book, Principles of Scientific Management, that there is “one best method” of achieving any task. Taylor believed that scientific management consists of certain broad general principles. He was independently undertaking his experiments based on the development of time and motion. His theory of scientific management was centered around firstly, the development of scientific methods to measure and manage the workers and secondly, systematic scientific study of the selection and “sequential development of workers for optimal placement” (Shafritz & Hyde, 1978). He tried to reach maximum outcomes through the fastest and the most efficient method of production using these principles.
According to Shafritz and Hyde in Classics of Public Administration, Taylor, the “father” of scientific management, is the pioneer who provided the core concepts around which classical organization theory would evolve. He argues that the “one best way” provides the “fastest, most efficient, and least fatiguing production method” (Ibid.). In fact, scientific management was about efficiency and its inception was about preserving effort. The transfer of Taylor’s principles to the public administration is an example of the field adapting techniques and concepts from the sphere of business to public administration.
In 1912, the U. S. House of Representatives investigated Taylor’s systematic use of management techniques. Some of the management techniques or as Taylor called them “duties,” included:
· Replacing traditional rule of thumb methods of work accomplishment with systematic, more scientific methods of measuring and managing individual work elements;
· Studying scientifically the selection and sequential development of workers to ensure optimal placement of workers into work roles;
· Obtaining the cooperation of workers to ensure full application of scientific principles; and
· Establishing logical divisions within work roles and responsibilities between workers and management. (Ibid., 3)
While Taylor’s conceptualizations of efficiency are based upon the economics of the maximization of profit, in part, their conceptualizations view humans like extensions of machines. He emphasized faith in universal principles and on the science of administration, but values, public, and democracy were not part of his theory. Scientific management procedures seemed to be applicable in public organizations, which supported the perspective that the science of administration can guide practice in public administration. He also espoused the sanctity of the power of science in rationalizing management and organizational decisions. Indeed, the scientific management was a revolution in organization development and its impact did not escape the field of public administration, as later theorists were directly and indirectly influenced by it while they were searching for the best ways to make sense of the new challenges in the field.
Influence of Scientific Management on the Field:
The influence of scientific management on public administration clearly appeared when the first two textbooks in the field were published: Introduction to the Study of Public Administration by Leonard White in 1926 and The Principles of Public Administration by W. F. Willoughby in 1927. Both authors viewed the field of public administration based on scientific grounds of governance and asserted the importance of scientific principles to public administration. White (1967) argued that the study and process of public administration should be based on management rather than law (Shafritz et al., 2004). He sought to find principles that could present a performance guide to reform public administration. White observed that “we are wholly justified in asserting that a science of management appears to be immediately before us” (p.16). According to Stillman (2000), “White’s book succeeded as no other had at gluing together various functional specializations as well as disparate ideas of Taylorism, Goodnow’s dichotomy, and other administrative innovations” (p.20).
Taylor’s influence of scientific management “helped to create and sustain the idea of a dichotomy between politics and administration” (Holden, 1996, 42). Richard Stillman (2000) pointed out that the scientific management school gave the field “both rational managerial methodology as well as solid scientific legitimacy to ‘do good’ public administration” (p.19). Taylor’s “one best method” found its practical way to public administration through direct influence on the Taft Commission, the New York Bureau of Municipal Research, and later the Brownlow Committee.
Taylor’s scientific management “formed the basis of the recommendations of the President’s Commission on Efficiency and Economy (1912)” (Uveges and Keller, 1998, p.8). The Taft Commission sought to implement the principles of scientific management in government to improve its performance and efficiency (Lynn, 1996). A few years later, the New York Bureau of Municipal Research used the scientific approach to consider the functions of public administration (Holden, 1996; Lynn, 1996). According to Professor Stivers (2000), the bureau’s scientific approach was reflected in its motto: “To promote the application of scientific principles to government” (p.117). The major components of the bureau’s philosophy emphasized that government is more business than politics and called for increasing efficiency in public management through scientific inquiry (Stivers, 2000).
Limitations of Scientific Management:
Through the development of public administration as a field of study, the limitations on this scientific approach have been recognized and criticized. Although the role of scientific management is not presented in obviously in contemporary public administration, it continues to have a considerable impact on the field through the New Public Management (Reinventing Government). The criticism of Taylorism was based on different perspectives in regard to the limitations and problems associated with the science of administration in the field. One of the strongest voices to criticize scientific management and orthodoxy in public administration was Herbert Simon in his 1946 article, The Proverbs of Administration, and later in his 1947 book, The Administrative Behavior. He argued that a true scientific method should be used in the study of administration, but what was used by the orthodoxy lacked the empirical basis to do so. Simon (1946) believed that for “almost every principle [of orthodoxy] one can find an equally plausible and acceptable contradictory principle.”
Fry and Nigro (1998) argue that Waldo (1948) pointed out, in his Administrative State that even though some aspects of public administration may be amenable to scientific examination public administration is suffused with political values. Waldo believed that “despite the field’s claim to be ‘a science with principles of universal validity,’ it operated on the basis of ‘political theories’” (Stivers, 2000, p.124). Therefore, he argued that the objective of the study of public administration should not be focused on how to detach a science of administration from political considerations, but instead should be focused on how to facilitate cooperation between political and administrative domains.
From a different perspective, Paul Appleby (1945) in his book The Big Democracy rejected the use of the scientific management approach in public administration. He compared the public sector to the private sector and asserted that “government is different because government is politics” (Appleby, 1945, 135). He emphasized that the notion that politics can be separated from administration is a myth (Shafritz et al, 2004). Appleby argued that public administration is not separate from politics, but it is the center of American political life. He believed that because administration includes policy choices, it also includes politics. Therefore, according to Stillman (1999), administration becomes relativistic for Appleby and there is no longer one best way to obtain the most efficient performance. Appleby argued that there may be many best ways depending on the specific situation.
Robert Dahl presented serious problems attached to the science of administration in his 1947 article, The Science of Administration: Three Problems. Dahl (2001) argued that the traditional science of administration was not able to deal adequately with values in public administration. For him, “[d]isputes about ends and difficulties in distinguishing between ends and means raise value questions that should be made explicit, not disguised under the banner of scientific neutrality” (Fry & Nigro, 1998, 1188). Dahl stated that efficiency was only one of the criteria through which the performance of public administration must be evaluated in a democratic system. He added that public administration in a democratic system is committed to other values such as responsiveness. Indeed, efficiency may be an important value in public administration, but it is less important than democracy. He clarified that the problem of the traditional science of administration is that it is not sensitive enough to social conditions in public administration. The assumption that the administrative principles could be applicable in different settings in public administration is arguable. Dahl concluded his article emphasizing the deficiency of the science of administration, which requires more clarification of the position of values and a better understanding of the nature of human beings (Stivers, 2000).
Under the umbrella of science, why is the modern positivist administration a problem for PA? To sum up, modern scientific thought leads to a problem when applied to the administration of government, because the quest for a science of administration ultimately conflicts with democratic values. Administration is about getting things done while democracy is about expression of will, participation, persuasion, and considering the voice of everyone. But to come up with the democratic administration is very difficult because bureaucracy is the tool which is applied in the administration to get the work done. Bureaucracy itself is not democratic because it is based on hierarchy. So science rules might threaten democracy through two different ways. Firstly, science forces the public to take one right answer according to the scientific rules. But democracy is about good judgments, persuasions, and preferences. Secondly, the more science becomes rigorous in the field the less capacity is available to apply it in practice. This continuous debate in the field is obvious through tracing the idea of administrative science from its beginnings to its reflection in contemporary public administration (Class notes of Seminar in PA, Spring 2007).
Conclusion:
In this context, Taylorism’s “one best method” has had a strong influence on the literature of the field because it offered the scientific instrument to reform public administration. Although the limitations and problems of this scientific approach were recognized by many public administration writers in the 20th century, it continues to shape the literature in the field. The New Public Management represents this influence in the contemporary public administration literature.
References:
Appleby, P. (1945) Big democracy. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
Dahl R. (2001) The Science of Public Administration: Three Problems. In C. Stivers (Ed.). Bureaucracy, Democracy, and the Study of Administration (60-76). ASPA Classics series. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Fry, B. and Nigro, L. (1998). Five great issues in the profession of public administration. In J. Rabin, W. Hildreth and G. Hiller (Eds.), Handbook of Pubic Administration (pp. 1163-1221). New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
Holden, M. (1996) Continuity and disruption : essays in public administration. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Lynn, L. E. (1996). Public management as art, science, and profession. Chatham, New Jersey: Chatham House Publishers.
Shafritz, J., Hyde, A. and Parkes, S. (2004). Introductions. In J. Shafritz, A. Hyde, and S. Parkes (Eds.). Classics of Public Administration. Belmont, CA: Thomas Learning.
Simon, H. (1946). The proverbs of public administration. Public Administration Review, Vol. 6, 53-67.
Stillman, R. (2000). The study of public administration in the United States: The eminently practical science. In R. Stillman (Ed.), Public Administration: Concepts and Cases (pp. 17-30). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Stivers, C. (2000). Bureau men, settlement women: constructing public administration in the progressive era. Kansas: The University Press of Kansas.
Uveges, J. and Keller, L. (1998). One hundred years of American public administration and counting. In J. Rabin, W. Hildreth and G. Hiller (Eds.), Handbook of Pubic Administration (pp. 1-47). New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
White, L. (1967). Introduction to the study of public administration. New York, NY: The Macmillan Company.
Willoughby, W. (1927). The principles of public administration. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institute.
1