Nigel S., Chambers S., Johnson R. Operations Management
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
Part Two Design
234
Most famous for its high-performance fabrics such
as GORE-TEX® Fabrics, Gore also has an enviable
reputation as being one of the best companies to work
for wherever it operates. In a recent ‘Best companies to
work for’ list, its associates (the company does not use
the term ‘employees’), gave it the very top marks for
‘feeling you can make a difference’. More than half of its
Associates (staff) have been with the firm for at least a
decade, a consequence of its philosophy (‘to make
money and have fun’), and its unique organizational
culture and job design practices. Few in the company
have any formal job titles, or job descriptions. There
are no managers, only leaders and associates, people
are paid ‘according to their contribution’ and staff help
to determine each other’s pay – ideas which seem
revolutionary yet are based on the company’s founding
principles from over 50 years ago. Started by Bill and
Vieve Gore in the basement of their home in Delaware,
it has now become a global business with facilities in
more than 45 locations around the world. Its skilled
staff develop, manufacture and sell a range of innovative
products, virtually all of which are based on just one
material (expanded polytetrafluoroethylene) which was
discovered by Bob Gore (the founder’s son) in 1969.
It now has approximately 8,000 associates in its four
main divisions (textiles, electronic, medical and industrial
products) and annual revenues of over $2 billion.
Gore’s approach to how it works with its staff is at the
heart of the company’s success. On almost every level
Gore is different from other global companies. Associates
are hired for general work areas rather than specific jobs,
and with the guidance of their ‘sponsors’ (not bosses)
and as they develop experience, they commit to projects
that match their skills. Teams organize around
opportunities as they arise with associates committing
to the projects that they have chosen to work on, rather
than having tasks delegated to them. Project teams are
small, focused, multi-disciplined, and foster strong
relationships between team members. Personal initiative
is encouraged, as is ‘hands-on’ innovation, which
involves those closest to a project in its decision making.
There are, says Gore, no traditional organizational charts,
no chains of command, no predetermined channels of
communication. Instead, team members communicate
directly with each other and are accountable to the other
members of their team. Groups are led by whoever is
the most appropriate person at each stage of a project.
Leaders are not appointed by senior management; they
‘emerge’ naturally by demonstrating special knowledge,
skill or experience that advances a business objective.
Everyone’s performance is assessed using a peer-level
rating system. Even the Group’s CEO (one of the few
people with a title), Terri Kelly, ‘emerged’ in this way.
When the previous CEO retired, no shortlist of preferred
candidates was interviewed; instead, along with board
discussions, a wide range of associates were invited
to nominate people they would be willing to follow.
‘We weren’t given a list of names – we were free to
choose anyone in the company’, she says. ‘To my
surprise, it was me.’
The explicit aim of the company’s culture is to
‘combine freedom with cooperation and autonomy with
synergy’. Everyone can earn the credibility to define and
drive projects. Sponsors help associates chart a course
in the organization that will offer personal fulfilment
while maximizing their contribution to the enterprise.
Associates adhere to four basic guiding principles,
originally expressed by Bill Gore:
● Fairness to each other and everyone with whom we
come in contact
● Freedom to encourage, help, and allow other
associates to grow in knowledge, skill, and scope of
responsibility
● The ability to make one’s own commitments and
keep them
● Consultation with other associates before undertaking
actions that could impact the reputation and business
directions of the company.
This degree of personal commitment and control
by associates would not sit happily with a large
‘corporate’-style organization. It is no surprise, then,
that Gore have unusual notions of economies of scale.
Operations in practice W.L. Gore & Associates Inc
1
Source: Alamy Images
M09A_SLAC0460_06_SE_C09A.QXD 10/20/09 9:31 Page 234
Chapter 9 People, jobs and organization
235
Bill Gore believed in the need ‘to divide so that you can
multiply’. So when units grow to around 200 people, they
are usually split up, with these small facilities organized
in clusters or campuses. Ideally a dozen or so sites
are close enough to permit good communication and
knowledge exchange, but can still be intimate yet
separate enough to promote a feeling of ownership.
Bill Gore also believed that people come to work to be
innovative and had a desire to invent great products.
This, he said, ‘would be the glue holding the company
together’, rather than the official procedures other
companies rely on. And at Gore’s Livingston plant in
Scotland the story of ‘the breathable bagpipes’ is used
to illustrate this type of creative innovation generated
from the company’s culture of trust that allows people
to follow their passion. The story goes that an associate
who worked in Gore’s filter bags department at
Livingstone was also a keen exponent of his national
instrument – the bagpipes. By day he’d be working on
filter systems, in the evening he’d play his bagpipes.
It occurred to him that the physical properties of the
product he was putting together during the day could
make a synthetic bag for the pipes he played in the
evening. Traditionally, bagpipes have a bag made from
sheepskin or cow leather which fills up with moisture
and becomes a smelly health hazard. He recognized
that if you added GORE-TEX® Fabrics, it would be
breathable and it would be dry. He put a prototype
together, tried it, and it worked. So he decided to
spend time developing it, created a team to develop it
further, and now almost all Scottish bagpipes have a
GORE-TEX® Pipe bag in them.
NB: GORE-TEX®, GORE® and designs are registered
trade marks of W.L. Gore & Associates.
People in operations
To say that an organization’s human resources are its greatest asset is something of a cliché.
Yet it is worth reminding ourselves of the importance of human resources, especially in the
operations function, where most ‘human resources’ are to be found. It follows that it is
operations managers who are most involved in the leadership, development and organiza-
tion of human resources. In this chapter we examine some of the issues that most directly
affect, or are affected by, operations management; these are illustrated in Figure 9.2. But the
influence of operations management on the organization’s staff is not limited to the topics
covered in this chapter. Almost everything discussed in this book has a ‘people’ dimension.
Yet, in some chapters, the human perspective is particularly important. In addition to this
chapter, Chapters 18 and 20, for example, are concerned largely with how the contribution
of the operation’s staff can be harnessed. In essence the issues covered in this chapter define
how people go about their working lives. It positions their expectations of what is required
of them, and it influences their perceptions of how they contribute to the organization. It
defines their activities in relation to their work colleagues and it channels the flows of com-
munication between different parts of the operation. But, of most importance, it helps to
develop the culture of the organization – its shared values, beliefs and assumptions.
Figure 9.2 People in operations
M09A_SLAC0460_06_SE_C09A.QXD 10/20/09 9:31 Page 235
Part Two Design
236
Human resource strategy
Human resource strategy is the overall long-term approach to ensuring that an organiza-
tion’s human resources provide a strategic advantage. It involves two interrelated activities.
First, identifying the number and type of people that are needed to manage, run and develop
the organization so that it meets its strategic business objectives. Second, putting in place
the programmes and initiatives that attract, develop and retain appropriate staff. It is an
essential activity. Here is what Accenture, one of the top consultancies in the world, has to
say about it.
2
‘Attention to people is more critical than ever...a company’s workforce has become increas-
ingly important to business success – so much so that most senior executives now view people
and workforce issues as a critical competitive differentiator and one of their top agenda items.
...A superior workforce – supported by highly effective, flexible and business-oriented HR
and learning organizations – will be essential to achieving these objectives and taking greater
strides toward high performance.’
Developing the specific details of an HR strategy is outside the scope of this book. Yet one
set of issues is directly relevant, namely, how can operations managers make sure that they
are well served by, and contribute to the strategy?
An influential contribution to the strategic role of HR comes from Dave Ulrich,
3
at
the University of Michigan. His assumption is that traditional HR departments are often
inadequate at fulfilling a meaningful strategic role. He proposes four elements to the HR
activity: being ‘strategic partner’ to the business, administering HR procedures and processes,
being an ‘employee champion’, and being a ‘change agent’. Figure 9.3 illustrates these roles,
and Table 9.1 explains each role and suggests how operations managers can be associated
with each role.
It is important to recognize the interdependence of all the activities in Table 9.1. Managers
may focus only on whatever of these activities currently demands attention. But, just as in
Table 9.1 Ulrich’s HR roles and their relevance to operations managers
Human resources
(HR) role
Strategic partner
Administrative expert
Employee champion
Change agent
What it involves
Aligning HR and business strategy:
‘organizational diagnosis’, manpower
planning, environmental monitoring, etc.
Running the organization’s HR processes
and ‘shared services’: payroll, appraisal,
selection and recruitment, communication,
etc.
Listening and responding to employees:
‘providing resources to employees’,
conciliation, career advice, grievance
procedures, etc.
Managing transformation and change:
‘ensuring capacity for change’, management
development, performance appraisal,
organization development, etc.
Relevance to operations management (OM)
OM integrates operations strategy with HR
strategy. OM both specifies its long-term skills
requirements and relies on HR to supply / develop
them informed by labour market forecasts,
succession planning, etc.
OM is largely an ‘internal customer’ for HR’s
processes. OM must be clear in its requirements
with agreed service levels mutually negotiated.
Note that OM should also be able to advise HR
on how to design and manage its processes
efficiently and effectively.
OM and HR must develop a good working
relationship and clear procedures to deal with any
‘emergency’ issues that arise. Also OM must be
sensitive to feedback from HR on how it manages
day-to-day operations.
OM and HR are jointly responsible for operations
improvement activities. HR has a vital role in all the
cultural, developmental and evaluation activities
associated with improvement.
M09A_SLAC0460_06_SE_C09A.QXD 10/20/09 9:31 Page 236
the operations function generally, people issues are inter-reliant. There is little point in
attempting to, for example, develop a more egalitarian team-based structure and then fail
to change the organization’s training or reward procedures. This is why a strategic per-
spective aimed at identifying the relationship between all four roles is necessary, and why
the first step in developing an HR strategy is to understand the organization’s overall
strategy. In particular, key questions are what are the implications of the strategy for human
resources? And how can the people in the organization contribute to successfully achieving
the strategy?
Chapter 9 People, jobs and organization
237
Figure 9.3 Human resource strategy
Do a company’s resources, particularly its people,
come to reflect the vision and culture of the company?
Some companies are keen to make sure that they do.
For example, drivers on Highway 101 that passes through
Silicon Valley, if they were paying attention, would have
notice a billboard that read ‘[first 10-digit prime found in
consecutive digits of e].com’. Those drivers with both the
intellectual curiosity and the mathematical knowledge
would have realized that the number in question is
7427466391, and is a sequence that starts at the
101st digit of the constant e (the base of the natural
logarithm). Those that looked up the web site then found
a mathematically more difficult riddle to solve. Solving
that led to another web page where they were invited to
submit their CVs to Google. It was one of Google’s ideas
for attracting the type of clever but inventive staff that
they need, and also a way of further establishing Google
as the type of company that has the quirky vision to make
it attractive to such people. The tone of the billboard was,
as its employees like to say, ‘Googley – something that
evokes a humble, cosmopolitan, different, toned down,
Short case
Is it ‘googley’?
4
classiness’. At a recent conference, instead of the rock
music and flashing lights used by most firms to introduce
their speakers, Google played Bach’s Brandenburg
Concerto No 3 and had a ‘thought puzzle’ placed on
every seat. Whatever else it is, Google is an organization
that thinks hard about what it is, what it wants to be, and
how its people can sustain its position.
Source: Alamy Images
M09A_SLAC0460_06_SE_C09A.QXD 10/20/09 9:31 Page 237
Part Two Design
238
Table 9.2 Causes of stress at work and what could be done about it
Causes of stress
Staff can become overloaded if they cannot cope
with the amount of work or type of work they are
asked to do
Staff can feel disaffected and perform poorly if
they have no control or say over how and when
they do their work
Staff feel unsupported: levels of sick absence
often rise if employees feel they cannot talk to
managers about issues that are troubling them
A failure to build relationships based on good
behaviour and trust can lead to problems related
to discipline, grievances and bullying
Staff will feel anxious about their work and the
organization if they don’t know their role and what
is expected of them
Change can lead to huge uncertainty and
insecurity
What can be done about it
Change the way the job is designed,
training needs and whether it is possible for
employees to work more flexible hours
Actively involve staff in decision making,
the contribution made by teams, and how
reviewing performance can help identify
strengths and weaknesses
Give staff the opportunity to talk about the
issues causing stress, be sympathetic and
keep them informed
Check the organization’s policies for handling
grievances, unsatisfactory performance, poor
attendance and misconduct, and for tackling
bullying and harassment
Review the induction process, work out an
accurate job description and maintain a
close link between individual targets and
organizational goals
Plan ahead so change is not unexpected.
Consult with employees so they have a real
input, and work together to solve problems
Work-related stress
The idea that there is a link between human resource strategy and the incidence of stress
at work is not new. Even some of the early ‘scientific management’ pioneers accepted that
working arrangements should not result in conditions that promoted stress. Now it is gener-
ally accepted that stress can seriously undermine the quality of people’s working lives and,
in turn, their effectiveness of the workplace. Here stress is defined as ‘the adverse reaction
people have to excessive pressures or other types of demand placed on them’.
5
In addition to
the obvious ethical reasons for avoiding work-related stress, there are also business-related
benefits, such as the following.
6
● Staff feel happier at work, their quality of working life is improved and they perform
better.
● Introducing improvements is easier when ‘stress’ is managed effectively.
● Employment relations: problems can be resolved more easily.
● Attendance levels increase and sickness absence reduces.
Table 9.2 illustrates some of the causes of stress at work and what operations managers can
do about it.
Organization design
There are many different ways of defining ‘organization structure’, here it is seen as the
way in which tasks and responsibilities are divided into distinct groupings, and how the
responsibility and coordination relationships between the groupings are defined. This
includes the informal relationships which build up between groups as well as their more
formal relationships.
M09A_SLAC0460_06_SE_C09A.QXD 10/20/09 9:31 Page 238
Perspectives on organizations
7
How we illustrate organizations says much about our underlying assumptions of what an
‘organization’ is and how it is supposed to work. For example, the illustration of an organ-
ization as a conventional ‘organogram’ implies that organizations are neat and controllable
with unambiguous lines of accountability. But this is rarely the case. In fact taking such a
mechanistic view may be neither appropriate nor desirable. Seeing an organization as though
it was unambiguously machine-like is just one of several metaphors commonly used to
understand organizations. One well-known analysis by Gareth Morgan proposes a number
of ‘images’ or ‘metaphors’ which can be used to understand organizations as follows.
Organizations are machines – the resources within organizations can be seen as ‘components’
in a mechanism whose purpose is clearly understood. Relations within the organization are
clearly defined and orderly, processes and procedures that should occur usually do occur,
and the flow of information through the organization is predictable. Such mechanical meta-
phors appear to impose clarity on what is actually messy organizational behaviour. But,
where it is important to impose clarity (as in much operations analysis) such a metaphor can
be useful, and is the basis of the ‘process approach’ used in this and similar books.
Organizations are organisms – organizations are living entities. Their behaviour is dictated
by the behaviour of the individual humans within them. Individuals, and their organizations,
adapt to circumstances just as different species adapt to the environment. This is a particu-
larly useful way of looking at organizations if parts of the environment (such as the needs of
the market) change radically. The survival of the organization depends on its ability to exhibit
enough flexibility to respond to its environment.
Organizations are brains – like brains, organizations process information and make decisions.
They balance conflicting criteria, weigh up risks and decide when an outcome is acceptable.
They are also capable of learning, changing their model of the world in the light of experience.
This emphasis on decision making, accumulating experience and learning from that experi-
ence is important in understanding organizations. They consist of conflicting groups where
power and control are key issues.
Organizations are cultures – an organization’s culture is usually taken to mean its shared
values, ideology, pattern of thinking and day-to-day ritual. Different organizations will have
different cultures stemming from their circumstances and their history. A major strength
of seeing organizations as cultures is that it draws attention to their shared ‘enactment of
reality’. Looking for the symbols and shared realities within an organization allows us to see
beyond what the organization says about itself.
Organizations are political systems – organizations, like communities, are governed. The
system of government is rarely democratic, but nor is it usually a dictatorship. Within the
mechanisms of government in an organization are usually ways of understanding alternative
philosophies, ways of seeking consensus (or at least reconciliation) and sometimes ways
of legitimizing opposition. Individuals and groups seek to pursue their aims through the
detailed politics of the organization. They form alliances, accommodate power relationships
and manage conflict. Such a view is useful in helping organizations to legitimize politics as
an inevitable aspect of organizational life.
Forms of organization structure
Most organization designs attempt to divide an organization into discrete parts which are
given some degree of authority to make decisions within their part of the organization. All
but the very smallest of organizations need to delegate decision making in this way, it allows
specialization so decisions can be taken by the most appropriate people. The main issue is
what dimension of specialization should be used when grouping parts of the organization
together. There are three basic approaches to this:
Chapter 9 People, jobs and organization
239
M09A_SLAC0460_06_SE_C09A.QXD 10/20/09 9:31 Page 239
● Group resources together according to their functional purpose – so, for example, sales,
marketing, operations, research and development, finance, etc.
● Group resources together by the characteristics of the resources themselves – this may
be done, for example, by clustering similar technologies together (extrusion technology,
rolling, casting, etc.). Alternatively, it may be done by clustering similar skills together
(audit, mergers and acquisitions, tax, etc.). It may also be done according to the resources
required for particular products or services (chilled food, frozen food, canned food, etc.).
● Group resources together by the markets which the resources are intended to serve –
again this may be done in various ways. Markets may be defined by location, with distinct
geographical boundaries (North America, South America, Europe and Middle East, South
East Asia, etc.). Alternatively, markets may be defined by the type of customer (small firms,
large national firms, large multinational firms, etc.).
Within an organization, resources can be grouped in several different ways, and the lines
of responsibility linking the resource clusters can also be configured in different ways. There
are an almost infinite number of possible organizational structures. However, some pure
types of organization have emerged that are useful in illustrating different approaches to
organizational design, even if, in their pure form, they are rarely found.
The U-form organization. The unitary form, or U-form, organization clusters its resources
primarily by their functional purpose. Figure 9.4(a) shows a typical U-form organization with
a pyramid management structure, each level reporting to the managerial level above. Such
structures can emphasize process efficiency above customer service and the ability to adapt
to changing markets. The classic disease of such bureaucratic structures is that efficiency
becomes an end in itself. Functions may even become primarily concerned with their own
survival and power. But, the U-form keeps together expertise and can promote the creation
Part Two Design
240
Figure 9.4 (a) U-form organizations give prominence to functional groupings of resources;
(b) the M form separates the organization’s resources into separate divisions; (c) matrix
form structures the organization’s resources so that they have two (or more) levels of
responsibility; (d) N form organizations form loose networks internally between groups
of resources and externally with other organizations
M09A_SLAC0460_06_SE_C09A.QXD 10/20/09 9:31 Page 240
Chapter 9 People, jobs and organization
241
Figure 9.5 The main influences on job design, work time allocation and the design of the
working environment
and sharing of technical knowledge. The problem then with the U-form organization is not
so much the development of capabilities, but the flexibility of their deployment.
The M-form organization. This form of organizational structure emerged because the func-
tionally based structure of the U-form was cumbersome when companies became large,
often with complex markets. It groups together either the resources needed for each product
or service group, or alternatively, those needed to serve a particular geographical market,
in separate divisions. The separate functions such as operations may be distributed through-
out the different divisions (see Figure 9.4(b)), which can reduce economies of scale and the
operating efficiency of the structure. However, it does allow each individual division to focus
on the specific needs of its markets.
Matrix forms. Matrix structures are a hybrid, usually combining the M-form with the U-form.
In effect, the organization has simultaneously two different structures (see Figure 9.4(c)).
In a matrix structure each resource cluster has at least two lines of authority, for example
both to the division and to the functional groups. So, an operations manager may be directly
responsible to his or her division head, while at the same time having a (sometimes weaker)
reporting responsibility to the head of the operations function for the whole company. While
a matrix organization ensures the representation of all interests within the company, it can
be complex and sometimes confusing.
The N-form organization. The ‘N’ in N-form stand for ‘network’. In N-form organizations,
resources are clustered into groups as in other organizational forms, but with more delegation
of responsibility for the strategic management of those resources. N-forms have relatively
little hierarchical reporting and control. Each cluster of resources is linked to the others to
form a network, with the relative strength of the relationships between clusters changing over
time, depending on circumstances (see Figure 9.4(d)). Senior management set broad goals
and attempt to develop a unifying culture but do not ‘command and control’ to the same
extent as in other organization forms. They may, however, act to encourage any developments
they see as beneficial to the organization as a whole.
Job design
In the remainder of this chapter we deal with three interrelated topics: the design of individuals’
and groups’ jobs, the allocation of work times to people’s activities, and the design of the
working environment. We look at them together because they are influenced by and use a,
more or less, common set of concepts and frameworks. These are illustrated in Figure 9.5.
M09A_SLAC0460_06_SE_C09A.QXD 10/20/09 9:31 Page 241
Job design is about how we structure each individual’s jobs, the team to which they belong
(if any), their workplace and their interface with the technology they use. It involves a number
of separate yet related elements.
● What tasks are to be allocated to each person in the operation? Producing goods and services
involves a whole range of different tasks which need to be divided between the people who
staff the operation. Different approaches to the division of labour will lead to different task
allocations.
● What is the best method of performing each job? Every job should have an approved (or
best) method of completion. And although there are different ideas of what is ‘best’, it is
generally the most efficient method but that fits the task, and does not unduly interfere
with other tasks.
● How long will it take and how many people will be needed? Work measurement helps us
calculate the time required to do a job, and therefore how many people will be needed.
● How do we maintain commitment? Understanding how we can encourage people and
maintain job commitment is, arguably, the most important of the issues in job design.
This is why behavioural approaches, including empowerment, teamwork and flexible
working are at the core of job design.
● What technology is available and how will it be used? Many operational tasks require the use
of technology. Not only does the technology need to be appropriately designed, but also
so does the interface between the people and the hardware.
● What are the environmental conditions of the workplace? The conditions under which
jobs are performed will have a significant impact on people’s effectiveness, Although often
considered a part of job design, we treat it separately in this chapter.
Task allocation – the division of labour
Any operation must decide on the balance between using specialists or generalists. This idea
is related to the division of labour – dividing the total task down into smaller parts, each of
which is accomplished by a single person or team. It was first formalized as a concept by the
economist Adam Smith in his Wealth of Nations in 1746. Perhaps the epitome of the division
of labour is the assembly line, where products move along a single path and are built up by
operators continually repeating a single task. This is the predominant model of job design in
most mass-produced products and in some mass-produced services (fast food, for example).
There are some real advantages in division of labour:
● It promotes faster learning. It is obviously easier to learn how to do a relatively short and
simple task than a long and complex one. This means that new members of staff can be
quickly trained and assigned to their tasks when they are short and simple.
● Automation becomes easier. Dividing a total task into small parts raises the possibility of
automating some of those small tasks. Substituting technology for labour is considerably
easier for short and simple tasks than for long and complex ones.
● Reduced non-productive work. This is probably the most important benefit of division of
labour. In large, complex tasks the proportion of time spent picking up tools and materials,
putting them down again and generally finding, positioning and searching can be very
high indeed. For example, one person assembling a whole motor-car engine would take
two or three hours and involve much searching for parts, positioning, and so on. Around
half the person’s time would be spent on these reaching, positioning, finding tasks (called
non-productive elements of work). Now consider how a motor-car engine is actually made
in practice. The total job is probably divided into 20 or 30 separate stages, each staffed
by a person who carries out only a proportion of the total. Specialist equipment and
materials-handling devices can be devised to help them carry out their job more efficiently.
Furthermore, there is relatively little finding, positioning and reaching involved in this
simplified task. Non-productive work can be considerably reduced, perhaps to under 10 per
cent, which would be very significant to the costs of the operation.
Part Two Design
242
Job design
Division of labour
M09A_SLAC0460_06_SE_C09A.QXD 10/20/09 9:31 Page 242
There are also serious drawbacks to highly divided jobs:
● Monotony. The shorter the task, the more often operators will need to repeat it. Repeating
the same task, for example every 30 seconds, eight hours a day and five days a week, can
hardly be called a fulfilling job. As well as any ethical objections, there are other, more
obviously practical objections to jobs which induce such boredom. These include the
increased likelihood of absenteeism and staff turnover, the increased likelihood of error
and even the deliberate sabotage of the job.
● Physical injury. The continued repetition of a very narrow range of movements can, in
extreme cases, lead to physical injury. The over-use of some parts of the body (especially
the arms, hands and wrists) can result in pain and a reduction in physical capability. This
is sometimes called repetitive strain injury (RSI).
● Low flexibility. Dividing a task up into many small parts often gives the job design a
rigidity which is difficult to change under changing circumstances. For example, if an
assembly line has been designed to make one particular product but then has to change to
manufacture a quite different product, the whole line will need redesigning. This will
probably involve changing every operator’s set of tasks, which can be a long and difficult
procedure.
● Poor robustness. Highly divided jobs imply materials (or information) passing between
several stages. If one of these stages is not working correctly, for example because some
equipment is faulty, the whole operation is affected. On the other hand, if each person is
performing the whole of the job, any problems will only affect that one person’s output.
Designing job methods – scientific management
The term scientific management became established in 1911 with the publication of the
book of the same name by Fredrick Taylor (this whole approach to job design is sometimes
referred to, pejoratively, as Taylorism). In this work he identified what he saw as the basic
tenets of scientific management:
6
● All aspects of work should be investigated on a scientific basis to establish the laws, rules
and formulae governing the best methods of working.
● Such an investigative approach to the study of work is necessary to establish what con-
stitutes a ‘fair day’s work’.
● Workers should be selected, trained and developed methodically to perform their tasks.
● Managers should act as the planners of the work (analysing jobs and standardizing the
best method of doing the job) while workers should be responsible for carrying out the
jobs to the standards laid down.
● Cooperation should be achieved between management and workers based on the
‘maximum prosperity’ of both.
The important thing to remember about scientific management is that it is not particularly
‘scientific’ as such, although it certainly does take an ‘investigative’ approach to improving
operations. Perhaps a better term for it would be ‘systematic management’. It gave birth to
two separate, but related, fields of study, method study, which determines the methods and
activities to be included in jobs, and work measurement, which is concerned with measuring
the time that should be taken for performing jobs. Together, these two fields are often
referred to as work study and are explained in detail in the supplement to this chapter.
Chapter 9 People, jobs and organization
243
➔
Scientific management
Taylorism
Method study
Work measurement
Work study
Even in 1915, criticisms of the scientific management approach were being voiced.
8
In a
submission to the United States Commission on Industrial Relations, scientific manage-
ment is described as:
Critical commentary
M09A_SLAC0460_06_SE_C09A.QXD 10/20/09 9:31 Page 243