Throughout its history, man has been looking for the best way to organize his work. This was done out of a desire to get the most out of their activities, spending a minimum of effort. To this end, many methods of organizing labor, including production, have been developed, but only a few of them have received significant distribution. The Taylor system is one such technique. Its use, on the one hand, increases productivity in production, but, on the other hand, it also has significant disadvantages.
The essence of the Taylor system
The founder was Frederick Taylor, by whose name the technique itself was named. It was mainly focused on the organization of production processes and production labor, increasing the efficiency of workers and rationalization. Taylor developed several principles that had to be followed when working in his system:
- All productionwas divided into separate operations and their constituent elements.
- Management is an integral part that actively influences the process.
- Its special function is planning.
- It is necessary to develop instruction cards for work.
- The subordination of people to each other must take place in accordance with a strict hierarchy.
- Scientific validity of the norms and processes included in production.
- Division of labor is also introduced in management.
- Payment stimulates the growth of output.
As you can see, the theoretical part of Taylor's organization system looks quite promising. But in the process of its implementation, a large number of nuances can arise. Consider the advantages and disadvantages of the Taylor system in relation to a real production process.
Dignity
First of all, the system unified not only the production operations themselves, but also allocated a certain amount of time for each of them. This significantly increased the productivity of an individual worker performing any operation.
Increase in organization, including at managerial levels, also contributed to the streamlining of the production process. Taylor's management system made it possible to make management the same well-oiled system as any other type of activity.
The period of employee training was also significantly reduced, since the division of labor processes was so strong that everyone was required to know only thatpart of the work he was doing himself.
Flaws
But of course, this approach could not be without drawbacks. The first of these flowed directly from the mechanism of splitting the labor process into operations: over time, a person working according to the Taylor system began to be significantly inferior in universality to someone who was engaged in various types of activities, and thus his value as an employee decreased.
Also, a strong link to a reduction in the time required to complete the operation leads to an increase in the stress load on the individual, which does not improve the quality of his work.
It should be remembered that right at the time of the start of implementation, the Taylor system was criticized both by trade unions and by the entrepreneurs themselves. A campaign was launched to oppose its implementation, as the workers, not without good reason, believed that the system could contribute to their exploitation and require wear and tear.
Main myths about the Taylor system
Despite the fact that the system itself is not currently used in production in its pure form and may rather refer to the classical schemes of labor organization, many still do not fully understand it. In this regard, a significant number of myths and conjectures have formed around Taylor himself and his offspring.
However, most of them are refuted in the primary sources. In particular, there is an opinion that the system considersworker as a soulless biorobot. However, the author of the method himself warned against such an approach, urging him not to forget about the need to change the psychological approach to work of the worker himself. He also stated the need to give the worker the right to make adjustments to the production process, if, in the opinion of the performer of the operation, any element needed to be corrected.
The presence of so many myths and misinterpretations once again reminds us that when studying even theories considered classics, reading primary sources is a necessity that saves from a large number of errors.
