Principles of scientific management
F. Taylor
These new burdens and new duties are so unusual and so great that they are to
the men used to managing under the old school almost inconceivable. These duties
and burdens voluntarily assumed under scientific management, by those on the
management’s side, have been divided and classified into four different groups and
these four types of new duties assumed by the management have (rightly or wrongly)
been called the ‘principles of scientific management’.
The first of these four groups of duties taken over by the management is the
deliberate gathering in on the part of those on the management’s side of all of the
great mass of traditional knowledge, which in the past has been in the heads of the
workmen, and in the physical skill and knack of the workmen, which he has acquired
through years of experience. The duty of gathering in of all this great mass of
traditional knowledge and then recording it, tabulating it and, in many cases, finally
reducing it to laws, rules and even to mathematical formulae, is voluntarily assumed
by the scientific managers. And later, when these laws, rules and formulae are
applied to the everyday work of all the workmen of the establishment, through the
intimate and hearty cooperation of those on the management’s side, they invariably
result, first, in producing a very much larger output per man, as well as an output of a
better and higher quality; and, second, in enabling the company to pay much higher
wages to their workmen; and, third, in giving to the company a larger profit. The first of
1
these principles, then, may be called the development of science to replace the old
rule-of-thumb knowledge of the workmen; that is, the knowledge which the workmen
had, and which was, in many cases, quite as exact as that which is finally obtained by
the management, but which the workmen nevertheless in nine hundred and
ninety-nine cases out of a thousand kept in their heads, and of which there was no
permanent or complete record.
The second group of duties, which are voluntarily assumed by those on the
management’s side, under scientific management, is the scientific selection and then
the progressive development of the workmen. It becomes the duty of those on the
management’s side to deliberately study the character, the nature, and the
performance of each workman with a view to finding out his limitations on the one
hand, but even more important, his possibilities for development on the other hand;
and then, as deliberately and as systematically to train and help and teach this
workman, giving him, wherever it is possible, those opportunities for advancement
which will finally enable him to do the highest and most interesting and most profitable
class of work for which his natural abilities fit him, and which are open to him in the
particular company in which he is employed. This scientific selection of the workman
and his development is not a single act; it goes on from year to year and is the subject
of continual study on the part of the management.
The third of the principles of scientific management is the bringing of the science
and the scientifically selected and trained workmen together. I say ‘bringing together’
2
advisedly, because you may develop all the science that you please, and you may
scientifically select and train workmen just as much as you please, but unless some
man or some men bring the science and the workman together all your labor will be
lost. We are all of us so constituted that about three-quarters of the time we will work
according to whatever method suits us best; that is, we will practice the science or we
will not practice it; we will do our work in accordance with the laws of the science or in
our own old way, just as we see fit unless some one is there to see that we do it in
accordance with the principles of the science. Therefore I use advisedly the words
‘bringing the science and the workman together’. It is unfortunate, however, that this
word ‘bringing’ has rather a disagreeable sound, a rather forceful sound; and, in a
way, when it is first heard it puts one out of touch with what we have come to look
upon as the modern tendency. The time for using the word ‘bringing’, with a sense of
forcing, in relation to most matters, has gone by; but I think that I may soften this word
down in its use in this particular case by saying that nine-tenths of the trouble with
those of us who have been engaged in helping people to change from the older type
of management to the new management—that is, to scientific management—that
nine-tenths of our trouble has to ‘bring’ those on the management’s side to do their
fair share of the work and only one-tenth of our trouble has come on the workman’s
side. Invariably we find very great opposition on the part of those on the
management’s side to do their new duties and comparatively little opposition on the
part of the workmen to cooperate in doing their new duties. So that the word ‘bringing’
applies much more forcefully to those on the management’s side than to those on the
3
workman’s side.
The fourth of the principles of scientific management is perhaps the most difficult
of all of the four principles of scientific management for the average man to
understand. It consists of an almost equal division of the actual work of the
establishment between the workmen, on the one hand, and the management, on the
other hand. That is, the work which under the old type of management practically all
was done by the workman, under the new is divided into two great divisions, and one
of these divisions is deliberately handed over to those on the management’s side This
new division of work, this new share of the work assumed by those on the
management’s side, is so great that you will, I think, be able to understand it better in
a numerical way when I tell you that in a machine shop, which, for instance, is doing
an intricate business—I do not refer to a manufacturing company, but, rather, to an
engineering company; that is, a machine shop which builds a variety of machines and
is not engaged in manufacturing them, but, rather, in constructing them—will have
one man on the management’s side to every three workmen; that is, this immense
share of the work—one-third—has been deliberately taken out of the workman’s
hands and handed over to those on the management’s side. And it is due to this
actual sharing of the work between the two sides more than to any other one element
that there has never (until this last summer) been a single strike under scientific
management. In a machine shop, again, under this new type of management there is
hardly a single act or piece of work done by any workman in the shop which is not
4
preceded and followed by some act on the part of one of men in management. All day
long every workmen’s acts are dovetailed in between corresponding acts of the
management. First, the workman does something, and then a man on the
management’s side does something; then the man on the management’s side does
something, and then the workman does something; and under this intimate, close,
personal cooperation between the two sides it becomes practically impossible to have
a serious quarrel.
It is one of the principles of scientific management to ask men to do things in the
right way, to learn something new, to change their ways in accordance with the
science, and in return to receive an increase of from 30 to 100 per cent in pay, which
varies according to the nature of the business in which they are engaged.
*Testimony to the House of Representatives Committee, 1912.
5
General Features of a Good Plan of Action
Henri Fayol
No one disputes the usefulness of a plan of action. Before taking action it is most
necessary to know what is possible and what is wanted. It is known that absence of
plan entails hesitation, false steps, untimely changes of direction, which are so many
causes of weakness, if not of disaster, in business. The question of and necessity for
a plan of action, then, does not arise and I think that I am voicing the general opinion
in saying that a plan of action is indispensable. But there are plans and plans; there
are simple ones, complex ones, concise ones, detailed ones, long- or short-term
ones; there are those studied with meticulous attention, those treated lightly; there are
good, bad, and indifferent ones. How are the good ones to be singled out from among
the others? Experience is the only thing that finally determines the true value of a
plan, i.e. on the services it can render to the firm, and even then the manner of its
application must be taken into account. There is both instrument and player.
Nevertheless, there are certain broad characteristics on which general agreement
may be reached beforehand without waiting for the verdict of experience.
Unity of plan is an instance. Only one plan can be put into operation at a time; two
6
different plans would mean duality, confusion, and disorder. But a plan may be
divided into several parts .In large concerns, there is found alongside the general plan
a technical, commercial, and a financial one, or else an overall one with a specific one
for each department. But all these plans are linked, welded, so as to make up one
only, and every modification brought to bear on any one of them is given expression in
the whole plan. The guiding action of the plan must be continuous. Now the limitations
of human foresight necessarily set bounds to the duration of plans, so, in order to
have no break in the guiding action, a second plan must follow immediately upon the
first, a third upon the second, and so on. In large businesses the annual plan is more
or less in current use. Other plans of shorter or longer term, always in close accord
with the annual plan, operate simultaneously with this latter. The plan should be
flexible enough to bend before such adjustments, as it is considered well to introduce,
whether from pressure of circumstances or from any other reason. First as last, it is
the law to which one bows. Another good point about a plan is to have as much
accuracy as is compatible with the unknown factors bearing on the fate of the
concern. Usually it is possible to mark out the line of proximate action fairly accurately,
while a simple general indication does for remote activities, for before the moment for
their execution has arrived sufficient enlightenment will have been forthcoming to
settle the line of action more precisely. When the unknown factor occupies a relatively
very large place there can be no preciseness in the plan, and then the concern takes
on the name of venture.
7
Unity, continuity, flexibility, and precision: such are the broad features of a good
plan of action.
Advantages and Shortcomings of Forecasts
(a) The study of resources, future possibilities, and means to be used for
attaining the objective call for contributions from all departmental heads within the
framework of their mandate, each one brings to this study the contribution of his
experience together with recognition of the responsibility which will fall upon him in
executing the plan.
Those are excellent conditions for ensuring that no resource shall be neglected
and that future possibilities shall be prudently and courageously assessed and that
means shall be appropriate to ends. Knowing what are its capabilities and its
intentions, the concern goes boldly on, confidently tackles current problems and is
prepared to align all its forces against accidents and surprises of all kinds, which may
occur.
(b) Compiling the annual plan is always a delicate operation and especially
lengthy and laborious when done for the first time, but each repetition brings some
simplification and when the plan has become a habit the toil and difficulties are largely
reduced. Conversely, the interest it offers increases. The attention demanded for
executing the plan, the indispensable comparison between predicted and actual facts,
the recognition of mistakes made and successes attained, the search for means of
8
repeating the one and avoiding the other — all go to make the new plan a work of
increasing interest and increasing usefulness.
Also, by doing this work the personnel increases in usefulness from year to year,
and at the end is considerably superior to what it was in the beginning. In truth, this
result is not due solely to the use of planning but everything goes together, a
well-thought-out plan is rarely found apart from sound organizational, command,
co-ordination, and control practices. This management element exerts an influence on
all the rest.
(c) Lack of sequence in activity and unwarranted changes of course are dangers
constantly threatening businesses without a plan. The slightest contrary wind can turn
from its course a boat which， is unfitted to resist. When serious happenings occur,
regrettable changes of course may be decided upon under the influence of profound
but transitory disturbance. Only a programme carefully pondered at an undisturbed
time permits of maintaining a clear view of the future and of concentrating maximum
possible intellectual ability and material resources upon the danger.
It is in difficult moments above all that a plan is necessary. The best of plans
cannot anticipate all unexpected occurrences, which may arise, but it does include a
place for these events and prepare the weapons, which may be needed at the
moment of being surprised. The plan protects the business not only against
undesirable changes of course which may be produced by grave events, but also
against those arising simply from changes on the part of higher authority. Also, it
9
protects against deviations, imperceptible at first, which end by deflecting it from its
objective.
Henri Fayol: Administration Industrielle et Generale, 1916.
10
General Features of a Good Plan of Action
Henri Fayol
No one disputes the usefulness of a plan of action. Before taking action it is most
necessary to know what is possible and what is wanted. It is known that absence of
plan entails hesitation, false steps, untimely changes of direction, which are so many
causes of weakness, if not of disaster, in business. The question of and necessity for
a plan of action, then, does not arise and I think that I am voicing the general opinion
in saying that a plan of action is indispensable. But there are plans and plans; there
are simple ones, complex ones, concise ones, detailed ones, long- or short-term
ones; there are those studied with meticulous attention, those treated lightly; there are
good, bad, and indifferent ones. How are the good ones to be singled out from among
the others? Experience is the only thing that finally determines the true value of a
plan, i.e. on the services it can render to the firm, and even then the manner of its
application must be taken into account. There is both instrument and player.
Nevertheless, there are certain broad characteristics on which general agreement
may be reached beforehand without waiting for the verdict of experience.
Unity of plan is an instance. Only one plan can be put into operation at a time; two
different plans would mean duality, confusion, and disorder. But a plan may be
divided into several parts .In large concerns, there is found alongside the general plan
11
a technical, commercial, and a financial one, or else an overall one with a specific one
for each department. But all these plans are linked, welded, so as to make up one
only, and every modification brought to bear on any one of them is given expression in
the whole plan. The guiding action of the plan must be continuous. Now the limitations
of human foresight necessarily set bounds to the duration of plans, so, in order to
have no break in the guiding action, a second plan must follow immediately upon the
first, a third upon the second, and so on. In large businesses the annual plan is more
or less in current use. Other plans of shorter or longer term, always in close accord
with the annual plan, operate simultaneously with this latter. The plan should be
flexible enough to bend before such adjustments, as it is considered well to introduce,
whether from pressure of circumstances or from any other reason. First as last, it is
the law to which one bows. Another good point about a plan is to have as much
accuracy as is compatible with the unknown factors bearing on the fate of the
concern. Usually it is possible to mark out the line of proximate action fairly accurately,
while a simple general indication does for remote activities, for before the moment for
their execution has arrived sufficient enlightenment will have been forthcoming to
settle the line of action more precisely. When the unknown factor occupies a relatively
very large place there can be no preciseness in the plan, and then the concern takes
on the name of venture.
Unity, continuity, flexibility, and precision: such are the broad features of a good
plan of action.
12
Advantages and Shortcomings of Forecasts
(a) The study of resources, future possibilities, and means to be used for
attaining the objective call for contributions from all departmental heads within the
framework of their mandate, each one brings to this study the contribution of his
experience together with recognition of the responsibility which will fall upon him in
executing the plan.
Those are excellent conditions for ensuring that no resource shall be neglected
and that future possibilities shall be prudently and courageously assessed and that
means shall be appropriate to ends. Knowing what are its capabilities and its
intentions, the concern goes boldly on, confidently tackles current problems and is
prepared to align all its forces against accidents and surprises of all kinds, which may
occur.
(b) Compiling the annual plan is always a delicate operation and especially
lengthy and laborious when done for the first time, but each repetition brings some
simplification and when the plan has become a habit the toil and difficulties are largely
reduced. Conversely, the interest it offers increases. The attention demanded for
executing the plan, the indispensable comparison between predicted and actual facts,
the recognition of mistakes made and successes attained, the search for means of
repeating the one and avoiding the other — all go to make the new plan a work of
increasing interest and increasing usefulness.
13
Also, by doing this work the personnel increases in usefulness from year to year,
and at the end is considerably superior to what it was in the beginning. In truth, this
result is not due solely to the use of planning but everything goes together, a
well-thought-out plan is rarely found apart from sound organizational, command,
co-ordination, and control practices. This management element exerts an influence on
all the rest.
(c) Lack of sequence in activity and unwarranted changes of course are dangers
constantly threatening businesses without a plan. The slightest contrary wind can turn
from its course a boat which， is unfitted to resist. When serious happenings occur,
regrettable changes of course may be decided upon under the influence of profound
but transitory disturbance. Only a programme carefully pondered at an undisturbed
time permits of maintaining a clear view of the future and of concentrating maximum
possible intellectual ability and material resources upon the danger.
It is in difficult moments above all that a plan is necessary. The best of plans
cannot anticipate all unexpected occurrences, which may arise, but it does include a
place for these events and prepare the weapons, which may be needed at the
moment of being surprised. The plan protects the business not only against
undesirable changes of course which may be produced by grave events, but also
against those arising simply from changes on the part of higher authority. Also, it
protects against deviations, imperceptible at first, which end by deflecting it from its
objective.
14
Henri Fayol: Administration Industrielle et Generale, 1916.
The esteem needs and the need for self-actualization
15
A. H. Maslow
The esteem needs. — All people in our society (with a few pathological
exceptions) have a need or desire for a stable, firmly based, (usually) high evaluation
of themselves, for self-respect, or self-esteem, and for the esteem of others. By firmly
based self-esteem, we mean that which is soundly based upon real capacity,
achievement and respect from others. These needs may be classified into two
subsidiary sets. These are, first, the desire for strength, for achievement, for
adequacy, for confidence in the face of the world, and for independence and freedom.
Secondly, We have what we may call the desire for reputation or prestige (defining it
as respect or esteem from other people), recognition, attention, importance or
appreciation. These needs have been relatively stressed by Alfred Adler and his
followers, and have been relatively neglected by Freud and the psychoanalysts. More
and more today however there is appearing widespread appreciation of their central
importance.
Satisfaction of the self-esteem need leads to feelings of self-confidence, worth,
strength, capability and adequacy of being useful and necessary in the world. But
thwarting of these needs produces feelings of inferiority, of weakness and of
helplessness. These feelings in turn give rise to either basic discouragement or else
compensatory or neurotic trends. An appreciation of the necessity of basic
self-confidence and an understanding of how helpless people are without it can be
16
easily gained from a study of severe traumatic neurosis.
The need for self-actualization. — Even if all these needs are satisfied, we may
still often (if not always) expect that a new discontent and restlessness will soon
develop, unless the individual is doing what he is fitted for. A musician must make
music; an artist must paint, a poet must write, if he is to be ultimately happy. What a
man can be, he must be. This need we may call self-actualization.
This term, first coined by Kurt Goldstein, is being used in this paper in a much
more specific and limited fashion. It refers to the desire for self-fulfillment, namely, to
the tendency for him to become actualized in what he is potentially. This tendency
might be phrased as the desire to become more and more what one is, to become
everything that one is capable of becoming.
The specific form that these needs will take will of course vary greatly from
person to person. In one individual it may take the form of the desire to be an ideal
mother, in another it may be expressed athletically, and in still another it may be
expressed in painting pictures or in inventions. It is not necessarily a creative urge
although in people who have any capacities for creation it will take this form.
The clear emergence of these needs rests upon prior satisfaction of the
physiological, safety, love and esteem needs. We shall call people who are satisfied
in these needs, basically satisfied people, and it is from these that we may expect the
fullest (and healthiest) creativeness. Since, in our society, basically satisfied people
17
are the exception, we do not know much about self-actualization, either
experimentally or clinically. It remains a challenging problem for research.
The preconditions for the basic need satisfactions. — There are certain
conditions which are immediate prerequisites for the basic need satisfactions. Danger
to these is reacted to almost as if it were a direct danger to the basic needs
themselves. Such conditions as freedom to speak, freedom to do what one wishes so
long as no harm is done to others, freedom to express one’s self, freedom to
investigate and seek for information, freedom to defend one’s self, justice, fairness,
honesty, orderliness in the group are examples of such preconditions for basic need
satisfactions. Thwarting in these freedoms will be reacted to with a threat or
emergency response. These conditions are not ends in themselves but they are
almost so since they are so closely related to the basic needs, which are apparently
the only ends in themselves. These conditions are defended because without them
the basic satisfactions are quite impossible, or at least, very severely endangered.
A.H. Maslow: A Theory of Human Motivation, 1943.
18
19
Management and Motivation
Douglas M. McGregor
We recognize readily enough that a man suffering from a severe dietary
deficiency is sick. The deprivation of physiological needs has behavioral
consequences. The same is true—although less well recognized—of deprivation of
higher-level needs. The man whose needs for safety, association, independence, or
status are thwarted is sick just as surely as the man who has rickets. And his sickness
will have behavioral consequences. We will be mistaken if we attribute his resultant
passivity, his hostility, his refusal to accept responsibility to his inherent “human
nature.” These forms of behavior are symptoms of illness — of deprivation of his
social and egoistic needs.
The man whose lower-level needs are satisfied is not motivated to satisfy those
needs any longer. For practical purposes they exist no longer. Management often
asks, “Why aren’t people more productive? We pay good wages, provide good
working conditions, and have excellent fringe benefits and steady employment. Yet
people do not seem to be willing to put forth more than minimum effort.”
20
The fact that management has provided for these physiological and safety needs
has shifted the motivational emphasis to the social and perhaps to the egoistic needs.
Unless there are opportunities at work to satisfy these higher-level needs, people will
be deprived; and their behavior will reflect this deprivation. Under such conditions, if
management continues to focus its attention on physiological needs, its efforts are
bound to be ineffective.
People will make insistent demands for more money under these conditions. It
becomes more important than ever to buy the material goods and services, which can
provide limited satisfaction of the thwarted needs. Although money has only limited
value in satisfying many higher-level needs, it can become the focus of interest if it is
the only means available.
A New Theory of Management
For these and many other reasons, we require a different theory of the task of
managing people based on more adequate assumptions about human nature and
human motivation. I am going to be so bold as to suggest the broad dimensions of
such a theory. Call it “Theory Y”, if you will.
1. Management is responsible for organizing the elements of productive
enterprise — money, materials, equipment, and people — in the interest of economic
21
ends.
2. People are not by nature passive or resistant to organizational needs. They
have become so as a result of experience in organizations.
3. The motivation, the potential for development, the capacity for assuming
responsibility, the readiness to direct behavior toward organizational goals are all
present in people. Management does not put them there. It is a responsibility of
management to make it possible for people to recognize and develop these human
characteristics for themselves.
4. The essential task of management is to arrange organizational conditions and
methods of operation so that people can achieve their own goals best by directing
their own efforts toward organizational objectives.
This is a process primarily of creation opportunities, releasing potential, removing
obstacles, encouraging growth, and providing guidance. It is what Peter Drucker has
called “management by objectives ” in contrast to “management by control.” It does
not involve the abdication of management, the absence of leadership, the lowering of
standards, or the other characteristics usually associated with the “soft” approach
under Theory X.
Douglas M. McGregor: The Human Side of Enterprise, 1957.
22
The Concept of Rationality
James G. March
Herbert A. Simon
How does the rationality of “administrative man” compare with that of classical
“economic man” or with the rational man of modern statistical decision theory? The
rational man of economics and statistical decision theory makes “optimal” choices in a
highly specified and clearly defined environment:
1. When we first encounter him in the decision-making situation, he already has
laid out before him the whole set of alternatives from which he will choose his action.
This set of alternatives is simply “given”; the theory does not tell how it is obtained.
2. To each alternative is attached a set of consequences — the events that will
ensue if that particular alternative is chosen, Here the existing theories fall into three
categories: (a) Certainty: theories that assume the decision maker has complete and
23
accurate knowledge of the consequences that will follow on each alternative. (b) Risk:
theories that assume accurate knowledge of a probability distribution of the
consequences of each alternative. (c) Uncertainty: theories that assume that the
consequences of each alternative belong to some subset of all possible
consequences, but that the decision maker cannot assign definite probabilities to the
occurrence of particular consequences.
3. At the outset, the decision maker has a “utility function” or a
“preference-ordering” that ranks all sets of consequences from the most preferred to
the least preferred.
4. The decision maker selects the alternative leading to the preferred set of
consequences. In the case of certainty, the choice is unambiguous. In the case of risk,
rationality is usually defined as the choice of that alternative for which the expected
utility is greatest. Expected utility is defined here as the average, weighted by the
probabilities of occurrence, of the utilities attached to all possible consequences. In
the case of uncertainty, the definition of rationality becomes problematic. One
proposal that has had wide currency is the rule of “ minimax risk”: consider the worst
set of consequences that may follow from each alternative, then select the alternative
whose “worst set of consequences” is preferred to the worst sets attached to other
alternatives. There are other proposals (e.g., the rule of “minimax regret”), but we
shall not discuss them here.
Some difficulties in the classical theory. There are difficulties with this model of
24
rational man. In the first place, only in the case of certainty does it agree well with
common-sense notions of rationality. In the case of uncertainty, especially, there is
little agreement, even among exponents of statistical decision theory, as to the
“correct” definition, or whether, indeed, the term “correct” has any meaning here.
A second difficulty with existing models of rational man is that it makes three
exceedingly important demands upon the choice-making mechanism. It assumes (1)
that all the alternatives of choice are “given”; (2) that all the consequences attached to
each alternative are known (in one of the three senses corresponding to certainty,
risk, and uncertainty respectively); (3) that the rational man has a complete
utility-ordering (or cardinal function) for all possible sets of consequences.
One can hardly take exception to these requirements in a normative model — a
model that tells people how they ought to choose .For if the rational man lacked
information, he might have chosen differently “if only he had known.” At best, he is
“subjectively” rational, not “objectively” rational. But the notion of objective rationality
assumes there is some objective reality in which the “real” alternatives, the “real”
consequences, and the “real” utilities exist. If this is so, it is not even clear why the
cases of choice under risk and under uncertainty are admitted as rational. If it is not
so, it is not clear why only limitations upon knowledge of consequences are
considered, and why limitations upon knowledge of alternatives and utilities are
ignored in the model of rationality.
Satisfactory versus optimal standards. What kinds of search and other
25
problem-solving activity are needed to discover an adequate range of alternatives and
consequences for choice depends on the criterion applied to the choice. In particular,
finding the optimal alternative is a radically different problem from finding a
satisfactory alternative. An alternative is optimal if: (1) there exists a set of criteria that
permits all alternatives to be compared, and (2) the alternative in question is
preferred, by these criteria, to all other alternatives. An alternative is satisfactory if: (1)
there exists a set of criteria that describes minimally satisfactory alternatives, and (2)
the alternative in question meets or exceeds all these criteria.
Most human decision-making, whether individual or organizational, is concerned
with the discovery and selection of satisfactory alternatives; only in exceptional cases
is it concerned with the discovery and selection of optimal alternatives. To optimize
requires processes several orders of magnitude more complex than those required to
satisfies. An example is the difference between searching a haystack to find the
sharpest needle in it and searching the haystack to find a needle sharp enough to sew
with.
J.G.March and H.A.Simon’s <Organizations>, New York, John Wiley & Sons, 1958
Major Tasks of management*
Peter. F. Drucker
26
A somewhat different way of viewing the relationships between the design logics
and principles is to identify the principal tasks of management that the principles can
structure. We have learned that, in a very general analysis, organization design
should simultaneously structure and integrate three different kinds of work:(1) the
operating task, which is responsible for producing the results of today’s business; (2)
the innovative task, which creates the company’s tomorrow; and (3) the
top-management task, which directs, gives vision, and sets the course for the
business of both today and tomorrow. No one organization design is adequate to all
three kinds of work; every business will need to use several design principles
side-by-side.
In addition, each organization structure has certain formal specifications that
have nothing to do with the purpose of the structure but are integral parts of the
structure itself. Just as a human body can be described as having certain
characteristics, regardless of the occupation of its inhabitant, so can an organization
structure. Bodies have arms and legs, hands and feet, all related to each other;
similarly, organizations are structured to satisfy the need for:
〇Clarity, as opposed to simplicity. (The Gothic cathedral is not a simple design,
but your position inside it is clear; you know where to stand and where to go. A
modern office building is exceedingly simple in design, but it is very easy to get lost in
one; it is not clear.)
27
〇Economy of effort to maintain control and minimize friction.
〇Direction of vision toward the product rather than the process, the result rather
than the effort..
〇Understanding by each individual of his own task as well as that of the
organization as a whole.
〇Decision making that focuses on the right issues, is action-oriented, and is
carried out at the lowest possible level of management.
〇Stability, as opposed to rigidity, to survive turmoil, and adaptability to learn form
it.
〇Perpetuation and self-renewal, which require that an organization be able to
produce tomorrow's leaders from within, helping each person develop continuously;
The structure must also be open to new ideas.
Even though every institution, and especially every business, is structured in some
way around all the dimensions of management, no one design principle is adequate to
all there demands and needs. Nor does any one of the five available design principles
adequately satisfy all of the formal specifications. The functional principle, for
instance, has great clarity and high economy, and it makes it easy to understand
one’s own task. But even in the small business it tends to direct vision away from
results and toward efforts, to obscure the organization’s goals, and to sub-optimize
28
decisions. It has high stability but little adaptability. It perpetuates and develops
technical and functional skills, that is, middle managers, but it resists new ideas and
inhibits top- management development and vision. And every one of the other four
principles is similarly both a “good fit” against some formal organization specifications
and a “misfit” against others.
One conclusion from this discussion is that organization structures can either be
pure or effective, but they are unlikely to be both. Indeed, even the purest structure we
know of, Alfred Sloan’s GM, was actually mixed. It was not composed just of
decentralized divisions, with functional organization within the divisions. It also
contained, from the beginning, some sizable simulated decentralization; For instance,
Fisher Body had responsibility for all bodywork but not for any final product. And top
management was clearly structured as a team, or rather as a number of interlocking
teams.
<New template for today’s organization > Harvard Business Review January-February, 1974
29
Operating a Production System
— A Problem of Information and Decision Analysis
Elwood Spencer Buffa
In a given production system, successful management depends on plans, an
information system concerning what is actually happening, and how we react (make
decisions) to changes in demand, inventory position, schedules, quality level, and
product and equipment innovation. In forming plans for the operation or management
of a productive system, we are attempting to allocate the available resources in the
most effective way for a given forecast of demand. The resources are units of
productive capacity such as number of man hours available at regular time and
overtime, inventories available, subcontracting, as well as a negative capacity which
occurs when shortages or back orders take place. In constructing production plans,
each of these capacities is provided at a cost, and the best plan is one, which
minimizes the sum of all costs over some future time span.
In attempting to meet the objectives of a plan, certain realities interfere, such as
equipment failure, human error, discrepancies in the timing of order flow, quality
variation, and so on. Therefore, system for scheduling maintenance, quality control,
and cost control are invented to help retain order where otherwise the system would
naturally tend toward chaos.
30
Productive Systems — Conversion to Useful Products or Conversion to Pollution?
Productive systems have been commonly thought of as mechanisms for
converting some sort of raw material to something useful. In the process, of course,
there are normally wastes but in the past very little attention has been paid to them.
The emphasis was on the useful product and wastes were disposed of in the
cheapest possible way — dumped into rivers and streams or into the atmosphere.
Only recently have we begun to realize that we may be fouling our own nests.
Today, socially conscious managers realize that the production function must
include the processing of wastes to the point that they are benign or in them selves
useful, rather than hazardous or even lethal. Waste conversion is a part of the
production process and must be included in our conceptual framework.
The Management Theory Jungle*
Harold Koontz
Although students of management would readily agree that there have been
problems of management since the dawn of organized life, most would also agree
that systematic examination of management, with few exceptions, is the product of
the present century and more especially of the past two decades. Moreover, until
31
recent years almost all of those who have attempted to analyze the management
process and look for some theoretical underpinnings to help improve research,
teaching, and practice were alert and perceptive practitioners of the art who reflected
on many years of experience. Thus, at least in looking at general management as an
intellectually based art, the earliest meaningful writing came from such experienced
practitioners as Fayol, Mooney, Alvin Brown, Sheldon, Barnard, and Urwick. Certainly
not even the most academic worshipper of empirical research can overlook the
empiricism involved in distilling fundamentals from decades of experience by such
discerning practitioners as these. Admittedly done without questionnaires, controlled
interviews, or mathematics, observations by such men can hardly be accurately
regarded as a priori or “armchair.”
The noteworthy absence of academic writing and research in the formative years
of modern management theory is now more than atoned for by a deluge of research
and writing from the academic halls. What is interesting and perhaps nothing more
than a sign of the unsophisticated adolescence of management theory is how the
current flood has brought with it a wave of great differences and apparent confusion.
From the orderly analysis of management at the shop-room level by Frederick Taylor
and the reflective distillation of experience from the general management point of view
by Henri Fayol, we now see these and other early beginnings overgrown and
entangled by a jungle of approaches and approaches to management theory.
There are the behavior lists, born of the Hawthorne experiments and the
32
awakened interest in human relations during the 1930s and 1940s, who see
management as a complex of interpersonal relationships and the basis of
management theory the tentative tenets of the new and undeveloped science of
psychology There are also those who see management theory as simply a
manifestation of the institutional and cultural aspects of sociology. Still others,
observing that the central core of management is decision making, branch in all
directions form this core to encompass everything in organization life. Then, there are
mathematicians who think of management primarily as an exercise in logical
relationships expressed in symbols and the omnipresent and ever revered model. But
the entanglement of growth reaches its ultimate when the study of management is
regarded as understandable tendency for the researcher to be dissatisfied until he
has encompassed the entire physical and cultural universe as a management system.
With the recent discovery of an ages old problem area by social, physical, and
biological scientists, and with supersonic increase in interest by all types of enterprise
mangers, the apparent impenetrability of the present thicket, which we call
management theory, is not difficult to comprehend. One can hardly be surprised that
psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, sociometricists, economists,
mathematicians, physicists, biologists, political scientists, business administration
scholars, and even practicing managers, should hop on this interesting, challenging,
and profitable band wagon.
This welling of interest from every academic and practicing corner should not
33
upset anyone concerned with seeing the frontiers of knowledge pushed back and the
intellectual base of practice broadened. But what is rather upsetting to the practitioner
and the observer, who sees great social potential from improved management, is that
the variety of approaches to management theory has led to a kind of confused and
destructive jungle warfare. Particularly among academic disciplines and their
disciples, the primary interests of many would-be cult leaders seem to be to carve out
a distinct (and hence “original”) approach to management. And to defend this
originality, and thereby gain a place in posterity (or at least to gain a publication which
will justify academic status or promotion), it seems to have become too much the
current style to downgrade, and sometimes misrepresent, what anyone else has said,
or thought, or done.
In order to cut through this jungle and bring to light some of the issues and
problems involved in the present management theory area so that the tremendous
interest, intelligence, and research results may become more meaningful, it is my
purpose here to classify the various “schools” of management theory, to identify
briefly what I believe to be the major source of differences, and to offer some
suggestions for disentangling the jungle. It is hoped that a movement for clarification
can be started so at least we in the field will not be a group of blind men identifying the
same elephant with our widely varying and sometimes viciously argumentative
theses.
Disentangling the Management Theory Jungle
34
It is important that steps be taken to disentangle the management theory jungle.
Perhaps, it is too soon and we must expect more years of wandering through a thicket
of approaches, semantics, thrusts, and counter thrusts. But in any field as important to
society where the many blunders of an unscientifically based managerial art can be
so costly, I hope that this will not be long.
There do appear to be some things that can be done. Clearly, meeting what I see
to be the major sources of the entanglement should remove much of it. The following
considerations are important:
1. The Need for Definition of a body of Knowledge. Certainly, if a field of
knowledge is not to get bogged down in a quagmire of misunderstandings, the first
need is for definition of the field. Not that it need be defined in sharp, detailed, and
inflexible lines, but rather along lines which will give it fairly specific content. Because
management is reality, life, practice, my suggestion would be that it be defined in the
light of the able and discerning practitioner’s frame of reference. A science unrelated
to the art for which it is to serve is not likely to be a very productive one.
Although the study of managements in various enterprises, in various countries,
and at various levels made by many persons, including myself, may neither be
representative nor adequate, I have come to the conclusion that management is the
art of getting things done through and with people in formally organized groups, the
art of creating an environment in such an organized group where people can perform
as individuals and yet cooperate toward attainment of group goals, the art of removing
35
blocks to such performance, the art of optimizing efficiency in effectively reaching
goals. If this kind of definition of the field is unsatisfactory, I suggest at least an
agreement that the area should be defined to reflect the field of the practitioner and
that further research and study of practice be done to this end.
In defining the field, too, it seems to me imperative to draw some limits for
purposes of analysis and research. If we are to call the entire cultural, biological, and
physical universe the field of management, we can no more make progress than
could have been done if chemistry or geology had not carved out a fairly specific area
and had, instead, studied all knowledge.
In defining the body of knowledge, too, care must be taken to distinguish between
tools and content. Thus mathematics, operations research, accounting, economic
theory, sociometry, and psychology, to mention a few, are significant tools of
management but are not, in themselves, a part of the content of the field. This is not to
mean that they are unimportant or that the practicing manager should not have them
available to him, nor does it mean that they may not be the means of pushing back the
frontiers of knowledge of management. But they should not be confused with the
basic content of the field.
This is not to say that fruitful study should not continue on the underlying
disciplines affecting management. Certainly knowledge of sociology, social systems,
psychology, economics, political science, mathematics, and other areas, pointed
toward contributing to the field of management, should be continued and encouraged.
36
And significant findings in these and other fields of knowledge might well cast
important light on, or change concepts in, the field of management. This has certainly
happened in other sciences and in every other art based upon significant science.
In approaching the clarification of management theory, then, we should not forget
a few criteria:
1. The theory should deal with an area of knowledge and inquiry that is
“manageable”; no great advances in knowledge were made so long as man
contemplated the whole universe;
2. The theory should be useful in improving practice and the task and person of
the practitioner should not be overlooked,
3. The theory should not be lost in semantics, especially useless jargon not
understandable to the practitioner,
4. The theory should give direction and efficiency to research and teaching; and
5. The theory must recognize that it is a part of a larger universe of knowledge
and theory.
Harold Koontz: The Management Theory Jungle, Journal of the Academy of Management, Vol. 4.
No.3, 1961；
Academy of Management Review ,
37
Vol . 5, No. 2, 1980.
Teams on the Assembly Line—One Company’s Experience
Teams and teamwork are increasingly being used in numerous U.S. and other
global organizations. Square D is a major U.S. manufacturer of electrical equipment
that’s chosen to use employee teams. At its Lexington, Kentucky plant, teams were
introduced in 1988 to help improve quality, speed customer orders, and increase
productivity. What’s been their experience with this approach?
Every day begins with a team meeting. The 800 employees are divided into
twenty-to thirty-person self-managed teams. Each team operates like its own little
factory within the factory. Team members control their one work and can make
38
decisions without having to check with management first. The employee teams are
fully responsible for their own products, from start to finish. One employee describes
what a team member’s role is like: ”Now, if I see something that I’m not satisfied with, I
stop the line. Used to be, you didn’t. Whatever your boss told you, you did it. But if I
don’t like it, I’ll stop the line.”
The decision by Square D managers to introduce teams wasn’t made lightly.
Management realized that employees would need training in order to effectively,
convert from a system where workers did narrow, specialized tasks on a assembly
line and never saw the finished product they were working on, to being on a team that
was fully responsible for its own products from start to finish. Part of that training has
included exercised to help employees learn how to work as part of a team, learn to
solve problems, learn how to handle new technology, and learn how to service
customers better. The Lexington plant continues to spend 4 percent of its payroll on
employee training.
So has the switch to employee teams worked? The results at Lexington are
impressive. Employees no longer have to wait for maintenance personnel when
equipment breaks down; They’ve been trained in maintenance and can fix their own
machines. Employees exhibit pride in their work and greater commitment to doing a
good job. And management is pleased with the 75 percent reduction in the product
reject rate and the ability to process customer orders in an average of 3 days versus
six weeks under the old system.
39
Questions
1. Why do you think employees need to be trained to work effectively on teams?
2. What characteristics of effective teams can you see in this Square D example?
3. Not all efforts to introduce teams are successful. Is there anything in the Square D
example to suggest why this program is doing so well?
“Assembly Line Teams Are Better Trained and More Efficient”, ABC News Word News Tonight
February 24, 1993
40
Teams on the Assembly Line—One Company’s Experience
Teams and teamwork are increasingly being used in numerous U.S. and other
global organizations. Square D is a major U.S. manufacturer of electrical equipment
that’s chosen to use employee teams. At its Lexington, Kentucky plant, teams were
introduced in 1988 to help improve quality, speed customer orders, and increase
productivity. What’s been their experience with this approach?
Every day begins with a team meeting. The 800 employees are divided into
twenty-to thirty-person self-managed teams. Each team operates like its own little
factory within the factory. Team members control their one work and can make
decisions without having to check with management first. The employee teams are
fully responsible for their own products, from start to finish. One employee describes
what a team member’s role is like: ”Now, if I see something that I’m not satisfied with, I
stop the line. Used to be, you didn’t. Whatever your boss told you, you did it. But if I
41
don’t like it, I’ll stop the line.”
The decision by Square D managers to introduce teams wasn’t made lightly.
Management realized that employees would need training in order to effectively,
convert from a system where workers did narrow, specialized tasks on a assembly
line and never saw the finished product they were working on, to being on a team that
was fully responsible for its own products from start to finish. Part of that training has
included exercised to help employees learn how to work as part of a team, learn to
solve problems, learn how to handle new technology, and learn how to service
customers better. The Lexington plant continues to spend 4 percent of its payroll on
employee training.
So has the switch to employee teams worked? The results at Lexington are
impressive. Employees no longer have to wait for maintenance personnel when
equipment breaks down; They’ve been trained in maintenance and can fix their own
machines. Employees exhibit pride in their work and greater commitment to doing a
good job. And management is pleased with the 75 percent reduction in the product
reject rate and the ability to process customer orders in an average of 3 days versus
six weeks under the old system.
Questions
1. Why do you think employees need to be trained to work effectively on teams?
42
2. What characteristics of effective teams can you see in this Square D example?
3. Not all efforts to introduce teams are successful. Is there anything in the Square D
example to suggest why this program is doing so well?
“Assembly Line Teams Are Better Trained and More Efficient”, ABC News Word News Tonight
February 24, 1993
资料来源：
http://jpkc.whu.edu.cn/jpkc2005/management/
43