|
CHAPTER ONE
TAYLORISM
Within capitalist society management plays an important role,
entering almost every aspect of life. This includes not only the
management of people but also the day to day management of our
capitalist market place. Within the world of work it has been
suggested that management performs two functions; "coordinating"
and the "exercise of authority" (Thompson.P, 1989, p122). For an
enterprise to be successful, inevitably the management have to
have some measure of authority over the workforce in order to
establish a labour process more conducive to efficiency and
increased production.
The control of the worker has been at the heart of
management since the early days of the Industrial Revolution. To
this end management have established strategies that enable them
to direct, evaluate and supervise the labour process (Edwards.R,
1979, p18). This applies to both the shop floor worker and lower
management. F.W.Taylor (1911) was one of the first to produce
literature on new management techniques with the aim being to
put the production process firmly in the hands of management.
Taylor's work, in particular his work on "scientific management"
marks a watershed in the organisation of the factory and the
division of labour.
Taylor's work was mainly concerned with the steel industry
and related to increasing efficiency of production. He
established what became known as the "work study", a methodical
study of the labour process, with the aim of achieving the most
efficient way of performing tasks. Taylor's scheme centred on the
"systematic analysis of the process of production" (Hill.S 1981,
p25). Through this analysis the production process could be
broken down into component parts and individual tasks. The tasks
could be simplified which meant the whole process relied less on
skilled workers. Even before the Industrial Revolution Adam Smith
(1978,p116) and Charles Babbage (1978, p117) were suggesting that
the manufacturing process had advantages. One of Taylor's aims
was the drive for cheaper labour costs, which was to be achieved
through deskilling and rationalisation of the workforce. This
also involved reducing the industrial muscle of the workforce.
Braverman (1974, pp82-83)) suggests if "each step of the labour
process is divorced as far as possible from special knowledge and
training and reduced to simple labour", this can reduce overall
costs.
Through Taylorist techniques management gained the upper
hand (control). As part of the overall strategy, work study
placed emphasis on 'piece work' as this enabled workers' pay to
be related to his/her output. This created the overall incentive
of economic gain. In turn this ensured that little pressure was
required to make the worker produce as much as possible, within a
set time scale. In this way management set the working hours and
introduced piece work or efficiency-related pay. Taylor regarded
economic rewards as the best incentive/inducement to hard work,
the worker receiving a rate of pay proportional to effort. These
measures meant that management increased control over production
costs, furthermore, it was assumed that due to worker
specialisation of repeated tasks, productivity would increase.
Taylorist techniques aimed to make managers solely
responsible for organising and directing work, as it was
considered if the tasks were to be carried out efficiently the
workers had to follow managerial directions exactly. As Hill
(1981, p26) suggests, "now managers knew what workers ought to be
doing in their jobs because they had determined these".
Therefore, the performance of the tasks was to be carried out by
the workers but all the aspects of planning were to be taken over
by management, "separating planning from doing" (Hill.S, 1981,
p25)).
Reducing worker autonomy was one of Taylor's aims as he
believed if the worker was left to his own devices and not
controlled through task specification, he would do as little as
possible through "soldiering". This was a technique displayed by
workers, whereby tasks were performed at a slow pace in order
that management were misled over their full potential. If the
workforce was left to plan its own work, both efficiency and
production would fall. The workforce may continue with
traditional procedures rather than employing strict scientific
methods, with efficiency and hard work being a low priority.
Consequently Taylor stipulated that management must carry out all
the essential planning of tasks including any that involved
intellectual skills. Writers such as Gorz (1982, p46)) suggest
that scientific management organised the work process, making it
impossible for workers to experience work "as a potentially
creative process", due to the measure of fragmentation imposed
and less dependency on the trades.
One of the suggested consequences of Taylorist techniques is
the increased division of labour. This not only includes the shop
floor workers but also lower management. Lower managerial
positions (such as those occupied by foremen) could expect their
tasks to be divided up in order to give them just one function.
Previously lower management had enjoyed a measure of autonomy,
but with higher management taking the responsibility for all the
planning, Taylorism aimed to reduce this. The aim was for lower
management to become more specialised and therefore the diversity
of roles reduced.
Skilled craftsmen suffered a level of job fragmentation
during the early part of the industrial revolution. The craftsmen
had skills that could not be dispensed with due to the nature of
the production process because the process required a variety of
craft skills. Scientific management sought to increase this
fragmentation as an attempt to increase output and management
control. The increased fragmentation led to deskilling.
"The work of every workman is fully planned out by
management....and each man receives written
instructions describing in detail the task which he
is to accomplish, as well as the means to be used in
doing work...This task specifies not only what is to
be done, but how it is to be done and the exact time
allowed for doing it...Scientific management consists
very largely in preparing for and carrying out these
tasks" (Taylor.F, 1974, p118))
Some would have us believe that scientific management marked a
change from the traditional capitalist organisation of the
workforce. Braverman (1974, pp118-119) suggests that previously
control had been delegated, whereas scientific management led to
a shift in practice with management gaining control. The autonomy
and discretion of lower management was reduced and in some cases
removed.
For the first time management had a defined role separate to
that of ownership. Management had particular tasks to perform
which became part of management characteristics. Taylor (1981,
p26) defined management as the resource that had the
responsibility for planning, organising, commanding, coordinating
and controlling.
However, the introduction of new direct and efficient
methods of management had its effect on worker resistance. With a
reduction in the skill level of tasks, the market power of groups
and individuals meant employees had less leverage over
negotiations with employers.
It is sometimes forgotten that scientific management did not
only influence capitalist organisation of the work place but also
the communist work place. Lenin believed in and applied Taylorist
techniques to Russian industry. Scientific management provided
the worker discipline, control and methodology that was accepted
by the communist world (Bendix.R, 1966,pp206-210)).
CRITICISMS OF TAYLOR
Many aspects of Taylor's work have been questioned. Taylor seems
to paint a simplistic picture of factory life, with a de-skilled
workforce allowing themselves to be led without question by
management, accepting any task they are asked to perform.
Certainly unions constantly question management over the nature
of tasks being performed by their members. It is quite often the
case that unions and management will agree on high wage
settlements in return for changes in the labour process.
Management are not always given a free rein. For example,
Japanese management strategy allows for worker participation in
managerial decision making. Consequently the division between
management and workforce is not always clear cut. It has been
said that even the work of Taylor and Henry Ford suggests that
productivity will increase with worker and management cooperation
(Piore.M and Sabel.C, 1984, p126). Furthermore changes in the
labour process may come under scrutiny from outside bodies such
as the "Health and Safety Executive" or the "Factory Inspector".
Therefore overall planning and organisation may, to some extent,
be influenced externally.
Taylor placed an emphasis on piece work, with the aim being
the inducement of the workforce to hard work, requiring pay or
economic reward to be related to effort/individual production.
However, in almost every facet of commerce it is difficult to
determine what constitutes a "fair day's pay for a fair day's
work": this is constantly under review by both the workforce and
management. Also the price of labour may be determined by
external factors such as scarcity, product demand and economic
conditions within the country, all out of the direct control of
management.
The diversity and complexity of social control processes,
especially within the factory are not sufficiently confronted by
Taylor. In the comtemporary competitive business world it is
difficult, if not impossible, to argue the continued importance
of just one management strategy such as deskilling. Certainly the
nature of control is seen on a wide front and affects many more
workers, not only those on the shop floor, but also white collar
workers, especially those jobs that require little skill
(Storey.J, 1985, p195).
Taylorism leads us to believe that the managers play the
most important role in establishing control, through a narrow set
of strategies. This is unrealistic and denies the existence of a
wide variety of alternative strategies. The managers are looked
upon as having unwavering loyalty towards the company carrying
out their fuction of planning and directing the workforce.
Taylorism denies the fact that managers can chose from a variety
of strategies and in many cases can be flexible in their approach
to the workforce.
It could be suggested that the overall importance of
Taylorism has been over estimated, as there had already been a
shift towards direct control before his ideas came to prominence.
Piore and Sabel (1984, p126)) suggest that Taylor's schemes
attracted little attention even in those plants he organised
personally. By 1880 the by Industrial Revolution was at full
capacity and there had already been experimentation with methods
of control. According to Littler (1989, p126) a number of
industrialists had tried profit sharing and participation
schemes, with other techniques such as bonus sharing and piece
work having been tried. However, it was usual for work hours to
be set, linking this to rates of pay (Friedman.A, 1977, p91).
Littler (1989, p127) casts doubt on the impact of Taylorism
especially in the twentieth century, "there was literally no shop
floor Taylorism in Britain before 1914". Littler refers to the
time study as not been widely used and that piece work was based
largely on the knowledge of craft workers; whereas Taylorism
sought to deskill and standardise tasks.
Other writers cast doubt on the significance of Taylorism as
a management strategy. Burawoy (1974, p278) suggests "as a
practical tool of increasing capitalist control, Taylorism was a
failure". Evidence of this nature suggests that the impact of
Taylorism was limited perhaps with only one percent of companies
introducing such schemes (Edwards.R, 1979, p104).
Writers such as Reid (1989, p132) further question
Taylorism as an effective means of control, although he
acknowledges that as an approach, some Taylorist techniques have
been used in order to gain control. These have been supplemented
by the need for staff participation and improved management
communication with the workforce. Consequently, the image
portrayed by Taylorism has softened, producing a more civilised
work environment.
One of the main criticisms of scientific management is that
it is a rigid and unyielding policy. In this way it seems to
contradict the need of management to encourage the interests of
shop floor workers and to ensure their enthusiastic
participation. This can be achieved through an employee-centred
rather than job-centred organisation of tasks, giving the worker
more control over the nature of his/her work (Likert.R, 1973,
p113).
Gaining the confidence and interests of workers is regarded
by Friedman (1977, p48) as essential, referring to "responsible
autonomy". Through responsible autonomy the workforce are given a
degree of independence once they have been made aware of the
importance of their tasks and performance. One of the aims is to
keep supervision to a minimum and yet maintain overall control.
However, it would seem that this strategy can still be employed
to divide a workforce. The more skilled workers have a measure of
responsible autonomy with the less skilled workers subject to
direct control. Forester (1988, pp253-254)) regards the core
workers as being "functionally flexible" in that they do what the
company demands in turn for security and decent conditions, while
the peripheral workers are hired for specific jobs on a short
term basis. Reid (1989, p132) regards both these strategies as
complementing each other as part of the "managerial armory".
One observation is that larger firms are more likely to
adopt a more direct approach in order to maintain production and
control the workforce; whereas smaller firms employing skilled
workers will employ responsible autonomy. Again this is borne out
by the work of Reid (1989, p132). However, it is possible when
dealing with skilled workers a direct approach to control can
result in an undesirable reaction by the workforce. Both
strategies tend to lead to the same conclusion, that is, control
of the worker, with responsible autonomy giving scientific
management a degree of flexibility.
The nature of control is undoubtedly more complex than
Taylor suggests. Edwards (1982, p263) attempts to define two
classifications; "technical control" and "bureaucratic control".
Technical control is concerned with developing and implementing
the labour process and in particular the flow of production. The
aim is to achieve efficiencies and reduce problems with the
integration of labour power into labour. Bureaucratic control is
related to those influences such as the way in which promotion is
granted, disciplinary procedures and responsibilities. It also
has a negative side in the form of sanctions. Whereas technical
control is restricted to the shop floor, bureaucratic control can
enter almost every aspect of life, behaviour and attitude. It
projects beyond the factory floor, demanding loyalty from the
workforce through positive sanctions, for loyal and diligent
workers.
Although one aim of Taylorism is to reduce or remove worker
autonomy and discretion, inevitably the worker is left with a
measure of individual freedom. "Beyond what commands can effect
and supervision can control, beyond what incentives can induce
and penalties prevent there exists an exercise of discretion,
important even in relatively menial jobs" (Bendix.R, 1974, p251).
Although Taylorism puts pressure on individual discretion, the
ordinary worker is still faced with a choice of actions, even if
this is only on the production line. Perhaps this is what Taylor
refers to as "soldiering". Workers have the choice whether to be
conscientious, self-motivated and hard working, sometimes
referred to as "omissive actions" (Offe.C, 1976, pp36-37).
Workers tend to use these as bargaining points in negotiations
with management.
Taylor has a tendency to over-simplify the relationship
between the employer and the workforce, seeing it as largely
based on the production line. Writers such as Edwards have shown
that management can manipulate the workforce away from the
production line, whereas Taylor seems to neglect this aspect.
Large corporations can take advantage of the dependency of
employees on the company by offering incentives such as free
medical insurance or free private schooling for families of
employees. This can be viewed as an extension of control, as the
company sows the seeds of paternalism. If employees leave or
produce unsatisfactory work the benefits can be withdrawn.
An example of the manipulation of the labour force is seen
within the Japanese labour market. Employees leaving a large firm
that offers paternalistic benefits, and moving to a small firm
will find benefits drastically reduced. Also, through the
newspapers Japanese companies generally advertise for workers
under thirty years of age (Cole.R, 1982, p261). This combination
places employees of large firms in the position whereby he/she
realises that it is unlikely the opportunity to leave will
materialise. Furthermore, an employee leaving a corporation for a
small firm would lose paternalistic benefits. Consequently the
worker is more likely to accept company policies, and worker
resistance is minimised.
Taylorist ideas seem to be less relevant to modern industry
that requires a more flexible production line and approach to
worker/management relations. Rosabeth Kantor (1984, p247)
suggests that the "mechanical picture" presented by the
management literature of Taylor presents the views or a former
period of mass production that needed turn of the century
organisation. These organisations turned out "predictable"
products and management was expected to deal with the unexpected
event. However, todays world requires industry to be more
flexible and capable of small batch production and change from
product to product (Warde.A, 1989, p11), giving way to "post
Fordism". In conclusion, company executives were prepared to
adopt scientific management techniques such as the work study but
only at their discretion. They did not follow Taylor's ideas
entirely (Elliot.D.A and Elliot.R.H.1976, p73). WHITE-COLLAR WORK
WHITE-COLLAR WORK
Although Taylor's work is mainly connected to the social
organisation of the factory it would appear to be supported by
the introduction of technology. The result of either can be
deskilling. For example, the introduction of word processing and
office mechanisation has led to the more intellectual tasks been
taken over by computer (Kumar.K, 1978, p210). Although clerical
work is less supervised, control is often required due to the
need of computers to process data/information in a systematic
way. This may have to be carried out under rigid working hours
and certain working conditions. The more intellectual tasks are
often carried out by those higher up the managerial ladder.
Office work is changing in its nature, from paper-work to one
involving the electronic office which marks a major
transformation (Forester.T, 1988, p195).
The white collar sector is growing with a "third of all
employees in manufacturing ....white collar workers" (Poston.M,
1978, p207). The world of the white collar worker conjures up an
image of intellectual work carried out by the well qualified
office worker. A worker with a degree of autonomy and control
over his/her tasks, with privileged working conditions. Kumar
(1978, p209) suggests that the majority of white collar workers
feel far from humanised and personalised, with the majority being
female, mainly concerned with routinised, unskilled work;
Taylorism "having conquered the factory has moved into the office
and shop". In this way the office worker has suffered from
scientific management in the same way as the shop floor worker,
including routinisation, the division of labour and
mechanisation. Braverman agrees with this image, visualising the
office assuming factory-like conditions (Braverman.H, 1974,
p335).
The work of Taylor and Braverman, although mainly concerned
with the shop floor worker or manual worker, has thus been
applied to white collar work. However, it is not as
straightforward as Kumar suggests. The nature of white collar
work differs in several ways to that of manual workers (Lane.C,
1985, p298), as there is still a longstanding division between
white collar work and blue collar work. It has been assumed that
with the introduction of technology to the office there has been
a convergence of manual and non-manual work, but this may not be
the case.
Writers such as Kumar suggest that the office has suffered
from rationalisation and mechanisation which has meant that tasks
carried out in the office have become simplified. This is a view
supported by Crompton and Jones (1984) and Crompton and Reid
(1982, pp163-78). The skills of the office worker have become
reduced with the intellectual tasks being broken down so that
they can be carried out by relatively unskilled staff. However,
Forester (1988, p255) disagrees stating that there is a demand
for multi-skilled personel. The routine procedures of office work
can be compared to the mass production line.
However, writers such as Lane (1985, p301) contradict this
suggesting that the relationship between work on the production
line and the final output is much more clear cut than white
collar work. Bureaucracy is highly routinised and often requires
the use of strategies, very different to those of Taylorism.
Clerical work often requires the white collar worker to be more
flexible in the work that he/she attempts, requiring a measure of
autonomy, such as dealing with people on a face-to-face basis.
Indeed it is often to the advantage of the employer to give the
office worker a measure of autonomy in order that he/she can
build up a diversity of skills. Furthermore the introduction of
computers can lead to the increased complexity of the nature of
jobs. This diversity of skills are sometimes referred to as
"reserve capacity" (Lane.C, 1985, p301) and can be called upon
when needed by management.
Taking the above argument it is easy to suggest that only a
minority of office workers have suffered from Taylorism. However,
this does not mean that the white collar worker is immune from
scientific management. The opposite can be argued as the nature
of office work has changed dramatically over the last twenty
years with the introduction of computers, office automation and
improved communications systems. As a consequence there exists a
section white collar workers who are totally regulated in the
same way as shop floor workers (Berger.U and Offe.C, 1985, p302).
A feature of Taylorism within the office has been the move
towards centralisation with many functions being brought
together. With the introduction of computer systems, a measure of
worker flexibility disappears as they require updating in normal
working hours. If less skilled staff are involved, supervision is
necessary in order to monitor work and so the atmosphere of the
office is substituted with that of the production line. Out of
this a division of labour can develop with the minority of
skilled staff (such as systems analysts and computer programmers)
being separated from the ordinary worker. Taylor referred to
breaking the worker's monopoly over control of the production
process by separating the link between conception of ideas and
implementation. In the same way, automation (such as automatic
teller machines) removes the connection between the service
worker and the client or customer and so breaks down the process
leading to a decline in a personalised service (Kumar.K, 1978,
p211).
Although the introduction of technology may increase, this
does not mean that it will dominate the office in the same way as
it does on the shop floor. The overall function of the office
limits the degree to which it can rationalise office work
(Lane.C, 1985, p302). Although the introduction of computers can
lead to standardisation and to the division of labour it can also
lead to an increased complexity of work (Salford office staff
operating computer systems under LMS). Not all skill can be
standardised, especially knowledge built up through experience,
which is often indispensable. In addition employees have had to
gain skills in order to operate new systems, something that was
not required prior to office automation. There has always been a
large and relatively unskilled group of white collar workers
carrying out standardised routine jobs. It is misleading to talk
about this sector of the workforce when they have always been
confined to unskilled work.
It would be easy to suggest that teachers have suffered the
same fate as the white-collar worker, with scientific management
being slowly imposed on the profession. However, teaching and
office work have only a minimum of features in common.
Nevertheless, if office work has been beset by Taylorist
techniques then it is possible that teaching could find itself in
the same position.
|