The General Definition of Scientific Management (according to Labor)
"Organized labor understands by the term "scientific management" certain well defined efficiency systems which have been recently devised by individuals and small groups under the leadership and in imitation of men like Frederick W Taylor, HL Gantt and Harrington Emerson, by whom this term has been preempted. Organized labor makes a clear distinction between scientific management thus defined and science in management. It does not oppose savings of waste and increase of output resulting from improved machinery and truly efficient management. It stands therefore definitely committed to science in management and its objections are directed solely against systems devised by the so called "scientific management" cult."
"Scientific management
thus defined is a device employed for the purpose of increasing
production and profits and tends to eliminate consideration for the
character rights and welfare of the employees. It looks upon the
worker as a mere instrument of production and reduces him to a semi
automatic attachment to the machine or tool. In spirit and essence
it is a cunningly devised speeding up and sweating system which
puts a premium upon muscle and speed rather than brains, forces
individuals to become rushers and speeders, stimulates and drives
the workers up to the limit of nervous and physical exhaustion and
over speeds and over strains them, shows a constant tendency to
increase the intensity and extent of the task, tends to displace
all but the fastest workers, indicates a purpose to extract the
last ounce of energy from the workers, and holds that if the task
can be performed it is not too great."
Excerpted from
Scientific Management and Labor by Robert Franklin
Hoxie,
D. Appleton and Company, New York and London, 1915 -
T58H63
So, what makes scientific management scientific? Originally, Taylorism was not referred to as Scientific Management, but as The Taylor Method. Taylor claimed it was rooted in scientific method, so Louis Brandeis, a progressive attorney, suggested the label. In a society crazy about science, the label stuck. So, the first reason this approach is called Scientific Management is that a clever lawyer, trying a prominent case, called it that. The case got press and the label was permanent. Slip over here for more ...
First Installment
Second Installment
What starts as inspiration, gets explained as technique. Then technique gets taught as if that would induce inspiration.
The history of every management scheme, every movement since Scientific Management, has followed exactly the same pattern. It starts with some visionary, a real oddball, experiencing an insight. [Hey, that works!] Usually for no reason directly related to anything the oddball actually did (but sometimes due entirely to passionate public relations), the odd insight gets noticed. Perhaps it gets a little prominent press. Slip over here for more ...
Henry Laurence Gantt is not remembered as the Father of Scientific Management, but he was present at the birth. He knew the mother well. He worked 'under' Frederick Winslow Taylor at Midvale and Bethlehem, and was one of the four people closest to Taylor professionally. He knew how Taylor operated, and may have operated in the same autocratic way. It's a curious fact of history that most of the attempts to implement Scientific Management failed, and every implementation was achieved only by autocratic command. Slip over here for more ...
Father is the painting of a blue house green. Father lives on the other side of the sky. Father is a cloudy day with sun. Father is an email, a phone call. Father is paperwork and publishers. Father is books and drives in the country. Father is fireplaces and snow. Father is the ocean I swim in. Father is a cascades volcano, a skyscraper. Father is large and powerful. Father is a bold line across a blank page. Father is a bowl of pasta, an arugula salad, a Christmas goose. Father is a day in June. A long day, where the sun shines almost till midnight.
Love,
Heidi
©2009 by Heidi Astrid Schmaltz, all rights reserved
The word 'manager' has existed for about one hundred and seventy-five years; 'scientist' for perhaps just a few years longer. The melding of these two new concepts didn't take hold until two generations later. By then, corporations had grown beyond proprietorships manageable by the owner into geographically-dispersed, culture-straddling entities which were, by traditional means, unmanageable. Slip over here for more ...
Perfect until it came time to store our wonderful finds. This little apartment doesn't have a root cellar or an auxiliary beer fridge in the garage, not even a garage. It was time to clean out the also-rans. Time to make stock. Slip over here for more ...
My name is widely known and mostly used as if an expletive
I know you are a sucker, so I quote the Dow historical
From bull to bear and back again, my profits categorical.
I'm very well
acquainted, too, with matters hypothetical
I leave it to my quants to understand the mere quadratical
About the buzz on Wall Street, well, I'm teeming with a lot o'
news
But don’t expect me to explain the square of an
hypotenuse.
Don’t
expect me to explain the square of an hypotenuse
Don’t expect me to explain the square of an hypotenuse
Don’t expect me to explain the square of an hypotenuse
Slip over here for more
...
Can you explain the scientific reason why?
Focus, instead, upon honing your ability to cope with the normal, easily anticipated, eternal complications of your work. Calluses defend what no glove could protect.
It Has Always Been Thus. We yearn for liberation, expecting the good guys to ride in on foaming horses or the eleventh hour benefactor to magically appear. Fortunate synchronicity when it occurs. No evidence of bad luck when it does not.
The game of Three Card Monty is not a game of skill for anyone but the one inviting you to play. They've learned to tickle your switches. Can you recognize when someone is tickling yours?
