"Activity poisoning," I declared. "A classic case!" Slip over here for more ...
The Way A Poet Might
If I were to write this poem the way we’re trained to manage work,
I wouldn’t need a pen or paper (or an eraser, or any quirks).
I’d start with pure logistics, and organize the space
in the One Best Way to guarantee the efficiency of pace.
I’d consider all the resources I’d likely ever need,
Then contract to acquire each before I would ever dare proceed.
And I would draft a careful plan with metrics clean and square
to guide my pen and paper use, to co-opt every care.
I would also study others’ works with a coolly larcenous eye,
To find the very best of class to anonymously plagiarize.
Then I might change a word or two, and certainly tweak the title,
before publishing the result to great tumult, The New American Bible!
.Slip over here for more ...
First, scientific management, in its relations to labor, must be judged, not merely by the theories and claims, either of its representatives or opponents, but mainly by what it proves to be in its actual operation. Mr. Taylor, especially, has intimated that if any principle of scientific management which he has laid down is violated, scientific management ceases to exist. Evidently, the acceptance of this dictum would lead to endless quibbling, and would prevent the drawing of significant conclusions as to the actual character and tendencies of scientific management and its effects upon labor welfare. It would be as true to say that the church and the state rest upon certain fundamental principles, and that if any of these are violated in practice, church and state cease to exist. Scientific management, in this respect, is like any other thing in the social or material world. It is what it is in fact, and not what the ideals or theories of its advocates or opponents would have it to be. Labor and society at large are not interested especially in the theory of scientific management as it exists in the mind of an individual, but in the way that it affects welfare in its application. Like all other things which affect humanity, it must, therefore, be judged by actual results and tendencies.Slip over here for more ...
"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."
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 ...