Taylorism & Workplace Health
Frederick Taylor, also called the
father of scientific management, created the first bureaucratic system for
measuring and constituting effort standards for work. In 1911 Taylor published
his book on the principles of scientific management, in which he brought out the
process of scientifically studying work to improve workers’ efficiency
(Shafritz et al. 2015). His system for organizing work, which came to be called
“Taylorism,” began with the conviction that the natural instinct and tendency
of men is to take it easy. Taylor designed a control structure over work
performance that included scientific tests to ascertain the best of which a
worker was capable and an incentive system to induce him or her to attain it.
Taylor assumed everyone is first-
class at something (Rollinson, 2005), which means there should always be a
person who best suits a job and just has to be found. Because extracting the
maximum effort of a worker resulted in boring and repetitive tasks, careful
selection of operators (people who did not have aspirations for performing more
“mentally challenging” works) was required (Rollinson, 2005)
Click below link to find out more on Taylorism
https://youtu.be/vNfy_AHG-MU
In addition, job analysis and
design have its roots in Scientific Management and are now a common human
resources practice in most of the world’s largest corporations (Bell
&Martin, 2012). The principles of Taylorism have
had stable effect on job design practices which is now being applied to the job
health.
We are instructed to carefully
monitor ourselves, to be aware of and manage our vulnerability to illness, stay
informed of the latest developments, and adjust our conduct, diet, and
lifestyle as recommended by the experts. If we get sick, it’s quite likely our
own fault; we should have eaten better, exercised more, drunk less, had that
screening, and taken all other possible preventive actions, the scope of which
is rapidly expanding. Medical illiteracy or a resigned attitude toward the
future are not valid excuses; they are ethical failings.
What if we don’t work at this “health” hard enough? If much
of our illness is thus self-inflicted, what is to be done? What about the
impact on our effort at work? What about the potential costs?
Apparently the efforts to hold
people responsible for the state of their health are not working, or not
working well enough. According to the surveys done all across the world, more
sticks are coming. Most of the employers are planning to impose consequences on
employees who do not take appropriate actions for improving their health, or
are considering tying incentives to program designs that require a focus on
health 365 days a year. With the arrival of an extraordinary range of new
tracking devices in recent years, such as wearable digital sensors of bio-metric
data, the body is becoming more transparent. Individuals can measure and
monitor themselves all the time, giving employers new ways to measure and
monitor employee progress.
The goal of these
reward-and-consequence schemes is the Taylorian one. Our health is work and we
need expert supervision to determine and sticks/carrots to boost our effort
levels to produce more of it. Taylor saw his system as promising both greater
material wealth and social harmony. A win-win, as both employers and employees
enjoyed the benefits of best-fit job placement and maximum daily output. The
same cheery, no-conflict self-confidence infuses the deployment of the new
schemes. Yes, there is the hope of cost-savings and greater productivity, but
if our health is in our own hands, then surely only the indolent would resist
the solicitude on offer.
References.
Shafritz, J.M., Russell, E.M. & Borick, C., 2015,
Introducing public administration, 8th ed., Taylor and Francis,
Philadelphia, PA.
Bell, R. L., and Martin, J. S. (2012). The relevance of
scientific management and equity theory in everyday managerial communication
situations. Journal of Management Policy and Practice, 13(3).
Rollinson, D. (2005). Organisational behaviour and analysis:
An integrated approach. Essex, UK: Pearson Education.
Interesting article and nicely explain. thanks share your knowledge in this blog. good luck.
ReplyDeleteAgree with you discussion.On the other hand priority should be given to good health & safety practices with in an organization since it’s a key factor to retain employees.Good job
ReplyDeleteTeamwork is another area where pure Taylorism is in opposition to current practice. Essentially, Taylorism breaks tasks down into tiny steps, and focuses on how each person can do his or her specific series of steps best. Good stuff. Thanks for sharing.
ReplyDeleteIndividuals can measure and monitor themselves all the time, giving employers new ways to measure and monitor employee progress.Thanks for sharing.
ReplyDeleteAgree with you that Taylorism have had stable effect on the job design practices, which we apply to job health now. Interesting article.
ReplyDeleteWith the impact of Taylorism the industrial era produce more output to fulfill consumer demands but in the present context people are more conscious on quality of work life, so organizations are realize the concept of maintaining to good workplace. Thanks for sharing.
ReplyDeleteAgreed with the point that you are trying to bring in. Maintaining healthy lives are important for every individual despite from their work life. Good topic to discuss.
ReplyDeleteEmployee health is responsibility of employer as well as employee.
ReplyDeleteGood blog article and a good video clip Upendra. Taylorism maked the profit to the organization while ease the job of the employee. Health and safety has been improved massively with this concept and it increases and makes an efficient person in the organization. Thanks for sharing
ReplyDelete