This blog post examines whether Taylor’s Scientific Management was a true innovation or the beginning of human alienation.
When asked about industrialization, many people recall the relationship between machines and humans depicted in the film ‘Modern Times’. Charlie Chaplin’s 1936 film ‘Modern Times’ brilliantly satirizes industrialization, with Chaplin’s scene working on an assembly line being particularly memorable. He tightens bolts on parts on a conveyor belt, tools in both hands. As the conveyor belt speeds up, Chaplin strains to keep pace, only to get caught between the gears and end up shaking comically. Many believe technological progress has made workers sacrificial lambs. At the heart of this criticism lies Taylor’s Scientific Management theory. It is also said that because Taylor viewed workers as machines that would work until their physical strength was exhausted if paid well enough, laborers became machines themselves, unable to enjoy their own lives.
However, this criticism stems from a fragmentary understanding of Taylor’s Scientific Management theory. In fact, Taylor’s theory aimed not merely to treat workers like machines, but to maximize labor efficiency to improve workers’ quality of life. Taylor researched various methods to reduce worker fatigue and enable them to work in more pleasant environments. In this sense, his scientific management theory sought not just productivity, but a win-win path for both workers and management.
Taylor’s scientific management theory, presented as a critique of existing haphazard corporate management practices, introduced new rational and efficient management techniques. It articulates the core of scientific management through the following four principles:
First, they develop science to replace past haphazard methods for each element of the worker’s job.
Second, they scientifically select and train workers, developing each worker to the highest level in their field of work.
Third, they sincerely cooperate with workers to ensure all work is performed based on the principles of the previously developed ‘science’.
Fourth, a nearly equal distribution of work and responsibility is achieved between labor and management.
Those who examine the four principles above closely will notice that ‘they’—the ones expected to uphold these principles—are not the workers, but the management. Previously, the burden of performing tasks and bearing responsibility fell almost entirely on the workers, while management merely encouraged them using carrot-and-stick methods. Taylor, however, demands that management research how to enable workers to achieve maximum satisfaction with minimum time and effort while working at their best. By determining a fair workload for both managers and workers that accounts for fatigue levels, researching efficient motions and tools, and systematically training workers, their work capacity will improve and company productivity will increase. Of course, this requires the precondition that workers receive guaranteed wage increases when productivity rises. This aligns with the third principle.
In this context, the claim that Taylor’s theory treats humans like machines may be an overstatement. His theory should rather be seen as part of an effort to make human labor more efficient and more humane. His goal was to maximize human potential while eliminating unnecessary waste and inefficiency in the process. This was not merely about increasing the intensity of labor, but aimed to enable workers to labor with less fatigue and greater safety.
Nevertheless, some may still criticize, “How is quantifying work different from viewing humans as machines?” To this, I would counter as follows. What is crucial in the principles of scientific management is not the mechanism itself, but the philosophy behind scientific management. This philosophy seeks ways for workers, managers, and all members of society to find happiness. Creating systems like time studies, work instructions, or bonus schemes based on the four principles are merely means to that end. If one hastily attempts to change to a supposedly better method, it may provoke worker resentment and lead to adverse effects. By considering workers’ perceptions, gradually training them in work changes, and guiding them toward better methods while achieving work improvements, workers and management can genuinely cooperate.
Furthermore, Taylor’s scientific management theory is not a universal solution applicable to all situations. In modern society, the forms of labor have diversified, necessitating a contemporary reinterpretation of Taylor’s principles. Particularly in fields where knowledge work or creativity is paramount, his management principles can only be applied to a limited extent. Therefore, rather than blindly following Taylor’s theory, it is crucial to apply it flexibly to suit the modern environment.
One shortcoming of Taylor’s scientific management theory is that he explained it too much from an individual perspective. In his book, he argued that “individual motivation declines during group work,” advocating for work to be done as individually as possible. However, humans are social animals, and working in teams can generate synergy. Furthermore, most modern social systems, including today’s factories, involve tasks performed by teams rather than individuals. Therefore, scientific management can also be applied to group work.
A scientific approach to group work involves establishing systems that foster teamwork and creating learning organizations to manage teams. This is particularly crucial in safety-critical fields. Consider, for example, a surgical team where doctors from various specialties operate to save a patient. Each will strive to save the patient using the best manual they’ve been given. While each possesses top-tier skills, an accident caused by a lack of communication would ultimately lead to a decline in ‘productivity’. Therefore, following the ‘principles of scientific management’, the entire team can create scientific alternatives to handle emergency situations through multiple rounds of research and simulations.
Secondly, a system capable of effectively managing the created organization is also necessary. Just looking at the Sewol ferry sinking incident that occurred in Korea long ago, the necessity for a management system capable of overseeing the whole is painfully evident. Let us design a learning organization to remember what went wrong, have those who know the technology well accurately document it, share information between teams, and organize to pursue the same goal. Furthermore, if we ensure security is maintained and no disciplinary action follows to foster cooperation between the organization’s leader and team members, an excellent organization will be created.
We have thus examined Taylor’s scientific management theory. Furthermore, we proposed a collective scientific management method not covered in his original theory. If we truly understand Taylor’s intent, engineering is absolutely not a discipline that mechanizes and harms humans. To become a ‘warm’ engineering in the future, we must research how to create work that humans can do for a better, safer society. In this process, it will be crucial to discover new scientific management approaches that respect workers’ rights and humanity.
Today, we are entering the era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, which presents entirely different challenges and opportunities compared to Taylor’s time. Amidst these changes, we must contemplate how to reinterpret and apply Taylor’s scientific management theory. With the introduction of automation and artificial intelligence, the forms of labor are becoming more diverse, and the role of humans is shifting toward more creative and complex domains. Therefore, we must develop Taylor’s principles to fit the modern context and create a new, human-centered management approach.
