Acceptance of Taylorism in contemporary organization
The Taylorism is adopted in the Australian, American or European organization but not in the original form. Grachev and Rakitsky (2013) depicts that technology and automation are changing day by day and accepting this theory like traditional way, does not maximize the productivity and profitability. Traditionally, this theory is used to increase the productivity by eliminating the unnecessary physical movements of workers but in recent times, companies emphasize more on other curricular activities. It is evident that if employees have a time limit, they have the intention to work at faster rates and due to same reason after introducing Taylorism in Ford the productivity increases 300% more than the previous production (Witzel and Warner 2015). Moreover, in recent times, the principle idea of breaking the long processes in pieces is also adopted by the contemporary organization that is the key to success for an organization in information technology (Bell et al. 2015). Kemp (2013) also illustrates that with the application of the Taylorism, attractive packages and job security for employees id also a significant factor that modern companies also were taken into consideration for obtaining success in the business.
Taylorism in Call Centres
Sinha and Gabriel (2016) portrays that Taylorism cannot be completely implemented in call centers as call center is divided into different sectors departmental wise depending on the area of expertise of employees. They have the target to help a certain number of customers, so if there is a time boundary for them, definitely they can serve more customers but on the same time, the time specified for each customer may not be same. So, Brophy (2015) depicts that they focus more on satisfied customers rather a number of calls. Therefore, Witzel and Warner (2015) affirm that Taylorism can be seen in the approach, where the more the customers serve the best service to the organization, they can attain attractive packages and recognition.
Impact of Taylorism in modern world
It is obvious that some traditional approaches are beneficial for the growth of the organization and the prime object for the Taylorism is to increase the financial growth by utilizing the maximum employee’s capability (Bell et al. 2015). The contemporary institutes also emphasize more on the maximum ability of the employees; however, the way of implementation of this theory is different. According to the video, the task is divided into several departments so that big projects can be divided into the module and easily manageable. Parker (2016) portrays that this policy is equally applicable in the modern institute where big companies are often divided into several departments. On the other hand, Hamel and Breen (2013) negates that when organization’s structure does not have a specialized job, companies usually fail to adapt to changing circumstances that are following the Taylorism principle and hence this principle is best suited for small companies. This inflexibility does not work well in a contemporary organization where managers equally emphasize on the betterment of the employees.
Taylor et al. (2013) on the other hand illustrates that in recent times, managers also focuses on assembly line automated technique so that better results can be obtained in lesser time. As per as the provided video, a different rule is implemented where workers are allowed to pull the cars through one workstation after another, which led to the birth of assembly line. Implementation of this principle results in the total manufacturing time of each car reduced to one and a half hour. In addition to that, during that era, time bounds are provided to each employee to maximize their working ability and as a result, the person who loaded 12 tons materials on a daily basis, loads 47 tons of materials at the same time that enhances the productivity of Ford (Witzel and Warner 2015). In a contemporary organization, the same principle is applied however regarding targets, in the completion of which the employee will get extra financial and emotional benefits. Grachev and Rakitsky 2013) depicts that this validates the term that “we take care of our employees who in turn takes care of our business”.
Fayolism as the Necessary Complement of Taylorism
Taylor has some major principles- Daily work carefully planned and laid out for workers, standard coordination between equipment and working procedures, attractive packages for employees (Cristallini and Savall 2014). The primary reason for formulating these principles is that an organization has to provide a huge portion of revenue for labor. Therefore, Taylor depicts that offering great packages to these employees will motivate them to do more work and this principle is followed by modern managers also. Moreover, Parker (2016) defines that Fayolism follows some major principles like- Division of work, authority and responsibility, order, equity, a subordinate of individual interest to general interest, the stability of tenure, the unity of direction, scalar chain and chain of command. All these principles play a crucial role for better associativity with1 the work in the workplace which enhances the productivity. Brophy (2015) portrays that according to Taylorism workers are considered as machines whereas Parker (2016) negates that according to Fayolism workers are considered as an important asset for the organization.
In Mr. William's case, from the provided case study, Taylor enlightens that being a production manager, Mr. William has to fulfill some criteria like- interpretation of the policies of the stockholder, finding out objectives of the enterprise, scope and limitations of the organization, recruitment of skilled employee, following up with the activities of the company along with the appraisal of good work of the employees. All these responsibilities are job oriented; however, following Fayolism, it is found that management of a company required skills other than engineering. Fayol considers education for administration for achieving business objectives and differentiates administrative function than technical function. Cristallini and Savall (2014) illustrates that higher authorities of an organization like chief executive determines policy, administration and management and on the same hand they have to handle employees by suggesting them alternative policies in case existing policies are hard to follow. The chief executive applies Fayol's "administrative function" and Taylor's principle of achieving the greatest volume of work together for the best result in the productivity of the organization.
Bell, R.L., Kennebrew, D. and Blyden, L., 2015. An Increasing Utility for the Early Management Approaches.
Brophy, E., 2015. Labour Markets and Identity on the Post-Industrial Assembly Line Answer the Call: Virtual Migration in Indian Call Centres Call Centers and the Global Division of Labor: A Political Economy of Post-Industrial Employment and Union Organizing. Labour/Le Travail, 75.
Cristallini, V. and Savall, H., 2014. The Taylorism-Fayolism-Weberism Virus. In Facilitating the Socio-Economic Approach to Management-Results of the first SEAM Conference in North America (p. 9). IAP Age Publishing (USA).
Grachev, M. and Rakitsky, B., 2013. Historic horizons of Frederick Taylor's scientific management. Journal of Management History, 19(4), pp.512-527.
Hamel, G. and Breen, B., 2013. The future of management. Harvard Business Press.
Kemp, L.J., 2013. Modern to postmodern management: developments in scientific management. Journal of Management History, 19(3), pp.345-361.
Parker, L.D., 2016. The global Fayol: contemporary management and accounting traces. Entreprises et histoire, (2), pp.51-63.
Sinha, S. and Gabriel, Y., 2016. Call Centre Work: Taylorism with a Facelift.Re-Tayloring Management: Scientific Management a Century On, p.87.
Taylor, R.H., Perissinotto, R., Stretch, D. and Taylor, R.H., 2013. Management history. Ecology and Conservation of Estuarine Ecosystems: Lake St Lucia as a Global Model. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp.21-47.
Witzel, M. and Warner, M., 2015. Taylorism revisited: Culture, management theory and paradigm-shift. Cambridge Judge Business SchoolWorking paper number 01/2015.