Scientific Management

In the same period with Fayol, Taylor in American set up scientific management. And it was greatly embraced by the factory owners, because Taylor focused on improving the efficiency of workers. He studied the way in which jobs are done and try to find a new effective way to do them (Brunsson 2008). Then he made new methods into rules. Workers who cannot meet the requirement were laid off Crainer (2003). And those who can meet the requirement were paid with more salary (Brunsson 2008). It can be said that scientific management changed the industry.

Later in the 1920s, Follet proposed her theories on management. She analysed management from the aspect of organization (Parker & Ritson 2005a). She concerned the way managers behave towards workers (Crainer 2003). Rather than managers analysing and planning jobs for workers, she suggested workers should also be involved in this task (Parker & Ritson 2005a). Managers should motivate and encourage workers instead of just ordering. In this way can organizations be more harmonious.

In the 1940s, management science was proposed. This management school put emphasis on searching for quantitative tools, such as TQM and MIS (Parker & Ritson 2005a). In the 1960s, Organisational environment theory emerged. The focus of this theory is the impact of environment on management. And then management entered into postmodern period (Crainer 2003).

Fayolism as the oldest one was covered. After Fayol, so many management theories had emerged. And some of them had proved to be effective. The old things are likely to be covered by the new comings, especially when the new comings are useful. What happened to Fayolism is just so.

However, not a new system had been proposed though various views and recommendations were raised to modify management except Fayol, Taylor and Follet .They are the founders of three typical management schools (Parker & Ritson 2005a). Fayol viewed organizations in a top-down view angle, while Taylor in a down-top view angle (Parker & Ritson 2005a). And Follet tried to connect the top and down (Crainer 2003). Most of the latter theories are based on these three pioneers' work. Or it can be said like this: those latter theories are the further development or supplement of the foundation work. Because things had changed a lot in the past one hundred years, some detailed rules can be revised along with those changes.

As to the changes, most of them, if not all, come from globalization. Globalization changed not only the external environment of organizations, but also the inside environment. Of course the development of technology is a driver not to be neglected. But technology affects the way of working mostly. The outside change globalization brought is a larger market which is changing fast (Rodrigues 2001). And the changes inside companies mainly come from workforce diversity. The fulfilment of tasks of management is more complicated than before.

Since the entire environment had changed, Fayol's rules were considered to be not appropriate (Parker & Ritson 2005a). And there were many discussions on this issue. Among them the application of the 14 principles is the most controversial, because these principles affect not only managers but also employees.

The first principle is the division of work. Fayol proposed that it could be more efficient and productive to divide work into small and particular units (Rodrigues 2001). This did bring a helpful method for managers then. Workers could be more efficient when they were made to do a piece of work repeatedly (Parker & Ritson 2005a). But for employees excessively specialized work would became boring and dull (Pryor & Taneja 2010). In the past, this principle was applied well. However, it is not as efficient to divide work in today's world. Machines have taken over most of those repeated work nowadays. In this fast changing world, Companies need to keep the size of staff as small as possible to stay competitive (Rodrigues 2001). So employees are hoped to perform multiple functions (Rodrigues 2001). And organizations focus more on generalization than before (Pryor & Taneja 2010).

The sixth principle is subordination of individual interests to the common good. This principle suggested employees' should sacrifice their own interests for organization. It could strength organization cohesion. But on the other hand employees were limited under this rule as well as their creativity. People nowadays would laugh at this idea in this age of chasing individuation. And now managers find it is better to value employees' interests (Rodrigues 2001). They can transform personal interest to a driver for companies by proper measures.

Just like principle one and principle six, each principle points out an aspect of management. But the details of these principles are not fit for today's situation. However, it cannot be said that Fayolism is no longer useful. By revising according to environment, the 14 principles are still of guidance (Rodrigues 2001).

For managers today, they have bunches of choices from the development of management theories. And they are also faced with much more complicated situations than Fayol. But Fayol's theory is still of relevance for them. The question of which part of Fayolism is of guidance is clearly pointed out in the following part.

Source: Essay UK -

Not what you're looking for?


About this resource

This Management essay was submitted to us by a student in order to help you with your studies.


No ratings yet!

  • Order a custom essay
  • Download this page
  • Print this page
  • Search again

Word count:

This page has approximately words.



If you use part of this page in your own work, you need to provide a citation, as follows:

Essay UK, Scientific Management. Available from: <> [20-03-18].

More information:

If you are the original author of this content and no longer wish to have it published on our website then please click on the link below to request removal:

Essay and dissertation help