“Taylorism dominates the world of production; the practitioners of ‘human relations’ (…) are the maintenance crew for the human machinery.” (Braverman 1974, p.87).
Scientific Management and Human Relations are the pioneering movements which shaped today management. Taylor (1911) was convinced that the best management can only be achieved by having clearly defined laws, rules and scientific principles. Mayo (1924), on the other hand, suggests that the factor determines productive efficiency is the mental preoccupation of the worker. This essays will explore the different views of these schools of thought on handling and controlling the workforce and discuss how they maximise production.
In ‘The principles of scientific management’, Taylor (1911) came up with principles of management for both employees and employers to achieve a high level of production. They include the breaking down of an activity into smaller tasks and optimise the time required to do them, standardising the selection and training of workers, and the division of labour with managers supervising workers. High productivity level is a result of a detailed systematisation of the production chain. In contrast, Human Relations consists of supervisory training in interpersonal skills and leadership. Mayo (1933) believes this impacts workers at the psychological and personal level, and their mental states correlated to the performance. The key difference here is how employees are viewed. Scientific Management sees them as a mechanical and passive individual unit of the organisation, while Human Relation argues that the organisation, in order to maximise productivity, has to be developed around the workers interpersonal needs and workplace relationship.
A further argument between the two theories is the motivation of the workers. According to Taylorism, workers are naturally under-working or ‘soldiering’.