Introduction
Scientific Management tries to increase productivity by increasing efficiency and wages of the workers. It finds out the best method for performing each job. It selects employees by using Scientific Selection Procedures. It provides Scientific Training and Development to the employees. It believes in having a close co-operation between management and employees. It uses Division of Labour. It tries to produce maximum output by fixing Performance Standards for each job and by having a Differential Piece-Rate System for payment of wages.
Frederick W. Taylor was one of the most influential management theorists and is widely acclaimed as the ‘father of scientific management’. According to Northcraft and Neale (1990, p.41), “Scientific management took its name from the careful and systematic observational techniques it used to design jobs and arrange work for the rank-and-file factory worker”.
Principles of Scientific Management
The techniques, contributions and general principles of Scientific Management Theory are as follows:-
1. Performance Standards
F.W. Taylor found out that there were no scientific performance standards. No one knew exactly how much work a worker should do in one hour or in one day. The work was fixed assuming rule of thumb or the amount of work done by an average worker. Taylor introduced Time and Motion Studies to fix performance standards. He fixed performance standards for time, cost, and quality of work, which lead to uniformity of work. As a result, the efficiency of the workers could be compared with each other.
2. Differential Piece Rate System
Taylor observed that workers did as little work as possible. He felt that under existing wage system, an efficient worker gained nothing extra. So, Taylor used the differential piece (unit) rate system.
Under differential piece rate system, a standard output was first fixed. Then two wage rates were fixed as follows:- 1. Low wage rate was fixed for those workers who did not produce the standard output. 2. Higher wage rate was fixed for those workers who produced the standard output or who produced more than the standard output.
Differential piece-rate system can be explained with following example:-
The standard output for a day is 100 units. The wage rate for producing less than 100 units is NGN 10 per unit, and for producing 100 or more units is NGN 13 per unit. If Mr. Wale produces 70 units, and Mr. Obi produces 120 units, then their wages will be as follows :-
Mr. Wale's wage is 70 x10 = NGN 700
Mr. Obi's wage is 120 x 13 = NGN 1,560
Because of this system, the inefficient workers will try to improve their efficiency, and the efficient workers will be motivated to maintain or improve their production capacity.
3. Functional Foremanship
Taylor started "Functional Foremanship". Here, 8 foremen (lower level manager or supervisor) are required to supervise the workers. This is because one foreman cannot be an expert in all the functions.
Taylor's functional foremanship consists of two groups of supervisors:- 1. At the Planning Level or Office Level. 2. At the Doing Level or Factory Level.
(a) At the Planning Level:-
Taylor separated planning from doing. At the planning level there were four supervisors. They are:- 1. Time and Cost Clerk: This boss prepares the standard time for completing the work and cost of doing that work. 2. Route Clerk: This boss makes the exact route (way) through which each product has to travel from a raw-material to a finished product. 3. Discipline Clerk: This boss looks after the discipline and absenteeism problems in the organisation. 4. Instruction Card Clerk: The boss gives instructions about how to do a particular work.
(b) At the Doing Level:-
At the doing level there were also four supervisors. They are:- 1. Gang Boss: He is responsible for setting up the machines and tools and for direct supervision of workers. 2. Speed Boss: He is responsible for maintaining a proper speed of work. 3. Repair Boss: He is responsible for the repairs and maintenance of machines. 4. Inspector Boss: He is responsible for maintaining the quality of production.
4. Mental Revolution
Taylor introduced the concept of "Mental Revolution". He said that the management and workers should have a positive attitude towards each other. This will result in close cooperation between them. This will increase productivity and profits.
5. Time Study
Time study means to record the time taken for doing each part of a job. The full job is first observed and analysed. Then it is divided into different elements (parts). Later the time taken for doing each part of the job is recorded. This is done by using a stop clock. Time study helps the management to know exactly how much time it will take to do a particular job. This helps the management to fix the amount of work to be done by each worker in one hour or in one day. That is, management can fix a standard output of work for a certain period of time.
Taylor advised all managers to do time study. This will prevent the workers from passing time, working slowly and doing less work. Time study helps to increase the productivity of the organisation.
6. Fatigue and Motion Study
Frank and Lillian Gilbreth (Husband and Wife) introduced fatigue and motion studies. Fatigue and motion studies find out and remove unnecessary and wasteful movements while doing the job.
According to the Gilbreths, fatigue (tiredness) and motion (movements or actions) are interlinked. Every motion that is removed will reduce fatigue. Using cameras, they studied workers (masons) doing common jobs like bricklaying. They found that the workers do many wasted motions while doing their work. This resulted in fatigue. So, the Gilbreths asked the workers to stop all unnecessary motions and to do only the motions which were necessary for doing the job. They reduced the bricklayers' motions from 18 to 5. This also reduced the fatigue of the bricklayers. Therefore, productivity of workers increased.

7. Gantt Charts
Henry Gantt invented the Gantt chart. This chart shows the planned work and the completed work at each stage of production. It also shows the time taken to do the work.
Gantt chart is the basis for following two concepts:- 1. The Critical Path Method (CPM), and 2. The Program Evaluation Review Technique (PERT).
Criticisms of the Scientific Management Theory
Taylor’s Scientific Management Theory has been criticized by workers, trade unions and even employers. The criticisms of the theory are mainly on the following grounds:-
1. Exploitation of Workers
Taylor's Scientific Management put unnecessary pressures on the employees to perform the work faster. Importance was given to productivity and profitability. This resulted in exploitation of the employees. Therefore, many employees joined trade unions. This also resulted in mistrust between management and employees.
2. Problem of Unity of Command
Taylor used functional foremanship. So, the workers have to report to eight bosses. This breaks the principle of unity of command, where the workers have to report to only one boss. Lack of unity of command can create confusion and chaos in the organisation.
3. Mechanical Approach
Taylor's approach was a mechanical approach. He gave too much importance to efficiency. He did not consider the human element. Taylor considered workers as robots, which could speed up the work at any cost.
4. Problem of Separation of Planning from Doing
Taylor said to separate planning from doing. In reality, we cannot separate planning from doing. The planners should also be engaged in doing, and then only will they be able to make realistic plans for the organisation.

5. Individualistic Approach
Taylor's scientific management gives too much importance to individual performance and not to group performance. However, the success of an organisation depends not only on individual performance of workers, but also on group performance of workers.
6. Wrong Assumptions
Taylor assumed that workers are motivated only by financial gains. However, in reality, workers are motivated not only by financial incentives but also by social needs and personal egos.
7. Narrow Application
Taylor's scientific management has narrow application. It can be applied only when the performance of the workers can be measured quantitatively. It can be applied only for factories where the performance can be measured quantitatively. It cannot be used in the service sector because in this sector the performance of a person cannot be measured quantitatively.
Application of Scientific Management – The Hovey Beard Case
After years of various experiments to determine optimal work methods, Taylor proposed the following four principles of scientific management: 1. Replace rule-of-thumb work methods with methods based on a scientific study of the tasks. 2. Scientifically select, train, and develop each worker rather than passively leaving them to train themselves. 3. Cooperate with the workers to ensure that the scientifically developed methods are being followed. 4. Divide work nearly equally between managers and workers, so that the managers apply scientific management principles to planning the work and the workers actually perform the tasks.
These principles were implemented in many factories, often increasing productivity by a factor of three or more. Henry Ford applied Taylor's principles in his automobile factories, and families even began to perform their household tasks based on the results of time and motion studies.
We will now apply these principles to the Hovey Beard Case:

* Scientific and not Rule of Thumb methods i. Time Study- this involves firstly observing and analysing the task with a view to helping management know exactly how long it takes to do the particular job. According to the case, the rate at which the hooks moved was ‘calculated’ by the engineers with no evidence of observation or consultation with the girls who practically carry out the tasks. The approach of the management of Hovey Beard lends to the criticisms that scientific management approach is mechanical with too much importance attached to efficiency and little consideration for the human element. The girls were treated like robots motivated only by financial gain and therefore did not need to be consulted. But indeed, the girls equally had social needs for recognition and personal egos. Therefore, the adoption of the ‘calculated’ rate without due consideration of the human elements bred rebellion among the girls. ii. Performance Standards- rather than using rule of the thumb or the amount of work done by an average worker, scientific management advocates the use of the knowledge of how long it takes to complete a task or the amount of work that could be completed in a specified time period to fix performance standards. With this, the efficiency of workers could be compared. The Hovey Beard Company adopted this approach by using the calculation of the engineers to set performance standards for the girls. However, it appeared the standard is for the group (the girls collectively) and hence the group bonus when apparently the task is individualistic and does not require team work. Setting this type of performance standards in situations like this could encourage ‘social loafing’, a phenomenon that individuals would put in more effort if they were working alone and less if they knew others were working at the same task. It is quite understandable that when people work in teams, they are likely to put in less effort if their contribution is less identifiable and cannot be easily evaluated. In situations like Hovey’s, it is therefore important to establish agreed performance indicators, standards and expectations against which actual individual performance of the girls can be compared. iii. Differential Piece Rate system- as highlighted earlier, under this system, a standard output was first fixed, then two wage rates were established: 1. A low wage rate for workers whose output is below the standard output 2. A higher wage rate for workers who meet or exceed the standard output.
This approach encourages individual efficiency and apparently the Hovey Beard Company did not realize and adopt this in relation to the girls. Both the learning and the performance bonuses were group based not considering that the task is individualistic. This will tend to discourage efficiency and again encourage social loafing as irrespective of individual learning speed and output, everybody in the group earns the same amount. * Scientifically select, train and develop each worker rather than passively leaving them to train themselves
The case did not give any criteria for selecting the girls or for replacing the ones that left. Scientific management approach advocates that workers should be selected based on predetermined set of skills, competences and attitude. The was equally no scientific nor systematic approach to the training of the girls. There were no guides, no instructions; they were just expected to learn over time. They were given a learning bonus that was time driven (decreased by regular amount each month) and have no relationship with learning effort or actual learning. This therefore offers no additional motivation to learn.

* Cooperate with workers to ensure that the scientifically developed methods are followed
This cooperation includes the provision of detailed instruction and supervision of each worker in the performance of that worker’s discrete task. It includes the provision of conducive working environment and respect for the individuals as humans with dignity with ability to reason, make input and who deserve to be heard. Apparently, this scientific management approach was not adopted at Hovey and Beard in this particular case. There was no detailed instruction given to the girls and the supervision of the foreman was not involving, especially at the beginning. The work environment, the comfort and wellbeing of the girls were not considered initially. However, we notice a remarkable improvement in cooperation when the foreman realised that the girl deserve to be heard and went on to engage them. That interaction and the outcome created the conditions that enabled the girls exceed the expectations of management and in the process earned more than anticipated. * Divide work nearly equally between managers and workers, so that the managers apply scientific management principles to planning the work and the workers actually perform the tasks
The Hovey and Beard Company adopted this approach to a very large extent. There was clear division of responsibilities between management and worker and even further division of labour in executing the tasks that constitute the production process.
Management of Hovey set the direction for the company for example in choosing to automate the painting process to boost capacity in the face of increasing demand. They also undertook the planning, provision of tools and equipment, setting of performance standards and remuneration. It is the responsibility of the workers to perform the task, in this case, the girls doing the actual painting. However, as highlighted earlier, there is need for interaction and cooperation even with this division for the optimization of the firm’s objectives.

Lessons from the Hovey Covey Case 1. It is crucial to define and agree the functions of employees clearly, including their performance standards and targets based on a scientific . 2. There is a need to ensure a harmonious work environment that promotes cooperation among colleagues in a unit, and also members of other units in the organisation. 3. The reward system should be planned such that it impacts all employees positively, and still promotes fairness and high levels of productivity. The nature of work should be taken into consideration so that unlike in Hovey, group reward should not be adopted for individualistic tasks and vice versa. 4. Management has a role in ensuring that employees are listened to and understood at all times. Hovey and Covey clearly missed this initially. 5. The work environment, safety and comfort of employees should be highly considered at all time and not just focus on efficiency and productivity. This fosters the engagement of employees 6. There must be a healthy conflict resolution process in organisations at all times. While the consultant was unable to identify and resolve the real issue, the foreman was able to reduce the tensions between the engineers and the girls.

References * Henry Ford & Frederick W. Taylor: A Comparison of Methods and Principles of Management * Anthony Cappucci: Principles of Management and Organisation Behaviour * Immad Ali Khan: Scientific Management and Human Relations Movement. * Frederick W. Taylor, The Principles of Scientific Management (New York: Harper Bros., 1911 * Paul Halsall – (Internet Modern History Sourcebook) * Uchora Udoji: Making Team Synergy Happen, 2003 (Lecture Technical Note) * Lagos Business School – Hovey And Covey Case