fundamentals of management

500 words,2 outside references,the references are to be sited at end of paper,cant use wikipedia as a references,the questions at the beginning of paper are just a guide for the paper,you are to cite your source,it must be typed,doubled spaced 12 pt fontthe pages are to be numbered,it has to be microsoft word documented,


Fundamentals of Scientific Management



By Frederick Winslow Taylor


Who was Frederick Winslow Taylor and why did he write this document?


were the advantages of Scientific Management for employers and for workers? W

ould you feel

more productive working according to these principles? What is




and how was it

incompatible with scientific management? Are the interests of the employer and employee really

the same?


principal object of management should be to secure the maximum prosperity for the

employer, coupled with the maximum prosperity for each employee.

The words œmaximum prosperity are used, in their broad sense, to mean not

only large

dividends for the company or owner, but the development of every branch of the business to its

highest state of excellence, so that the prosperity may be permanent.

In the same way maximum prosperity for each employ, means not only higher wages

than are usually received by men of his class, but, of more importance still, it also means the

development of each man to his state of maximum efficiency, so that he may be able to do;

generally speaking, the highest grade of work for which his natural a

bilities fit him, and it further

means giving him, when possible, this class of work to do.

It would seem to be so self

evident that maximum prosperity for the employer, coupled

with maximum prosperity for the employee, ought to be the two leading objects

of management,

that even to state this fact should be unnecessary. And yet there is no question that, throughout

the industrial world, a large part of the organization of employers, as well as employees, is for

war rather than for peace, and that perhaps

the majority on either side do not believe that it is

possible so to arrange their mutual relations that their interests become identical.

The majority of these men believe that the fundamental interests of employees and

employers are necessarily antagoni

stic. Scientific management, on the contrary, has for its very

foundation the firm conviction that the true interests of the two are one and the same; that

prosperity for the employer cannot exist through a long term of years unless it is accompanied by


osperity for the employee and vice versa; and that it is possible to give the workman what he

most wants

high wages

and the employer what he wants

a low labor cost

for his manufactures.

It is hoped that some at least of those who do not sympathize with ea

ch of these objects

may be led to modify their views; that some employers, whose attitude toward their workmen

has been that of trying to get the largest amount of work out of them for the smallest possible

wages, may be led to see that a more liberal poli

cy toward their men will pay them better; and

that some of those workmen who begrudge a fair and even a large profit to their employers, and

who feel that all of the fruits of their labor should belong to them, and that those for whom they

work and the cap

ital invested in the business are entitled to little or nothing, may be led to

modify these views.

No one can be found who will deny that in the case of any single individual the greatest

prosperity can exist only when that individual has reached his high

est state of efficiency; that is,

when he is turning out his largest daily output.

The truth of this fact is also perfectly clear in the case of two men working together. To

illustrate: if you and your workman have become so skillful that you and he toget

her are making

two pairs of shoes in a day, while your competitor and his workman are making only one pair, it

is clear that after selling your two pairs of shoes you can pay your workman much higher wages

than your competitor who produces only one pair of

shoes is able to pay his man, and that there

will still be enough money left over for you to have a larger profit than your competitor.

In the case of a more complicated manufacturing establishment, it should also be

perfectly clear that the greatest per

manent prosperity for the workman, coupled with the greatest

prosperity for the employer, can be brought about only when the work of the establishment is

done with the smallest combined expenditure of human effort, plus nature’s resources, plus the

cost fo

r the use of capital in the shape of machines, buildings, etc. Or, to state the same thing in a

different way: that the greatest prosperity can exist only as the result of the greatest possible

productivity of the men and machines of the establishment


is, when each man and each

machine are turning out the largest possible output; because unless your men and your machines

are daily turning out more work than others around you, it is clear that competition will prevent

your paying higher wages to your wo

rkmen than are paid to those of your competitor. And what

is true as to the possibility of paying high wages in the case of two companies competing close

beside one another is also true as to whole districts of the country and even as to nations which


in competition. In a word, that maximum prosperity can exist only as the result of maximum

productivity. Later in this paper illustrations will be given of several companies which are

earning large dividends and at the same time paying from 30 per



100 per


higher wages

to their men than are paid to similar men immediately around them, and with whose employers

they are in competition. These illustrations will cover different types of work, from the most

elementary to the most complicated.

If t

he above reasoning is correct, it follows that the most important object of both the

workmen and the management should be the training and development of each individual in the

establishment, so that he can do (at his fastest pace and with the maximum of e

fficiency) the

highest class of work for which his natural abilities fit him.

These principles appear to be so self

evident that many men may think it almost childish

to state them. Let us, however, turn to the facts, as they actually exist in this countr

y and in

England. The English and American peoples are the greatest sportsmen in the world. Whenever

an American workman plays baseball, or an English workman plays cricket, it is safe to say that

he strains every nerve to secure victory for his side. He d

oes his very best to make the largest

possible number of runs.

The universal sentiment is so strong that any man who fails to give out

all there is in him in sport is branded as a

œquitter, and treated with contempt by those who are

around him.

When the sa

me workman returns to work on the following day, instead of using every

effort to turn out the largest possible amount of work, in a majority of the cases this man

deliberately plans to do as little as he safely can

to turn out far less work than he is wel

l able to


in many instances to do not more than one

third to one

half of a proper day’s work. And in

fact if he were to do his best to turn out his largest possible day’s work, he would be abused by

his fellow

workers for so doing


even more than if he h

ad proved himself a œquitter in sport.

Underworking, that is, deliberately working slowly so as to avoid doing a full day’s work,

œsoldiering, as it is called in this country, œhanging it out, as it is called in England, œca canae,

as it is called in S

cotland, is almost universal in industrial establishments, and prevails also to a

large extent in the building trades; and the writer asserts without fear of contradiction that this

constitutes the greatest evil with which the working

people of both Englan

d and America are

now afflicted.

It will be shown later in this paper that doing away with slow working and œsoldiering in

all its forms and so arranging the relations between employer and employ,

that each workman

will work to his very best advantage and

at his best speed, accompanied by the intimate

cooperation with the management and the help (which the workman should receive) from the

management, would result on the average in nearly doubling the output of each man and each

machine. What other reforms,

among those which are being discussed by these two nations,

could do as much toward promoting prosperity, toward the diminution of poverty, and the

alleviation of suffering?

America and England have been recently agitated over such subjects as

the tariff,

the control of the large corporations on the one hand, and of hereditary power on the

other hand, and over various more or less socialistic proposals for taxation, etc. On these subjects

both peoples have been profoundly stirred, and yet hardly a voice has

been raised to call

attention to this vastly greater and more important subject of œsoldiering, which directly and

powerfully affects the wages, the prosperity, and the life of almost every working

man, and also

quite as much the prosperity of every indu

strial establishment in the nation.

The elimination of œsoldiering and of the several causes of slow working would so lower

the cost of production that both our home and foreign markets would be greatly enlarged, and we

could compete on more than even te

rms with our rivals. It would remove one of the fundamental

causes for dull times, for lack of employment,

and for poverty, and therefore would have a more

permanent and far

reaching effect upon these misfortunes than any of the curative remedies that

are n

ow being used to soften their consequences. It would insure higher wages and make shorter

working hours and better working and home conditions possible.

Why is it, then, in the face of the self

evident fact that maximum prosperity can exist only

as the re

sult of the determined effort of each workman to turn out each day his largest possible

day’s work, that the great majority of our men are deliberately doing just the opposite, and that

even when the men have the best of intentions their work is in most ca

ses far from efficient?

There are three causes for this condition, which may be briefly summarized as:


. The fallacy, which has from time immemorial been almost universal among workmen, that

a material increase in the output of each man or

each machine in the trade would result in the end

in throwing a large number of men out of work.


. The defective systems of management which are in common use, and which make it

necessary for each workman to soldier, or work slowly,

in order that he

may protect his own best



. The inefficient rule


thumb methods, which are still almost universal in all trades, and

in practicing which our workmen waste a large part of their effort


It is not here claimed that any single panacea exist

s for all of the troubles of the working

people or of employers. As long as some people are born lazy or inefficient, and others are born

greedy and brutal, as long as vice and crime are with us, just so long will a certain amount of

poverty, misery, and u

nhappiness be with us also. No system of management, no single

expedient within the control of any man or any set of men can insure continuous prosperity to

either workmen or employers.

Prosperity depends upon so many factors entirely beyond the

control of

any one set of men, any state, or even anyone country, that certain periods will

inevitably come when both sides must suffer, more or less. It is claimed,

however, that under

scientific management the intermediate periods will be far more prosperous, far ha

ppier, and

more free from discord and dissension. And also, that the periods will be fewer, shorter and the

suffering less. And this will be particularly true in any one town, any one section of the country,

or any one state which first substitutes the pri

nciples of scientific management for the rule of


That these principles are certain to come into general use practically throughout the

civilized world, sooner or later, the writer is profoundly convinced, and the sooner they come the

better for all

the people.


Frederick W. Taylor,

The Principles of Scientific Management

(New York: Harper

Bros., 1911): 5


Time and


otion st

udies were the

basis for Taylor

s theories.