Synthesized answer
As a "master spirit" leading a successful department, Taylor's argument that management is not yet a "science" might challenge your understanding of your expertise by suggesting your success is not based on fixed, exact principles, but rather on personal contact and gradual training [1, 2, 3]. Your deep knowledge of the smallest requirements of your section, gained through personal experience, has led to the maximum efficiency of the men under you [1]. However, if management is not yet a science, it implies that your methods, while successful in your domain, may not be universally applicable or derived from clearly defined laws, unlike the principles of engineering [2, 3].
This perspective implies that your expertise, though highly effective, is rooted in an art that relies on your individual ability and "hazy ideas received from a limited observation of the few organizations with which the individual may have come in contact" [3]. Taylor suggests that management will eventually become a science with standardized, tabulated elements, implying that current successful methods, even your own, may be based on guess work and rule-of-thumb rather than a foundation of fixed principles…
Synthesized from the book passages below. Chat with the book on Feynman for follow-up.
From the book
through the energies and especial ability of some one or two men who were the master spirits in directing its growth. As a rule, this leader rose from a more or less humble position in one of the departments, say in the commercial or the manufacturing department, until he became the head of his particular section. Having shown especial ability in his line, he was for that reason made manager of the whole establishment. In examining the organization of works of this class, it will frequently be found that the management of the particular department in which this master spirit has grown…
in which this man has had but little personal experience, will often present equally glaring examples of inefficiency. And this, mainly because management is not yet looked upon as an art, with laws as exact, and as clearly defined, for instance, as the fundamental principles of engineering, which demand long and careful thought and study. Management is still looked upon as a question of men, the old view being that if you have the right man the methods can be safely left to him. The following, while rather an extreme case, may still be considered as a fairly typical illustration of…
from guess work and from rule-of-thumb methods and establishes it more firmly upon the foundation of fixed principles. The writer feels that management is also destined to become more of an art, and that many of the, elements which are now believed to be outside the field of exact knowledge will soon be standardized tabulated, accepted, and used, as are now many of the elements of engineering. Management will be studied as an art and will rest upon well recognized, clearly defined, and fixed principles instead of depending upon more or less hazy ideas received from a limited observation…
er has seen many first-class men developed who otherwise would have remained second or third class all of their lives. Is not the presence or absence of these conditions the best indication that any system of management is either well or badly applied? And in considering the relative merits of different types of management, is not that system the best which will establish these conditions with the greatest certainty, precision, and speed? In comparing the management of manufacturing and engineering companies by this standard, it is surprising to see how far they fall short. Few of…
ill progress consistently and probably harmoniously, even although the wrong one of the two parties may be in control. Broadly speaking, in the field of management there are two parties--the superintendents, etc., on one side and the men on the other, and the main questions at issue are the speed and accuracy with which the work shall be done. Up to the time that task management was introduced in the Midvale Steel Works, it can be fairly said that under the old systems of management the men and the management had about equal weight in deciding how fast the work should be done. Shop…
More questions about this book
- How would you explain Taylor's concept of "unevenness" in shop management, using the provided example of the chemical manufacturers, and what does this concept imply about the overall effectiveness of pre-scientific management practices?
- Taylor asserts that management "is still looked upon as a question of men." How does this reliance on individual "master spirits" directly contribute to the "equally glaring examples of inefficiency" observed in departments where that individual lacks personal experience?
- Given Taylor's critique that management lacks "laws as exact, and as clearly defined" as engineering, how might this fundamental flaw explain the "lack of apparent relation between good shop management and the payment of dividends"?
- If a company were to adopt Taylor's implied vision of management as a defined "art" with exact "laws," what specific operational changes would be necessary to overcome the inefficiencies and "unevenness" he describes, and how would these changes fundamentally alter the role of a manager?