Synthesized answer
The reliance on individual "master spirits" contributes to inefficiency in departments where the leader lacks personal experience because management is viewed as a "question of men" rather than an art with defined laws [2]. The old view holds that if the "right man" is in charge, the methods can be safely left to him [2]. This means that the leader's success in one department, due to their thorough knowledge gained through personal contact, does not automatically transfer to other departments where they have had little personal experience [1].
In these unfamiliar departments, the management might lack a deep understanding of the smallest requirements [1]. Consequently, the methods and direction provided by the leader, who is not intimately familiar with the specific challenges of that section, can lead to "equally glaring examples of inefficiency" [1, 2]. The passages do not explicitly detail the precise mechanisms by which this lack of personal experience leads to inefficiency, beyond the general reliance on the individual's perceived "rightness" for the role.
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…
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…
these principles and yet it will be difficult to find a shop in which they are not daily violated over and over again. They call, however, for a greater departure from the ordinary types of organization than would at first appear. In the case, for instance, of a machine shop doing miscellaneous work, in order to assign daily to each man a carefully measured task, a special planning department is required to lay out all of the work at least one day ahead. All orders must be given to the men in detail in writing; and in order to lay out the next day's work and plan the entire progress…
nusual qualities to start with, and who have had years of special training, can perform them in a satisfactory manner. It is because of the difficulty--almost the impossibility of getting suitable foremen and gang bosses, more than for any other reason, that we so seldom hear of a miscellaneous machine works starting in on a large scale and meeting with much, if any, success for the first few years. This difficulty is not fully realized by the managers of the old well established companies, since their superintendents and assistants have grown up with the business, and have been…
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?
- 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?
- Imagine you are one of the "master spirits" leading a successful department, as described by Taylor. How might his argument that management is not yet a "science" challenge your personal understanding of your own expertise and the methods that brought you success?