In my work experience I've had the opportunity to deal with various styles of management and some of these have led me to conclude that Taylorism may not be an optimal method of dealing with employees it is much superior to some, such as those Taylor mentions. Some supervisors can be extremely disconnected from their workers and from what encourages them to better performance.
Many of my former jobs have required "looking busy", which I assume to be similar to what Taylor describes as "soldiering." Some jobs have lull times and busy times, but even when there are no jobs to be done workers must appear to be doing something. My co-workers have almost always confided in me that they would rather be doing a project with a purpose than fiddling around without any real productivity.
Most provide less training than would be desirable. I take pride in the jobs that I do and want to do them well, but often times I am not given the tools to do so. Taylor hits on some very applicable points which I feel are useful but in certain sectors may have been taken beyond their optimal purpose. For instance, working my current retail job, there is some training in the beginning on attributes and aspects of the products but virtually none on salesmanship. I have had to discover for myself what arguments work with customers and which do not. The unification of methods is not all in the pursuit of evil. To the open-minded employee, a proposed more efficient method is almost always preferrable to an inefficient method the worker has merely stumbled upon. In fact, I have found a resistance to change in methods from management when I have discovered or come up with something more efficient than the system already in use. This can be quite discouraging to the workforce.
I would say that scientific management is much preferable to what I have most often experienced which I refer to as 'emotional management'. Some managers can be demoralizing to their workers with outbursts of anger that result not from the worker's performance but merely from the manager's state of mind. I have at times yearned for a more structured management that at least provides some predictability, even if it involves more oversight.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Mike-
ReplyDeleteI've enjoyed your observations in class, and I looked forward to reading them in this blog. What I found, as I expected, is intellectually stimulating. I am concerned by the missing entries (Polystra, Florida, and now Rifkin). If you take your two passes, your first blog grade will not be affected (Rifkin's on the next round).
Onto some comments - I found your response to Mantsios a creative way to answer the prompt. Big media is kind of like a third parent in contemporary households. In addition, many parents receive information from the T.V. When I was young, my father was a democrat. He never voted for Reagan, for example. Since G.W. took office, he's become a full-blown republican. I don't think he reads many books (like he used to), but I do know that he watches a lot of Fox news. His ideas are definitely being influenced by this news source.
The idea of "emotional management" is quite interesting. I return to my father (parents are manager-like, right?). When I was young, my dad would parent based on his emotions. If he was in a good mood, I was "managed" in a lenient way. If he was angry, any misstep would be met with a harsh reprimand. Perhaps a more scientific parenting style would be fairer. Rules should be clearly communicated and upheld consistently, right?
93% A