Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further re

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.
Ideas that changed the century
Kennedy, Carol
Director; Dec 1999; 53, 5; ProQuest Central
pg. 92
reproduction prohibited without permission.
A REVIEW AND CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE
PRINCIPLES
OF SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT
Kai-Ping Huang
School of Management,
University of Technology, Sydney, Australia
Jane Tung

Department of Marketing and Distribution Management
Hsing Wu University, Taiwan, R.O.C.
Department of International Business Studies
National Chi Nan University, Taiwan, R.O.C.
Sheng Chung Lo
Department of Travel Management
Hsing Wu University, Taiwan, R.O.C.
Department of International Business Studies
National Chi Nan University, Taiwan, R.O.C.
Mei-Ju Chou
Early Childhood Education Department,
Taiwan Shoufu University, Taiwan, R.O.C.
Abstract
The study examines the various principles of Taylor’s Scientific
Management theory and the
challenges that the theory faces in modern times. Taylor
proposed four main principles of
scientific management. The principles are as follows:
development of a true science, the sci-
entific selection of the workman, the workman’s scientific
education and development and
the intimate relationship between the management and the men.
Essentially, Taylor attempted
to zero in on the efficiency of the workman at the work place.
He intimated that scientific

methods were indispensable in improving the efficiency of the
workman. He averred further
that the profitability of any business organization depended on
the efficiency of the workman.
Nevertheless, Taylor faced a number of challenges and setbacks
in his propositions.
Keywords: Scientific Management, Taylorism, Task Allocation,
Dehumanization
Introduction
It is important to understand where
the organization of work is headed. There-
fore, we examine the development of Tay-
lorism in this regard. It is also critical to
determine whether Taylor’s paradigm is
superseded by a new paradigm or if it is
simply being modified. This paper ex-
plores the logic in Taylor’s theory of sci-
entific management, and the challenges
that face the continui ty of the application
of the theory.
The central theme of Taylorism is fo-
cused on the delinking of conception from
execution (Evangelopoulos, 2011; Blake &
Moseley, 2011). Managers achieve this

through application of three principles.
The first principle of scientific manage-
ment entails the decoupling of the labor
process from the skills of the workmen.
The managers assume the burden of bring-
ing together all of the traditional knowl-
edge which in the past was possessed by
the workmen. They then classify, tabulate,
and streamline this knowledge into formu-
lae, rules and laws that are scientific in
nature (Blake & Moseley, 2011; Zuffo,
2011; Pruijt, 2003).
The second principle prescribes that
all possible analytical brain work should
be aimed at planning or layout department
(Wren, 2011; Pruijt, 2003). The third
principle explains that the management
team should not rely on the workers to
decide how they carry out their tasks. In-
stead, the management should define ex-
actly how rapidly the tasks must be exe-
cuted and completed (Prujit, 2003). The
context in which these principles are lo-
cated is in logistical streamlining and stan-
dardization of components (Paton, 2013;
Prujit, 2003). Taylorism is, therefore, a
refinement of the management strategy of
the division of labor.
To understand the division of labor
and specialization is critical. Through spe-

cialization, workers can upgrade them-
selves in their crafts or professions. In
contrast, detailed division of labor reduces
people to performers of routine tasks. De-
tailed division of labor entails analyzing a
production process and breaking it down
into multiple tasks performed by different
workers. In this way, a craft-based labor
process that was once controlled by the
workers themselves may be divided into
pieces (Prujit, 2003; Buenstorf & Mur-
mann, 2005). Then, managers assemble
the pieces to define a process that is con-
trolled by management. The financial ad-
vantage of this strategy is that it is possible
to hire less well-paid workers (Prujit,
2003; Tolsby, 2000). Taylorism carries the
detailed division of labor to new extremes,
where the task is evaluated in seconds. It is
said Taylorism presents low-trust relations
between employers and employees (Prujit,
2003).
The study also raises the various chal-
lenges facing Taylorism. These include
lack of education, the concept of task allo-
cation and the dehumanization of the
workers. These challenges have various
implications on the theory as a whole and
its adoption by organizations.
The Principles of Taylor’s Scientific
Management

Taylor places a lot of emphasis on the
need for a scientific approach to the man-
agement process. Taylor clearly sees the
necessity to merge management with sci-
ence. This is seen when he proposes that a
business manager and an engineer be one
and the same person. He consequently
proposes four principles of scientific man-
agement.
The following describes the develop-
ment of a true science. It includes the sci-
entific selection of the workman, the
workman’s scientific education and devel-
opment and the intimate relationship be-
tween the management and the men.
The International Journal of Organizational Innovation Vol 5
Num 4 April 2013 80
The first principle addresses the de-
velopment of a true science in the field of
management. This can be applied to the art
of bricklaying (Myers Jr., 2011). The
process of bricklaying can be significantly
enhanced if scientific principles are em-
ployed. This may be implemented through
the enactment of rules that will govern the
motion of every workman involved in the
process of bricklaying (Bell & Martin,

2012).
Secondly, the bricklaying process
would also be more efficient through the
perfection and standardization of all im-
plements and working conditions (Paxton,
2011). This would ensure that the bricks
are of uniform size and shape. This would
enhance the efficiency of the bricklaying
process. As for the working conditions, it
is necessary to provide a favorable atmos-
phere for employees engaged in the brick-
laying process.
Employees tend to work better if the
management implements various mecha-
nisms to motivate them (Phelps & Parayi-
tam, 2007). Money is one major medium
for motivating employees. Employees
need to feel they are getting value for their
labor and that they are being compensated
adequately. However, there are other fac-
tors that may come into play in the motiva-
tion of employees. This is where science
comes in. An organization may need to
draft appropriate policies and rules that
would spur efficiency in the services ren-
dered by employees.
The development of a true science is
crucial in the management process. A true
managerial science would ensure the effi-

ciency of the workman in various ways.
First, it makes it possible for the standardi-
zation and perfection of the working
equipment. This ensures the uniformity of
goods and services being produced and
may increase the demand for such prod-
ucts as they will be more appealing to cus-
tomers (Giannantonio & Hurley-Hanson,
2011). A true science would also define
appropriate rules and regulations which
should be adopted in the process of creat-
ing goods and services.
The second principle is the scientific
selection and training of the workman. The
success of any business organization de-
pends on the selection of personnel to
work in the organization. Consequently,
many organizations go to great lengths to
ensure that only the best talent is selected
and hired for a given job. Organizations
have sought to develop their human re-
source departments so that they can be
effective in the staffing process. This is a
critical task that may be made easier
through the use of scientific methods in the
selection of the workman.
Organizations, therefore, have drafted
various meticulous ways of selecting the
right man for the job. This includes careful
scrutiny of the professional and academic
qualifications of all prospective employ-

ees. The next stage is a thorough interview
of the shortlisted candidates for the post
before settling on the most qualified indi-
vidual. Scientific methods of selection are,
therefore, quite handy in the recruitment
process.
It is also important to release any
workers who do not live up to the expecta-
tions of the organization. Those employees
who are unable to adapt to the new meth-
ods of production become unnecessary
baggage to the organization and have to be
weeded out. Each employee, therefore,
strives to work harder and more efficiently
in order to avoid being eliminated from the
organization. The basis for determining
which employee is less effective can be
established through scientific methods of
selection and recruitment (Maqbool et al,
2011).
However, Taylor contends that it is
the responsibility of the employer to train
employees and ensure they are fit to
Num 4 April 2013 81
handle the responsibilities assigned to
them. Instead of the management letting

each employee figure out his tasks and
goals, it has to guide the workers in their
daily activities in the organization. Reli-
ance on the old rule of the thumb may be
inefficient in improving the performance
of the employees (Blake & Moseley,
2010).
The third principle calls for the
workman’s scientific education and devel-
opment. It is the responsibility of the or-
ganization to ensure that employees re-
main relevant at their jobs (Wagner-
Tsukamoto, 2007). In order for the organi-
zation to remain profitable, it is crucial
that each employee continue dispensing
their duties in accordance with the princi-
ples laid down for them. The implication
of this principle is that workers have to
constantly undergo training and develop-
ment in order to be more efficient in per-
forming the tasks assigned to them.
It is for this reason that collegiate
education has been put into place. This has
arisen out of the need to constantly refresh
the knowledge and skills of employees,
especially in the fast-changing markets
that characterize modern business. Some
organizations provide in-house training for
their employees, while others allow for
study leaves so that their employees can
gain more knowledge.

There are some cases in which em-
ployees take it upon themselves to upgrade
their education. In such cases, employees
may quit their jobs in order to pursue fur-
ther studies, hoping to land better jobs on
completion of their studies. Such employ-
ees usually have to finance their own edu-
cation and, though it may be expensive,
they find it a worthwhile investment as
they are able to land better paying jobs in
future.
The fourth principle postulates the
cooperation between employees and the
management. Taylor explains that his in-
tention is for a clear division of labor be-
tween the groups, with the management
team responsible for all the planning and
cognitive functions. Taylor warns manag-
ers that they would run into significant risk
if they try to quickly adjust from the old
approaches of doing things to his new sys-
tem. He cautions that the most significant
danger in introducing new methods is de-
vising a way to transform the psychologi-
cal attitudes and habits of the management
team, as well as those of the workers
(Blake & Moseley, 2010, 2011).
Taylor contends that it is possible to
determine the best way to perform a task

to maximize its efficiency. This can be
achieved through a scientific study. Ac-
cording to Taylor, all a manufacturer needs
is a man with a stopwatch and a properly
ruled book. Then, you only need to select
ten to fifteen men who are skilled in a par-
ticular task for a scientific analysis. The
next step is to analyze the exact series of
operations needed while doing the work
under investigation, as well as understand-
ing the tools which are used. A stopwatch
is utilized to measure the required time for
each of these elementary steps to select the
quickest way of doing each step. Finally,
the subsequent tasks are to eliminate all
false, slow, and useless movements, col-
lect the quickest and most efficient move-
ments, and implement them into one series
(Blake & Moseley, 2010, p29).
Division of labor takes a central posi-
tion in Taylor’s fourth principle. This is
because the cooperation between employ-
ees and the management provides a suit-
able working environment for distribution
of tasks among the employees according to
their skills and qualifications. This works
best if there is a common understanding
between the management and the employ-
ees.
Taylor’s theory of scientific manage-
ment revolutionized the management of

Num 4 April 2013 82
organizations locally and internationally.
However, Taylor’s theory faced various
challenges (Peaucelle, 2000). Some of the
challenges included a lack of education
among the lower levels of supervision and
within the ranks of the workers. Another
challenge is the concept of task allocation
in which a task is broken down into
smaller tasks. This allows planners to de-
termine the best approach to go about ac-
complishing tasks. Then, there is the re-
ductionist approach which may dehuman-
ize workers.
Taylor’s legacy contribution to the
field of business management and its vari-
ous disciplines is still thriving today (Myer
Jr., 2011; Wren, 2011). Taylor’s contribu-
tions have survived the management evo-
lution that has progressed from the indus-
trial age into the information age, and is
now poised to enter into what some au-
thors hypothesize as the virtual age. This
possible entry into the virtual age suggests
that many new applications of Taylor’s
principles will be put into practice in the
future (Myer Jr., 2011, p11).

Challenges of Taylorism in Modern
Managerial Practice
Lack of Education
Lack of education presented a major
challenge to the early use and adoption of
scientific management. This was an espe-
cially noteworthy issue with the lower
levels of supervision and laborers. Taylor
noted that most of the factory workers had
insufficient education levels because most
were recent immigrants. In addition, many
workers were not even fluent in English,
which rendered communication to be diffi-
cult (Blake & Moseley, 2010).
Taylor was unconvinced that low
level supervisors and line workers were
sufficiently qualified to handle effective
planning. This was because they had low
levels of education as most had not under-
gone proper training. Although the work-
men were best suited for their jobs, they
were incapable of comprehending the sci-
ence of management. Since they did not
have the relevant educational background,
they lacked the mental capacity to work
(Blake & Moseley, 2010). Lack of educa-
tion was, therefore, a key challenge in the

adoption and use of scientific methods of
management. Since most of the lower
cadre workers lack the necessary education
to enable them to comprehend the scien-
tific aspects of management, it would be
difficult even to train them. This is com-
pounded by the problem of language, con-
sidering that most of them were recent
immigrants.
Nevertheless, Taylor attempted to
meet the challenge of lack of education by
making a proposition. He proposed that
there should be a separation of powers
between planning and execution. To this
end, Taylor suggested the creation of de-
partments for planning, and these depart-
ments would be run by engineers.
These engineers would be tasked with
four basic responsibilities; namely, devel-
oping scientific methods of doing work,
establishing goals for worker productivity,
setting up systems for worker rewards and
teaching and training personnel on how to
use scientific methods of management
(Blake & Moseley, 2010, 2011; Paxton,
2011).
The Concept of Task Allocation
Another challenge facing Taylor’s

scientific management methods lay in the
concept of task allocation. Task allocation
has drawn sharp criticism over the years
and it involves the splitting a huge single
task into several smaller ones that allow
the planner to determine how best the task
can be handled. The implication here is
that a single task will be accomplished by
a series of persons, ranging from top man-
agement to workers.
Num 4 April 2013 83
Task allocation, which leads to divi-
sion of labor, has made Taylorism an ex-
pensive system of management. This is
because it creates redundant positions for
non-value adding workers such as supervi-
sors and other indirect workers (Pruijt,
2002). Taylor subdivided the work meant
for one gang boss among eight men. The
eight men included different categories of
clerks, gang bosses, speed bosses, inspec-
tors and shop disciplinarians.
This means that Taylorism not only
vouches for efficiency but also for the
provision of middle class jobs. This makes
it very expensive to implement and run. It
is for this reason that the US Steel Corpo-

ration laid off 60 specialized foremen
(Pruijt, 2002). This dismayed Taylor but
there was no other choice for the steel cor-
poration as it had too many non-value add-
ing supervisors in its organization. The
emergent high costs of operations due to
unnecessary personnel led companies to
dilute Taylor’s model of scientific man-
agement.
The concept of task allocation has
been criticized for its lack of flexibility. It
is complex or impossible to increase the
time allowed for operations as the time
cycle is clearly stated in the standard
worksheet of operations (Prujit, 2002).
This becomes a major dilemma for older
workers, especially when timelines have
been set to accommodate the more youth-
ful workers in the organization. The older
workers, consequently, may find it diffi-
cult or impossible to keep up with the
company’s expectations, objectives and
goals.
Dehumanization of Workers
Dehumanization of workers is yet an-
other challenge to Taylorism (Blake &
Moseley, 2010). This can be attributed to
Taylor’s reductionist approach to scientific
management. The general perception was

that the individual worker had no chance
to excel or think on his/her own. This
criticism arose from later writings based
on Taylor’s research by other authors as
opposed to Taylor’s own words and theo-
ries (Maqbool et al., 2011).
Actually, Taylor had considered and
discussed worker’s happiness throughout
his monograph. He stressed that the task
was always regulated so that the worker
who is well suited to his job will thrive
while working at this rate during a long
time period. The worker will grow happier
and more prosperous, instead of being
overworked (Taylor, 1911, p15). Taylor’s
concept of human motivation was ex-
tremely limited. Taylor had a strong con-
viction that the only way to motivate
workers was through monetary incentives
(Brogan, 2011). Although the study of
human motivation would not become
popular for several decades to come, it still
seems naïve to contend that money is the
sole motivator for employees (Blake &
Moseley, 2010, p30). Taylor frequently
came under sharp criticism for having his
work being exclusively beneficial to the
management team. This was despite the
fact that he tried to establish a common
ground between management and laborers.
Taylor further indicated that the ma-

jority of these men hold that the funda-
mental interests of employees and employ-
ers are necessarily antagonis tic (Zuffo,
2011; Blake & Moseley, 2010). Scientific
management, in contrast, has its basis that
the interests of the employees and employ-
ers should be necessarily the same. The
employer’s prosperity cannot subsist
through a long time period unless it is ac-
companied by the employee’s prosperity
and vice versa. It is possible to give the
worker what they want most, which is high
wages, and the employer what they want,
which is low labor costs—for their manu-
factures (Caldari, 2007).
Nevertheless, Taylor showed concern
for the well-being of the workers through-
Num 4 April 2013 84
out his research despite exhibiting an
attitude that was often biased against
workers (Taylor, 1911; Blake & Moseley,
2010). For instance, he contended that
naturally, man strives to do as little work
as is safely possible in the majority of
cases. The implication of this assertion is
that man has to be given timelines for
them to meet goals and obligations.

His directions were geared toward the
uneducated. As an example, during his
case study explanation at Bethlehem Steel,
he directed a pig iron worker to obey his
supervisor by saying “When he tells you to
pick up a pig and walk, you pick it up and
you walk, and when he tells you to sit
down and rest, you sit down. You do that
right straight through the day. And what’s
more, no back talk” (Blake & Moseley,
2010, p30; Taylor, 1911, p18). This atti-
tude from management would not be ac-
ceptable in modern work environment, but
it was commonplace during Taylor’s time.
Conclusion
Taylor’s principles of scientific man-
agement still remain relevant in modern
times, although they have undergone some
modifications. Some corporations have
made some revisions on the principles and
have been able to experience continued
success in the fast-changing world of busi-
ness. There are three essential principles
that underlie Taylor’s scientific approach
to management. They are the development
of a true science, the scientific selection of
the workman, the workman’s scientific
education and development and the inti-
mate relationship between the manage-
ment and the workers.

However, Taylor’s principles of sci-
entific management have faced various
challenges. The most prominent among
them is lack of education, dehumanization
of workers and the concept of task alloca-
tion. Lack of education cripples the work-
ers’ ability to understand the scientific
methods of management. Dehumanization
of the workers occurs due to Taylor’s as-
sumption that the individual worker cannot
excel or think on his/her own. This is the
implication created when Taylor vouches
for the creation of middle class jobs. The
jobs are for supervisors who guide the
workers in dispensing their duties. The
concept of task allocation pushes the or-
ganizational costs of operation to higher
levels.
Essentially, the principles of scientific
management as presented by Taylor have
withstood the test of time and are poised to
enter the next age, which pundits refer to
as the virtual age. However, some modifi-
cations may be needed in order to make
Taylorism more efficient and profitable to
companies.
References

Bell, R.L., & Martin, J.S. (2012). The
Relevance of Scientific Management
and Equity Theory in Everyday
Managerial Communication Situa-
tions. Journal of Management Policy
and Practice, 13(3), 106-115.
Blake, A.M., & Moseley, J.L. (2010). One
Hundred Years after The Principles of
Scientific Management: Frederick
Taylor’s Life and Impact on the Field
of Human Performance Technology.
Performance Improvement, 49(4), 27-
34.
Blake, A.M., & Moseley, J.L. (2011). Fre-
derick Winslow Taylor: One Hundred
Years of Managerial Insight. Interna-
tional Journal of Management, 28(4),
346-353.
Brogan, J. W. (2011). Exonerating Freder-
ick Taylor: After 100 years, mythol-
ogy sometimes overshadows a mas-

Num 4 April 2013 85
ters teachings. Industrial Engineer,
43(11), 41-44.
Buenstorf, G., & Murmann, J.P. (2005).
Ernst Abbe’s scientific management:
theoretical insights from a nineteenth-
century dynamic capabilities approach.
Industrial and Corporate Change,
14(4), 543-578.
Caldari, K. (2007). Alfred Marshall’s critical
Analysis of Scientific Management.
The European Journal of the History of
Economic Thought, 14(1), 55-78.
Evangelopoulos, N. (2011). Citing Taylor:
Tracing Taylorism's Technical and So-
ciotechnical Duality through Latent
Semantic Analysis. Journal of Business
& Management, 17(1), 57-74.
Giannantonio, C.M., & Hurley-Hanson,
C.M. (2011). Frederick Winslow Tay-
lor: Reflections on the Relevance of
The Principles of Scientific Manage-
ment 100 Years Later. Journal of Busi-

ness and Management, 17(1), 7-10.
Maqbool, M., Zakariya, A., & Paracha, A.N.
(2011). A Critique on Scientific Man-
agement. Interdisciplinary Journal of
Contemporary Research in Business,
3(4), 844-854.
Myers, Jr. L.A. (2011). One Hundred Years
Later: What Would Frederick W. Tay-
lor Say? International Journal of Busi-
ness and Social Science, 2(20), 8-11.
Paton, S. (2013). Introducing Taylor to the
Knowledge Economy. Employee Rela-
tions, 35(1), 20-38.
Paxton, J. (2011). Taylor’s Unsung Contri-
bution: Making Interchangeable Parts
Practical. Journal of Business and
Management, 17(1), 75-83.
Peaucelle, J.L. (2000). From Taylorism to
Post-Taylorism: Simultaneously pursu-
ing several management objectives.

Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 13(5), 452-467.
Phelps, L.D., Parayitam, S., & Olson, B.J.
(2007). Edwards Deming, Mary P. Fol-
lett and Frederick W. Taylor: Recon-
ciliation of Differences in Organiza-
tional and Strategic Leadership. Acad-
emy of Strategic Management Journal,
6, 1-13.
Pruijt, H. (2002). Repainting, Modifying,
Smashing Taylorism. Journal of Organ-
izational Change Management, 13(5),
439-451.
Pruijt, H. (2003). Teams between Neo-
Taylorism and Anti-Taylorism. Eco-
nomic and Industrial Democracy,
24(1), 77-101.
Taylor, F.W. (1911). The Principles of Sci-
entific Management. NY: Dover Publi-
cations.
Tolsby, J. (2000). Taylorism given a helping

hand: How an IT system changed em-
ployees' flexibility and personal in-
volvement in their work. Journal of Or-
ganizational Change Management,
13(5), 482-492.
Wagner-Tsukamoto, S. (2007). An Institu-
tional Economic Reconstruction of Sci-
entific Management: On The Lost
Theoretical Logic of Taylorism. Acad-
emy of Management Review, 32(1),
105-117.
Wren, D.A. (2011). The Centennial of Fre-
derick W. Taylor’s The Principles of
Scientific Management: A Retrospec-
tive Commentary. Journal of Business
and Management, 17(1),11-22.
Zuffo, R.G. (2011). Taylor is Dead, Hurray
Taylor! The “Human Factor” in Scien-
tific Management: Between Ethics,
Scientific Psychology and Common
Sense. Journal of Business and Man-
agement, 17(1), 23-42.

reproduction prohibited without
permission.
Historic horizons of Frederick
Taylor’s scientific management
Mikhail Grachev
Western Illinois University, Moline, Illinois, USA and
University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA, and
Boris Rakitsky
Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public
Policy,
Moscow, Russia
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of the article is to historically position
F. Taylor’s scientific management in a
broad socio-economic landscape, arguing that Taylorism was
predetermined by the distinctive
industrial type of economic growth and shaped by a political
environment of an industrial economy.
The authors further aim to discuss how scientific management
transcended national boundaries and to
analyse the case of Russia, with the focus on the rise and fall of
Taylorism in that country in response
to political transformations in the twentieth century.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors summarize key

attributes of F. Taylor’s scientific
management as a systemic theoretical approach to efficiency
with prioritized practical programmatic
orientation and perceived social effects. The discussion on how
scientific management fits the
industrial economic growth and responds to the political
environment follows. The authors conduct
archival research and aggregate major literature on the history
of Taylorism in twentieth century
Russia.
Findings – The key findings of the study include: a summary of
F. Taylor’s management paradigm;
Taylorism as the product of the industrial type of economic
growth; how the political environment in
Russia modified the unique cycle of scientific management with
its emergence in the 1910s, rise in the
1920s, fall in the 1930s, and rebirth on a technocratic basis in
the late 1950s.
Research limitations/implications – The paper contributes to the
general discussion on
Taylorism and provides unique assessments of its historic
development in Russia. The results of
the study have both academic and educational implications.
Originality/value – The findings of the study enrich the
discussion about Taylorism and its
application in other countries. The archival and analytic results
of the study permit conclusions at a
high level of aggregation; highlight conflicting positions on the
history of Taylorism in Russia in the
literature; provide the framework to better understand the scope
of scientific management in a historic
socio-economic landscape; and display original arguments to
support major findings.

Keywords Scientific management, Taylorism, Russia
Paper type Research paper
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1751-1348.htm
This publication was prepared (in part) under a grant from the
Kennan Institute of the Woodrow
Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DC. The
statements and views expressed
herein are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of
the Woodrow Wilson Center. The
authors extend appreciation to Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars for support in
accomplishing this project and to Mark Green and anonymous
reviewers for valuable advice in
preparing the manuscript for publication.
JMH
19,4
512
Journal of Management History
Vol. 19 No. 4, 2013
pp. 512-527
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1751-1348
DOI 10.1108/JMH-05-2012-0043

Introduction
Published 100 years ago, Taylor’s (1998) The Principles of
Scientific Management
responded to the fundamental change in America’s economic
growth by the early
twentieth century and summarized advanced ideas in search for
a scientific view on
managing large industrial systems. The book substituted
empirical apprehension of
industrial processes and administration with a new management
paradigm based on
the integrative perception of people and technology in
organizations. It offered the
analytic framework of production process and its
administration; developed
algorithms for implementing new scientific principles; and
emphasized the societal
consequences of application of those principles. Aimed
originally at improving
American industrial organizations, the concept transcended
national boundaries and
influenced industrial practices in multiple countries.
F. Taylor – an imaginative thinker and energetic practitioner –
was far ahead of his
contemporaries in accomplishing a phenomenal intellectual
agenda. One century later,
discussions about Taylorism raise new questions and offer new
insights on its
founder’s intent to integrate learning and action; on his holistic
view of the
organization and social relations at the enterprise level; on the
transition from an
empirical to a scientific approach in improving productivity and
delivering prosperity;
and on the scope and universality of those principles.

The main purpose of this article is to re-visit and historically
position F. Taylor’s
work in a broad socio-economic landscape. First, the authors
argue that Taylor’s
advanced mechanistic management was predetermined by the
distinctive industrial
type of economic growth which it served. However, Taylorism
was also limited by that
type of growth and conflicted with the follow-up innovative,
organic management of
the post-industrial society. Second, they explore the scope of
Taylorism in
transcending national borders and applying to systems far
beyond free market
economies, including those in the centrally planned totalitarian
societies. In particular,
an article offers the overview and respectful critique of the rise
and fall of Taylorism
within the socialist experiment of twentieth century Russia and
the USSR.
Thought revolution in management
Scholarly literature on Taylor’s concept and its applications
formed two major streams
of discussion. One displayed a traditional organizational
perspective focused on the
shift from empirical to rational (analytic) approach to
management and work
organization, and on the aggregation of tools and techniques for
higher productivity
and effectiveness at the level of the firm (Nelson, 1980; Locke,
1982). The other took a
broader societal, political and ideological perspective on
Taylorism including
know-how transfer to the other countries (Merkle, 1980;

McLeod, 1983; Morgan,
2006; Wagner-Tsukamoto, 2008; Simha and Lemak, 2010).
The authors consider both streams of studies and summarize F.
Taylor’s heritage
with the following key attributes.
First, not only did F. Taylor advance work organization at the
shop-floor level and
enterprise management to a higher level of aggregation, but he
also laid the foundation
for the science of managing production systems in the industrial
age at large. The
principles of integration of the work of machines and
mechanisms, and the work of
people emerged as a new field of scientific inquiry (Rakitski,
2005).
Historic horizons
513
Second, when F. Taylor designed a theoretical system of
organization of work,
production, and management, he explained that “scientific
management, in its essence,
consists of a certain philosophy, which results [. . .] in a
combination of the four great
underlying principles of management” starting with “the
development of true science”
(p. 113). He approached the new philosophy as an experiment-
oriented scholar who
never disconnected theory from action[1]. He clearly defined
the basic goals of his

theory, prioritizing the combination of the following elements:
“science, not rule of
thumb”, “harmony, not discord”, “cooperation, not
individualism”, “maximum output,
in place of restricted output”, and “the development of each
man to his greatest
efficiency and prosperity” (p. 123).
Third, in challenging the contemporary empirical approach and
offering an
advanced management paradigm, in moving from rational
analysis of elements to
understanding their interactions, F. Taylor was far ahead of his
contemporaries in the
methodology of management by displaying seeds of systems
thinking. He explored the
fact that “principles of scientific management differ essentially
from those of ordinary
management” (p. 21) and explained that “in the past the man has
been first; in the
future the system must be first” (p. ix). Taylorism offered the
new paradigm when
“true scientific management required a ‘mental revolution’ on
the part of employers
and employees” (Wren and Bedeian, 2009, p. 149).
Fourth, intellectual effort was supported by the algorithm, and
this programmatic
aspect of F. Taylor’s science included the shift in responsibility
for implementing the
system from men to management (pp. 29, 52). Such a program
emphasized
development of a science for each element of a man’s work,
which replaced the old
rule-of-thumb method; considered scientific selection and
training, teaching workmen,

and cooperation between employees and management with
balanced responsibilities
for efficiency and productivity (p. 27).
Fifth, the last but not least important theoretical aspect of F.
Taylor’s work was
attention to the potential broad societal effects of his new
system. While F. Taylor was
not able to experiment at the societal level, he offered
extrapolations of theoretical
constructions and summarized “the good which would follow
the general adoption of
these principles” such as greater material gain, increase in
productivity of human
effort, increase both in the necessities and luxuries of life,
shortening the hours of work
and increased opportunities for education, culture, and
recreation for the whole country
(pp. 123-124). This far-reaching message displayed socially
responsible approach to
management, and explained that the new philosophy if and when
implemented could
provide benefits to the whole nation.
To sum up. The scientific management phenomenon stemmed
not only from the
collection of advanced organizational instruments in response to
the needs of its time
but also from the combined intellectual effort – a systemic
theoretical approach to
efficiency with a prioritized practical, programmatic orientation
and perceived societal
effects.
To further understand this generalization of scientific
management it is important

to explore if it has emerged as the universal societal
phenomenon or if it has been
historically (economically and politically) predefined. In the
other words, two questions
arise in response to this inquiry. First, what were the limits of
its practical applications
relative to distinctive economic systems? Second, did a transfer
of Taylorism to the
JMH
19,4
514
other countries with different political environments created its
qualitatively different
identity? These questions and arguments should be discussed in
more details.
Taylorism and economic growth
The first hypothesis about universality stems from F. Taylor’s
great conviction about
the “absolute” nature of his scientific paradigm. He wrote that
the new scientific
methods, “four elements that differentiate the new management
forms from the old [. . .]
can be applied absolutely to all classes of work, from the most
elementary to the most
intricate” (p. 30).
F. Taylor understood the difficulties in implementation of
scientific management;
considered employees’ and unions’ potential resistance to
organizational innovations,

the role of timing and considerable effort in the transition from
the system of the past
to the system of the future, and the importance of favorable
conditions such as training
workers and adjusting production system. But he viewed society
as an industrial and
organizational engineer, with deep knowledge of techno-
organizational dimensions of
the work and production however, with limited exploration of
the scope relative to their
socio-economic foundation.
In real life however, various generic organizational patterns co-
exist: dominant
forms, as well as obsolete and prospective ones; each having its
own “safety margin”
and conflicting with the others to a certain degree. Each pattern
displays distinctive
type of interrelations between worker, technology, work process
and management.
Those distinctions are rooted in economic epochs which can be
conditionally defined as
“pre-industrial”, “industrial”, and “post-industrial” types of
economic growth. And
“craft”, “technocratic (mechanistic)”, and “innovative
(organic)” systems proved to be
the most effective in those relevant economic epochs (Grachev,
1988).
In the later period of pre-industrial growth, before the Industrial
Revolution of the
late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, individual craftsmen
typically worked
together within capitalist manufactory. “Craft” management
displayed a simple
pattern of administering people and processes in organizations,

when manufactory
production destroyed the previous shop (guild) system and
combined crafts that were
previously independent, under the single supervision of the
owner.
On the contrary, the industrial type of growth was based on
machine production
with workers typically acting as extensions of those machines.
The Industrial
Revolution – the enormous leap in production and efficiency –
brought to life systems
of machines and demanded qualitatively new principles for
subordinating workers and
their movements to monotonous rhythm and the functions of
those mechanisms. The
growing mass-production industries combined large groups of
workers at medium and
large enterprises – typically low-skilled, performing narrowly
specialized functions;
and this increased complexity demanded qualitatively new
combinations of work
processes along with relevant combinations of line and
functional management – all
integrated into the well-designed organizational system.
However, even in the
economically advanced North American and European countries
of the late nineteenth
century, organizational practices lagged far behind rapidly
developing technologies
and systems of machines. One of the major reasons was a
traditional empirical nature
of management and its connection with the past practices, along
with administration’s
conformism and resistance to radical organizational changes in
a production system.

Historic horizons
515
In the earlier period of industrial age technocratic, mechanistic
forms of
management and organization emerged spontaneously, in
accordance with past
experiences; and methods of “ordinary management”, in F.
Taylor’s words:
[. . .] have been handed down from man to man by word of
mouth, or have, in most cases, been
unconsciously learned through personal observation [. . .] but
have not been codified or
systematically analyzed or described (pp. 22-23).
F. Taylor took the lead in challenging the conventional system,
theoretically proposing
and practically implementing the qualitatively new approach to
management and
work organization. The key principles formulated by F. Taylor
along with the other
organizational engineers of his time (F. Gilbreth and L.
Gilbreth) such as a focus on
“rational economic man”, normative approach to work
organization and incentives,
maximum division of labor, and rationalization of work and
motion – emerged as
fundamental pillars for technocratic, mechanistic management
of the industrial age[2].
Overall, The Principles of Scientific Management served the

urgent needs of its time
– closing the gap between advancing technologies and obsolete
organizational means;
radically improving productivity; and providing the critical
mass of managers with a
science of effective work and administration. At the moment of
publication of the book,
the USA, Germany, and Imperial Russia served as fertile lands
for the introduction of
scientific management. Other countries that lagged behind
economically, appealed to
Taylorism historically at a later time. For example, not until
1930s had pre-Communist
China expressed a growing interest in application of F. Taylor’s
works (Morgan, 2006).
The transition of the leading economic powers to the post-
industrial era in the late
twentieth century shifted focus in production systems to new
dimensions of
productivity and organizational efficiency such as innovation,
creativity, networking,
group organization, and value-based leadership. Those
dimensions were not a part of
F. Taylor’s prescriptions and contradicted many of them. Hence,
the authors assume
that emergence of scientific management was historically
predetermined by the
specific economic environment and was most effective in the
industries that defined the
industrial type of growth. Even today, industries which created
the backbone of the
industrial age (machinery, steel, or textile) may still exploit F.
Taylor’s guidelines quite
effectively; however, many of those principles and techniques
(maximum division of

labor, detailed monitoring of individual time and motions, focus
on an individual, not a
group, etc.) turned out to be much less applicable to innovative
industries of the
post-industrial era (like software or biotechnology).
Taylorism and socio-political systems: the Russian experiment
The second argument relates to the societal implications of F.
Taylor’s work and its
applications to non-American industrial practices. The authors
suggest that historic
limits to scientific management were defined not only by the
type of economic growth
but also by the political environments that directly influenced
economic systems.
F. Taylor was optimistic in his interpretation of shared interests
and harmony
among major stakeholders of production organizations. In the
book he explained that
the majority:
[. . .] believe that the fundamental interests of employees and
employers are necessarily
antagonistic [. . .] 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 [. . .]. This close, intimate,
JMH
19,4
516

personal cooperation between management and the men is of
essence of modern [. . .]
scientific management [. . .]. Scientific management will mean,
for the employers and the
workmen [. . .] the elimination of all causes for dispute and
disagreement between them. [. . .]
the close, intimate cooperation, the constant personal contact
between the two sides, will tend
to diminish friction and discontent (pp. 2, 17, 125).
While the history of the twentieth century’s industrial age in the
USA may not have
displayed sufficient mass of “harmonious” industrial relations
under those principles,
some examples of union-management cooperation, such as
supportive initiatives
displayed by the United States Taylor Society and American
Federation of Labor
(AFL) in the 1920s, have been documented ( Jacoby, 1983). Not
surprisingly, this stream
remained on the periphery of organizational scientists’ attention
while it was
emphasized by politicians and leaders of labor movement,
especially by those on the
left spectrum of political life. The later traditionally harshly
criticized F. Taylor’s
system, like the Founder of the Italian Communist Party
Gramsci (1959, p. 438), who
claimed that:
Taylor with cruel cynicism expressed American society’s goal
to maximize the development
of employees’ machine and automatic skills, destroyed the
previous psycho-physical complex
of skilled professional labor, that required sufficient active
brainpower, creativity, and

initiative, and limited all production functions by their physical
machine-based aspect.
To further explore the application of F. Taylor’s concept to non-
American societal
environments, the authors conducted a detailed study of
scientific management
know-how transfer to Russia, to the country which in the early
twentieth century was
among the fastest growing economies. The history of Russian
Taylorism displays a
complex metamorphosis under changing political conditions and
provides new
insights on the cycle of:
. interest in and excitement about the concept in Imperial
Russia; to
. communist leaders’ dual approach to scientific management; to
the acquisition of
Taylorism as an economic and political tool in industrializing
the Soviet state; to
. the elimination of scientific work organization on political and
ideological
grounds under J. Stalin; and to
. re-birth of interest in F. Taylor’s works in post-Communist
Russia.
Within the stream of on-going discussions about Soviet
Taylorization ranging from
pessimistic (Van Atta, 1986) to optimistic opinions (Merkle,
1980) the authors take
balanced position by addressing historic and social boundaries
of scientific

management in response to the universality assumptions by its
founder.
In the early twentieth century Russia’s strong economic
development stemmed from
the elimination of serfdom, the migration of the workforce from
agriculture to industry,
the expansion of railroads and infrastructure, the development
of a national market,
and the inflow of foreign capital. The high concentration of
workers at large
enterprises in the textile, machinery, coal mining, and
metallurgy sectors exceeded that
of Europe or the USA. However, the Russian economy was the
exemplar of an
oversupply of cheap labor, lack of safety and work culture, as
well as entrepreneurial
despotism at the enterprise level.
Historic horizons
517
In that buoyant economic environment, progressive Russian
industrialists
responded to the gap between accelerated production technology
and obsolete
organizational practices. In particular, they looked for fresh
organizational ideas and
efficiency concepts that have been emerging in the USA. In
1908-1909 the first Russian
translations of and publications about F. Taylor’s system in
professional journals
“Metallist”, “Zapiski Russkogo Tekhnicheskogo Obshestva”

(papers of the Russian
Technical Society) sparked intense discussions and public
disputes in Moscow’s and St
Petersburg’s business and political circles, students’ and trade
union organizations,
and even advanced to the level of hearings in the State Duma
(Russian Parliament).
The new journal Fabrichno-zavodskoye Delo (Factory Business)
provided
comprehensive information about F. Taylor and his system
(Golosenko, 1991,
pp. 64-65).
Those debates in the 1912-1914 displayed conflicting opinions
about Taylorism.
Critics appealed to a low quality of work and quality of life in
the country as a whole,
lack of a supportive legal environment and poor work culture,
and claimed that
F. Taylor’s system was not applicable to Russia; or, if applied,
only predatory
businesses would benefit from exploiting the masses. Supporters
praised technological
progress, disseminated ideas about advanced work methods, and
encouraged
industrialists to learn from the best foreign organizational
practices.
At the moment of the original publication of The Principles of
Scientific
Management V. Lenin worked in Switzerland on theoretical
concepts for the future
Bolshevik Revolution. In March 1913 he carefully analyzed F.
Taylor’s book, reviewed
the relevant discussion at St Peterboug’s Institute of
Transportation Engineers; and

responded with harsh criticism blaming this system as man’s
enslavement by the
machine and labeling it as “scientific system of sweating”
(Lenin, 1970b, p. 18).
However, after the Bolshevik Revolution in the late 1910s-early
1920s Russia had to
restore its economy from the ashes of the First World War and
the Civil War. Under
those extreme conditions, in the original version of the 1918
article “The immediate
tasks of the Soviet Government” Lenin (1970c, p. 137)
explained how necessary it was:
[. . .] to a considerable extent, take a lesson in socialism from
the trust managers, [. . .] take a
lesson in socialism from capitalism’s big organizers, [. . .]
enlist to the service of the Soviet
power a great number of bourgeois intellectuals, especially from
among those who were
engaged in the practical work of organizing large-scale
capitalist production.
He obviously faced the “complexity of position towards
Taylorism” (Linhart, 1976,
p. 105) and a difficult task to re-assess F. Taylor’s work as
valuable resource in
economic restoration. Hence, he conceptualized the dual role of
Taylorism in the
socio-economic (socialist) system. Some authors advocate sharp
distinctions in
V. Lenin’s positions before and after the revolution (Bailes,
1977, 1981; Josephson, 1995;
Linhart, 1976; Wren and Bedeian, 2004; Scoville, 2001) while
others carefully argue that
he supported the dual role of Taylorism from the beginning

(Sochor, 1981a, b).
In 1918 V. Lenin wrote that:
F. Taylor’s system was a combination of the refined brutality of
bourgeois exploitation and a
number of the greatest scientific achievements in the field of
analyzing mechanical motions
during work, the elimination of superfluous and awkward
motions, the elaboration of correct
methods of work, the introduction of the best system of
accounting and control, etc. (Lenin,
1970c, p. 140).
JMH
19,4
518
Linhart (1976, pp. 111-114) emphasized V. Lenin’s positive
attitude to Taylorism when
it had been applied under the workers’ supervision and
permitted the reduction of
working time. With such an endorsement, F. Taylor’s system
was accepted as one of
the powerful instruments for increasing productivity and
efficiency in the emerging
socialist state. And the argument for resolving the duality
stemmed from the
proposition that capitalism historically paved the way to
socialism and since
F. Taylor’s work was among the advances of capitalism it was
possible to hedge
capitalist technique not by scientific development but by

political means.
In the early 1920s, Soviet Russia’s shift from war communism
to the New Economic
Policy (NEP) permitted, to some extent, private property,
private enterprise and
competition. It also incorporated non-party engineering talent
and specialists into
socialist enterprises under government regulation and control.
The “great turn” to
rapid industrialization and collectivization was “accompanied
by thorough-going
adoption of Taylorist methods in Soviet industry” (Van Atta,
1986, p. 330; see also:
Bailes, 1977; Merkle, 1980; Hughes, 2004). That policy favored
studies of foreign
organizational techniques; and encouraged research, training,
and consulting with the
focus on scientific management.
Participants of two major national conferences on “scientific
work organization”[3]
in 1921 (convened by L. Trotsky) and in 1924 prioritized
careful analysis of the
production process and synthesis into the most effective plan;
large-scale training and
studies of advanced methods of organization and production. At
the same time, those
events triggered an ideological battle over Soviet Taylorism
with deeper roots than the
traditionally emphasized discussion between “narrowly
technicist Taylorism” and a
“Taylorism modified by industrial psychology and protection of
workers”. It related to
the larger set of issues “how to implement ideological goals
under adverse political and

economic conditions”, “how to learn and borrow from
capitalists while constructing a
non-capitalist path of development”, and “how to erect the
cultural infrastructure
essential to the developmental needs” (Sochor, 1981a, pp. 246-
247). It also related to
how to fit the power structure of the socialist state when some
political elite groups
opposed Taylorism as resenting the diminution of workers’
control inherent in it.
Others feared the technocratic prominence of engineers “and
what they believed were
the utopian expectations of the Taylorists” ( Josephson, 1995, p.
527).
The politicization of the problem resulted in open clashes
between primary groups
of advocates of scientific management in the ruling elite:
“pragmatists” (A. Gastev) and
“ideologues” (P. Kerzhentsev). R. Miller explained the
differences between A. Gastev’s
and P. Kerzhentsev’s approaches to Taylorism: the former were
narrowly conceived
studies which concentrated on the psychological and
physiological processes of
workers and small groups; the later sought organizational
principles based on
systematic observation of integrated production or
administrative processes (Miller,
1971, p. 250). Beyond visible differences in the scope and
technocratic frameworks both
streams however, shared fundamental similarities on
organizational power and
ideological role of Soviet Taylorism as well as on who would
control and use
Taylorism[4]. Luke provided arguments in support of the

conversion of the long-term
intentions of “pragmatists” and “ideologues” explaining that
Gastev’s conception of
scientific management transcended the rationalization of
industrial productivity to
become a system of “social engineering” to mechanize life
completely; aiming to
re-engineer entirely the psychophysical make-up of the typical
Russian worker; and
Historic horizons
519
Gastev’s popularization of industrial thinking extended into the
home life and personal
behaviors of people (Luke, 1983, pp. 598-599)[5].
As a matter of fact, the search for class harmony resonated with
F. Taylor’s original
position on harmonious relations at the enterprise level.
However, in contrast to the
original scientific management that arose as response to
“systematic soldiering”
among industrialized labor, Soviet Taylorism was spurred by
the problem of an
unskilled and barely literate labor force thus making it, in the
words of P. Kerzhentsev,
even more urgent than for America (Sochor, 1981a, p. 257). V.
Lenin even advised using
P. Kerzhentsev’s book as the universal textbook on work
organization in general,
especially managerial work (Lenin, 1970a, p. 395).

In 1921 V. Lenin personally supported A. Gastev, the Founder
of the Central
Institute of Labor (CIL), with millions of rubles in gold for
research and training
programs. Known as the “Russian Taylor”, A. Gastev published
over 200 books and
articles, promoted “social engineering” and best organizational
practices, and
emphasized the shift from empirical rule-of-thumb approach to
analytic one. He
demanded increases in productivity from workers and from
machines; advocated deep
specialization and optimized work functions through time-and-
motion studies, strict
order, discipline, and planning; and integrated social and
biological components into
social engineering. “The methodology of machine-based work
with its analytic
background, consideration of small factors, creation of norms,
was inevitable for the
live work of employees” – wrote A. Gastev in 1921. And if
Taylor was not born with
his time-and-motion studies and rational analysis of elements,
one should create him
“on demand” (Gastev, 1971, p. 27).
The CIL took the lead in developing methodological principles
of work organization
and management, designing the optimized organizational forms
and processes. It
created the national training system, added medical and
biological factors into effective
work patterns, and applied the results at industrial enterprises as
well as within ranks
and structures of the Red Army. In that particular period, a
network of about 1,500

research, consulting, and training centers was created acros s the
country, where more
than a million workers (Bailes, 1981, p. 437, 1977, p. 393) were
trained and re-trained
with CIL instruction materials. These arguments contrast with
the simplified position
in the literature that in the USSR before 1929 “scientific
management rarely made it
from laboratory to factory floor”, “few improvements were
made because of the
Communist Party’s distrust of capitalism” and “basic distrust of
bourgeois experts and
their methods” (Wren, 1980, p. 5; Wren and Bedeian, 2009, p.
242).
During rapid industrialization, Russia lacked a sufficient corps
of professional
managers. Hence, among the successful applications of
scientific management was
F. Taylor’s idea of “functional foremen” which supported the
development of technical
specialists with higher levels of authority in the planning and
coordination of broader
phases of production at the shop floor level; and promoted the
educational and training
value of scientific management. The other successful
application was piece-rate
performance plans that required efficiency standards. Those
high standards were
further introduced and applied through Stakhanovites
movement, with 60 percent (in
1926) to 75 percent (in 1931) of workers being paid based on
performance (Polakov,
1932). The movement, however, relied more and more on
workers’ indoctrinated
enthusiasm rather than on careful work and time measurement,

and created superficial
norms which in many cases upset and broke production process
and safety.
JMH
19,4
520
In the centralized authoritarian state the CIL’s mission was
linked to the creation of
communism under the unique historic conditions of the 1920s.
Communist
organizational designers viewed workers not as individuals but
as elements of the
large complex socialist state. The CIL’s recommendations
encouraged and praised
enthusiasm, continuous initiative, inspiration of large masses of
workers, and creation
of collective culture of the “working class” as a whole.
Scientific management know-how was transferred into Russia
by different
channels: hiring American organizational consultants for large-
scale projects;
importing technology (factories, machinery) with organizational
support; starting
industrial colonies with immigrants from the USA, Germany
and other Western
countries.
Foreign technical assistance played important role in
industrializing the Soviet
state. By 1930, 45 American companies were among 200

Western firms that provided
assistance for industrialization. According to Merkle (1980, p.
122), J. Stalin admitted
that two-thirds of Soviet industry was built with American
assistance.
Soviet authorities hired American consultants such as R. Keely,
W. Clark, and
W. Polakov to study working conditions and to transfer Taylor’s
and Gantt’s
instruments into industrializati on process (Polakov, 1932;
Wren, 1980; Wren and
Bedeian, 2004). Russian engineers and managers were sent to
the leading foreign
manufacturing firms such as “Ford” in the USA (Vasiliev,
1927); and the Soviet state
has been aggressively acquiring American technology for
industrialization. For
example, tens of thousands Fordson tractors were imported to
Russia ( Josephson, 1995,
p. 528).
The ideas of the Russian Revolution attracted professionals
from different countries
who were willing to contribute to industrialization and creation
of new socialist cities.
One of the most impressive examples was the Colony of
Kemerovo (Autonomous
Industrial Colony). In 1921 American Union Leader B.
Haywood and Engineer
F. Calvert together with Dutch Engineer S. Rutgers presented to
V. Lenin the program
of the rapid revival of Russia’s economy and proposed to form
the international
industrial colony with advanced technology, expertise, and
capital. The agreement

signed between this group and the Council of Labor and
Defense provided the ground
for the Colony’s existence in 1922-1927, and its practical
contribution to the
development of mines, power and metallurgical plants in
Siberia. About 750 foreigners
along with 5,000 Russian workers and specialists worked in
Kemerovo, applied
advanced machinery and efficient organizational methods.
This experience laid the foundation for the other cases of
foreign voluntary
contribution participation to Russia’s industrialization in the
late 1920s. The
construction of the largest in Siberia metallurgical facility in
Kuznetsk which started in
1928 was designed by Chicago-based company “Frain”.
Kuznetsk industrial complex
imported technology from Germany (which was cheaper than
American), and about
450 foreign specialists, many with knowledge of advanced
Western management
participated in its development.
After V. Lenin’s death and the transition of supreme powers in
the USSR to J. Stalin,
the change in political attitudes towards “scientific work
organization” was inevitable.
It should be noted however, that in the earlier years of the NEP,
J. Stalin praised
American efficiency and emphasized its importance in building
the socialist society. In
his lectures “The foundation of Leninism” at Sverdlov
University (published by daily
Historic horizons

521
Pravda in April-May 1924) he defined Leninism as “a school of
theory and practice
which trains a special type of party and state worker [. . .] and
creates a special Leninist
style in work” characterized by “(a) Russian revolutionary
sweep and (b) American
efficiency” (Stalin, 1976, p. 114)[6]. But in the follow -up years,
according to Josephson
(1995, p. 530), “Americanism faded under Stalin and the
establishment of economic
autarky”.
The late 1920s marked the end of the NEP and the beginning of
an enormous shift in
cadre policies substituting professionals (non-party engineers
and administrators) with
party loyalists, replacing bourgeois specialists with
professionals of proper
working-class social origin, and holding political show trials
accusing and
convicting many of those specialists. In the detailed study of
the Russian industry
of the 1930s, Granik (1954, p. 7) explored the fact that:
[. . .] important industrial posts were by 1934 mainly held by
Communist Party members, and
that these had sufficient technical training to be able to carry
out managerial duties
themselves. In earlier years, Party members had often been
managers in the name only, and
mistrusted prerevolutionary engineers had carried on the actual

work. But by the mid-thirties
a close interlocking of industrial management and Communist
Party ranks have been
achieved.
He also explained the distortions in the sources for
organizational cadre and large
differences among management groups due to the “turned
upside down class
structure” when “entrepreneurs, managers, and professionals
who were the top group
before the revolution now found themselves at the bottom”
(Granik, 1961, p. 39).
Since Taylorism emerged not only as organizational innovation
but also as political
and ideological instrument, its transformation reflected the
changing social and
political conditions of the 1930s and economics of the Second
World War that followed.
Members of J. Stalin’s inner circle (V. Molotov, L. Kaganovich)
were persistent in
turning the socialist rationalization movement into a populist
uprising against the
managerial elite (Shearer, 1991, p. 601).
In the thorough evaluative essay on ideas, techniques, and the
validity of criticism
of Taylorism, Locke (1982, p. 19) explained that
authoritarianism as belief in obedience
to authority was “in total contradiction to everything Taylor
stood for”. The state-wide
GULAG system of prisons and labor camps supervised by J.
Stalin’s security
apparatus provided a massive inflow of “free labor” into
colossal industrial projects.

Under those new conditions, scientific management with
economic stimuli and
optimization focus was no longer in demand and was substituted
by fear and
punishment of monopolized and militarized labor (Grachev,
1993). A. Gastev was
swept away by the purges of 1938 (with date, place and
circumstances of his death not
revealed), the totalitarian apparatus eliminated NOT centers and
bureaus; and by 1940
all research institutes including CIL were closed. Nothing
comparable was created until
mid-1950s after J. Stalin’s rule ended.
Political changes in the post-Stalin era with the introduction of
elements of a market
economy under the state supervision (Prime Minister A.
Kosygin’s reforms in the
1960s) reversed the interest in scientific work organization.
Most industries established
NOT centers coordinated at ministerial levels; national
conferences and publications
disseminated fresh organizational ideas. In agriculture major
breakthroughs in
acquiring new fertile lands (tselina) would not be possible
without application of
advanced methods of work organization and mechanization at
large state and
JMH
19,4
522

collective farms. In this case the authors disagree with
simplistic arguments that
primarily extensive rather than intensive economic development
of the Soviet economy
in the period 1970 to the early 1980s, reliance on adding more
workers rather than
using existing workers more intensively was “one clear proof
that Frederick Taylor’s
methods have never taken root in the Soviet Union” (Van Atta,
1986, p. 335).
Revitalized NOT focused on organizational advancements and
efficiency needs and
promoted new organizational methods, economic-oriented
stimuli, and time charts.
According to Clarke (1995, p. 1), NOT in Russia in that period
was:
[. . .] largely determined by technological characteristics of the
production process, [. . .] was
embodied in reams of technical and normative documents which
defined labor and
production process in minute detail, in a managerial hierarchy
that was dominated by
engineers, and in a formal system of accreditation of employees
according to their level of
technical education and training.
However, ideological grip, censorship, and tight control over
information about
advanced foreign practices defined the Soviet (national) identity
of NOT. Until late
1980s, the inflow of fresh management ideas from the West was
blocked
administratively and ideologically[7], and official publications
about foreign

management practices were supposed to prove the exploitation
of the working class.
The construction of several large factories per American design
was only possible with
the Communist Party leadership’s positive personalized attitude
to selected business
leaders such as G. Kennan (PepsiCo) and A. Hammer
(Occidental Petroleum). But the
impact of those leaders on organizational practices was
minimal.
Following M. Gorbachev’s radical transformation of society,
economic restructuring
(“perestroika”), “new thinking”, and “openness” in the late
1980s, and with
privatization and the large-scale shift from state to private
property further in the
1990s, the interest in internationally recognized organizational
concepts and effective
techniques at the enterprise level has been renewed.
Translations of F. Taylor’s books
were published in Russia again, his fundamental ideas were
included in business
schools’ curricula, and history of Russian entrepreneurship
including the history of
Taylorism in Russia was re-introduced to a new generation of
managers and
entrepreneurs (Ageev et al., 1995; Kuzmichev and Petrov,
1993). Of course, successful
acquisition of new organizational ideas from abroad was shaped
by cultural attributes
of Russian management (De Vries, 2000; Grachev et al., 2007;
Grachev, 2009).
Conclusions
This article contributed to the discussion about historic

boundaries of the major
paradigm shift in management triggered by F. Taylor’s The
Principles of Scientific
Management. It raised questions about conceptual models
(science vs organizational
practice), efficiency (firm vs society), implementation
(economic vs ideological), and the
transfer across borders (fit economic epoch vs fit political
context). Several lessons
should be drawn from this study.
First, when viewing F. Taylor’s intellectual contribution the
authors emphasized his
science-based systemic view of organization of machines,
people and production with
programmatic and societal effects as unique revolution in the
twentieth century
management. They explained that the transfer of conceptual
thinking was different
from exporting practical organizational methods. Advanced
scientific knowledge has
no boundaries while applications take place within specific
socio-economic and
Historic horizons
523
political context and respond to dominating interests at the
“commanding heights” of
society which either support or conflict with the effective
application of scientific
management. The analysis of the historic cycle of Russian
Taylorism supported this

argument.
Second, the authors positioned scientific manage ment relative
to distinctive
economic epochs and considered F. Taylor’s contribution as a
natural component of the
industrial era, especially of the industries that created the
backbone of the industrial
age. This in turn generated additional arguments in support of
management know how
transfer to the other countries (and industries) that reached the
stage of
industrialization (strong interest in economically accelerating
Imperial Russia in the
1910s vs delayed interest in China which was economic laggard
in the 1930s). At the
same time the authors were convinced that many key
components of scientific work
organization may not be applicable to many industries that stem
from the
post-industrial economic growth.
Third, the historic case of Russian Taylorism revealed initial
strong interest in the
new organizational ideas and willingness of the country’s
leaders to expand those
principles to the level of society as a whole. However, the shift
from a mixed economy
and entrepreneurship to the centrally planned authoritarian
society resulted in loss of
interest in Taylor’s system. Industrialization in J. Stalin’s USSR
based on indoctrinated
enthusiasm or fear of labor camps – the source of cheap but
productive labor where
many original supporters of “scientific work organization”
vanished – proves the

contextual dimension of F. Taylor’s system. When Taylorism
did not fit the
ideology-based totalitarian society that followed mixed
economy of the 1920s, the
communist leadership removed it from the economic and
political arena.
Overall, the findings of this study enrich the discussion about
scientific
management and application of Taylorism in the other
countries. The archival and
analytic results of the study permit conclusions at a high level
of aggregation;
highlight conflicting scholarly opinions on the history of
Taylorism in Russia; and
provide the framework to better understand the scope of
scientific management in
historic socio-economic landscape.
Notes
1. This approach resonated with L. Boltzman’s famous
statement that there is nothing more
practical than a good theory: “I am of the opinion that the task
of theory consists in
constructing a picture of the external world that exists purely
internally and must be our
guiding star in all thought and experiment; that is in
completing, as it were, the thinking
process and carrying out globally what on a small scale occurs
within us whenever we form
an idea” (Boltzmann, 1974, p. 33).
2. F. Taylor in his book makes multiple references to the works
of contemporary organizational
engineers such as F. Gilbreth’s motion and time study (pp. 64-

72) as well as to the studies by
C. Barth (p. 96).
3. The origins of the Russian term “scientific work
organization” (nauchnaya organizatsiya
truda – NOT) come from the French translation and
interpretation of F. Taylor’s term
“scientific management”; in the mid-1920s the term NOT was
more and more often
substituted with the term “rationalization”).
JMH
19,4
524
4. The authors suggest not only distinguishing those groups as
“pro-Taylor” (with V. Lenin)
and “anti-Taylor” factions (Wren and Bedeian, 2004, p. 291) but
also explore their common
grounds.
5. E. Luke refers to Gastev’s directives on personal hygiene,
bathing and cleanliness as tangible
signs of a socialist society (Luke, 1983, p. 599).
6. Herein, the authors present the more accurate quote from J.
Stalin compared to popular
secondary reference from Hughes (2004, p. 251).
7. Until the mid-1980s ideas of the leading Western
organizational scholars were available only
through censored interpretation; journals and magazines like
Business Week or Economist

were not allowed for distribution in the USSR.
References
Ageev, A., Grachev, M. and Hisrich, R. (1995),
“Entrepreneurship in the Soviet Union and
post-socialist Russia”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 7 No. 5,
pp. 365-378.
Bailes, K. (1977), “Alexei Gastev and the Soviet controversy
over Taylorism, 1918-24”, Soviet
Studies, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 373-394.
Bailes, K. (1981), “The American connection: ideology and the
transfer of American technology to
the Soviet Union, 1917-1941”, Comparative Studies in Society
and History, Vol. 23 No. 3,
pp. 421-448.
Boltzmann, L. (1974), “On the significance of theories”, in
McGuinness, B. (Ed.), Theoretical
Physics and Philosophical Problems: Selected Writings, Reidel,
Dordrecht.
Clarke, S. (1995), Management and Industry in Russia: Formal
and Informal Relations in the
Period of Transition, University Press, Cambridge.
De Vries, M. (2000), “A journey into the ‘wild east’: leadership
style and organizational practices
in Russia”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 67-81.
Gastev, A. (1971), Kak Nado Rabotat’. Prakticheskoe Vvedenie
v Nauku Organizatsii Truda (How
to Work: Practical Introduction in the Science of Work
Organization), 2nd ed., Ekonomika,

Moscow (in Russian).
Golosenko, I. (1991), “Idei Teilora v Dorevolutsionnoi Rossii”
(“Taylor’s ideas in
pre-revolutionary Russia”), COTSIS, Vol. 10, pp. 64-72 (in
Russian).
Grachev, M. (1988), “The management of labor under new
conditions of economic growth”,
Problems of Economics, Vol. XXXI No. 7, pp. 34-57.
Grachev, M. (1993), “Preodolenie Monopolizma v Sfere Truda I
Formirovanie Konkurentnogo
Rinka Truda” (“Confronting monopolism in employment and the
formation of competitive
labor markets”), in Barysheva, A. (Ed.), Monopolizm I
Antimonopol’naya Politika
(Monopolism and Anti-trust Policy), Nauka Publishing,
Moscow, pp. 142-155 (in Russian).
Grachev, M. (2009), “Russia, culture, and leadership: cross-
cultural comparisons of managerial
values and practices”, Problems of Post-Communism, Vol. 56
No. 1, pp. 3-11.
Grachev, M., Rogovsky, N. and Rakitski, B. (2007), “Business
leadership and culture in
transitional economy: a case of Russia”, in Chhokar, J.,
Brodbeck, F. and House, R. (Eds),
Culture and Leadership Across the World: The GLOBE Book of
In-depth Studies of 25
Societies, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah NJ, pp. 803-831.
Gramsci, A. (1959), Izbrannie Sotchineniya (Selected Works),
Vol. 3, Izdatel’stvo Inostrannoi
Literaturi, Moscow (in Russian).

Granik, D. (1954), Management of the Industrial Firm in the
USSR, Columbia University Press,
New York, NY.
Historic horizons
525
Granik, D. (1961), The Red Executive, Anchor Books, New
York, NY.
Hughes, T.P. (2004), American Genesis: A Century of Invention
and Technological Enthusiasm
1870-1970, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Jacoby, S. (1983), “Union-management cooperation in the
United States: lessons from the 1920s”,
Industrial & Labor Relations Review, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 18-33.
Josephson, P. (1995), “‘Projects of the century’ in Soviet
history: large-scale technologies from
Lenin to Gorbachev”, Technology and Culture, Vol. 36 No. 3,
pp. 519-559.
Kuzmichev, A. and Petrov, R. (1993), Russkie Millionshiki
(Russian Millionaires), Foros, Moscow
(in Russian).
Lenin, V. (1970a), “Luchshe Men’she, da Luchshe” (“Better
fewer but better”), in Lenin, V. (Ed.),
Polnoye Sobraniye Sochinenii (Complete Works), 5th ed., Vol.
45, Izdatel’stvo Politicheskoi
Literaturi, Moscow, pp. 389-406.

Lenin, V. (1970b), “Nauchnaya Sistema Vizhimaniya Pota”
(“Scientific system of sweating”), in
Lenin, V. (Ed.), Polnoye Sobraniye Sochinenii (Complete
Works), 5th ed., Vol. 23,
Izdatel’stvo Politicheskoi Literaturi, Moscow, pp. 18-19 (in
Russian).
Lenin, V. (1970c), “Pervonachalnii Variant Stsat’i ‘Ocheredniye
Zadachi Sovetskoi Vlasti” (“The
immediate tasks of the Soviet Government, draft”), in Lenin, V.
(Ed.), Polnoye sobraniye
sochinenii (Complete Works), 5th ed., Vol. 36, Izdatel’stvo
Politicheskoi Literaturi, Moscow,
pp. 127-164 (in Russian).
Linhart, R. (1976), Lenine, les Paysans, Taylor, Editions du
Seul, Paris.
Locke, E. (1982), “The ideas of Frederick Taylor: an
evaluation”, The Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 14-24.
Luke, T. (1983), “The proletarian ethics and Soviet
industrialization”, The American Political
Science Review, Vol. 77 No. 3, pp. 588-601.
McLeod, M. (1983), “‘Architecture or revolution’: Taylorism,
technocracy, and social change”, Art
Journal, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 132-147.
Merkle, J. (1980), Management and Ideology: The Legacy of the
International Scientific
Management, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Miller, R. (1971), “The new science of administration in the

USSR”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 247-257.
Morgan, S. (2006), “Transfer of Taylorist ideas to China, 1910-
1930s”, Journal of Management
History, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 408-424.
Nelson, D. (1980), Frederick W. Taylor and the Rise of
Scientific Management, University of
Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI.
Polakov, W. (1932), “Myths and realities about soviet Russia”,
Harvard Buisness Review, Vol. 11,
pp. 1-13.
Rakitski, B. (2005), Teilorizm: Izlozhenie Sistemi i Ee
Sotsial’no-Trudovoi Analiz (Taylorism:
Content of the System and its Socio-labor Analysis), Institute of
Perspectives and Problems
of the Country, Moscow (in Russian).
Scoville, J. (2001), “The Taylorization of Lenin”, Industrial
Relations, Vol. 40, pp. 620-626.
Shearer, D. (1991), “The language and politics of socialist
rationalization: productivity, industrial
relations, and the social origins of Stalinism at the end of NEP”,
Cahiers du Monde russe et
sovietoque, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 581-608.
Simha, A. and Lemak, D. (2010), “The value of original sourse
readings in management
education: the case of Frederick Taylor”, Journal of
Management History, Vol. 16 No. 22,
pp. 233-252.

JMH
19,4
526
Sochor, Z. (1981a), “Soviet Taylorism revisited”, Soviet
Studies, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 246-264.
Sochor, Z. (1981b), “Was Bogdanov Russia’s answer to
Gramsci?”, Studies in Soviet Thought,
Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 59-81.
Stalin, J. (1976), Problems of Leninism, Foreign Languages
Press, Peking.
Taylor, F. (1998), The Principles of Scientific Management,
Engineering & Management Press,
Atlanta, GA, Originally published: Harper & Row, New York,
NY, 1911.
Van Atta, D. (1986), “Why is there no Taylorism in the Soviet
Union?”, Comparative Politics,
Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 327-337.
Vasiliev, A. (1927), Sto Dnei u Forda, Moscow (in Russian).
Wagner-Tsukamoto, S. (2008), “Scientific management
revisited: did Taylorism fail because of
too positive image of human nature?”, Journal of Management
History, Vol. 14 No. 4,
pp. 348-372.
Wren, D. (1980), “Scientific management in the USSR, with
particular reference to the

contribution of Walter N. Polakov”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-11.
Wren, D. and Bedeian, A. (2004), “The Taylorization of Lenin:
rhetoric or reality?”, International
Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 31 Nos 3/4, pp. 287-299.
Wren, D. and Bedeian, A. (2009), The Evolution of
Management Thought, Wiley, New York, NY.
Further reading
Berliner, J. (1976), The Innovation Decision in the Soviet
Industry, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Blackwell, W. (1994), The Industrialization of Russia: A
Historical Perspective, H. Davidson,
Arlington Heights, IL.
Guroff, G. and Carstensen, F. (Eds) (1983), Entrepreneurship in
Imperial Russia and the Soviet
Union, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Shearer, D. (1997), Industry, State, and Society in Stalin’s
Russia, 1926-1934, Cornell University
Press, Ithaca, NY.
Corresponding author
Mikhail Grachev can be contacted at: [email protected]
Historic horizons
527
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail:
[email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details:

www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
reproduction prohibited without
permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further re

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further re

Similar to Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further re (20)

More from AlleneMcclendon878

More from AlleneMcclendon878 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further re