Short 43The Debate Goes On! A Graphic Portrayal Of The

Short 43
The Debate Goes On!
A Graphic Portrayal Of The
Sinclair-Taylor Editorial Dialogue
Jeremy C. Short
University of Oklahoma
An editorial debate between Frederick Taylor and Upton
Sinclair
appeared in the American Magazine approximately a century
ago.
Taylor and Sinclair debated the merits of ‘scientific
management’
versus the exploitation of the workforce as exemplified by
Sinclair’s
highly controversial novel, The Jungle. This paper provides a
‘graphic’
retelling of the enduring perspectives espoused by Sinclair and
Taylor,
and highlights contemporary manifestations of the issues and
worries
noted by both parties that are prominent in both management
practice
and organizational scholarship today.
Upton Sinclair’s classic book, The Jungle, was originally
published in 1906. It is
known that the book highlighted some of the most abhorrent

practices in the meat
packing industry found in the United States at the turn of the
century. What is also
well known is that the popularity of the book and its widespread
revelations led to
the establishment of the Food and Drug Administration. What is
less well known is
that Sinclair’s primary purpose for writing The Jungle was to
advocate Socialism as
an answer to the troubles found in the tumultuous United States
at the turn of the
century. Sinclair hoped to convince his readers that Socialism
could help right the ills
caused by the cold and calculating capitalist machine that
seemed to systematically
use up, then discard human capital found in the meatpacking
plant and related
industries highlighted in his book.
A few years after Sinclair’s work first appeared, another classic
work began to be
highly disseminated that would have an equally strong effect on
American society and
the field of management in particular. That work was Frederick
Taylor’s Principles of
Scientific Management, first published in 1911. Taylor’s work
outlined a rejection of
the rules of thumb that guided many business practices and
sought for a systematic
incorporation of more guided and measurable principles.
Taylor’s book was the basis
Journal of Business and Management – Vol. 17, No. 1, 201144
of Drucker’s concept of management by objectives, and ser ved

as the first legitimate
‘pop’ management book.
In 1911, Frederick Taylor and Upton Sinclair engaged in an
editorial debate in
The American Magazine. The content of this debate had far
reaching implications
that spur discussion as relevant today as the dialogue between
Sinclair and Taylor
nearly a century ago. Both Sinclair and Taylor provided graphic
depictions of how
they saw the world in the early 1900s. To commemorate their
debate, I provide a
retelling of their debate in graphic novel format, using excerpts
from the graphic
novel Atlas Black: Managing to Succeed (Short, Bauer,
Ketchen, & Simon, 2010). I
conclude with a brief summary of how their classic works serve
as enduring legacies
for both men.
Short 45
Short 47

Short 49
Short 51
Short 53
Short 55
Conclusion
A century has now passed since the debate by Sinclair and
Taylor. Yet, the concerns
and challenges noted by both authors still have a marked,
profound, and lasting effect.
Their thoughts continue to be a source of fear, as well as an

inspiration for future
opportunities, for workers, managers, entrepreneurs, and job
seekers. Taylor’s desire
to more efficiently and effectively manage all areas of business
production continues
to inspire practitioners and scholars in the field of management.
Yet, uncertainty about
how innovative business practices may displace jobs as well as
quality of life continues
to provide concern for employees worldwide. Sinclair’s
perspective that the collective
treatment of individuals should be a core value at the societal
level still sparks interest
in debates involving the interaction of government and business,
and such perspectives
can be seen in research areas such as social responsibility and
social entrepreneurship.
His world view also continues to fuel fierce debate, as
evidenced in the passionate
dialogue leading to recent health care reforms in the U.S. No
doubt the ideas of these
two great thinkers will continue to be as relevant to
management thought in the next
century as they have been for the last 100 years.
References
Bolles, R.N. (2007). What color is your parachute? Berkeley:
Ten Speed Press.
Short, J., Bauer, T., Ketchen., D.J. & Simon, L. (2010). Atlas
Black: Managing to
Succeed. Nyack, NY: FlatWorld Knowledge. ISBN 10: 0-
9823618-4-X. ISBN 13: 978-
0-9823618-4-9.

Sinclair, U. (1906). The Jungle. New York: Dover reprint 2006.
Taylor, F.W. (1911). The Principles of Scientific Management.
New York: Harper &
Brothers.
Copyright of Journal of Business & Management is the property
of Journal of Business & Management and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted
to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.
The Parable of the Pig Iron: Using Taylor’s Story to Teach the
Principles of Scientific Management
Paul L. Govekar
Ohio Northern University
Michele A. Govekar
Ohio Northern University
Frederick Winslow Taylor used stories in his writings and

during his lectures about Scientific
Management. The most famous of these is the story of
“Schmidt” and the handling of pig iron. It is clear
from Wrege and Perroni’s (1974) historical analysis that this
story, as told, cannot be true. Perhaps
Taylor was using this as an illustrative story to make a point
about Scientific Management. This paper
explores the pig iron story as a parable on Scientific
Management and discusses how this story can be
used to teach the principles of Scientific Management.
INTRODUCTION
Frederick Winslow Taylor used stories in his writings and
during his lectures. In “The Principles of
Scientific Management,” (1911) Taylor tells several stories
including stories about inspecting ball
bearings in a bicycle plant, the machinist who developed rules-
of-thumb for cutting metal, and his most
famous story of “Schmidt” and the handling of pig iron. This
last example even seemed to take on a life
of its own. Taylor, himself, was “puzzled by the fame which his
work with pig-iron handlers had
achieved” (Wrege & Greenwood, 1991, p. 98).
We know that this story, as presented, is erroneous (Wrege &
Hodgetts, 2000). There was no actual
pig iron worker named Schmidt. Wrege and Perroni (1974), in
their historical analysis of the pig-iron
story, went so far as to say “Whether imaginative or impudent,
the fact is that Taylor seems to have
believed that the end justified the means. This philosophy was
not morally acceptable during his period,
and it is certainly not part of the standards of morality of our
own” (p. 26). This is a strong indictment

from the viewpoint of history. Why, then, did Taylor continue
to tell it? Was it a matter of self-
aggrandizement? Was Taylor merely taking credit for the work
done by others? Or perhaps, was Taylor
using this as an illustrative story to make a point about
Scientific Management?
In this paper we investigate this last of the possible
explanations for the story of Schmidt and the pig
iron. We explore the story of the pig iron handler as a parable
on Scientific Management. First, we
explain the elements of a parable as a literary device. Next, we
analyze the pig iron story to determine
what it might tell us when viewed as a parable. Following this,
we present the historical evidence that
Taylor and his intended audience would have been familiar with
this literary device and, therefore, could
have used it. We next explore the implications for management
history in general and the history of
Taylor, specifically. Finally, we demonstrate how this story can
be used in our classrooms to take
Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 12(2)
2012 73
teaching the Principles of Scientific Management from an
abstract knowledge exercise to application and
reflection on these principles as they apply in current
organizations.
Parable as a Literary Device
According to Harmon and Holman (1996), a parable is “An

illustrative story teaching a lesson. A true
parable (sic) parallels, detail for detail, the situation that calls
forth the parable (sic) for illustration. A
parable (sic) is, in this sense an ALLEGORY” (p. 372). This, of
course, leads us to the explanation of
allegory. Here, we learn that allegory is a form of an extended
metaphor “in which objects, persons, and
actions in a NARRATIVE are equated with meanings that lie
outside the NARRATIVE itself” (Harmon
& Holman, 1996, p. 12). In other words, allegory attempts to
represent one thing, for example one or
more of the principles of Scientific Management, in the guise of
another, for example a story about a man
named Schmidt. In doing this, allegory attempts to tell a story
that has meaning on more than one level. It
presents a narrative, which is interesting in itself, and, at the
same time, illustrates ideas that have their
own significance. The test of a parable, according to Harmon
and Holman (1996) “is that these materials
be so employed that they represent meanings independent of the
action in the surface of the story” (p. 12).
An Analysis
If, as we argue, the tale of Schmidt is a parable on Scientific
Management, then it must be more than
a simple metaphor. A parable is a metaphor, but it is also
something more. It is an allegory. As an
allegory the people, actions, and objects in the story are
symbols which represent a truth or meaning
beyond the narrative of the story (Ristow, 2000). This story,
then, must somehow illuminate some
concept/s of Scientific Management.
Since allegory is dependent on its meaning or referent (Via,
1967), we start by examining the context

of the story. The tale of Schmidt appears in the second chapter
of Taylor’s book. This chapter is titled
“The Principles of Scientific Management.” In this chapter,
Taylor carefully differentiates his ‘scientific’
management from ‘ordinary’ management, or, as he calls it, the
management of ‘initiative and incentive’.
It is here that Taylor lays out the four principles that guide the
‘science’ of management:
1. Managers must develop a science for each element of an
individual’s work.
2. Managers must scientifically select and then train, teach, and
develop each workman.
3. Managers must heartily cooperate with the workers so as to
insure all of the work is done in
accordance with the principles of science.
4. There is an almost equal division of work and responsibility
between the management and the
workers.
These principles are laid out only four paragraphs before the
start of the Schmidt story. With such
clear parallels and direct linkage, we argue that Taylor must
have intended this story to directly illustrate
these principles.
The story can be separated into four distinct sections, each
relating to one of the above principles. The
story starts with a three-paragraph exposition on why it is
necessary to address the question of handling
pig iron. Earlier, Taylor says “this work is chosen because it is
typical of perhaps the crudest and most
elementary form of labor which is performed by man” (Taylor,

1911, p. 40). In the first two paragraphs of
the story, Taylor explains the situation before the introduction
of scientific methods of handling pig iron.
In the third paragraph, he goes into great detail about the “task
which faced us as managers under the
modern scientific plan” (p. 42).
We found that this gang were loading on the average about 12 ½
long tons per man per day. We
were surprised to find, after studying the matter, that a first-
class pig-iron handler ought to handle
between 47 and 48 long tons per day, instead of 12 ½ tons. This
task seemed to us so very large
that we were obliged to go over our work several times before
we were absolutely sure that we
were right. Once we were sure, however, that 47 tons was a
proper day’s work for a first-class
pig-iron handler, the task which faced us as managers under the
modern scientific plan was
clearly before us. It was our duty to see that the 80,000 tons of
pig iron was loaded on to the cars
74 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol.
12(2) 2012
at the rate of 47 tons per man per day, in place of the 12 ½ tons,
at which rate the work was then
being done. And it was further our duty to see that this work
was done without bringing on a
strike among the men, without any quarrel with the men, and to
see that the men were happier,
and better contented when loading at the new rate of 47 tons
than they were when loading at the

old rate of 12 ½ tons” (Taylor, 1911, pp. 42-43)
This paragraph is clearly meant to be read as an indictment of
‘ordinary’ methods of management and
put the responsibility of determining the appropriate rate of
work squarely on the management. We must
remember that for the day, this was a revolutionary concept. If
this concept were broadly applied, it would
mean a drastic change in the relationship between managers and
workers. Taylor said it was the ‘duty’ of
management not only to ensure that the work was done at the
appropriate rate, but also to do so without
causing a labor action and in a manner that would make the
workers more contented and happier than
when they determined the rate of work. This paragraph is about
more than the proper rate for loading pig
iron. It is about a revolution in the relationship between
managers and workers.
The next paragraph of the story on the surface explains how
Schmidt was selected as the first laborer
to be indoctrinated in the ‘science’ of pig iron handling. This
clearly relates to the second of the above
principles, ‘Managers must scientifically select and then train,
teach, and develop each workman.’
Our first step was the scientific selection of the workman. In
dealing with workmen under this
type of management, it is an inflexible rule to talk to and deal
with only one man at a time, since
each workman has his own special abilities and limitations, and
since we are not dealing with
men in masses, but are trying to develop each individual man to
his highest state of efficiency and
prosperity. Our first step was to find the proper workman to
begin with. We therefore carefully

watched and studied these 75 men for three or four days, at the
end of which time we had picked
out four men who appeared to be physically able to handle pig
iron at the rate of 47 tons per day.
A careful study was then made of each of these men. We looked
up their history as far back as
practicable and thorough inquiries were made as to the
character, habits, and the ambition of each
of them. Finally we selected one from among the four as the
most likely man to start with. He
was a little Pennsylvania Dutchman who had been observed to
trot back home for a mile or so
after his work in the evening about as fresh as he was when he
came trotting down to work in the
morning. We found that upon wages of $1.15 a day he had
succeeded in buying a small plot of
ground, and that he was engaged in putting up the walls of a
little house for himself in the
morning before starting to work and at night after leaving. He
also had the reputation of being
exceedingly ‘close,’ that is, of placing a very high value on a
dollar. As one man whom we talked
to about him said, “A penny looks about the size of a cart-wheel
to him.” This man we will call
Schmidt (Taylor, 1911, pp. 43-44).
This paragraph demonstrates how the selection of workers
moves from an issue of minor importance
under a day labor system and ordinary management to a careful
process that forms part of the essence of
the entire scientific management system. According to the
lesson here, management must not simply
select the first worker who appears to meet the qualifications of
the job. Careful study is required.
Management must move beyond the physical attributes of the
individual and look into the ‘character,

habits, and the ambition’ of each of the workers under
consideration. Today we would say that we would
be exploring broad human resource issues of what motivates
each individual worker. Taylor did not have
theories of motivation to turn to. However, it is clear from this
explanation that management is expected
to learn as much as possible about the individual to ensure the
right person is chosen for the assignment.
As we learn at the end of the paragraph, Schmidt’s motivation
was money. Taylor showed himself to be
well ahead of his time.
The third section of the story goes on to relate a ‘conversation’
between Taylor and Schmidt. This
section refers to the third principle, above: “Managers must
heartily cooperate with the workers so as to
insure all of the work is done in accordance with the principles
of science.”
The task before us, then, narrowed itself down to getting
Schmidt to handle 47 tons of pig iron
per day and making him glad to do it. This was done as follows.
Schmidt was called out from
among the gang of pig iron handlers and talked to somewhat in
this way:
2012 75
“Schmidt, are you a high-priced man?”
“Vell, I don’t know vat you mean.”
“Oh yes, you do. What I want to know is whether you are a
high-priced man or not.”

“Vell, I don’t know vat you mean.”
“Oh, come now, you answer my questions. What I want to find
out is whether you are a high-
priced man or one of these cheap fellows here. What I want to
find out is whether you want to
earn $1.85 a day or whether you are satisfied with $1.15, just
the same as all those cheap fellows
are getting.”
“Did I vant $1.85 a day? Vas dot a high-priced man? Vell, yes, I
vas a high-priced man.”
“Oh, you’re aggravating me. Of course you want $1.85 a day –
every one wants it! You know
perfectly well that that has very little to do with your being a
high-priced man. For goodness”
sake answer my questions, and don’t waste any more of my
time. Now come over here. You see
that pile of pig iron?”
“Yes.”
“You see that car?”
“Yes.”
“Well, if you are a high-priced man, you will load that pig iron
on that car to-morrow for
$1.85. Now do wake up and answer my question. Tell me
whether you are a high-priced man or
not.”
“Vell – did I got $1.85 for loading dot pig iron on dot car to-
morrow?”
“Yes, of course you do, and you get $1.85 for loading a pile like
that every day right through

the year. That is what a high-priced man does, and you know it
just as well as I do.”
“Vell, dot’s all right. I could load dot pig iron on the car to-
morrow for $1.85, and I get it
every day, don’t I?”
“Certainly you do – certainly you do.”
“Vell, den, I vas a high-priced man.”
“Now, hold on, hold on. You know just as well as I do that a
high-priced man has to do
exactly as he’s told from morning till night. You have seen this
man here before, haven’t you?”
“No, I never saw him.”
“Well, if you are a high-priced man, you will do exactly as this
man tells you to-morrow,
from morning till night. 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. Now a high-priced man
does just what he’s told to do, and
no back talk. Do you understand that? When this man tells you
to walk, you walk; when he tells
you to sit down, you sit down, and you don’t talk back at him.
Now you come on to work here to-
morrow morning and I’ll know before night whether you are
really a high-priced man or not.”
This seems to be rather rough talk. And indeed it would be if
applied to an educated
mechanic, or even an intelligent laborer. With a man of the
mentally sluggish type of Schmidt it
is appropriate and not unkind, since it is effective in fixing his
attention on the high wages which

he wants and away from what, if it were called to his attention,
he probably would consider
impossibly hard work.
What would Schmidt’s answer be if he were talked to in a
manner which is usual under the
management of “initiative and incentive”? say as follows:
“Now, Schmidt, you are a first-class pig-iron handler and know
your business well. You have
been handling at the rate of 12 ½ tons per day. I have given
considerable study to handling pig
iron, and feel sure that you could do a much larger day’s work
than you have been doing. Now
don’t you think that if you really tried you could handle 47 tons
of pig iron per day, instead of 12
½ tons?”
What do you think Schmidt’s answer would be to this?” (Taylor,
1911, pp. 44-47)
This is the section of the narrative that has led some writers to
accuse Taylor of having disdain for his
workers. Rather, we posit that read as a parable this section
demonstrates the nature of the revolution in
12(2) 2012
the relationship between management and the workers that
Taylor advocated. Recall, that Taylor said it
was the duty of management to set the rate of work and to do so
without causing a labor action and in a

manner that would make the workers more contented and
happier than when they determined the rate of
work (Taylor, 1911, p. 43). This section illustrates how
management should treat workers under scientific
management and how this method is an improvement over the
way they were handled under ordinary
management. To properly understand this ‘conversation,’ we
must be familiar with the state of society at
the turn of the 20th Century. America of the late 1800s was a
far cry from the classless society we believe
we have today. Taylor was writing for an audience much
different from that which he would encounter
and which reads his work today. The period of the pig iron
experiments was before the great American
experiment with universal education. There was a clear
distinction between individuals who managed (the
middle class) and individuals who performed manual labor (the
lower class) (Jable, 1991). Immigrants,
such as the ‘little Pennsylvania Dutchman,’ Schmidt were part
of this under class. At the time, individuals
like Schmidt were not educated because it was widely believed
that they were not capable of being
liberally educated (Ravitch, 2000). In fact, children of this
lower class were found working in factories
rather than attending school up to World War I (Shanahan,
Miech, & Elder, 1998). It was not until the
early 1900s that even the concept of education beyond the
basics of ‘reading, ‘riting, and ‘rithmatic’
changed from being the province of the upper classes to the idea
of universal education for all that we
hold today (Ravitch, 2000).
Taylor was writing for the educated upper class. Individuals of
this class would not even have
considered talking to an individual like Schmidt in any other
way than as Taylor recounts. Taylor even

admits that taking a more reasonable approach would be
counter-productive. This portion of the story
again places the responsibility for keeping the workers content
and productive clearly on management.
Taylor is saying here that it is management’s responsibility to
motivate the workers and keep them
satisfied. A job action on the part of the workers becomes the
result of faulty management, not the
contrariness of the workers.
The final paragraph of the story seems to simply expound on the
success of the experiment.
Schmidt started to work, and all day long, and at regular
intervals, was told by the man who stood
over him with a watch, “Now pick up a pig and walk. Now sit
down and rest. Now walk – now
rest,” etc. He worked when he was told to work, and rested
when he was told to rest, and at half-
past five in the afternoon had his 47 ½ tons loaded on the car.
And he practically never failed to
work at this pace and do the task that was set him during the
three years that the writer was at
Bethlehem. That is, he received 60 per cent. higher wages than
were paid to other men who were
not working on task work. One man after another was picked
out and trained to handle pig iron at
the rate of 47 ½ tons per day until all of the pig iron was
handled at this rate, and the men were
receiving 60 per cent. more wages than other workmen around
them. (Taylor, 1911, p. 47)
Again, viewed as a parable, Taylor is presenting lessons on the
principles of Scientific Management.
Specifically, here Taylor is talking about the fourth principle,
above: ‘There is an almost equal division of
work and responsibility between the management and the

workers.’
The success of the experiment is a result of the selection of the
correct workman and, as importantly,
the division of the work between the worker and management
plus the proper training of the worker to
meet the new standard. This part of the story informs us that if
the worker is properly selected and if
management does its job by determining the proper way for the
work to be done to standard plus training
and supervising the worker, both management and the worker
will benefit (with four times more tonnage
loaded and 60 percent more pay). To Taylor, Scientific
Management was not only a means of improving
productivity; it was also a means of improving the lot of the
worker. Again, the concept of class is
important here. Management’s duty is not only to the
organization, but also to the worker. Here we see a
fundamental difference between ordinary management and
Scientific Management. Under the former, it is
management’s job to make sure the work gets done. Under the
latter, management assumes much broader
responsibility, including that of improving the income of the
individual employee.
Looked at this way, the four sections of the story of Schmidt
and the pig iron are clearly a parable
illustrating the four Scientific Management principles. Literally
translated, the term ‘parable’ refers to
2012 77

something ‘thrown alongside’ something else. Through this
juxtaposition, the story should leave in the
mind sufficient doubt about its precise application to tease one
into active thought (Black, 2000). The
above is certainly only one possible interpretation of the story
of Schmidt. If the story is allegorical, its
intent is to open the issues to additional interpretation.
However, all of the above is only academic drivel if Taylor
might not write a parable. In order to
argue that we might interpret this story as a parable, it is
necessary to determine if Taylor was sufficiently
familiar with this literary form to successfully employ it. This
issue is addressed next.
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OF TAYLOR AND PARABLES
We know from Copley’s (1923) biography that Taylor’s parents
were raised as Quakers. We also
know that while Taylor’s father remained a member of the
Friends Meeting in Germantown, Taylor’s
mother became identified as a regular attendee at the Unitarian
Church. We further know from this same
source that the elder Taylors had in common a love of literary
study and that both were interested in
history and languages. Mrs. Taylor also participated at a salon
in the home of Mrs. Isaac Pugh for those
devoted to plain living and high thinking. And finally, Copley
tells us that Taylor identified himself with
the church his mother came to attend, the Unitarian Church, and
that as long as he attended church as an
adult, Taylor attended the Unitarian Church.
Copley (1923) tells us that Emily Taylor attended the local
Unitarian Church while the pastor was

Samuel Longfellow from 1878 to 1882. Samuel Longfellow, the
brother of the poet Henry Wadsworth
Longfellow, made his place in Unitarian history as a hymnist.
Though the Transcendentalist movement
influenced him, he retained an interest in the act of corporate
worship as well as individual devotions.
Additionally, Dr. William H. Furness often took the pulpit
there. Furness, on the other hand, was
important to Unitarian history for his scholarly and speculative
work in biblical criticism. His most
famous work was “Remarks on the Four Gospels”, published in
1836. Furness remained devoted to
biblical studies and later published works on the life of Jesus
(Robinson, 1985).
Given the above information, and the fact that Taylor attended
the Phillips Exeter Academy for two
years, what can we surmise about his familiarity with the form
and essence of the parable?
By the time Taylor began attending school in the 1860s, the
Bible was no longer the pivotal text used
for the teaching of reading. It had been augmented by various
grammars, spellers and textbooks that were
then widely available (Gutjahr, 1999). This was a period of
change, not only in American religious life,
but also in the literary life of the nation. New printing
techniques made it possible to publish a variety of
books, such as William Holmes McGuffey’s “Readers” (first
four published 1836-1879) at an affordable
price. People, especially well-to-do families, such as Taylor’s,
could afford books other than the Bible.
We know from Copley (1923) that in June 1874, Taylor passed
the Harvard entrance examinations
‘with honors.’ In those days, one did not actually graduate from

a preparatory school, rather one attended
the school until one was able to pass the entrance examinations
to college. The family’s intent in sending
him to Exeter was that he would eventually become a lawyer.
Eye trouble, brought on by the severe
academic discipline at Exeter, prevented Taylor from attending
Harvard.
At the time, Harvard was the center of ‘liberalism’ and
Unitarianism in religious education. In 1805,
the liberal Henry Ware was elected to the post of Hollis
Professor of Divinity at Harvard in which he
served until 1840 (Robinson, 1985). This election set the
direction of the Harvard Divinity School for the
foreseeable future. In preparing students to enter Harvard,
therefore, Exeter would follow the lead of the
senior school. Copley (1923) reports that an important part of
Exeter’s curriculum was mandatory chapel
attendance.
What, then, was the position of Unitarian thought on the Bible,
especially the New Testament, during
Taylor’s lifetime? Unitarians saw theirs as a biblical religion
well into the nineteenth century. Their
essential difference from mainline Christian sects was seen as
one of scriptural interpretation (Robinson,
1985). Unitarians rejected a literal interpretation of scripture
and looked at the Bible as two separate but
related books.
12(2) 2012

Ephraim Emerton published one noted contemporary
explanation of Unitarian thinking in 1911. In
the fourth chapter of his work (pp. 110-147) he explains
Unitarian thinking about the Bible. The preface
of Emerton’s book, dated October 1910, expresses thanks to
William Wallace Fenn. The Reverend Fenn
was Dean of the Harvard Divinity School from 1906 to 1922
(Robinson, 1985).
According to Emerton (1911), “The Unitarian approaches the
Bible with reverent attention. He
accepts it as the highest revelation of the past to the present, the
clearest expression of that spiritual
endowment which is to him an essential part of the very idea of
mankind” (p. 146). The revelation here is
men unfolding the divine plan through their own powers. This
revelation leads to inspiration. For the
Unitarian, this inspiration was the agency through which the
revelation was received from the Bible
works. Unitarians rejected a literal interpretation of the Bible as
much as they rejected the right of any one
individual to interpret scripture for them. In this view, the
Protestant reformation failed by substituting the
authority of ‘the book’ for the authority of the Pope to interpret
Divine Will (Emerton, 1911).
We have presented reasonable circumstantial evidence that
Taylor would have been familiar with the
form and essence of the parable. Further, it is not difficult to
surmise that Taylor’s audience would also
have been familiar with the concept of the parable. Like Taylor,
they would have been educated
individuals, mostly Christians, who would have been raised in
homes in which Biblical study was
accepted and attended schools, like Exeter, where chapel
attendance was mandatory. Therefore, it is

reasonable that Taylor could have used a literary device that
was familiar to him and to his audience to
help explain his revolutionary concepts and further stimulate
thought.
IMPLICATIONS
Taylor, to this day, remains a controversial figure. Just two
years after Wrege and Perroni (1974)
published their indictment, Drucker (1976) claimed that he had
as much impact on the modern world as
Marx or Freud. Taylor was misquoted and misunderstood in his
own time as well as in the time since.
Wrege and Perroni (1974) were right to call him a prevaricator
if his pig-tale is assumed from our current
historical position to be a factual explanation of what happened
in loading of pig iron at Bethlehem Steel.
If, however, as we have suggested, the story was not meant to
be an exact rendition, but a parable
expanding on the science of management as Taylor saw it, these
objections, while still interesting, are less
damaging both to Taylor’s reputation and to his philosophy.
And interpretation as a parable (whether
strictly true or made up from a composite) supports Taylor’s
place in the historical development of the
great changes in management-employee relations we benefit
from today. …
346 International Journal of Management Vol. 28 No. 4 Part 2
Dec 2011
Frederick Winslow Taylor: One Hundred Years of
Managerial Insight

Anne M. Blake
Wayne State University
James L. Moseley
Wayne State University
One hundred years ago, the publication of a small book set off
an international firestorm.
The book’s author, Frederick Winslow Taylor, is widely
recognized as a founder of the
modern management movement. His fiery personality and
radical approach to business
made him a popular yet controversial figure in the United
States. However, it was the
publication of The Principles of Scientific Management in 1911
(Harper and Brothers:
New York) that catapulted Frederick Taylor to international
fame. Almost overnight,
business leaders around the world became obsessed with
discovering the “one best
way” to do every job. One hundred years later, the influence of
the very first business
best-seller has trickled into every type of industry in every
corner of the world. To
celebrate the centennial of the book’s publication it is
worthwhile to take a look back at
this remarkable man, his little book that changed the world, and
his dubious distinction
of founding Taylorism.
The Life and Accomplishments of Frederick Taylor
Frederick Taylor was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on
March 20, 1856. His family
was wealthy, although they lived plainly, in accordance with the
principles of their Quaker
religion. As a child, Taylor spent more than three years

traveling throughout Europe with
his parents. When he returned to the United States, he attended
a prestigious boarding
school and planned to attend Harvard University until problems
with his eyesight caused
him to end his formal education. Instead, he found a job as an
apprentice patternmaker
at a small pump-manufacturing firm in Philadelphia (Kanigel,
1996). Taylor later wrote
“I look back upon the first six months of my apprenticeship as a
patternmaker as, on the
whole, the most valuable part of my education” (Kanigel, 1996,
p. 49).
At the conclusion of his apprenticeship, Taylor used family
connections to secure a
job at Midvale Steel Works as a machine shop laborer. He was
quickly promoted to
machinist and then to “gang boss”. It was in this capacity that
he first became involved
in overseeing the work of other employees (Kanigel, 1996).
Taylor received additional
promotions over the course of the next few years, holding the
job titles of maintenance
foreman, shop disciplinarian, master mechanic, chief draftsman,
research director, and
chief engineer (Kanigel, 1997). By watching the men who
worked for him, Taylor became
interested in the process of work itself. He noticed that the
culture of the shop encouraged
“soldiering”, or the purposeful slowing down of work to an easy
pace. Taylor pushed
the workers to speed up in order to maximize output. They
responded by slowing down
further. Taylor made repeated attempts to cajole and threaten
the workers, which only

served to increase their animosity while decreasing their output.
International Journal of Management Vol. 28 No. 4 Part 2 Dec
2011 347
Finally, Taylor turned to rational scientific inquiry as a solution
to his personnel
problems. He began a series of experiments aimed at breaking
down each job into its
functional elements. Using a stopwatch and a clipboard Taylor
introduced time-and-
motion studies to the factory. While these experiments were
unsuccessful at improving
Taylor’s relationships with the factory workers, they did
eventually revolutionize the
world of work.
While Taylor worked long days performing his experiments in
the factory, he also had
an amazingly productive personal life. In 1881, Taylor won the
first doubles tennis
tournament at the U.S. National Championship, now referred to
as the U.S. Open, with
Clarence Clark. In 1883, he earned a degree in mechanical
engineering through an
unusual correspondence program with Stevens Institute of
Technology (Kanigel, 1997).
During his lifetime, Taylor applied for and received more than
40 patents for a wide
range of products, including a device that maintains tautness in
a tennis net, a spoon
shaped tennis racket, a Y-shaped two-handled putter for golf, a
new kind of railroad car
wheel, a steam hammer, a boring and turning mill, and a device

that was designed to
move growing trees (Kanigel, 1997). He co-wrote a book about
reinforced concrete, as
well as a series of articles titled “The Making of a Putting
Green”.
In 1890 Taylor became the general manager of Manufacturing
Investment Company
of Philadelphia. Three years later, he went into business for
himself as an independent
consulting engineer. His focus was helping management find
ways to cut costs while
improving productivity (Papesh, n.d.). In 1898, Taylor went to
work for Bethlehem
Steel. While there, he collaborated with Maunsel White to
develop a heat treatment
process that transformed existing cutting tool alloys into a new
kind of steel that retained
its hardness at high temperatures and allowed manufacturers to
run machines at much
higher speeds. Taylor and White received a gold medal at the
Paris Exposition of 1900
for this innovation. While at Bethlehem Steel, Taylor also
installed systems of production
planning, differential piece rates, and functional foremanship
(Nelson, 1980). He was
responsible for doubling the stamping mill production and
cutting the cost per ton of
materials in half. Taylor became embroiled in a series of
disputes with other managers
at Bethlehem Steel and was forced to leave the company in 1901
(Kanigel, 1996).
For the remainder of his life, Taylor concentrated on
developing, marketing, and
implementing his theories of scientific management. His blunt,

often combative,
personality was not suited to collaborative work environments.
According to Kanigel
(1997), “even his friends used words like ‘tactless’ and
‘pugnacious’ to describe him” (p.
167). Instead, he chose to work independently, as a consultant
to industry. He traveled
and lectured extensively throughout the United States and
Europe. Taylor became a
professor at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College
and was instrumental
in the development of Harvard University’s innovative graduate
program in business
administration (Kanigel, 1997, Lepore, 2009).
In 1910, a group of Eastern railroad companies petitioned the
government for a freight
rate increase. In the hearings that followed, Louis Brandeis, a
future member of the
Dec 2011
United States Supreme Court, dismissed the petitioner’s request,
and recommended that
they embrace Taylor’s system of scientific management. The
publicity surrounding the
railroad hearings caused a surge in interest in Taylor and his
theories.
In the midst of all this activity Taylor published The Principles
of Scientific Management
in 1911. The following year, the organized labor movement
pressured Congress to call

Taylor before a House Committee to investigate his system of
shop management. For
the next four years, Taylor traveled, lectured and consulted
about his principles. In
1915 Taylor contracted influenza while on a speaking tour. He
died on March 21, 1915.
According to his official biographer, he “was heard to wind his
watch” about a half hour
before he died (Copley, 1923, p. 452). This was certainly a
fitting final act for the man
who changed the world with his clipboard and stopwatch.
The Principles of Scientific Management
Despite his vast range of accomplishments, it is the publication
of The Principles of
Scientific Management for which Frederick Taylor is most
widely remembered. Taylor
developed the major themes of scientific management over the
course of several
years, and originally intended to publish his theories through
the American Society
of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). However, the members of
ASME’s board delayed
making a decision on the publication of his work for almost a
year, probably due to
old grudges and petty differences. After the railroad freight
hearings, people began to
clamor for more information about Taylor’s ideas, and he grew
impatient with ASME.
He withdrew the article from consideration by ASME and
allowed it to be published
by The American Magazine in a series of three issues. Almost
immediately the articles
were condensed into book form and published by Harper and
Brothers in New York.
International demand for the book was almost instantaneous.

Lavish praise and harsh
criticism followed close behind.
To today’s reader, the book seems awkward and poorly written.
There are none of the
catchy slogans or promises of instant results that are found in
many of today’s business
“how-to” books. It does not contain a careful articulation of
theories or clear progression
of ideas. Rather, it is full of rambling stories and repetitive
examples. Readers must
remember that Taylor was “in temperament, training and
experience an engineer-
executive, a doer. He was not interested in writing for its own
sake” (Person, in Taylor
1947, p. vii).
Once the reader gets past the artless prose, the true message of
the book becomes evident.
Taylor’s philosophy is “that the greatest permanent prosperity
for the workman, coupled
with the greatest prosperity for the employer, can be brought
about only when the work
of the establishment is done with the smallest combined
expenditure of human effort” (p.
4). In order to reach the goal of achieving the greatest
prosperity for both the employer
and the employee, Taylor proposes four principles. These are to:
(a) scientifically
examine each element of a job, which replaces the old “rule of
thumb” method of work,
(b) systematically select, train, teach, and develop each
individual worker, (c) work
cooperatively with the worker to ensure that the job is being
done in the best possible

2011 349
way, and (d) give the manager the responsibility to determine
how the job should be
done, while giving the worker the responsibility to do the job.
Task allocation is one of the fundamental principles of
scientific management. It is also
the principle that has drawn the most criticism during the past
century. Task allocation
is the process of breaking a job down into smaller and smaller
components in order to
help the planner determine the optimum method for performing
the task. Critics claim
that this reductionist approach dehumanizes workers (Sandrone,
1997). In reality, Taylor
expresses concern about the worker’s well-being throughout the
book. He is emphatic that
“the task is always so regulated that the man who is well suited
to his job will thrive while
working at this rate during a long term of years, and grow
happier and more prosperous,
instead of being overworked” (Taylor, p. 39). Admittedly,
Taylor had a limited view of
human motivation. He believed that monetary incentives were
the only way to induce
employees to work more efficiently.
The other major principle of scientific management is the
separation of the planning
function from the work function. Taylor did not believe that low
level supervisors and
line workers were qualified to plan how the work should be

done. In part, this stemmed
from the fact that a high percentage of factory workers at the
time were recent immigrants,
many of whom were poorly educated and not fluent in English.
Taylor advocated the
creation of planning departments that were staffed with
engineers. Based on this, critics
accused Taylor of a strong bias in favor of management.
Impact of Principles of Scientific Management
During the years immediately after the publication of the book,
Taylor’s work was
discussed and debated largely in terms of industrial production
(Nelson, 1992).
Nelson identifies several ways in which scientific management
changed factory work
permanently. First, front-line supervisors lost much of their
authority to higher-level
managers. In addition, employees were required to spend more
of their day in active
production due to a decrease in delays and shut downs. Fewer
subjective decisions and
personal judgment calls were made on the factory floor.
Individual workers were able
to exercise less personal discretion in relation to their jobs. In
most situations, earnings
increased. Some unskilled jobs were eliminated since improved
scheduling and planning
reduced the need to keep large groups of laborers on hand at all
times. Finally, people
eventually became less fearful that massive job losses were on
the horizon as a result
of the new systems.
Prior to World War I, the growth of scientific management in
Europe followed the same

course as it did in the United States. Individual engineers and
industrialists studied the
principles and implemented them in their own factories. Many
of them came to the United
States to meet Taylor and see his methods first hand. Company
owners and executives
who were interested in short-term results were often at odds
with engineers who wanted
to develop Taylor’s methods with a broader perspective. Taylor -
like incentive wage plans
became very popular in Europe, Japan, and Russia. Henri Le
Chatelier was Taylor’s
most devoted European follower. Alexsie Gastev, a Russian
revolutionary, introduced
Dec 2011
the concepts to Lenin, who embraced scientific management as
a method of achieving
“cultural revolution” (Nelson, 1992).
Great Britain was the only major European country to remain
slightly aloof from the
efficiency craze. All of the major British engineering societies
chose either to disregard
Taylor’s work or to criticize it harshly (Nelson, 1992). There
are several theories that
attempt to explain Britain’s lack of enthusiasm. Nelson suggests
that British executives
were preoccupied with industrial relations and labor unrest
before World War I. They
carefully monitored the conflicts between Taylor and the unions
in the United States and

“were ready to react whenever a stopwatch appeared” (p. 19).
Alternatively, the lukewarm
reception that scientific management received in Great Britain
may have been due to the
natural conservatism that characterized British executives of the
time or to the lack of a
powerful British champion who played a role similar to that of
Le Chatelier in France.
With the onset of World War I in 1914, Europe and the United
States diverged in their
application of scientific management principles. Leaders in
Europe quickly had to
expand their industrial output, and they had to manage scarce
resources efficiently. As a
result, they were forced to find innovative ways to reduce waste
and hire unconventional
employees. The labor shortage forced manufacturers to work
closely with unions. The
result was a mixture of scientific and personnel management
practices that Taylor might
not have recognized. The United States did not experience
these pressures because
they joined the war much later and had a large pool of labor and
materials from which
to draw.
After Taylor’s death the scientific management movement began
to evolve in several
ways. During his lifetime, Taylor had a bitter relationship with
organized labor. After
his death, Taylor’s followers reconciled with union leaders and
endorsed the concept
of collective bargaining. In addition, the scientific management
movement gradually
began to merge with the burgeoning personnel management

movement. By 1920, most
major companies had growing personnel or human resource
departments. Finally, within
the United States, the movement began to be embraced by high
level members of the
government.
By the mid 1920s, banks, insurance companies, government
agencies, academic
institutions, and retail enterprises were using principles of
scientific management to
structure their organizations. By the onset of the Great
Depression in 1929, industry
viewed scientific management as a utilitarian way to increase
mass production and
to manage a non-skilled work force. This trend continued
throughout the 1930’s as
manufacturers searched for ways to stay in business during
tough economic times (Nelson,
1992). The philosophical elements of the movement were
temporarily downplayed as the
reality of the depression and subsequent World War took
precedence. In the 1940’s a new
generation of scholars, engineers, and industrialists took a
renewed interest in scientific
management. The successful and dramatic increase in mass
production techniques during
World War II was an indirect, but indisputable, result of
Taylor’s work.
While the principles associated with Taylor enjoyed wide
acceptance, his reputation

2011 351
suffered posthumously. He was widely derided as a biased, anti-
worker elitist. Nelson
(1992) believes that, as a result, the scientific management
movement will always be
perceived as important but defective. This perception has
largely continued for the
past half century, resulting in Taylor being reduced to a one line
reference in many
management textbooks. Recently, however, Taylor has
experienced a surge in popularity
as historians strive to understand and explain the value of his
ideas within the context
of his generation.
Influence on the Field of Management
Frederick Winslow Taylor has been called the “Father of
Modern Management”
(Makamson, 2010). Perhaps his most enduring contribution to
the field of management
is the fact that he firmly established management “as something
done by trained
professionals” that is a “subject of legitimate scholarship”
(Makamson, p. 2). In today’s
world, management usually operates through the functions of
planning, organizing,
leading/directing, and controlling/ monitoring. Table 1
describes and matches each of
these functions with a corresponding quote from The Principles
of Scientific Management.
While some management theorists have been quick to minimize
Taylor’s contribution to
the field, it is clear that he had each of these functions firmly in
mind as he articulated
his theories to the world.

Conclusion
Frederick Taylor was the original organizational theorist and
first management “guru”.
He wrote The Principles of Scientific Management:
“to prove that the best management is a true science, resting
upon clearly defined
laws, rules, and principles, as a foundation. And further to show
that the fundamental
principles of scientific management are applicable to all kinds
of human activities, from
our simplest individual acts to the work of our great
corporations. And…to convince the
reader that whenever these principles are correctly applied,
results must follow which
are truly astounding” (1947, p. 7).
Gary Hamel, Visiting Professor of Strategic and International
Management at the London
Business School since 1983, says this:
The development of modern management theory is the story of
two quests: to make
management more scientific, and to make it more humane. It is
wrong to look at the later
quest as somehow much more enlightened than the former.
Indeed, they are the yin and
yang of business. The unprecedented capacity of twentieth
century industry to create
wealth rests squarely on the work of Frederick Winslow Taylor.
While some may disavow
Taylor, his rational, deterministic impulses live on. Indeed,
reengineering is simply late
twentieth century Taylorism. Though the focus of reengineering

is on the process, rather
than the individual task, the motivation is the same: to simplify,
to remove unnecessary
effort, and to do more with less” (Business: The Ultimate
Resource, 2nd ed., p. 1151).
Kiechel (2010) believes that the intense focus on strategic
planning in industry today is a
result of “Greater Taylorism”, which is “the corporation’s
application of sharp-penciled
Dec 2011
analytics…to the totality of its functions and processes” (p. 4).
With his emphasis on
research, planning, communications, standards, incentives, and
feedback, it is possible to
track Taylor’s influence to every sector. Business, government,
health care and education
have all incorporated the principles into the fabric of their
operations. One hundred
years after the publication of his most famous work, Frederick
Winslow Taylor’s subtle
influence is as persistent as the ticking of his ever-present
stopwatch.
Table 1. Management Concepts: The Four Functions of
Management
Management
Function
Definition of

Function
Quote from Principles of Scientific
Management
Planning Assess current
position and where
organization should be
in future. Determine
appropriate course of
action.
“All of the planning which under the old
system was done by the workman, as a
result of his personal experience, must of
necessity under the new system be done by the
management in accordance with the laws of
science. The man in the planning room, whose
specialty under scientific management is
planning ahead, invariably finds that the work
can be done better and more economically by
a subdivision of the labor” (p. 38).
Organizing Get prepared and
organized. Make
optimum use of the
resources required to
successfully carry out
plans.
“Almost every act of the workman should be
preceded by one or more preparatory acts of
the management which enable him to do his
work better and quicker than he otherwise
could” (p. 260).

Leading/
Directing
Supervise actions of
staff.
“When one proceeds to study each workman
as an individual, if the workman fails to do his
task, some competent teacher should be sent
to show him exactly how his work can best be
done, to guide, help, and encourage him, and,
at the same time, to study his possibilities as a
workman” (pp. 69-70).
Controlling/
Monitoring
Establish performance
standards. Report
and evaluate actual
performance.
“The work of every workman is fully planned
out by the management at least one day in
advance, and each man receives in most cases
complete written instructions, describing in
detail the task which he is to accomplish, as
well as the means to be used in doing the work
(p. 39). Every element in any way connected
with the work was carefully studied and
recorded (p. 55). As each workman came into
the works in the morning, he (received) two
pieces of paper, the second of which gave the
history of his previous day’s work” (p. 68).
All quotes from The Principles of Scientific Management, 1911.

2011 353
References
Copley, F.B. (1923). Frederick W. Taylor: Father of Scientific
Management. Harper and
Brothers: New York.
Kanigel, R. (1996). Frederick Taylor’s Apprenticeship. The
Wilson Quarterly, 20, 3,
44-51.
Kanigel, R. (1997). The one best way: Frederick Winslow
Taylor and the enigma of
efficiency. New York: Viking Penguin.
Kiechel, W. (2010). The lords of strategy: The secret
intellectual history of the new
corporate world. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
Lepore, J. (2009). Not so fast. The New Yorker. Downloaded at
http://www.newyorker.
com/arts/critics/atlarge/2009/10/12/091012crat_atlarge_lepore
Makamson, E. (2010). Frederick Winslow Taylor: Father of
Modern Management.
Downloaded from
http://www.mgmtguru.com/mgt301/301_Lecture1Page8.htm’
Management concepts: The four functions of management.
(n.d.) Downloaded
from: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/management-concepts-
the-four-functions-of-

management.html
Nelson, D. (1992). A mental revolution: Scientific management
since Taylor. Columbus,
Ohio: Ohio State University Press.
Papesh, M.E. (n.d.). Frederick Winslow Taylor. Retrieved from
http://stfrancis.edu/ba/ghkickul/stuwebs/bbios/biograph/fwtaylo
r.htm
Sandrone, V. (1997). F.W.Taylor and scientific management.
Retrieved from
http://www.skymark.com/resources/leaders/taylor.asp
Taylor, F.W. (1911) The Principles of Scientific Management.
Harper and Brothers:
New York.
Taylor, F.W. (1947). Scientific Management. Harper and
Brothers: New York.
“The principles of scientific management, Frederick Winslow
Taylor” (2006). Business:
The ultimate resource,2nd ed. UK: A&C Black Publishers Ltd.
Contact email addresses: [email protected][email protected]
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.

MHR 6451, Human Resource Management Methods 1
Course Learning Outcomes for Unit III
Upon completion of this unit, students should be able to:
5. Evaluate performance-based review processes.
5.1 Examine a historical perspective of the performance review
process.
5.2 Compare annual performance review evaluations and real-
time feedback coaching.
Reading Assignment
In order to access the following resources, click the links
below:
Bell, R. L. (2011). Teaching present-day employees the value of
scientific management. Supervision, 72(6),
5-8. Retrieved from
https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login?url=http://s
earch.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direc
t=true&db=bth&AN=61927805&site=ehost-live&scope=site
College of Business – CSU. (2016, September 1). MHR 6451 –
Bad performance evaluation [Video file].
Retrieved from https://youtu.be/63YNQxI4PIo
To view the transcript of the video above, click here.

Good performance evaluation [Video file].
Retrieved from https://youtu.be/cZtVR3DvZ4o
Short, J. C. (2011). The debate goes on! A graphic portrayal of
the Sinclair-Taylor editorial dialogue. Journal
of Business & Management, 17(1), 43-55. Retrieved from
Vranjes, T. (2016). Reduce the legal risks of performance
reviews. HRNews. Retrieved from
earch.proquest.com.libraryresources.c
olumbiasouthern.edu/docview/1766271461?accountid=33337
Unit Lesson
In order to access the following resource, click the link below.
College of Business – CSU. (2016, September 1). Evaluating
performance [Video file]. Retrieved from
https://youtu.be/FBZ-
THXh35E?list=PL08sf8iXqZn7ewFt0ZxJuaUug7MIG1KEr

To view the transcript for this video, click here.
Performance Management: Yesterday
Hardly a competent workman can be found who does not devote
a considerable amount of time to studying
just how slowly he can work and still convince his employer
that he is going at a good pace.
—Frederick W. Taylor, Hearings Before Special Committee of
the House of Representatives, 1912
UNIT III STUDY GUIDE
Evaluating Performance
earch.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=6192
7805&site=ehost-live&scope=site
https://youtu.be/63YNQxI4PIo
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/bbcswebdav/xid-
71368661_1
https://youtu.be/cZtVR3DvZ4o
71369030_1
https://libraryresources.columbiaso uthern.edu/login?url=http://s

earch.proquest.com.libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/docv
iew/1766271461?accountid=33337
https://youtu.be/FBZ-
THXh35E?list=PL08sf8iXqZn7ewFt0ZxJuaUug7MIG1KEr
71368662_1
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/f/frederickw207405.
html
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/f/frederickw207405.
html
Our investigation into performance management will focus on
the early 1900s, when time and motion studies
fostered a lack of trust between labor and management (Blake &
Moseley, 2011). The aforementioned quote
provides a sense of that environment.
Frederick Winslow Taylor (1856-1915), an American industrial
engineer, is often referred to as the father of
scientific management. He was the original time and motion
professional, and he was an efficiency expert.
His management methods were published in The Principles of
Scientific Management in 1911 (Blake &
Moseley, 2011).
He was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to Quaker parents.
He began as a pattern maker and machinist.
In 1878, he began working at Midvale Steel Company Plant and

worked his way up to a foreman position.
This is where he began measuring industrial productivity.
Taylor’s studies on time and motion helped him to
understand the best methods for completing a task efficiently
(in the shortest amount of time). With this
knowledge, he was able to design systems that elicited the most
efficiency from the workers and the
machines (Blake & Moseley, 2011).
Frederick Taylor had firsthand experience and knowledge of the
soldiering of labor; this term that he coined
means that workers were deliberately slowing down production.
He wanted to increase worker productivity
and reduce their resentment at the same time. He used the
principles of scientific management to study the
problems of production and worker resentment. In addition to
coming up with standards for deliverables for
each job based on scientific analysis and continuously
improving work through observation and analysis,
Taylor recommended that workers whose productivity surpassed
the standards were given incentive pay as a
reward. One of Taylor’s significant accomplishments was
defining management as the position held by
trained professionals (Blake & Moseley, 2011).
Fragments of Taylor’s scientific management methods,
published in 1911, still exist today in modern
enterprises because efficiency is still correlated to profitability
(Bell, 2011). For more information on this, read
this article:
5-8. Retrieved from

To learn more about Taylor, read the following article, which
has a comic-book format and is a quick and
amusing read:
Short, J. C. (2011). The debate goes on! A graphic portrayal of
the Sinclair-Taylor editorial dialogue. Journal
of Business & Management, 17(1), 43-55. Retrieved from
Performance Management Today: From Annual Appraisal to
Real-Time Feedback
The focus of performance management evolved from time and
motion studies to become more holistic;
employers incorporated management by objectives, total quality
management, and even the balanced
scorecard. Despite the rhetoric that performance is being
managed, for decades the majority of employers’
efforts were aimed at appraising or assessing performance
rather than planning or managing performance. It
was a look back at an employee’s contributions for the whole
year based on the gathering of evidence and his
or her past performance. It is true that many organizations did
make an effort to provide a midyear review;
however, little was done to correct problems with the assigned
objectives, and little to no adjustments were
made by corporate representatives to positively influence
productivity through the use of an employee

performance plan. Often, the mid-year review was not
completed and no one was held accountable. The only
review an employee got was an annual performance evaluation.
An example of this type of performance
evaluation is found in the video below.
Bad performance evaluation [Video file].
Retrieved from https://youtu.be/63YNQxI4PIo
The value of the traditional, or annual, approach to performance
appraisal was depicted by insightful human
resources (HR) professionals as a new form of “Taylorism,”
producing damaging and discouraging

relationships between supervisors and employees and their peers
(Harikumar, 2013).
The traditional performance review process is being dumped by
leading organizations such as Accenture,
Microsoft, Adobe, General Electric, Gap, Medtronic, and
Deloitte; the Washington Post reports that 10% of
the Fortune 500 companies have followed suit. Some of the
changes include eradicating forced or stacked
rankings that encourage competition among peers, abolishing all
numeric scales, and swapping the annual
appraisal for real-time feedback (e.g., providing feedback when
a project is completed or providing ongoing
feedback throughout the year) (Cunningham & McGregor, 2015;
Wilkie, 2015).
What are these organizations using instead of performance
appraisals for decisions such as promotions?
Their real-time ongoing feedback is replacing the annual
feedback; there is no waiting to find out how an
employee is doing. There is statistically reliable data provided
daily by software that provides charts and
graphs for managers, employees, and their peers to view and
comment on. The frequent reporting allows
managers and employees to update the status of a project and
discuss what roadblocks need to be removed
to complete or move the project along. This eliminates much of
the wasted wait time for getting answers, and
the reviews provided by those working on the project reduce the
biases involved with one-on-one annual
reviews (Wilkie, 2015). This ongoing dialogue focuses on
performance as well as the employee’s career
development and aspirations. Managers must be trained on
coaching and development in order to have
meaningful conversations; this initiative will be a critical but
necessary challenge to HR professionals

(Harikumar, 2013).
For an example of a performance review using real-time
ongoing feedback rather than annual feedback,
watch the video below on real-time feedback performance
coaching.
Good performance evaluation [Video file].
Retrieved from https://youtu.be/cZtVR3DvZ4o
More frequent feedback with employees is actually more
relevant and appreciated by employees and less
troublesome to supervisors. Forced rankings are a thing of the
past; research indicates that they do not foster
productivity or improvement but, rather, create antagonism
between supervisors, workers, and peers.
Employee results need to be compared to the metrics established
for achievement in that position rather than
being compared and ranked against others. To paraphrase David
Brennan, General Manager for Achievers, a
San Francisco-based employee recognition company, the era of
employees competing against each other for
top ranking are over; today, employees must be recognized for
their unique contributions to the overall
success of company goals and carrying out the company’s
mission (Wilke, 2015).
All that being said, if there is no data that ranks employees, will
it be easier for employees to claim
discrimination concerning promotions and pay? Promotions and
raises have always had a subjective aspect.
They must be even more subjective, considering the time since

the last raise, how well the employee
develops relationships with customers internally and externally,
how well the employee accomplishes his or
her assigned objectives, and what the market value of the
position is. These things are not considered with
ratings and rankings. It is generally felt that if things stay the
same in the performance management world,
businesses will continue to let down their highest performers
(Wilkie, 2015).
A plan to transition to the new real-time feedback system is
highly recommended. Among the tips to consider
when implementing the new software that allows daily feedback
is to take a baseline measure of the old
system being used, train your first-line supervisors on the
system, be consistent in all areas of HR, and
establish weekly meetings that are one-on-one so that the
employee knows what to expect. Other things to
consider are giving managers instructions on how to have the
conversations that encourage engagement,
which raises performance due to a focus on constant
improvement, and making sure you show managers the
https://youtu.be/63YNQxI4PIo
71368661_1
https://youtu.be/cZtVR3DvZ4o
71369030_1
data. Executives will be on board if you provide the return on

investment by tracking the new real-time
feedback system data, customer satisfaction, and engagement
statistics (Wilkie, 2015).
References
5-8.
Blake, A. M., & Moseley, J. L. (2011). Frederick Winslow
Taylor: One hundred years of managerial insight.
International Journal of Management, 28(4), 346-353.
Cunningham, L., & McGregor, J. (2015, August 17). Why big
business is falling out of love with the annual
performance review. The Washington Post. Retrieved from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-
leadership/wp/2015/08/17/why-big-business-is-falling-out-
of-love-with-annual-performance-reviews/
Harikumar, N. (2014). The future of performance assessment:
From evaluation to dialogue. Retrieved from
https://www.hrzone.com/community-voice/blogs/elan/the-
future-of-performance-assessment-from-
evaluation-to-dialogue
Wilkie, D. (2015). If the annual performance review is on its

way out, what can replace it? Retrieved from
https://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/employeerelations/articles/p
ages/performance-reviews-dead.aspx
Suggested Reading
In order to access the following resources, click the links
below:
The influence of Frederick Taylor is still seen in industry today.
This article looks at how his theories and
writings have impacted businesses over the past one hundred
years.
Blake, A. M., & Moseley, J. L. (2011). Frederick Winslow
Taylor: One hundred years of managerial insight.
International Journal of Management, 28(4), 346-353. Retrieved
from
earch.proquest.com.libraryresources.c
olumbiasouthern.edu/docview/1008666375?accountid=33337
In this unit, you have learned about Frederick Winslow Taylor.
In his teachings and theories, he often used
parables to illustrate his point. This article contains one of these
parables and discusses how the parable can
be applied today. You may access the following resource by
clicking the link below.
Govekar, P., & Govekar, M. (2012). The parable of the pig iron:
Using Taylor’s story to teach the principles of

scientific management. Journal of Higher Education Theory and
Practice, 12 (2), 73-83. Retrieved
from http://www.na-
businesspress.com/JHETP/GovekarPL_Web12_2_.pdf
Learning Activities (Nongraded)
Nongraded Learning Activities are provided to aid students in
their course of study. You do not have to
submit them. If you have questions, contact your instructor for
further guidance and information.
Check for Understanding: Crossword Puzzle
Click here to download a crossword puzzle that reinforces the
terms covered in this unit. You can also
complete an interactive version of this crossword puzzle by
clicking here.
http://www.na-
businesspress.com/JHETP/GovekarPL_Web12_2_.pdf
71369029_1
http://play.shareapuzzle.com/55083/UnitIIICheckForUnderstand
ing.htm

Reduce the Legal Risks of Performance Reviews
Vranjes, Toni . HRNews ; Alexandria (Feb 19, 2016).
ProQuest document link
ABSTRACT
Performance reviews often become crucial in employment
disputes, said attorney Jeffrey Horton Thomas, of
Thomas Employment Law Advocates in West Hollywood, Calif.
According to Thomas, reviews become key
evidence if a former employee alleges that an action taken by
the employer was done for an illegal reason.
FULL TEXT
For supervisors, all those performance evaluations completed
years ago may now be just a dim memory. But that
could change in an instant if an employment lawsuit shines a
spotlight on one of those reviews.
Serious legal risks can arise as a result of conducting employee
performance evaluations, as shown by a recent

lawsuit filed against Yahoo in California. In that case, a former
manager alleges gender discrimination and other
violations of the law.
By making the evaluation process as objective and transparent
as possible, though, employers can reduce the
chances of being sued--while still providing helpful feedback
for employees.
Legal Risks
The risks include not only claims of intentional discrimination,
but also unintentional discrimination, according to
Chicago attorney Aimee Delaney of Hinshaw &Culbertson.
Even if there's no sign of intent to discriminate, a
company could face legal trouble if some part of the review
process has a disproportionate impact on a protected
group, she said.
Performance reviews often become crucial in employment
disputes, said attorney Jeffrey Horton Thomas, of
Thomas Employment Law Advocates in West Hollywood, Calif.
According to Thomas, reviews become key
evidence if a former employee alleges that an action taken by
the employer was done for an illegal reason. Such
actions could include if an employee is overly criticized by
superiors, subjected to an undesirable transfer, denied a

raise or promotion, demoted, or fired.
Without a history of "consistent, objective, well-crafted"
evaluations, employers may have a tough time defending
themselves against such claims, he said.
Evaluations also play a key role in breach-of-contract cases,
according to Thomas. For instance, highly paid
executives often have agreements providing for "termination for
good cause." If the executive is fired, the review
will be scrutinized to determine if the company had sufficient
grounds for its action, he said.
The Yahoo case illustrates the potential legal perils of employee
reviews. In the Feb. 1 lawsuit, a former manager
claims that the evaluation system could be manipulated based
on biases and stereotyping. In an e-mail, Yahoo
spokeswoman Carolyn Clark said that the company's system is
fair and offers meaningful feedback.
Key Concepts for EmployersSelecting the reviewer:
Management needs to have fair criteria for choosing the
individuals responsible for performance evaluations, Thomas
said. For example, the evaluator shouldn't have a
personal or family relationship with the employee being
reviewed.
The reviewer shouldn't have a history of being accused of
unlawful bias, he added. This includes bias on the

grounds of race, gender or sexual orientation.
Also, if a manager has reason to believe that an employee may
have blown the whistle on him or her, then that
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1766271461?accountid=33
337
337
manager shouldn't evaluate the worker.
Another guideline: reviewers should evaluate only those
workers in their direct line of supervision.
Frequency of reviews: All employees in the same job
classification should be evaluated on the same time cycle,
according to Thomas. Whether that's once a year or some other
time period, make sure it's consistent for all
workers in that category.
Objective criteria: Employers should strive to evaluate workers
on objective factors, like meeting sales numbers or
meeting project deadlines, Thomas said.
For certain occupations, it's easier to base evaluations on purely
objective criteria, Delaney noted. That's because
for some jobs, performance tends to be measured by strict
numerical measures; examples might include workers

at manufacturing facilities or call centers.
In contrast, there's likely to be more subjective criteria in the
area of professional services--and reviewers need to
be especially cautious with their wording in these
circumstances. With proper training, evaluators can learn the
appropriate way to word their comments.
Careful wording: Whether or not they're intended that way,
certain phrases might appear to show bias.
Thomas cited several examples of problematic language, such as
"lacks energy," "moves too slowly," and has "no
gusto." These types of phrases could potentially lead to claims
of age discrimination.
Los Angeles attorney Richard Frey of Venable noted that there's
been an increased focus on "unconscious bias" in
the workplace, referring to situations in which people aren't
even consciously aware of their biased attitudes. That
can make interpreting the wording in reviews very tricky,
highlighting the need for quality training.
Overall, when evaluating employees, maintain a professional
tone. Supervisors should highlight both the positive
and negative in a constructive manner, Delaney said. "Avoid
inflammatory language," she emphasized.
Self-assessments: Employees should assess themselves as part
of the review process, according to Frey. If the

manager and employee agree on the areas that need
improvement, it's easier to set performance goals for the
future, Frey said. If they don't agree, then the supervisor can
constructively explain his or her point of view. Either
way, the employee has some input in the evaluation process.
Training: It's crucial for reviewers to learn appropriate language
and proper procedures, according to lawyers. The
training should convey the purpose of the evaluation process,
Frey said. As Thomas observed: "Training is
absolutely critical."
Transparency: Employees should not only receive copies of
their evaluations, but they should also have a clear
understanding of how the system works, Thomas said. He
recommends that companies have a written document
explaining the procedures for performance reviews. The
document should describe the criteria used, how often
reviews are done, who will conduct the evaluations and the
training process that evaluators undergo.
Audits: Delaney recommends proactively examining results to
determine whether the evaluation system is fair.
For instance, the audit could examine whether the process has a
disproportionate impact on a protected group,
Delaney said. Also, it could reveal if poor rankings tend to

come from a particular manager.
The exact type of audit will depend on the type of system used.
According to Delaney, reviews that include some
type of ranking, scoring or category result are easier to audit
than, say, a purely summary report of performance.
The latter may be difficult to audit in the traditional sense, she
added. But even with those types of evaluations,
companies could flag certain results for a risk analysis or
second look, Delaney observed. For example, this would
be advisable in situations where a review leads to a
recommendation that an employee be fired.
Toni Vranjes is a freelance business writer in San Pedro, Calif.
Credit: By Toni Vranjes
DETAILS
Terms and Conditions Contact ProQuest
Subject: Litigation; Bias; Sex discrimination; Employment
discrimination; Executives;
Attorneys; Performance evaluation; Workers; Employees; Labor

law; Job
classification
Company / organization: Name: Yahoo Inc; NAICS: 519130
Publication title: HRNews; Alexandria
Publication year: 2016
Publication date: Feb 19, 2016
Publisher: Society for Human Resource Management
Place of publication: Alexandria
Country of publication: United States, Alexandria
Publication subject: Business And Economics--Personnel
Management
ISSN: 10473157
Source type: Trade Journals
Language of publication: English
Document type: News
ProQuest document ID: 1766271461
Document URL:
337
Copyright: Copyright Society for Human Resource Management

Feb 19, 2016
Last updated: 2016-02-19
Database: ABI/INFORM Collection
337
https://search.proquest.com/info/termsAndConditions
http://www.proquest.com/go/pqissupportcontactReduce the
Legal Risks of Performance Reviews
55
teaching present-day employees the value of
scientific management
Reginald L. Bell, Ph.D.
R e m n a n t s o f s c i e n t i f i cmanagement endure even
t h o u g h F r e d e r i c k W i n s l o w
Taylor’s essay was first published
in 1911. In many contemporar y
p r o f i t s e e k i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n s a
healthy bottom line depends on
employees’ being machine-like in
certain aspects of the jobs they
do; efficiency is directly related to
profitability. Unfortunately, not
ever y manager understands the
v a l u e o f t i m e a n d m o t i o n i n
relation to what their employees
are doing. In this article, I show
m a n a g e r s h o w t o t e a c h t h e i r
present-day employees the value of

scientific management.
The Legacy of Scientific
Management
Pioneering business philosopher
Frederick Winslow Taylor began
t h i n k i n g a b o u t a n d , m o r e
i m p o r t a n t l y , w r i t i n g d o w n h i s
observations of people working in
e a r l y t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y
o r g a n i z a t i o n s . S c i e n t i f i c
management was a radically new
idea in the early 1900s. Taylor’s
essay The Principles of Scientific
Management turned 100-years-old
in 2011. Fragments of Taylor’s ideas
s u r v i v e d e s p i t e s c r u t i ny b y
examination and remain relevant to
e ver y d ay b u s i n e s s o p e r a t i o n s .
Taylor, in an edition published by
D ove r P u b l i c a t i o n s i n 19 9 8 ,
argues that:
“We can see and feel the waste of
material things. Awkward, inefficient,
or ill-directed movements of men,
h o wever, l e ave n ot h i n g v i s i b l e o r
t a n g i b l e b e h i n d t h e m . T h e i r
a p p r e c i a t i o n c a l l s f o r a n a c t o f
memory, an effort of the imagination.
And for this reason, even though our
daily loss from this source is greater
than from our waste of material things,
the one has stirred us deeply, while the

other has moved us but little.”
6
In Taylor’s era labor did not
t r u s t m a n a g e m e n t a n d
management did not trust labor.
Despite this drawback, Taylor’s
keen obser vations on the time
and motions it took for workers
to do an operation, his analysis
of work related materials they
used, i.e., optimizing the heads
o f s h o v e l s , l a b o r s ’ w o r k
sequences, and his advocacy for
d i v i s i o n o f l a b o r, c l e a r l y
b e n e f i t t e d , a n d c o n t i n u e s t o
b e n e f i t , e m p l o y e r s a n d
employees. Taylor recorded his
observations and was the first to
begin writing down more efficient
w a y s t o d o o p e r a t i o n s ; h e
f o r m a l i z e d a p r o c e s s f o r
recording the time and motion
i t t o o k t o p e r f o r m j o b s . J o b
analysis and design has its roots
in scientific management and is
now a common human resources
practice in most of the world’s
largest corporations.
For example, when I was a
college undergraduate in 1985, I
worked for a Wendy’s restaurant.
The “crew” was trained to use a

prescribed method of applying
mustard, mayo, and ketchup to
a hamburger with a square patty—
mustard directly on meat patty,
mayo always on top bun and
ketchup always over mayo with
veggies on top. This procedure
w a s t a k e n s o s e r i o u s l y b y
m a n a g e m e n t t h a t w h e n
employees were caught violating
t h e p r o c e d u r e t h e y w e r e
immediately reprimanded; repeat
offenders were often shown the
door. The Wendy’s managers
believed that where sauces were
placed on the hamburger affected
i t s t a s t e ! To t h e m , “ Ta s t e i s
directly related to sales!”
Scientific management is present
w h e n w o r k e r s a s s e m b l e a
McDonald’s hamburger, when
food is ser ved to hungr y Sonic
Restaurant customers by teenagers
wearing roller skates or when a
technical support representative
answers a call in a large call center
t o r e s o l v e a p r o b l e m f r o m a
business customer. The legacy of
scientific management is found
wherever machine-like precision in
a n o p e r a t i o n i s r e q u i r e d t o
improve profitability. Employees
do not automatically understand
w h y b e i n g e f f i c i e n t w h i l e
m a i n t a i n i n g q u a l i t y l e a d s t o

greater profits. And in many cases
neither does their bosses.
Scientific Management to
Secure Prosperity
Taylor was of the frame of mind
that the “principle objective of
m a n a g e m e n t ” i s t o s e c u r e
prosperity for both the employer
and the employee. He believed
that his scientific approach would
e n a b l e b o t h e m p l o y e r a n d
e m p l o y e e t o m a x i m i z e t h e i r
p r o s p e r i t y , c o n t r i b u t i n g t o
g r e a t e r s u r p l u s f o r t h e
o r g a n i z a t i o n . H ow e ve r, t h e
notion owners would share their
surpluses with labor was the most
distrusted part of his scientific
management principles.
Andrea Gabor in her book The
C a p i t a l i s t P h i l o s o p h e r s : T h e
Geniuses of Modern Business -
Their Lives, Times, and Ideas
offers a riveting short biography
of Taylor’s life and work. Gabor
( 2 0 0 0 ) r e f e r s t o d e t r a c t o r s ’
backlash against Taylor’s principles
a s “ Tay l o r i s m ” w h i c h s h e
a t t r i b u t e s a s o n e o f t h e m a i n
c a t a l y s t s s p a r k i n g t h e l a b o r
m o v e m e n t i n A m e r i c a n
manufacturing. When emotions
were at their peak, Taylor needed

armed security to escort him to
and from work; labor believed
Tay l o r ’ s p r i n c i p l e s wo u l d c o s t
t h e m j o b s a n d d e s t r o y t h e i r
livelihoods. Soldiering was a way
l a b o r c o u l d r e d u c e o u t p u t ,
collectively, and thwart Taylor’s
methods.
N e v e r t h e l e s s , s o m e o f t h e
managerial problems then still
r e m a i n . M a n y m a n a g e r s d o n ’ t
k n o w h o w t o t e a c h t h e i r
e m p l o y e e s t h e v a l u e o f d o i n g
specific operations with machine-
like precision. Most minimally-
s k i l l e d e m p l o y e e s w i l l n o t b e
thinking about their time and
motion in relation to the bottom
line unless they are taught. The
best way to demonstrate how to
teach present-day employees to
value scientific management is to
p r e s e n t t h e c a s e o f L o n e l y
Burgers—a fast-food restaurant
franchise whose sales are down.
The Case of Lonely Burgers
Restaurant
Mr. Leroy Williams is the owner
o f a h a m b u r g e r r e s t a u r a n t
franchise. His restaurant is one of
1,000 stores nationally. The total
average gross revenue per franchise
store is $1.5 million annually.
Burgers account for two-thirds of

gross sales and breakfast, desserts,
and beverages account for the rest.
7
Leroy’s store is less than average in
sales; he just cannot figure out why
his sales are slightly under $1.0
million and not $1.5 million, as
compared to the other stores in his
zip code with similar size and
locations. Leroy attended Lonely
Burger University and believes he
s y s t e m a t i c a l l y f o l l o w s a l l t h e
guidelines and rules the franchisor
suggested. Nonetheless, his annual
sales are hurting. He decided to
hire a sales consultant known for
her good work in the industry.
Ms. Jennifer George comes highly
recommended by the president of
High Time Restaurants, Inc., the
parent company. For the first three
days all Jennifer does is watch the
line workers assemble burgers and
takes notes. She is there for all
three shifts because the restaurant
i s o p e n f r o m 6 : 0 0 a . m . u n t i l
11:00 p.m. She carefully listens to
employees working the drive thru
window to gauge that aspect of
t h e i r b e h a v i o r s . O n d ay f o u r,
J e n n i f e r t e l l s L e r o y s h e h a s
completed her work and would

like to have a sit-down to discuss
her findings. Jennifer is not cheap!
In fact, the $20,000 fee for four
days work Leroy hopes is worth it.
Jennifer tells Leroy she has very
good news; she says, “I believe I
know what the problem is and,
m o r e i m p o r t a n t , I h a v e a
solution.” She continues, “ The
main problem is your workers are
unsystematic in how they engage
customers in up-selling when they
complete an order.”
Leroy replies: “Oh, really?”
Jennifer then says, “Yes. What
you probably did not do is to
c a l c u l a t e t h e t r u e c o s t o f t h e
inconsistency in your workers’
habits in not up-selling to each
customer every time—I mean, the
t r u e c o s t i s n o t o n l y y o u a r e
missing a potential new sale but
g u e s t s w i l l b e l e a v i n g t h e
restaurant with your profits still
in their pockets.”
Leroy asks Jennifer, “How much
am I losing, by your estimate?”
J e n n i f e r r e p l i e s , “ I e s t i m a t e
a p p r o x i m a t e l y $ 3 6 5 , 0 0 0 ,
conservatively speaking!”
Lacking feeling in his head by the
news, Leroy asks, “How! And,
Why?”
Jennifer provides a convenient
example to Leroy by saying: “The

p r o b l e m i s y o u r e m p l o y e e s ’
processing food orders do not
follow the Lonely Burgers policy.
THEY ARE NOT ATTEMPTING
TO UP-SALE EACH TIME AND
E V E RY T I M E T H E Y
COMPLETE AN ORDER. Each
time this policy is violated it must
be construed as a lost sale! What’s
worse, your employees don’t seem
to understand why up-selling is
crucial when they complete an
order. Because your employees are
i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h o f f e r i n g
additional items when closing the
sale, your sales are down by as
m u c h a s $ 3 6 5 , 0 0 0 . W h e n I
m u l t i p l y 3 6 5 d a y s , t i m e s 5 0 0
burgers per day, times an average
of $5.00 per burger, I get gross
revenue of $912,500 annually, just
for burgers. What’s more, when I
calculate minus $2.00 each time
an employee fails to make an up-
sale attempt I calculate $365,000
i n h u n d r e d s o f l o s t s a l e s
opportunities!
Leroy exclaims, loudly, “What can
I do?”
Jennifer tells him, “ Train and
retrain your employees so they will
u n d e r s t a n d t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f
offering additional products to
paying customers each time they
close a sale. This is for the drive

thru as well as for the cashiers
t a k i n g o r d e r s f r o m d i n e - i n
c u s t o m e r s . G e t r i d o f r e p e a t
offenders who don’t seem to care
a b o u t t h e p o l i c y . T h e b i g g e s t
problem is your entire staff lacks a
machine-like precision in taking
o rd e r s t h i s w ay. Yo u l a c k a
scientific management approach in
c r e a t i n g i n c e n t i v e s t h a t w o u l d
assure your employees adhere to the
Lonely Burgers up-sale policy, even
when you are not in the restaurant,
every time they complete an order
t h e y s h o u l d b e u p - s e l l i n g .
O t h e r w i s e , e mp l o ye e s t a k i n g
orders are allowing customers to
l e a v e t h e r e s t a u r a n t w i t h y o u r
profits still in their pockets.”
W i t h i n s i x m o n t h s , L o n e l y
Burgers’ annual sales were projected
to be on par with the national
aver a g e o f $ 1. 5 m i l l i o n . T h e
conversation between Leroy and
J e n n i f e r s h o w s t h a t s c i e n t i f i c
management was a very important
solution for one aspect of the job
L o n e l y B u r g e r e m p l o y e e s d o .
Shown in Figure 1 is what can
occur when employees’ attempt to
up-sale each time, using a scientific
m a n a g e m e n t a p p r o a c h : b e i n g
machine-like in following a ver y
simple sales policy lead to greater
profits. However, when employees
were unsystematic there were fewer

profits and less prosperity for all.
8
Bags of money were literally being
lost. The Lonely Burger employees
did not understand the level of
profits linked to their behaviors
until they were taught to value
these principles.
Concluding Remarks
Even though Taylor’s views are
somewhat dated, there is evidence
t h a t t e a c h i n g e m p l o y e e s t o b e
machine-like in some aspects of
t h e i r j o b s i s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h
i m p r o v e d p r o f i t s . T h i s i s t h e
r e a s o n r e m n a n t s o f s c i e n t i f i c
management endure. Scientific
management was a radically new
i d e a i n t h e e a r l y 19 0 0 s . E ve n
t h o u g h s h i f t s i n m a n a g e m e n t
p e r s p e c t i v e s m a d e “ m a n a s
m a c h i n e ” s o m e w h a t o b s o l e t e ,
present-day employees still need to
adhere to a few of the principles of
scientific management in their daily
operations.
When Leroy’s employees’ began
taking orders with a machine-like
dedication to following the up-sales
policy sales dramatically improved.
L e r o y u s e d a p o r t i o n o f t h e

a d d i t i o n a l p r o f i t s ( s h a r i n g t h e
surplus) to devise special incentives
for employees’ adhering to the up-
s a l e s p o l i c y w i t h m a c h i n e - l i k e
p r e c i s i o n . F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e s e
incentives lead to more prosperity
for the employer and employees.
These basic elements of scientific
m a n a g e m e n t h a v e p r o v i d e d
solutions to business problems for
100 years and will likely endure for
another 100 years, or more.
R e g i n a l d L . B e l l i s a t e n u r e d
associate professor in the college
of business at Prairie View A&M
University. Bell received his Ph.D.
in Business Education from the
U n i v e r s i t y o f M i s s o u r i a t
Columbia. He is an active member
of the Association for Business
Communication, and serves on its
Publications Board. Bell has more
than four dozen articles published
in peer reviewed journals. His
r e s e a r c h h a s a p p e a r e d i n t h e
B u s i n e s s C o m m u n i c a t i o n
Quarterly, Journal of Business and
Leadership: Research, Practice and
Te a c h i n g , J o u r n a l o f C o l l e g e
Teaching and Learning, Academy
o f E d u c a t i o n a l L e a d e r s h i p
Journal, Academy of Marketing
S t u d i e s J o u r n a l , S u p e r v i s i o n
Magazine, Southwestern Business
Administration Journal, and the

J o u r n a l o f L e a d e r s h i p ,
Accountability, and Ethics. Bell,
along with Jeanette S. Martin, is
c o a u t h o r o f “ M a n a g e r i a l
Communication,” a graduate level
t e x t b o o k b y Pe a r s o n H i g h e r
Education, with an “in stock” date
scheduled for January, 2013.
SV
Copyright of Supervision is the property of National Research
Bureau and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for
individual use.
· Example of an Introduction
In several assignments, the introduction is worth 20/100
points. As you are expected to include one for all assignments,
here are some guidelines. In a single paragraph, you would
include 4-6 sentences overview of the topic and end with 3-5
sentences overview/road-map of the paper. Here is an example:
Introduction
There are several methods human resource (HR) specialists
and managers use when determining which applicant will be the
best fit for a position. One common selection method is
telephone interviews that allow for an initial discussion with the
candidate. Another method is the behavioral-based interview
where the interviewee is provided with specific employment
related situations. Regardless of the method, it is important to

Short 43The Debate Goes On! A Graphic Portrayal Of The

Short 43The Debate Goes On! A Graphic Portrayal Of The

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Short 43The Debate Goes On! A Graphic Portrayal Of The

Similar to Short 43The Debate Goes On! A Graphic Portrayal Of The (20)

More from WilheminaRossi174

More from WilheminaRossi174 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Short 43The Debate Goes On! A Graphic Portrayal Of The