Taylor's Scientific Management

Evolution of management thoughts (Taylorism)2013年12月22日18:01Sample question∙“The historical study of different approaches (e.g., classical approach) to organisation and management and the development of organisation theory have no practical relevance for today‟s managers”. To what extent would you agree with this appraisal?∙How does Business theory influence business world?∙Focus on Scientific managementMap:∙classical approach– including scientific management∙human relations- including neo-human relations 新人类关系∙systems∙Contingency 偶然性Screen clipping taken: 2013/12/24 12:17∙Why we need to study history∙∙“…reading, exploring, and discussing history can provide students with opportunities to acquire knowledge of their field and its practices, gainwisdom, and develop and use judgment.”George E. Smith, Management history andhistorical context: Potential benefits of itsinclusion in the management curriculum,” Academy of management learning and education,6 (2007). P524Management before industrialization∙The revival of commerce 商业的复兴∙The guilds and the domestic system∙Craft guilds∙Merchant guilds∙the domestic system∙Guild: 协会，工会 A group of ppl making products together∙Early modern period∙the European Renaissance, Europeanexpansion (14th–17th) / the Age ofEnlightenment (18th century)∙The cultural rebirth (the ProtestantReformation)∙The liberty ethic (Thomas Hobbes:Levianthan, 1651; John Locke: ConcerningCivil Government, 1690)∙Adam Smith: Wealth of Nations, invisiblehand∙The industrial revolution (1750-1850)start∙Modern period∙The industrial revolution in Great Britain∙James Watt (The steam engine)The Textile Industry 纺织业--domestic system∙Management problems in the early factory ∙The labour problem∙Recruitment∙Training: limited knowledge; no skills; fromcountryside∙Discipline and motivation∙The Luddites: Luddites movement (ppl rejectmachines for fear that they may lose jobs withmachines)∙ E.G.∙The industrial revolution in the U.S. (reasons)∙The growth of U.S. Enterprise∙The labour question∙ Unions∙ soldieringScreen clipping taken: 2013/12/24 14:53∙The classic approach (focus)—∙ improving the organisation structure as a means of increasing efficiency∙(Mullins,2010)∙The classical writers thought of the organisation in terms of its purpose and formal structure.∙They placed emphasis on the planning of work, the technical requirements of the organisation, principles of management, and the assumption of rational and logical behaviour.∙The classical writers were concerned with improving the organisation structure as a means of increasing efficiency---indentification of general objectives(Goal Setting) would lead to the clarification of purposes and responsibilities at all levels of the org and to the most effective org.∙Attention:division of work, clear definition of duties and responsibilities maintaining specification and co-ordination.(the hierarchy of management and formal org relationships)∙They emphasised the importance of principles for the design of a logical structure of organisationThe classical writers were concerned with improving the organisation structure as a means of increasing efficiency. They emphasised the importance of principles for the design of a logical structure of organisation.Their writings were in a normative style and they saw these principles as a set of …rules‟ offering general solutions to common problems of organisation and management.Most classical writers had their own set of principles but among the most publicised are those of Fayol and Urwick(see Chapters 8 and 9). Fayol recognised there was no limit to theprinciples of management but in his writing advocated 14.8 Urwick originally specified eight principles, but these were revised to ten in his later writing.9Mooney and Reiley set out a number of common principles which relate to all types of organisations. They place particular attention on:■the principle of co-ordination – the need for people to act together with unity of action,the exercise of authority and the need for discipline;■the scalar principle – the hierarchy of organisation, the grading of duties and the processof delegation; and■the functional principle – specialisation and the distinction between different kinds of duties.Brech support the principle of Fayol and Urwick by emphasizing on the written definition of responsibilities and the value of job descriptions as an aid to effective org.Evaluation of the classical approachArgument against:1.Ignore personal factors2.General principles apllied to all orgs.3.Creating org structure is difficult.The classical writers have been criticised generally for not taking sufficient account of personality factors and for creating an organisation structure in which people can exercise only limited control over their work environment. The idea of sets of principles to guide managerial action has also been subject to much criticism.For example, Simon writes:Organisational design is not unlike architectural design. It involves creating large, complex systems having multiple goals. It is illusory to suppose that (doubt) good designs can be created by using the so-called principles of classical organisation theory.Research studies have also expressed doubt about the effectiveness of these principles when applied in practice. Argument for:However, the classical approach prompted the start of a more systematic view of management and attempted to provide some common principles applicable to all organisations. These principles are still of relevance in that they offer a useful starting point in attempting to analyse the effectiveness of the design of organisation structure.Recommendation:The application of these principles must take full account of:■ the particular situational variables of each individual organisation; and■ the psychological and social factors relating to members of the organisation.Taylorism“is the attempt to make business decisions on the basis of data that is researched and tested quantitatively.” Taylorism was advocated by Frederick Winslow Taylor, “He considered it to be management’s duty to identify ways in which costs could be accounted for precisely, so that efficiency could be improved.”Read more: /essays/management/the-concepts-of-taylorism-and-fordism-management-essay.php#ixzz2pbTD2MMzThe scientific management era1.Background∙Traditional management (unscientific, rule of thumb, guesswork, personal opinion)∙There was no objective method fordetermining how fast a job should be done.∙ A proper day‟s work (?)∙Every workman had his own private tool box.∙Soldiering∙Labor-management (inevitable?)discuss∙Problem∙Whereby workers deliberately worked asslowly as they dared, while at the same timetrying to make their bosses believe they wereworking fast.∙They feared that if they worked faster, theywould complete their jobs and be laid off.∙So the boss doesn‟t know the actual ability ofworkers∙Deliberately work slowlyTaylor∙Based on proven fact (research experiments)∙Standardization“one best way”∙Goal setting∙Talyor‟s cost control ideas (Return on investment)∙Feedbacks (whether or not they had attained theirassigned task)∙The money (incentives) as a motivator∙Management responsibility for training∙Scientific selection (the development of the fields of industrial psychology, HR)∙4.Science of shovellingWill a man do more work per day with a shovel load of 5 pounds, 10 pounds, 15 pounds, 20, 25, 30, or 40 pounds?Frederick Winslow Taylor:There is a best machine for each job, so there is a best working method by which people should undertake their jobs.Pig Iron∙ A group of 75 men were loading an average of 12 1/2 tons per man per day.∙By following detailed instructions on when to pick up the pig iron and walk, and when to sit and rest, and with no back talk, Schmidt increased his output to 47 1/2 tons per day.∙To select the right person∙The amount of resting that was necessary∙The optimal timing of lifting and resting∙ a study of physical capabilities of a worker (selection)Time study∙AnalysisEach job was broken into its elementarymovements. Nonessential movements werediscarded and the remainder carefullyexamined to determine the quickest and leastwasteful means of performing a job∙SynthesisThe elementary movements were combinedin the correct sequence to determine the timeand the exact method for performing a job.The Characteristics of Scientific Management∙Systematic analysis revealed “one best way”. (i.e. measurement and analysis of tasks, including the study and timing of physical movements to find the most efficient method of work.∙Each job is broken down into component parts; the parts timed and rearranged into the most efficient method of working.∙There is emphasis on finding more efficient methods and procedures for co-ordination and control.∙Involves clear division of work and responsibilities between management and workers.∙Close management control over the actual process of work.∙Careful selection and training of employees.∙Outcome of Taylor’s Implementation of Scientific Management∙Taylor had an idealistic view that workers, managers and owners could work together in harmony and profit from it.∙Results:Total employment in Bethlehem SteelWorks fell by around 70%.Output increased significantly.Productivity increased significantly.Wages increased.Therefore more goods available for societyat lower prices.∙Control of the workplace was transferred to management for the first time.∙Affirm of Taylor:1.Provide useful techniques and valuableorganizational suggestions2.Improve the productivity and socialefficiency3.Indirectly lower the market price of the goods4.Taylorism as management control:▪Labors are controlled by disciplines andrights of decision-making about themanner in their work▪Cloke and Goldsmith: Taylor was theleading promoter of the idea ofmanagement control in the productionprocess.5.Druker: Taylor seeks for the organizationalharmony by:∙higher wages from increased output;∙the removal of physical strain from doing work the wrong way;∙development of the workers and the opportunity for them to undertake tasks they were capable of doing; and∙elimination of the …boss‟ and the duty of management to help workers.1.Background: at a time of industrialreorganisation and the emergence of large,complex organisations with new forms oftechnology. Taylor‟s main concern was with the efficiency of both workers andmanagement.2. In brief, Taylorism improved themanagement-labour relations andcontributed to improved industrial efficiencyand prosperity.Criticisms of Taylor1. Collective-bargaining labour unions 工会集体谈判, especially the machinists union机械师工会and various railway brotherhoods, opposed all aspects of Taylor‟s methods, especially time study.Because Taylor‟s more efficient methodsoften led to layoffs of unnecessary workers,labor feared that adaption of his methodswould lead to loss of jobs.o E.G.o Watertown (arsenal workers) and the congressional investigation 国会调查Passing a House resolution to prevent the useof time-measuring devices and incentivepayments in any military agency of thegovernmento Employees detested 憎恨 the system of working.(layoffs)2. Argument that his incentive system 奖励机制would dehumanise the workplace 使职场失去人性化.3. Theory based on inadequate views of employee motivation i.e. it ignored the social and psychological needs of employees.4. Give the production manegers a dangerous high level of uncontrolled powerFast-food restaurants such as McDonald use strict routine, clearly specified tasks, detailed checklists and close control, which is loosely inked with scientific management.Screen clipping taken: 2013/12/24 15:01 Think:It is difficult to argue against the general line of Taylor‟s principles but they are subject to misuse. What is important is the context and manner in which such principles are put into effect. There is arguably one best way technically to perform a job, particularly, for example, with factory assembly line production. However, account needs to be taken of human behaviour. People tend to have their preferred way of working and the need for variety and more interesting or challenging tasks. Provided work is carried out safely and to a satisfactory standard and completed on time, to what extent should management insist on the ‘one best way’?It seems that Taylor did not so much ignore (as is often suggested) but was more unaware of the complexity of human behaviour in organisations and the importance of the individual’s feelings and sentiments, group working, managerial behaviour and the work environment. However, we now have greaterknowledge about social effects within the work organisation and about the value of money, incentives, motivation, and job satisfaction and performance. Scientific Management Todayo Standardizationo Goal setting: giving a specific goal can motivate ppl more; setting goal product can improve productivityo Talyor‟s cost control ideas (Return on investment) o Feedbacks (whether or not they had attained their assigned task)o Management responsibility for trainingo Scientific selection (the development of the fields of industrial psychology, HR): select better ppl to motivate themo The money (incentives) as a motivatorThe role of "Pay" as a motivatoro Rynes et al (2004):o People are more likely to underreport than to overreport the importance of pay as a motivational factor in most situations.o Research suggests that pay is much more important in people‟s actual choices and behaviours than it is in their self-reports of what motivates them.o Why do such discrepancies occur?▪Socially desirable responding▪the kinds of information that HRprofessionals receive about payo Importance of pay:o Pay fundamental to:▪Productivity▪Motivation▪Livelihood (a good education for one‟schildren, leisure)▪Self esteem▪Recruitment and selection▪Equity (internal and external)▪ A yardstick for social status (Frank, 1999)▪Aguinis, H., et al. (2013). What monetaryrewards can and cannot do: How to showemployees the money. Business Horizons. 56:241-249.What pay cannot do (critism)o Monetary rewards do not improve employees‟ job-relevant knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs)o Monetary rewards do not necessarily improve the quality of jobs: the level of autonomy and participation in decision-makingo Monetary rewards do not have a built-in mechanism that prevents such rewards from unintentionally encouraging unethical and counterproductive employee behaviours.Bureaucracy卡尔·马克思卡尔·马克思认为，官僚制是资本主义企业中的管理结构，不仅服务于调节生产过程中的不同要素，还是用于积极惩罚、斗争、控制的手段，同时也是保证资本家榨取剩余劳动力并调节由此而来的冲突的必要手段。

科学管理研究读后感英文回答：Scientific Management: A Critical Review.Frederick Winslow Taylor's "Scientific Management" has been a pivotal concept in the realm of industrial management since its inception in the early 20th century. Taylor advocated for a systematic, scientific approach to managing work processes, emphasizing efficiency, productivity, and standardization. His ideas have had a profound impact on the industrial world, shaping the way organizations operate and workers perform their tasks.Taylor's scientific management principles revolve around meticulous analysis, measurement, and optimization of work processes. He believed that through careful observation and analysis, managers could identify the most efficient ways to perform tasks, eliminate waste, and increase output. This approach, he argued, could lead tosignificant cost savings, improved quality, and increased worker productivity.One of the key elements of scientific management is the division of labor. Taylor advocated for breaking down tasks into smaller, more manageable units, each assigned to a specialized worker. This division of labor, he believed, would allow workers to become more proficient in their specific tasks and reduce overall production time.Another important aspect of scientific management is the use of standardized tools, materials, and procedures. Taylor emphasized the importance of creating and maintaining consistent standards throughout the production process to minimize variability and ensure quality. This standardization also facilitated the training of new workers and allowed for easy interchangeability of parts.Furthermore, scientific management places great emphasis on the role of management in planning and controlling work processes. Taylor believed that managers had the responsibility to determine the most efficientmethods for performing tasks, set clear goals and instructions, and provide workers with the necessary training and support.However, scientific management has also faced its share of criticism. Critics argue that it promotes a dehumanizing and mechanistic approach to work, reducing workers to mere appendages of the production process. The emphasis on efficiency and productivity, they contend, can lead to worker fatigue, alienation, and a loss of creativity.Moreover, scientific management has been criticized for its lack of attention to human factors and the social aspects of work. It focuses primarily on the technical aspects of production, neglecting the importance of employee morale, motivation, and job satisfaction. Critics argue that a more holistic approach to management is needed that takes into account the human dimension of work.Despite its limitations, scientific management remains a significant contribution to the field of industrial management. It introduced the importance of systematicanalysis, standardization, and scientific principles to work processes, leading to substantial productivity gains and efficiency improvements. However, it is important to recognize its limitations and to complement its principles with a broader understanding of human factors and organizational dynamics.中文回答：科学管理研究读后感。

一、引言泰勒科学管理原理是管理学中的重要理论之一，对于企业的管理和运营有着深远的影响。

在本文中，我们将从三个主要内容来深入探讨泰勒科学管理原理，并根据其深度和广度，撰写一篇有价值的文章。

二、泰勒科学管理原理的三个主要内容1. 工作分析和工作设计泰勒提出了工作分析和工作设计的重要原则，即通过分析工作流程和任务要求，来设计出最有效率的工作方式。

在实际应用中，可以通过细致而全面的工作分析，将工作任务细化为具体的步骤和要求，从而使员工在执行工作时更加高效、合理，减少无效的时间和资源浪费。

泰勒倡导的工作设计理念，强调了对工作流程的科学规划和优化，使得员工的工作效率和质量得到有效提升，从而为企业创造更大的价值。

2. 绩效激励和薪酬制度泰勒认为，员工的绩效和动力是组织成功和高效运营的重要保障，因此提出了绩效激励和薪酬制度的重要性。

他强调了要根据员工的绩效表现，给予相应的激励和奖励，以激发员工的积极性和创造力。

泰勒也提倡了科学而合理的薪酬制度，使员工的薪酬与其工作表现和贡献相匹配，从而建立起公正、激励的薪酬体系，为企业的长期发展提供稳定的人力资源支持。

3. 工作方法和工作标准化泰勒强调了工作方法和工作标准化的重要性，认为通过科学规划和精细管理，能够使工作过程更加精准、可控。

他提倡了标准化的工作流程和作业方式，以确保员工在执行工作时能够按照固定的程序和标准进行，避免出现不确定性和浪费。

泰勒也注重工作方法的改进和创新，鼓励员工积极参与工作方式的优化和提升，以不断提高工作效率和质量，推动企业的持续改善和发展。

三、结论与个人观点通过对泰勒科学管理原理的三个主要内容的深入探讨，我们可以看到其在企业管理中的重要性和实际应用价值。

工作分析和工作设计能够使员工工作更加有效，绩效激励和薪酬制度能够激发员工的动力和创造力，工作方法和工作标准化能够使工作过程更加规范和可控。

这些原理对于企业的管理和运营至关重要，可以帮助企业实现高效、稳定的运转，从而取得更好的经济效益和社会效益。

科学管理scientific management泰勒开创的科学管理运动，运用时间-动作研究方法对工作进行科学研究，设计出合理的工作程序，提出了工人在体力上应与工作相匹配的劳动定额管理等。

以美国F .W .泰罗（又译为：F .W .泰勒）为代表的管理阶段、管理理论和制度的统称。

又称古典管理理论、传统管理理论。

20世纪初产生，在西方一直延续到20世纪40年代。

泰罗把科学管理概括为：科学，而不是单凭经验办事；和谐，而不是合作；合作，而不是个人主义；以最大限度的产出，取代有限的产出，每人都发挥最大的工作效率，获得最大的成功，就是用高效率的生产方式代替低成本的生产方式,以加强劳动力成本控制.工作主要是通过时间和动作研究及工作分析来达到这一目标.主要目的：提高人的劳动效能基本原则：①对人的劳动的每种要素规定一种科学的方法；用以代替陈旧的凭经验管理的方法。

②科学地挑选工人，然后进行训练、教育，发展他们的技能。

③与工人合作，保证所有工作都能按已发展起来的原则来进行。

④在管理和工人之间，工作的分配和责任的分担几乎是均等的。

管理工具：①在自然科学的方法协助下优化劳动执行②完全彻底的劳动分工（劳动过程原子化）③严格区分领导和执行职能活动④通过古典组织理论进行补充，首先是强调给与任务的一致性原则⑤发展和升级员工的特别的、特定职能活动的才能资格⑥引入业绩相关的薪酬⑦业绩来自才能资格和劳动条件主要内容：①工作效率和工作定额管理。

通过进行工时和动作研究，制订合理的工作定额，保留和改善必要的动作，使生产率得到提高。

②科学选人用人。

为工作挑选最合适的人。

要为每一项工作挑选第一流的工人，并对工人进行培训。

③标准化管理。

要求操作方法、使用的工具、机器和材料及作业环境标准化。

④差别计件工资管理。

实行有差别的计件工资制，对于按照标准操作方法在规定的时间定额内完成工作的工人，按较高的工资率计算工资，否则按较低的工资率计算工资。

⑤把计划职能和作业职能分开，明确划分两种职能。

专业英语复习材料2011.1.19 2A401 上午9:00~10:45简答：2 . Politics and Administration Frank J .GoodnowThere are, then, in all governmental systems two primary or ultimate functions of government, viz . the expression of the will of the state and the execution of that will . There are also in all states separate organs, each of which is mainly busied with the discharge of one of these functions . These functions are, respectively, Politics and Adminis- tration.(p34)因此，在所有的政府体制中都存在着两种主要的或基本的政府职能，即国家意志的表达职能和国家意志的执行职能。

在所有的国家中都存在着分立的机关，每个分立的机关都用它们的大部分时间行使着两种职能中的一种。

这两种职能分别就是：政治与行政。

Actual political necessity however requires that there shall be harmony between the expression and execution of the state will .(p35) 然而，实际政治的需要却要求国家意志的表达与执行之间协调一致。

3. Scientific Management Frederick W .Taylor(1)To develop a science to replace the old rule-of-thumb knowledge.(2)The scientific selection of the workmen and his development.(3)The bringing of the science and the scientifically selected and trainedworkmen together.(4)An almost equal division of the actual work of the establishmentbetween the workmen and the management.5 . Notes on the Theory of Organization Luther GulickThere are three clear limitations beyond which the division of work cannot to advantage go . The first is practical and arises from the volume of work involved in man-hours .The second limitation arises from technology and custom at a given time and place . The third limitation is that the subdivision of work must not pass beyond physical division into organic division . (p58)分工有三个明显的限制，超过这些限制分工就不能有利地进行。

THE PRINCIPLES OF SCIENTIFICMANAGEMENT科学管理原理By Frederick Winslow Taylor,M.E.,Sc.D.作者：[美]弗雷德里克·温斯洛·泰勒1911INTRODUCTION前言President Roosevelt in his address to the Governors at the White House,prophetically remarked that"The conservation of our national resources is only preliminary to the larger question of national efficiency."罗斯福总统在白宫对州长们演讲时曾预言性地指出：“对我国资源的保护，只是解决提高国家效率这一更大问题的开端。

”【西奥多·罗斯福（Theodore Roosevelt,Jr.，1858—1919），人称“老罗斯福”，昵称“泰迪”（Teddy），美国历史学家、政治家，第26任总统（1901—1909年）。

1906年，罗斯福总统在白宫召集全国州长会议，讨论对于水、森林和其他自然资源的有效规划、分析和使用问题。

老罗斯福总统和华盛顿、杰斐逊、林肯并称美国历史上最伟大的总统。

】The whole country at once recognized the importance of conserving our material resources and a large movement has been started which will be effective in accomplishing this object.As yet,however,we have but vaguely appreciated the importance of “the larger question of increasing our national efficiency,"整个国家马上意识到保护我们的物质资源的重要性，并开展了一场旨在有效达成这一目的的大规模运动。

The Principles of Scientific Management(1911)by Frederick Winslow Taylor, M.E., Sc.D.IntroductionChapter I: Fundamentals of Scientific ManagementChapter II: The Principles of Scientific ManagementINTRODUCTIONPresident Roosevelt, in his address to the Governors at the White House, prophetically remarked that "The conservation of our national resources is only preliminary to the larger question of national efficiency."The whole country at once recognized the importance of conserving our material resources and a large movement has been started which will be effective in accomplishing this object. As yet, however, we have but vaguely appreciated the importance of "the larger question of increasing our national efficiency."We can see our forests vanishing, our water-powers going to waste, our soil being carried by floods into the sea; and the end of our coal and our iron is in sight. But our larger wastes of human effort, which go on every day through such of our acts as are blundering, ill-directed, or inefficient, and which Mr Roosevelt refers to as a lack of "national efficiency," are less visible, less tangible, and are but vaguely appreciated.We can see and feel the waste of material things. Awkward, inefficient, or ill-directed movements of men, however, leave nothing visible or tangible behind them. Their appreciation calls for an act of 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.As yet there has been no public agitation for "greater national efficiency," no meetings have been called to consider how this is to be brought about. And still there are signs that the need for greater efficiency is widely felt.The search for better, for more competent men, from the presidents of our great companies down to our household servants, was never more vigorous than it is now. And more than ever before is the demand for competent men in excess of the supply.What we are all looking for, however, is the ready-made, competent man; the man whom some one else has trained. It is only when we fully realize that our duty, as well as our opportunity, lies in systematically cooperating to train and to make this competent man, instead of in hunting for a man whom some one else has trained, that we shall be on the road to national efficiency.In the past the prevailing idea has been well expressed in the saying that "Captains of industry are born, not made" and the theory has been that if one could get the right man, methods could be safely left to him. In the future it will be appreciated that our leaders must be trained right as well as born right, and that no great man can (with the old system of personal management) hope to compete with a number of ordinary men who have been properly organized so as efficiently to cooperate.In the past the man has been first; in the future the system must be first. This in no sense, however, implies that great men are not needed. On the contrary, the first object of any good system must be that of developing first-class men; and under systematic management the best man rises to the top more certainly and more rapidly than ever before.This paper has been written:First. To point out, through a series of simple illustrations, the great loss which the whole country is suffering through inefficiency in almost all of our daily acts.Second. To try to convince the reader that the remedy for this inefficiency lies in systematic management, rather than in searching for some unusual or extraordinary man.Third. 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, which call for the most elaborate cooperation. And, briefly, through a series of illustrations, to convince the reader that whenever these principles are correctly applied, results must follow which are truly astounding.This paper was originally prepared for presentation to The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. The illustrations chosen are such as, it is believed, will especially appeal to engineers and to managers of industrial and manufacturingestablishments, and also quite as much to all of the men who are working in these establishments. It is hoped, however, that it will be clear to other readers that the same principles can be applied with equal force to all social activities: to the management of our homes; the management of our farms; the management of the business of our tradesmen, large and small; of our churches, our philanthropic institutions, our universities, and our governmental departments.CHAPTER I: FUNDAMENTALS OF SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENTTHE principal object of management should be to secure the maximum prosperity for the employer, coupled with the maximum prosperity for each employee.The words "maximum prosperity" are used, in their broad sense, to mean not only large dividends for the company or owner, but the development of every branch of the business to its highest state of excellence, so that the prosperity may be permanent.In the same way maximum prosperity for each employee means not only higher wages than are usually received by men of his class, but, of more importance still, it also means the development of each man to his state of maximum efficiency, so that he may be able to do, generally speaking, the highest grade of work for which his natural abilities fit him, and it further means giving him, when possible, this class of work to do.It would seem to be so self-evident that maximum prosperity for the employer, coupled with maximum prosperity for the employee, ought to be the two leading objects of management, that even to state this fact should be unnecessary. And yet there is no question that, throughout the industrial world, a large part of the organization of employers, as well as employees, is for war rather than for peace, and that perhaps the majority on either side do not believe that it is possible so to arrange their mutual relations that their interests become identical.The majority of these men believe that the fundamental interests of employees and employers are necessarily antagonistic Scientific management, on the contrary, has for its very foundation the firm conviction that the true interests of the two are one and the same; that prosperity for the employer cannot exist through a long term of years unless it is accompanied by prosperity for the employee, and vice versa; and that it is possible to give the workman what he most wants high wages and the employer what he wants a low labor cost -- for his manufactures.It is hoped that some at least of those who do not sympathize with each of these objects may be led to modify their views; that some employers, whose attitudetoward their workmen has been that of trying to get the largest amount of work out of them for the smallest possible wages, may be led to see that a more liberal policy toward their men will pay them better; and that some of those workmen who begrudge a fair and even a large profit to their employers, and who feel that all of the fruits of their labor should belong to them, and that those for whom they work and the capital invested in the business are entitled to little or nothing, may be led to modify these views.No one can be found who will deny that in the case of any single individual the greatest prosperity can exist only when that individual has reached his highest state of efficiency; that is, when he is turning out his largest daily output.The truth of this fact is also perfectly clear in the case of two men working together. To illustrate: if you and your workman have become so skilful that you and he together are making two pairs of shoes in a day, while your competitor and his workman are making only one pair, it is clear that after selling your two pairs of shoes you can pay your workman much higher wages than your competitor who produces only one pair of shoes is able to pay his man, and that there will still be enough money left over for you to have a larger profit than your competitor.In the case of a more complicated manufacturing establishment, it should also be perfectly clear 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, plus nature's resources, plus the cost for the use of capital in the shape of machines, buildings, etc. Or, to state the same thing in a different way: that the greatest prosperity can exist only as the result of the greatest possible productivity of the men and machines of the establishment that is, when each man and each machine are turning out the largest possible output; because unless your men and your machines are daily turning out more work than others around you, it is clear that competition will prevent your paying higher wages to your workmen than are paid to those of your competitor. And what is true as to the possibility of paying high wages in the case of two companies competing close beside one another is also true as to whole districts of the country and even as to nations which are in competition. In a word, that maximum prosperity can exist only as the result of maximum productivity. Later in this paper illustrations will be given of several companies which are earning large dividends and at the same time paying from 30 per cent to 100 per cent higher wages to their men than are paid to similar men immediately around them, and with whose employers they are in competition. These illustrations will cover different types of work, from the most elementary to the most complicated.If the above reasoning is correct, it follows that the most important object of both the workmen and the management should be the training and development of each individual in the establishment, so that he can do (at his fastest pace andwith the maximum of efficiency) the highest class of work for which his natural abilities fit him.These principles appear to be so self-evident that many men may think it almost childish to state them. Let us, however, turn to the facts, as they actually exist in this country and in England. The English and American peoples are the greatest sportsmen in the world. Whenever an American workman plays baseball, or an English workman plays cricket, it is safe to say that he strains every nerve to secure victory for his side. He does his very best to make the largest possible number of runs. The universal sentiment is so strong that any man who fails to give out all there is in him in sport is branded as a "quitter," and treated with contempt by those who are around him.When the same workman returns to work on the following day, instead of using every effort to turn out the largest possible amount of work, in a majority of the cases this man deliberately plans to do as little as he safely can -- to turn out far less work than he is well able to do -- in many instances to do not more than one-third to one-half of a proper day's work. And in fact if he were to do his best to turn out his largest possible day's work, he would be abused by his fellow-workers for so doing, even more than if he had proved himself a "quitter" in sport. Under working, that is, deliberately working slowly so as to avoid doing a full day's work, "soldiering," as it is called in this country, "hanging it out," as it is called in England, "ca' cannie," as it is called in Scotland, is almost universal in industrial establishments, and prevails also to a large extent in the building trades; and the writer asserts without fear of contradiction that this constitutes the greatest evil with which the working-people of both England and America are now afflicted.It will be shown later in this paper that doing away with slow working and "soldiering" in all its forms and so arranging the relations between employer and employee that each workman will work to his very best advantage and at his best speed, accompanied by the intimate cooperation with the management and the help (which the workman should receive) from the management, would result on the average in nearly doubling the output of each man and each machine. What other reforms, among those which are being discussed by these two nations, could do as much toward promoting prosperity, toward the diminution of poverty, and the alleviation of suffering? America and England have been recently agitated over such subjects as the tariff, the control of the large corporations on the one hand, and of hereditary power on the other hand, and over various more or less socialistic proposals for taxation, etc. On these subjects both peoples have been profoundly stirred, and yet hardly a voice has been raised to call attention to this vastly greater and more important subject of "soldiering," which directly and powerfully affects the wages, the prosperity, and the life of almost every working-man, and also quite as much the prosperity of every industrial establishment in the nation.The elimination of "soldiering" and of the several causes of slow working would so lower the cost of production that both our home and foreign markets would be greatly enlarged, and we could compete on more than e en terms with our rivals. It would remove one of the fundamental causes for dull times, for lack of employment, and for poverty, and therefore would have a more permanent and far-reaching effect upon these misfortunes than any of the curative remedies that are now being used to soften their consequences. It would insure higher wages and make shorter working hours and better working and home conditions possible.Why is it, then, in the face of the self-evident fact that maximum prosperity can exist only as the result of the determined effort of each workman to turn out each day his largest possible day's work, that the great majority of our men are deliberately doing just the opposite, and that even when the men have the best of intentions their work is in most cases far from efficient?There are three causes for this condition, which may be briefly summarized as:First. The fallacy, which has from time immemorial been almost universal among workmen, that a material increase in the output of each man or each machine in the trade would result in the end in throwing a large number of men out of work.Second. The defective systems of management which are in common use, and which make it necessary for each workman to soldier, or work slowly, in order that he may protect his own best interests.Third. The inefficient rule-of-thumb methods, which are still almost universal in all trades and in practising which our workmen waste a large part of their effort.This paper will attempt to show the enormous gains which would result from the substitution by our workmen of scientific for rule-of-thumb methods.To explain a little more fully these three causes:First. The great majority of workmen still believe that if they were to work at their best speed they would be doing a great injustice to the whole trade by throwing a lot of men out of work, and yet the history of the development of each trade shows that each improvement, whether it be the invention of a new machine or the introduction of a better method, which results in increasing the productive capacity of the men in the trade and cheapening the costs, instead of throwing men out of work make in the end work for more men.The cheapening of any article in common use almost immediately results in a largely increased demand for that article. Take the case of shoes, for instance. The introduction of machinery for doing every element of the work which was formerlydone by hand has resulted in making shoes at a fraction of their former labor cost, and in selling them so cheap that now almost every man, woman, and child in the working-classes buys one or two pairs of shoes per year, and wears shoes all the time, whereas formerly each workman bought perhaps one pair of shoes every five years, and went barefoot most of the time, wearing shoes only as a luxury or as a matter of the sternest necessity. In spite of the enormously increased output of shoes per workman, which has come with shoe machinery, the demand for shoes has so increased that there are relatively more men working in the shoe industry now than ever before.The workmen in almost every trade have before them an object lesson of this kind, and yet, because they are ignorant of the history of their own trade even, they still firmly believe, as their fathers did before them, that it is against their best interests for each man to turn out each day as much work as possible.Under this fallacious idea a large proportion of the workmen of both countries each day deliberately work slowly so as to curtail the output. Almost every labor union has made, or is contemplating making, rules which have for their object curtailing the output of their members, and those men who have the greatest influence with the working-people, the labor leaders as well as many people with philanthropic feelings who are helping them, are daily spreading this fallacy and at the same time telling them that they are overworked.A great deal has been and is being constantly said about "sweat-shop" work and conditions. The writer has great sympathy with those who are overworked, but on the whole a greater sympathy for those who are under paid. For every individual, however, who is overworked, there are a hundred who intentionally underwork -- greatly underwork -- every day of their lives, and who for this reason deliberately aid in establishing those conditions which in the end inevitably result in low wages. And yet hardly a single voice is being raised in an endeavor to correct this evil.As engineers and managers, we are more intimately acquainted with these facts than any other class in the community, and are therefore best fitted to lead in a movement to combat this fallacious idea by educating not only the workmen but the whole of the country as to the true facts. And yet we are practically doing nothing in this direction, and are leaving this field entirely in the hands of the labor agitators (many of whom are misinformed and mis-guided), and of sentimentalists who are ignorant as to actual working conditions.Second. As to the second cause for soldiering -- the relations which exist between employers and employees under almost all of the systems of management which are in common use -- it is impossible in a few words to make it clear to one not familiar with this problem why it is that the ignorance of employers as to theproper time in which work of various kinds should be done makes it for the interest of the workman to "soldier."The writer therefore quotes herewith from a paper read before The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. in June, 1903, entitled "Shop Management," which it is hoped will explain fully this cause for soldiering:"This loafing or soldiering proceeds from two causes. First, from the natural instinct and tendency of men to take it easy, which may be called natural soldiering. Second, from more intricate second thought and reasoning caused by their relations with other men, which may be called systematic soldiering."There is no question that the tendency of the average man (in all walks of life) is toward working at a slow, easy gait, and that it is only after a good deal of thought and observation on his part or as a result of example, conscience, or external pressure that he takes a more rapid pace."There are, of course, men of unusual energy, vitality, and ambition who naturally choose the fastest gait, who set up their own standards, and who work hard, even though it may be against their best interests. But these few uncommon men only serve by forming a contrast to emphasize the tendency of the average."This common tendency to 'take it easy' is greatly increased by bringing a number of men together on similar work and at a uniform standard rate of pay by the day."Under this plan the better men gradually but surely slow down their gait to that of the poorest and least efficient. When a naturally energetic man works for a few days beside a lazy one, the logic of the situation is unanswerable. 'Why should I work hard when that lazy fellow gets the same pay that I do and does only half as much work?'"A careful time study of men working under these conditions will disclose facts which are ludicrous as well as pitiable."To illustrate: The writer has timed a naturally energetic workman who, while going and coming from work, would walk at a speed of from three to four miles per hour, and not infrequently trot home after a day's work. On arriving at his work he would immediately slow down to a speed of about one mile an hour. When, for example, wheeling a loaded wheelbarrow, he would go at a good fast pace even uphill in order to be as short a time as possible under load, and immediately on the return walk slow down to a mile an hour, improving every opportunity for delay short of actually sitting down. In order to be sure not to do more than his lazy neighbor, he would actually tire himself in his effort to go slow."These men were working under a foreman of good reputation and highly thought of by his employer, who, when his attention was called to this state of things, answered: 'Well, I can keep them from sitting down, but the devil can't make them get a move on while they are at work.'"The natural laziness of men is serious, but by far the greatest evil from which both workmen and employers are suffering is the systematic soldiering which is almost universal under all of the ordinary schemes of management and which results from a careful study on the part of the workmen of what will promote their best interests."The writer was much interested recently in hearing one small but experienced golf caddy boy of twelve explaining to a green caddy, who had shown special energy and interest, the necessity of going slow and lagging behind his man when he came up to the ball, showing him that since they were paid by the hour, the faster they went the less money they got, and finally telling him that if he went too fast the other boys would give him a licking."This represents a type of systematic soldiering which is not, however, very serious, since it is done with the knowledge of the employer, who can quite easily break it up if he wishes."The greater part of the systematic soldiering, however, is done by the men with the deliberate object of keeping their employers ignorant of how fast work can be done."So universal is soldiering for this purpose that hardly a competent workman can be found in a large establishment, whether he works by the day or on piece work, contract work, or under any of the ordinary systems, who does not devote a considerable part of his time to studying just how slow he can work and still convinc6 his employer that he is going at a good pace."The causes for this are, briefly, that practically all employers determine upon a maximum sum which they feel it is right for each of their classes of employees to earn per day, whether their men work by the day or piece."Each workman soon finds out about what this figure is for his particular case, and he also realizes that when his employer is convinced that a man is capable of doing more work than he has done, he will find sooner or later some way of compelling him to do it with little or no increase of pay."Employers derive their knowledge of how much of a given class of work can be done in a day from either their own experience, which has frequently grown hazy with age, from casual and unsystematic observation of their men, or at best from records which are kept, showing the quickest time in which each job has beendone. In many cases the employer will feel almost certain that a given job can be done faster than it has been, but he rarely cares to take the drastic measures necessary to force men to do it in the quickest time, unless he has an actual record proving conclusively how fast the work can be done."It evidently becomes for each man's interest, then, to see that no job is done faster than it has been in the past. The younger and less experienced men are taught this by their elders, and all possible persuasion and social pressure is brought to bear upon the greedy and selfish men to keep them from making new records which result in temporarily increasing their wages, while all those who come after them are made to work harder for the same old pay."Under the best day work of the ordinary type, when accurate records are kept of the amount of work done by each man and of his efficiency, and when each man's wages are raised as he improves, and those who fail to rise to a certain standard are discharged and a fresh supply of carefully selected men are given work in their places, both the natural loafing and systematic soldiering can be largely broken up. This can only be done, however, when the men are thoroughly convinced that there is no intention of establishing piece work even in the remote future, and it is next to impossible to make men believe this when the work is of such a nature that they believe piece work to be practicable. In most cases their fear of making a record which will be used as a basis for piece work will cause them to soldier as much as they dare."It is, however, under piece work that the art of systematic soldiering is thoroughly developed; after a workman has had the price per piece of the work he is doing lowered two or three times as a result of his having worked harder and increased his output, he is likely entirely to lose sight of his employer's side of the case and become imbued with a grim determination to have no more cuts if soldiering can prevent it. Unfortunately for the character of the workman, soldiering involves a deliberate attempt to mislead and deceive his employer, and thus upright and straightforward workmen are compelled to become more or less hypocritical. The employer is soon looked upon as an antagonist, if not an enemy, and the mutual confidence which should exist between a leader and his men, the enthusiasm, the feeling that they are all working for the same end and will share in the results is entirely lacking."The feeling of antagonism under the ordinary piece-work system becomes in many cases so marked on the part of the men that any proposition made by their employers, however reasonable, is looked upon with suspicion, and soldiering becomes such a fixed habit that men will frequently take pains to restrict the product of machines which they are running when even a large increase in output would involve no more work on their part."Third. As to the third cause for slow work, considerable space will later in this paper be devoted to illustrating the great gain, both to employers and employees, which results from the substitution of scientific for rule-of-thumb methods in even the smallest details of the work of every trade. The enormous saving of time and therefore increase in the output which it is possible to effect through eliminating unnecessary motions and substituting fast for slow and inefficient motions for the men working in any of our trades can be fully realized only after one has personally seen the improvement which results from a thorough motion and time study, made by a competent man.To explain briefly: owing to the fact that the workmen in all of our trades have been taught the details of their work by observation of those immediately around them, there are many different ways in common use for doing the same thing, perhaps forty, fifty, or a hundred ways of doing each act in each trade, and for the same reason there is a great variety in the implements used for each class of work. Now, among the various methods and implements used in each element of each trade there is always one method and one implement which is quicker and better than any of the rest. And this one best method and best implement can only be discovered or developed through a scientific study and analysis of all of the methods and implements in use, together with accurate, minute, motion and time study. This involves the gradual substitution of science for rule of thumb throughout the mechanic arts.This paper will show that the underlying philosophy of all of the old systems of management in common use makes it imperative that each workman shall be left with the final responsibility for doing his job practically as he thinks best, with comparatively little help and advice from the management. And it will also show that because of this isolation of workmen, it is in most cases impossible for the men working under these systems to do their work in accordance with the rules and laws of a science or art, even where one exists.The writer asserts as a general principle (and he proposes to give illustrations tending to prove the fact later in this paper) that in almost all of the mechanic arts the science which underlies each act of each workman is so great and amounts to so much that the workman who is best suited to actually doing the work is incapable of fully understanding this science, without the guidance and help of those who are working with him or over him, either through lack of education or through insufficient mental capacity. In order that the work may be done in accordance with scientific laws, it is necessary that there shall be a far more equal division of the responsibility between the management and the workmen than exists under any of the ordinary types of management. Those in the management whose duty it is to develop this science should also guide and help the workman in working under it, and should assume a much larger share of the responsibility for results than under usual conditions is assumed by the management.。

管理名著导读读书报告题目：科学管理原理电商0901张晶晶200946900118李玉珍200946900120孟凡英200946900121一、书籍简介作者：弗雷德里克·温斯洛·泰罗——科学管理之父（FrederickWinslowTaylor， 1856—1915）首次出版：1911年全书名：《科学管理原理》（ThePrinciplesofScientificManagement）被誉为：管理史上的里程碑之作古典科学管理运动的巅峰之作二、作者简介弗雷德里克·泰勒是美国古典管理学家、科学管理的主要倡导人。

出生于1856年3月20日，他去世的日期是1915年3月21日。

他的墓碑位于一座能俯视费城钢铁厂烟囱的小山上，墓碑上刻着：“科学管理之父－－弗雷德里克·温斯洛·泰勒”。

泰勒是带着郁闷的心情离开这个世界的。

他生前殚精竭虑研究的科学管理原理和方法，由于受到曲解而推行举步维艰。

国会听证会上国会议员和调查人员无休止的盘问，特别是几次发生的针对推行泰勒制的工人罢工风潮，更是伤透了这位骨子里同情工人并付出了艰巨劳动的思想者的心。

为了排除人们的疑虑，这位不善言辞的人不得不屡屡长途履行，为其理论和方法进行说明和辩护。

而正是一次外出发表演讲的归途中，他在通风的卧铺车厢感染了肺炎，不久被夺去了59岁的生命三、内容简介《科学管理原理》的作者泰勒的管理理论看似简单，其实内涵丰富，并非能被一个时代完全吸收。

只有亲自翻阅大师的著作，才能领会管理的真谛；也只有实践大理由的理论，才能实现管理的目标——“使雇主的财富最大化，同时也使每一位雇员的财富最大化。

”撰写本文有以下目的：第一，通过一系列简明的例证，指出由于几乎所有日常行为的效率低下而使全美国遭受到的巨大损失。

第二，试图说明根治效率低下的良药在于系统化的管理，而不在于收罗某些独特的或不同寻常的人物。

第三，证明最先进的管理是真正的科学，说明其理论基础是明确定义的规律、准则和原则，并进一步表明可把科学管理原理应用于几乎所有人类的活动中去。

管理学家学术版57中图分类号 F124.3 文献标识码 A 文章编号1674-1722(2011)09-0057-15管理学上的泰勒密码——纪念《科学管理原理》出版一百周年王成军 李丹丹 王正丽 张伟红安徽财经大学工商管理学院 蚌埠 233041摘 要 若说及一门学科之所以成其为一门学科或作为其成熟的标志是在其为该领域内涌现出了相应学术大家或大师级代表人物的话，那么毫无疑问，在管理学科当中，泰勒至少应当算一位。

这里从“泰勒生平和业绩”、“两个经典的支撑案例”、“磨洋工VS绩效提升”、“从12.5吨到47.5吨”、“科学管理上的‘非科学性’”、“组织的起源”、“人际学派”、“科学至上还是致命自负”、“现实的返照”等方面，综述与评价了管理学家泰勒的生平造诣及其著作《科学管理原理》一百年来的可能价值影响。

关键词 泰勒 科学管理 《科学管理原理》 一百周年On Frederick W. Taylor’s Code in Management:In memory of 100th anniversary after the Publication ofThe Principles of Scientifi c ManagementWang Chengjun Li Dandan Wang Zhengli Zhang Weihong School of Management, Anhui University of Finance and Economics Bengbu 230041Abstract As we know now, the full-blown symbol of a discipline is some masters coming forth in this field. Accordingly, it is no doubt that Frederick W. Taylor is a great master in Management scopes. This article summarizes and remarks the life, performance, influence about Frederick W. Taylor and its masterpiece The Principles of Scientific Management from several aspects such as introduction of Frederick W. Taylor, two supportive cases, soldiering and upgrading, from 12.5 ton to 47.5 ton, non-scientific in scientific management, the origin of organization, interpersonal relationship school, science foremost vs. fatal conceit, back to reality.Key words Frederick W. Taylor scientific management The Principles of Scientific Management 100th anniversary作者简介王成军（1972—），男，安徽利辛人，管理学博士，副教授，硕士生导师，研究方向：管理思想史论及比较、技术经济与管理、教育经济管理、统计计算数学， E-mail: zjuwchj@。

科学管理原理：理论反思与现实批判李新春;胡晓红【期刊名称】《管理学报》【年(卷),期】2012(9)5【摘要】泰勒的《科学管理原理》发表100年来,科学管理的理论和实践得到不断发展和创新.无论《原理》作为一种思想体系或管理哲学,还是对制度经济学的推进,以及作为现代管理理论的发轫,其理论和技术的生命力都不容忽视.由此,探讨泰勒科学管理的本质所在,揭示科学管理在过去100年对人类组织管理行为的深刻影响,批判性地分析我国科学管理的思想传播和实践过程显得十分重要.故提出一个核心观点:科学管理原理是科学精神在人类管理行为上的反映,是现代产业文明的哲学基础和行动原则.重新发现和挖掘泰勒管理哲学和技术的现实意义在于坚定管理理论和实践创新的科学精神,这对中国管理理论和实践的发展与创新具有方向性价值.%It is just 100 years since the first publishing of "Principles of Scientific Management" from Frederick w. Taylor. But until now there was few serious and systematic academic discussion and research about it. In practice the function of scientific management is under valued. This paper comes back to F. Taylor. The main purposes are to analyze the nature of scientific management, to study the great results from the practical process of scientific management in different industrial and social sectors, and to give a critical review of the diffusion and development of scientific management in China.【总页数】13页(P658-670)【作者】李新春;胡晓红【作者单位】中山大学管理学院;广东外语外贸大学工商管理学院【正文语种】中文【中图分类】C93【相关文献】1.泰罗的科学管理原理在高校教学管理中的现实借鉴及反思 [J], 孙文雄2.启蒙理性、历史反思与现实批判精神——董健先生学术特质散论 [J], 陈咏芹3.启蒙理性、历史反思与现实批判精神——董健先生学术特质散论 [J], 陈咏芹4.司法决策中法条主义的现实批判与反思 [J], 张晓萍5.司法决策中法条主义的现实批判与反思 [J], 张晓萍因版权原因，仅展示原文概要，查看原文内容请购买。

运营管理的发展简史(总4页)--本页仅作为文档封面，使用时请直接删除即可----内页可以根据需求调整合适字体及大小--运营管理的发展历程一、产业革命（18世纪60年代—19世纪初）产业革命始于18世纪70年代的英国，19世纪又扩展到美国和其他国家。

之前农业一直都是世界各国的主导产业。

制造业采取的是手工作坊方式，产品是由手工艺人和其徒弟在作坊里加工出来的。

这种手工作坊式的生产方式直到19世纪初才发生了变化。

许多发明创造改变了生产方式，机器代替了人力。

其中，最具重大意义的是蒸汽机的发明、劳动分工概念和标准化生产方式的提出。

1765年，英国人詹姆斯·瓦特（James Watt）发明了蒸汽机，为制造业提供了机械动力，推动了制造业的发展。

1776年，英国人亚当·斯密在其著作《国富论》中提出劳动分工的概念，认为：（1）分工可重复单项操作，提高熟练程度，提高效率；（2）分工可减少变换工作所损失的时间；（3）分工有利于工具和机器的改进1801年，美国人埃尔·惠特尼（Eli Whitney）提出了标准化的生产方式。

正是采用了标准化的配件，才实现了零件的可互换性，零件才无需定制，才能快速批量生产，才能以标准化的方式生产上万支滑膛枪，才使得后来福特汽车装配线的大量生产成为可能。

尽管发生了这些巨大的变化，管理理论与实践并未获得长足的发展，这时迫切需要比较系统、切实可行的管理方法作指导。

二、科学管理（1910—1920年）到了20世纪初，以泰勒（Frederick W. Taylor）为代表创立了科学管理原理，给工厂管理带来了巨大变化。

泰勒是科学管理原理的创始人，被尊称为科学管理之父。

泰勒认为雇主与雇员的真正利益是一致的，只有最大限度地提高了生产率，同时实现了雇主和雇员的财富最大化才能永久地实现社会财富的最大化。

以此为出发点和基础，泰勒提出了科学管理原理，其精髓在于：（1）对现有工作方法进行详细的观测、分析和改进；（2）建立在方法研究基础上的差别计件工资制；（3）根据工作性质的不同科学地挑选并培训工人；（4）设立计划部门，负责合同管理、方法研究与标准化、进度安排、成本分析、业绩考核与工资发放以及纪律检查等管理职能。