Now, when through all of this teaching and this minute instruction the work is apparently made so smooth and easy for the workman, the first impression is that this all tends to make him a mere automaton, a wooden man.As the workmen frequently say when they first come under this system, "Why, I am not allowed to think or move without some one interfering or doing it for me!" The same criticism and objection, however, can be raised against all other modem subdivision of labor.It does not follow, for example, that the modern surgeon is any more narrow or wooden a man than the early settler of this country.The frontiersman, however, had to be not only a surgeon, but also an architect, house builder, lumberman, farmer, soldier, and doctor, and he had to settle his law cases with a gun.You would hardly say that the life of the modern surgeon is any more narrowing, or that he is more of a wooden man than the frontiersman.The many problems to be met and solved by the surgeon are just as intricate and difficult and as developing and broadening in their way as were those of the frontiersman.
And it should be remembered that the training of the surgeon has been almost identical in type with the teaching and training which is given to the workman under scientific management.The surgeon, all through his early years, is under the closest supervision of more experienced men, who show him in the minutest way how each element of his work is best done.They provide him with the finest implements, each one of which has been the subject of special study and development, and then insist upon his using each of these implements in the very best way.All of this teaching, however, in no way narrows him.On the contrary, he is quickly given the very best knowledge of his predecessors; and, provided (as he is, right from the start) with standard implements and methods which represent the best knowledge of the world up to date, he is able to use his own originality and ingenuity to make real additions to the world's knowledge, instead of reinventing things which are old.In a similar way the workman who is cooperating with his many teachers under scientific management has an opportunity to develop which is at least as good as and generally better than that which he had when the whole problem was "up to him" and he did his work entirely unaided.
If it were true that the workman would develop into a larger and finer man without all of this teaching, and without the help of the laws which have been formulated for doing his particular job, then it would follow that the young man who now comes to college to have the help of a teacher in mathematics, physics, chemistry, Latin, Greek, etc., would do better to study these things unaided and by himself.The only difference in the two cases is that students come to their teachers, while from the nature of the work done by the mechanic under scientific management, the teachers must go to him.What really happens is that, with the aid of the science which is invariably developed, and through the instructions from his teachers, each workman of a given intellectual capacity is enabled to do a much higher, more interesting, and finally more developing and more profitable kind of work than he was before able to do.The laborer who before was unable to do anything beyond, perhaps, shoveling and wheeling dirt from place to place, or carrying the work from one part of the shop to another, is in many cases taught to do the more elementary machinist's work, accompanied by the agreeable surroundings and the interesting variety and higher wages which go with the machinist's trade.The cheap machinist or helper, who before was able to run perhaps merely a drill press, is taught to do the more intricate and higher priced lathe and planer work, while the highly skilled and more intelligent machinists become functional foremen and teachers.And so on, right up the line.
It may seem that with scientific management there is not the same incentive for the workman to use his ingenuity in devising new and better methods of doing the work, as well as in improving his implements, that there is with the old type of management.It is true that with scientific management the workman is not allowed to use whatever implements and methods he sees fit in the daily practise of his work.Every encouragement, however, should be given him to suggest improvements, both in methods and in implements.And whenever a workman proposes an improvement, it should be the policy of the management to make a careful analysis of the new method, and if necessary conduct a series of experiments to determine accurately the relative merit of the new suggestion and of the old standard, And whenever the new method is found to be markedly superior to the old, it should be adopted as the standard for the whole establishment.The workman should be given the full credit for the improvement, and should be paid a cash premium as a reward for his ingenuity.In this way the true initiative of the workmen is better attained under scientific management than under the old individual plan.
The history of the development of scientific management up to date, however, calls for a word of warning.The mechanism of management must not be mistaken for its essence, or underlying philosophy.Precisely the same mechanism will in one case produce disastrous results and in another the most beneficent.The same mechanism which will produce the finest results when made to serve the underlying principles of scientific management, will lead to failure and disaster if accompanied by the wrong spirit in those who are using it.Hundreds of people have already mistaken the mechanism of this system for its essence.Messrs Gantt, Barth, and the writer have presented papers to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers on the subject of scientific management.In these papers the mechanism which is used has been described at some length.As elements of this mechanism may be cited:
