FOR A-PLUS WRITER ONLY

BLOG #1

Tylor’s Scientific Management theory has two different aspects. First is “To have a right person at the right job.” This theory emphasises on analysing the jobs and hire a person (or assign) with resembled skills that perfectly fits with job requirements. And another aspect is to have effective co-operation between Employees and Management. This theory has significant advantages that help Organizations to manage effectively and achieve organisational goal. Although it was first published in 1909, it’s still effective in the modern business world. But, it has flaws that need to fix to run the organization more efficiently towards organisational goals.

During 3rd year of my engineering study, I was an intern in Harsha Engineering Pvt. Ltd. It is collaborated with German Engineering firm and serving in India region. It was a part of a multinational company which has a very efficient management system. As per Tylor’s Scientific management theory, Harsha Engineering only hires highly qualified peoples. Those jobs are first analysed and then categorised according to standards that have been set by the management. Every position is categorised under required education, required skills set, required work experience etc. And then they hire people and train them for that work position. Above all, Harsha Engineering offers high wages to employees as compare to competitors. In other words, this Organisation is governing upon Tylor’s scientific management theory by allotting right work to the right person and by providing a higher share in the profit of the Organization. But still, the operation is not efficient. Flaws in the implementation of this theory can lead to an inefficient organisational structure. Especially the lack of communication between management and employees. While decision making, management don’t consider the opinions of employees. These problems can be seen in many organisation around the globe.

As we know, most of the employees expect higher wages, less stressful workload, and job security and fulfilment. And management tries to increase the profitability of operation by increasing efficiency. In Harsha engineering, they assemble CNC machines and automatic moulding machines. And its core design and core competent of the machine are decided by head office in Germany because of the standardised product manufacturing process. But every machine needs customization according to client’s requirements and according to local governmental policies. What happens in Harsha Engineering is, in-house design team makes a design that perfectly suits to localised market. But the lack of communication between management and employees, change in suggested machine design is tough for design team because management should follow orders from the top management. So, while design team was working on the project of the high capacity plastic moulding machine, they were facing some problems regarding the compressor. This compressor needs other fixtures that supposed to procure from India. But Germany made compressor required different dimensions of fixtures which are not available in India. And machine should be delivered within 15 days. For that in-house design team suggest the new design of the machine that can solve this problem. But management team was not accepting that design. And because of that, they delivered machine late and paid penalty for that.

On the other hand, Tylor’s scientific management suggest that both Management and Employees should not think about the surplus, rather should work towards earning higher surplus as an organisation. That will eliminate the fundamental issue about dividing surplus in a fair manner. But, what I observed in Harsha engineering is that although Employees are paid higher wages or we can say a higher share of surplus than competitors. But to make the whole system efficient, they used Tylor’s scientific management and assign an only skilled person for the job after job and workers were analysed. The aim was to make process efficient. And this approach resulted into biggest flaws of the organisational structure. They assign employees to carry out a task at higher efficiency. But they neglected uncertain nature of the job. And employees were given a target to achieve within the time frame. So, many employees ended up doing extra hours of work. Although employees are paid higher wages (Higher share of the surplus), they lost motivation to work. To boost up motivation, management has also introduced Incentive program to honour highly efficient employees. Continuous pressure of achieving target leads to lack of innovation and creativity by doing the same task every day.

In conclusion, although Tylor’s Scientific management theory is effective in management by choosing the right person for the job and rewarding them with fair surplus share, Employees need more attention from management. Attention not is the context of supervision and controlling them. But, by involving employees into the decision-making process and listening to their opinion. Because those are the people who are dealing with existing flaws within the organisation structure. In my example, Harsha Engineering had successfully implemented Tylor’s scientific management but the only thing was neglected was in-depth involvement of employees into management decision. Last but not the least, the motivation of employees. Management should share makes their employees believe that they are part of a process to achieve organisational goal. They should try to achieve organisational goals along with personal goals.