+1443 776-2705 panelessays@gmail.com

See requirement file.

Use only the book as reference.

Assignment 3: Neo-Classical Leader PaperWrite a 600 word response (APA 6, double-spaced) summarizing what you have learned from ONE of the identified leaders about their leadership and why these points are important to you personally. Use any one of the following neoclassical leaders: ( You will pick only one leader and research him more than the notes I am providing to you. )*

Williams Deming, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5T_ibofbPIQ*

Peter Drucker, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9eDntumN5o*

Abraham Maslow. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQJwE6yg6cY

Topics to cover in your paper:

•Worldview: Introduce the thinker and give a background of who they were, how they were educated, where they grew up, etc to provide perspective on their worldview.

•Theories:Explain their main intellectual discoveries, theories, ideas, etc

•Differences from Scientific Management: How were their ideas different from classical perspectives such as Taylor’s scientific management (Please reference Taylor in this response)

•Support for Scientific Management:How could their theories work in conjunction with scientific management principles (How do their theories and scientific management work together to create a better product)

•Life Example:How have you seen these theories used in life, give one example from your life that demonstrates a leadership principle from your chosen neo-classical leader

•Future Use:How might you implement these ideas in your future educational experiences at TWU? How might they be used if you were working in your dream career?

Important Note:Please cite your references if you are using quotes (remember that I want to see your understanding of the quote, not just the quote – use quotes minimally).  Suggestion:  one quotation (citation) per page. Spelling and grammar are part of your grade, as is proper APA usage and referencing.

Introduction

THE PRINCIPLES OF SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT

by Frederick W. Taylor

Introduction
Chapter 1:
Fundamentals of
Scientific Management
Chapter 2:
The Principles of
Scientific Management

Introduction

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.”

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 readymade,
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

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/SANTOSH/Desktop/Principles%20of%20Scientific%20Management/intro.htm (1 of 3)10/25/2006 12:28:25 PM

Introduction

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 manufacturing
establishments, 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.

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/SANTOSH/Desktop/Principles%20of%20Scientific%20Management/intro.htm (2 of 3)10/25/2006 12:28:25 PM

Introduction

Go to: Introduction Chapter 1 Chapter 2

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/SANTOSH/Desktop/Principles%20of%20Scientific%20Management/intro.htm (3 of 3)10/25/2006 12:28:25 PM

Chapter 1: Fundamentals of Scientific Management

THE PRINCIPLES OF SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT

by Frederick W. Taylor

Introduction
Chapter 1:
Fundamentals of
Scientific Management
Chapter 2:
The Principles of
Scientific Management

Chapter 1: Fundamentals of Scientific Management

The 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 attitude toward
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

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/SANTOSH/Desktop/Principles%20of%20Scientific%20Management/01.htm (1 of 12)10/25/2006 12:28:31 PM

Chapter 1: Fundamentals of Scientific Management

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

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/SANTOSH/Desktop/Principles%20of%20Scientific%20Management/01.htm (2 of 12)10/25/2006 12:28:31 PM

Chapter 1: Fundamentals of Scientific Management

and with 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 canae,” 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 employs 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

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/SANTOSH/Desktop/Principles%20of%20Scientific%20Management/01.htm (3 of 12)10/25/2006 12:28:31 PM

Chapter 1: Fundamentals of Scientific Management

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 even 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 practicing 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

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/SANTOSH/Desktop/Principles%20of%20Scientific%20Management/01.htm (4 of 12)10/25/2006 12:28:31 PM

Chapter 1: Fundamentals of Scientific Management

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 formerly done 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 under work–greatly under work–
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

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/SANTOSH/Desktop/Principles%20of%20Scientific%20Management/01.htm (5 of 12)10/25/2006 12:28:31 PM

Chapter 1: Fundamentals of Scientific Management

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
misguided), 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 the proper 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.”

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/SANTOSH/Desktop/Principles%20of%20Scientific%20Management/01.htm (6 of 12)10/25/2006 12:28:31 PM

Chapter 1: Fundamentals of Scientific Management

“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
up hill 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 convince his employer that he is
going at a good pace.”

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/SANTOSH/Desktop/Principles%20of%20Scientific%20Management/01.htm (7 of 12)10/25/2006 12:28:31 PM

Chapter 1: Fundamentals of Scientific Management

“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 been done. 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

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/SANTOSH/Desktop/Principles%20of%20Scientific%20Management/01.htm (8 of 12)10/25/2006 12:28:31 PM

Chapter 1: Fundamentals of Scientific Management

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 …