The long shadow of Scientific Management
We imagine that the modern technology revolution is unique. Yet there have been technology revolutions throughout history. Nineteenth century automation had similarly transformed UK business. An 18th century worker would require around 500 hours to spin a pound of cotton. At the start of the twentieth century a single worker could process two pounds of cotton in an hour. That represents roughly a thousand fold improvement, perhaps the equivalent of microprocessor speed increases from the 1980s to today.
With factories, companies now had a large number of workers in a smaller area. Organizations started to consider how best to manage the workforce. The management of business was a new concept and, it was argued, could be treated scientifically no less than any other area. Focus began to extend beyond the design of machines to how the workers operated the machines.
Frederick Winslow Taylor, a foreman in the Midvale Steel Company, created what he termed “Scientific Management”. Taylor felt that detailed study of how workers performed their tasks could provide the basic information for scientific analysis.
Taylor’s theory was that every task would have one identifiable best method for performing it. Rational and scientific analysis could identify this method. Most importantly he believed in the creation of a class of managers. These would define and document the correct method for the work. Managers would be completely separated from workers. The workers would then exactly apply the techniques the managers had defined. These ideas have dominated management theory ever since.
Each man receives … complete written instructions, describing in detail the task which he is to accomplish, as well as the means to be used in doing the work.
“The Principles of Scientific Management” – F.W. Taylor 1911
Reductionist theory
As we have discussed elsewhere, this is a reductionist viewpoint. Taylorist theory is built on the idea that work is defined and repeatable. If the work is repeatable, then we can build a set of rules for completing it in the best way. If it is complicated, we break it down into simple steps. For each step we can write detailed instructions.
Taylor was no fool. At the time, Taylor’s theories were a significant step forward. He focused on removing “common sense” in favour of studying the work to be done. He argued against assigning workers randomly but instead matching the work to their skills. And he wanted to ensure that the requirements for the work were made clear to the workers.
But for present day knowledge work, scientific management is deeply flawed. Taylor assumed that work is repeatable. Therefore there is always a “best” way of performing the work. And that best way is found by looking at past identical work and analysing it. We have seen elsewhere that technology work is instead complex. In complex environments, new work is never exactly like the old work. Some of the knowledge is emergent and comes from doing the work. More deconstruction and analysis will not make the problems solvable.
In complex environments, new work does not reproduce old work
Separation of managers and workers
Inherent in the concepts of Scientific Management is the separation of managers and workers. This is an idea which has persisted from Taylor’s time to the present day. Many organizations still focus on maximising this separation with strong hierarchies.
In most cases one type of man is needed to plan ahead and an entirely different type to execute the work.
“The Principles of Scientific Management” – F.W. Taylor 1911
At the heart of this structure is a lack of trust. There is a belief that workers are inherently untrustworthy. Managers are seen as a different class (and indeed would have been a different social class at the time). Only the managers can be trusted to follow the business interests.
Hardly a competent workman can be found who does not devote a considerable amount of time to studying just how slowly he can work and still convince his employer that he is going at a good pace.
“The Principles of Scientific Management” – F.W. Taylor 1911
The reality of the technology world tends to be different. Developers are highly skilled and dedicated. Problems cannot be planned and solved independently of the work. Managers and individual contributors do specialise in different skills. And both skillsets are valued. But the managers cannot plan and write instructions in isolation.
Successful technology companies have understood the emergent nature of complex work
Rigid hierarchy
Traditional organizations following Taylor’s approaches use a hierarchical structure. Individual contributors are grouped into large functional groups with a manager. In a hierarchy, the purpose of the manager, as in Scientific Management, is to instruct those individuals and ensure that they perform the right work.
Again, this is not an effective model for knowledge workers. The approach assumes large functional groups. The individuals in the groups are seen as interchangeable. Much of the language of these organizations reflects that. Managers typically focus on planning and assignment using “resources” or “full time equivalents”.
Highly skilled individuals are not interchangeable. Successful technology companies have realised the immense value which comes from treating individual employees as individuals.
People are highly variable and non-linear, with unique success and failure modes. Those factors are first-order, not negligible factors. Failure of process and methodology designers to account for them contributes to the sorts of unplanned project trajectories we so often see.
Alistair Cockburn
Good practices
The heart of the success of the new technology companies lies in high performing individuals. How then do we achieve this in our own organization?
Taylorist approaches are likely to fail. They assume that the key expertise lies with the manager. In the days of low skilled work this was true. But we have high levels of practitioner skills, coupled with rapidly changing technologies. To support this, we need to consider a new model.
Many organizations have realised that the key mind shift which is needed is to put the individuals, not the managers, at the heart of the organization. Individual contributors generate value for the business. Managers enable that value generation.
Managers serve the team. The default leadership style at Google is one where the manager focuses not on punishments or rewards but on clearing roadblocks and inspiring her team
Laszlo Bock
Leave a Reply