Scientific Management Revisited: Did Taylorism Fail Because of a Too Positive Image of Human Nature?

摘要

Purpose – The purpose of the paper is to critically question conventional views of the\udone-dimensional, mechanistic and negative image of human nature of Scientific Management. Both\udfor worker behavior and for managerial behavior positive aspects of an image of human nature are\udreconstructed in organizational economic terms.\udDesign/methodology/approach – Through institutional economic reconstruction, drawing on the\udmethods and concepts of organizational and institutional economics, the portrayal of workers and\udmanagers by Scientific Management is critically assessed.\udFindings – It is suggested that a conceptual asymmetry exists in Taylor’s writings regarding the\udportrayal of human nature of workers and managers. Whereas for workers a model of self-interest was\udapplied (through the concepts of “systematic soldering” and “natural soldiering”), Taylor portrayed\udmanagers through a positive, behavioral model of human nature that depicted the manager as\ud“heartily cooperative”. The key thesis is that by modeling managers through a rather positive image of\udhuman nature Taylor could no longer methodically apply the model of economic man in order to test\udout and prevent interaction conflict between potentially self-interested managers and workers.\udResearch limitations/implications – The paper focused on Scientific Management to advance the\udthesis that the portrayal of human nature has been ill approached by management and organization\udtheorists who were apparently pioneering an institutional and organizational economics. Future research\udhas to broaden the scope of research to other pioneers inmanagement and organization research, but also\udto critics in behavioral sciences, such as organization psychology, who may misunderstand how\udeconomics approaches the portrayal of human nature, in particular regarding self-interest.\udPractical implications – Taylor’s portrayal of managers as naturally good persons, who were not\udself-interested, caused implementation conflict and implementation problems for Scientific Management\udand led to his summoning by the US Congress. By modeling managers as heartily cooperative, Taylor\udcould no longer analyze potentially self-interested behavior, even opportunistic behavior of managers in\udtheir interactions with workers. Scientific Management had thus no remedy to handle “soldiering” of\udmanagers. This insight, that managerialism needs to be accounted for in a management theory, has\udmanifold practical implications for management consultancy,management education, and for the practice\udof management in general. Students and practitioners have to be informed about the necessary and useful\udrole a model of self-interest (economic man) methodically plays in economic management theory.\udOriginality/value – The paper reconstructs the portrayal of human nature in early management\udtheory, which seemingly anticipated the advances – and certain pitfalls – of modern institutional\udeconomics. The paper unearths, from an economic perspective, conceptual misunderstandings of\udTaylor regarding his image of human nature of workers and managers.