UPI Study › Courses › Human Resources Management › Free lessons › Lesson 3.2 Free with a free account
How Frederick Taylor Changed the Way Work Gets Done
Human Resources Management · Chapter 3: How Management Theories Shape the Way Jobs Are Built and OrganizedSection 3.2 · lesson 12 of 9114 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Human Resources Management.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Human Resources Management
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: Henri Fayol’s Ideas on Managing Staff and Keeping Workers Happy →← Where Classical Scientific Management Came FromNext lesson: Henri Fayol’s Ideas on Managing Staff and Keeping Workers Happy →
In this lesson
Assess the standard, incentive, and what the count leaves out.
- State the 4 principles
- Explain time and motion study
- Assess incentives and control
- Recognize the costs in modern descendants
Free study notes
Get this lesson's notes by email
The key points and 4 practice questions with answers, in your inbox. One email, free.
One email. Unsubscribe in one click.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,839 words). Read along, or search it.
How Management Theories Shape the Way Jobs Are Built and Organized
Frederick Taylor and Scientific Management
Frederick Winslow Taylor developed the most influential version of classical management's task-focused strand. His approach becomes clearer when its diagnosis is examined before the techniques offered as remedies. Output restriction made sense when greater effort produced rate cuts, harder targets, or fewer jobs. Traditional methods, without reliable measurement, made the problem harder to settle through evidence. Scientific management therefore combined studied methods, trained workers, measured standards, and revised payment incentives. This lesson explains four principles, and the time-and-motion process that made them practical. We examine why an apparently objective standard still contains judgment, and depends on credible promises. We also distinguish reducing bodily strain from reducing task time, despite similarities in their techniques. Four criticisms remain visible in contemporary systems, including software-directed work and performance targets. The fictional claims-processing case makes the central warning concrete: behavior follows what the standard counts.
Diagnosis Before Remedy
3 Problems Required a Combined Answer
Taylor was a foreman and later a consulting engineer, approaching industrial waste as a structural problem. His central diagnosis was deliberate output restriction, rather than simply laziness among individual workers. If rates fell whenever output rose, producing more could leave earnings unchanged despite greater effort. If a fixed workload existed, faster production could also mean somebody's job was no longer needed. Methods passed between workers by imitation. They were not examined for efficiency or fatigue. Changing only the method would invite resistance, because the same payment and employment fears remained. Raising rates alone would leave inherited practices untouched, while measurement alone could simply raise the target. Taylor's remedy combined all three elements, attempting to change the method, the standard, and the incentive together. Scientific management studies task elements and specifies an efficient method. It trains workers, and pays against a standard derived from study. Its logic requires that combination, rather than treating a stopwatch as the whole theory.
4 Principles
Management Has Responsibilities Too
The first principle develops a science for each work element, replacing inherited custom with observation and measurement. Different methods can then be compared, rather than judged solely through a supervisor's assertion. The second selects workers on assessed suitability, and deliberately trains them in the established method. Job-related selection and structured induction training are direct HR descendants of that principle. The third requires management to cooperate, ensuring the method can actually be followed in practice. If it is not followed, Taylor assigns responsibility to training, supervision, or tooling under management's control. The fourth divides work between management and workers, according to their supposed suitability for each part. Management takes planning, sequencing, method design, and measurement, while the worker performs the specified work. Taylor considered this an equal division of labor. He did not regard it as a demotion of the worker. Later critics challenged the removal of judgment, because worker knowledge was deliberately designed out of execution.
Time and Motion
From Observed Elements to a Standard
Time and motion study breaks a task into movements, times them, and constructs a specified sequence. An analyst records each element, then times a sample of repetitions rather than relying on a single attempt. The observed worker's pace is rated against a notional normal pace, adjusting the interpretation of the observations. Allowances cover fatigue, personal needs, and unavoidable delay, rather than expecting uninterrupted maximum movement. Reassembling the fastest workable sequence produces a standard method, including movements, tools, and positions. A standard time states how long a trained worker should take, at the defined pace. Together, the method and time form what Taylor called the one best way. That phrase ranks methods for a given technology and objective, rather than every possible purpose. Change the technology or objective, and the ranking may change. The conditions behind the standard matter. The study makes work analyzable, but does not remove the need to examine its assumptions.
Apparent Objectivity
A Standard Contains Judgment
A documented method and numerical time can make a standard appear completely objective, but appearances mislead. Pace rating is a judgment, rather than something directly measured by the timing instrument. Two analysts can consequently derive different standards from the same observations of the same work. The allowance is also negotiated, rather than simply discovered as a unique fact in the task. These elements explain why standards remain disputed, even where the underlying timings are carefully recorded. The standard method specifies sequence, tools, and positions, while the standard time assumes training and a defined pace. Leaving those conditions unstated can make an apparently precise target difficult to defend fairly. One best way should therefore be understood conditionally, rather than as a universal method for all people. Ask how pace was rated, what allowance was accepted, and which objective guided the method's selection. Measurement supports evidence. Judgment remains part of the final decision about expected performance.
Differential Piece Rate
The Promise That Makes the Incentive Credible
Taylor linked measurement with a differential piece rate, making the incentive part of the remedy. Output at or above standard receives a higher payment per unit, than output below standard. The earnings difference is intentionally wide, rewarding attainment rather than merely recording additional units. The studied target aims to make the standard defensible, to both management and workers. Higher earnings aim to remove the incentive for collective output restriction, making greater effort worthwhile. Management must also promise not to cut the rate, when the scheme increases output. That promise is the scheme's foundation. It is also the part most frequently broken in actual practice. If successful effort triggers worse terms, the original incentive to restrict output returns. Later variable-pay systems inherit three questions: standard credibility, reward size, and stability of terms after success. Pay for performance requires answers to all three, rather than an attractive bonus announcement alone.
Functional Foremanship
Expertise Without Whole-Job Accountability
Functional foremanship divided supervision among specialists, each holding authority over a different part of the task. A worker might receive direction about method, speed, quality, and maintenance from different supervisors. The idea followed Taylor's logic: supervision comprised expert activities, which could be divided like other work. The arrangement did not survive. Specialization left a coordination and accountability problem unresolved. Workers received conflicting instructions, without a clear means of deciding which instruction should take priority. Nobody was accountable for the whole, despite each specialist owning a portion of the direction. This violates unity of command, the principle examined separately later in the chapter. The tension nevertheless persists, particularly when matrix organizations combine specialist expertise with several reporting relationships. Expertise contributes useful knowledge, but it does not automatically provide a final authority for conflicting demands. The organizational design needs a resolution route, alongside whatever specialist supervision it introduces.
Motion Study Inheritance
Similar Technique, Different Objective
Motion study also developed toward understanding how bodies perform work, rather than merely increasing speed. It examined reach distances, grip, working heights, hand sequences, and unnecessary physical effort. That tradition helped develop ergonomics, designing tasks, tools, and workplaces around human capacities. Those capacities include physical and cognitive limits, connecting the design with occupational health and safety. Studying movement to remove strain resembles studying movement to remove seconds, in technical procedure. The objectives differ, however, making their ethical assessment different. Similar observational tools do not make the purposes identical. The same tradition can therefore produce both efficiency targets, and improvements in how work fits people. Assess what the study is trying to optimize, rather than assuming the technique settles its purpose. A speed gain does not by itself establish reduced strain, or a suitable fit for the worker. The course later treats these as separate approaches to job design, because their objectives must remain explicit.
4 Criticisms
The Objections Follow the Modern Descendants
Four criticisms explain why scientific management's productivity gains do not settle the debate about its use. First, money is treated as the dominant motivator, overlooking independent effects from groups, supervisors, and work interest. Pay affects some behaviors more reliably than others, and its effects depend on the scheme's design. Second, a fully specified method removes worker judgment, reducing job interest and bargaining power through deskilling. Third, work intensification can use measurement to justify a harder target. The apparatus does not distinguish that use from establishing a fair one. Once measuring is accepted, standards can be raised from subsequent performance data, making gains into new expectations. Fourth, a standard describes only what it counts, leaving other necessary contributions outside the measure. Units per hour say nothing about quality, safety, customer experience, or helping a colleague. People direct effort toward the rewarded count, so an incomplete standard can drive valuable behavior out. Modern commissions, scripts, pick rates, and handling-time targets inherit these criticisms, requiring deliberate design responses.
Measurement and Control
Feedback Can Become a Ratchet
The source's cycle links study, standard, incentive, and control, returning control information to the standard. That feedback supports revision. It also allows a fair target to become an upward ratchet. The fastest observed performance can become the expected performance, without resolving allowance or fairness concerns. Organized labor opposed measurement partly because it transferred knowledge and control from workers to management. Workload and monitoring disputes continue that concern, rather than belonging only to industrial history. The strongest defense argues measured standards replace arbitrary supervision, protecting workers through an evidenced expectation. The strongest objection argues measurement transfers work-pace control to the party already holding greater power. Apparent objectivity can make that control harder to contest, even when its assumptions contain judgment. Evidence can assess output, quality, injury rates, and turnover, addressing the empirical part of the disagreement. It cannot alone determine how much control the employer should hold, which remains a normative question.
Composite Case
Priya at Harlow Mutual
Priya supervises claims processing at fictional Harlow Mutual, where a standard comes from four experienced processors. They were observed for two weeks, using average straightforward-claim time with an allowance added. A daily target determines a monthly bonus, paid only when the processor reaches the standard. Within a quarter, throughput rises and most employees receive the bonus, appearing to validate the scheme. Complex claims take three or four times as long, so processors leave them until late in the month. Picking up one complex claim sacrifices several straightforward claims, while colleague checking receives no counted credit. The finance director values throughput, employees value achievable bonuses, and complex-claim customers lack representation in the discussion. Priya accepts weighting complex claims in the count, and removing them from individual targets. That reduces the apparent productivity gain, while restoring work the original standard discouraged or ignored. The standard was not wrong about speed. It was silent about mix, and behavior followed that silence.
HR Inheritance
Retain Measurement, Repair the Missing Standard
HR inherits work measurement for staffing calculations, workload plans, and performance standards, from the scientific-management tradition. Incentive design follows differential rates, while structured selection and induction follow assessed suitability and deliberate training. Lean standard work, contact-center handling, logistics rates, and platform allocation retain the same logic. Software can perform study, standard setting, and control, without escaping the criticisms attached to those activities. The reverse exercise gives repair technicians a target of twelve completed jobs per day. Within two months they complete thirteen, but returns for another repair within thirty days roughly double. Calling technicians careless skips the measurement question: the target counts completion, without counting repair quality. A revised standard should include quality, rather than abandoning measurement or simply demanding even faster completion. Judge each standard by its credibility, incentive promises, allowances, and the necessary work it leaves uncounted. The next lesson turns from Taylor's task strand, to Henri Fayol's account of the manager's work.
About Human Resources Management at UPI Study
Human Resources Management (Business 306) is a self-paced online course of 91 video lessons in 12 chapters, from what HR does and how jobs are designed to hiring, training, performance reviews, pay and benefits, safety, employment law, unions, global staffing and remote work. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Business courses
Why take it here
Why students take Human Resources Management with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Human Resources Management carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About How Frederick Taylor Changed the Way Work Gets Done
What are Frederick Taylor's four principles of scientific management?
What is a time and motion study?
What is Taylor's differential piece rate system?
What are the main criticisms of scientific management?
About the Human Resources Management course
How many college credits is Human Resources Management?
How much does Human Resources Management cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Human Resources Management take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Human Resources Management.
91 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →