Time, Motion, and the Worker: The Gilbreths' Efficiency Studies

UPI Study › Courses › Principles of Management › Free lessons › Lesson 3.6 Free with a free account

Time, Motion, and the Worker: The Gilbreths' Efficiency Studies

Principles of Management · Chapter 3: The Classical Era of Management ThoughtSection 3.6 · lesson 12 of 11711 min · free with a free account

← Fayol's 14 Principles: Structuring Work and Supporting StaffNext lesson: The Administrative Perspective: Designing Organizations from the Top Down →

Earn 3 college credits for Principles of ManagementRecommended for credit by NCCRS · Business 101 · self-paced · one payment, lifetime access
Enroll in Principles of Management · $250 →Download the syllabus (PDF)

In this lesson

Changing the method, not just timing it.

  • Distinguish motion study from time study
  • Describe the Gilbreths' methods and findings
  • Explain their link to ergonomics and the human side
  • Ask who captures the benefit of a better method

Transcript

Everything said in the video, section by section (1,542 words). Read along, or search it.

The Classical Era of Management Thought

Time, Motion, and the Worker: The Gilbreths' Efficiency Studies

Ask how long a job takes, and you get a number. Ask whether the job should be done this way at all, and you might get a better job. That second question belongs to Frank and Lillian Gilbreth. In this section we separate their motion study from Taylor's time study, because the two are constantly confused. We look at their methods, from film to elementary motions. We see how their concern with fatigue led directly to modern ergonomics. And we ask a pointed question. When a method gets better, who actually captures the benefit?

The Key Distinction

Time Study and Motion Study Are Not the Same

This distinction is the point of the whole section, so let's state it first. Time study, Taylor's method from Subchapter three point three, measures how long a task takes, in order to set a standard. It answers one question. Given the current method, what is the expected duration? Motion study was the contribution of Frank Gilbreth, working closely with Lillian Gilbreth. It analyzes the movements a task requires, in order to eliminate the unnecessary ones. So it asks something different. Is this the right method at all? Or can the task be redesigned, to need fewer or shorter movements? Put simply, time study sets a target against an existing method. Motion study changes the method itself. The two are complementary, not competing. A method improved through motion study can then be timed, to set a new, lower standard. But casual usage often treats them as interchangeable, and that loses exactly the distinction that matters.

Their Methods

Seeing Motions Too Fast for the Eye

The Gilbreths' method rested on close, systematic observation. They extended it with photography and film. A worker was filmed performing a task, and the film was reviewed frame by frame. That let them study movements too quick, or too subtle, to catch reliably by eye in real time. From this analysis, Frank Gilbreth broke work down into elementary motions. Any manual task could be decomposed into a small set of basic categories. Reaching, grasping, positioning, and so on. Each was treated as a distinct unit that could be analyzed separately. Why does that matter? Because a task is no longer one unbroken, holistic action. It can be examined element by element, for motions that add no value. And those motions can potentially be removed entirely.

Figure 3.6.1

Decomposing an Assembly Task

Here is what that looks like for a fictional assembly task. The original task has eight elementary motions. Reach, grasp the part, walk to the bin, search for the tool. Then position, reach for the tool, grasp the tool, and release. Two of those motions add nothing. Walking three steps to a distant parts bin is one. Searching for a tool with no fixed storage place is the other. A workstation layout change removed both. The parts bin moved within arm's reach, and the tool got a dedicated, fixed position. The revised sequence has six motions. Notice that each remaining motion is unchanged on its own. But the task as a whole is shorter, and needs less physical movement between elements.

Fatigue Studies

A Different Justification From Taylor's

The Gilbreths' fatigue studies produced an argument genuinely distinct from Taylor's. Taylor justified time study by the need for a fair, objective, and enforceable standard. It measured how long a task took under the current method, and produced a standard time tied to pay. Motion study measured the movements themselves, decomposed into elements. It produced a redesigned method, with the unnecessary motions removed. And its justification was different in kind. Eliminating unnecessary motion reduces worker fatigue, as well as raising output. So the same change could serve the worker's physical well-being and the organization's productivity target at once. That is not a trade-off between the two. The Gilbreths were not just asking how fast a task could be done. They were asking how it could be done with less physical strain. Often, both answers pointed to the same method.

Beyond the Single Motion

Layout, Tools, and the Birth of Ergonomics

The Gilbreths soon looked beyond individual movements. They noticed that many unnecessary motions had nothing to do with a worker's technique. They came from where materials, tools, and equipment happened to sit, relative to the worker's body. So they turned to workplace layout, tool design, and the arrangement of the work area as a whole. Move frequently used items within easy reach, and motion disappears. Redesign a tool's handle to fit the hand more naturally, and the same thing happens. In both cases, the worker does not have to change technique at all. This line of work is the direct ancestor of modern ergonomics, and human factors engineering. Those disciplines design tasks, tools, and environments to fit the people using them. That means both their physical characteristics, and their cognitive ones.

Lillian Gilbreth

Opening the Psychological Dimension

Lillian Gilbreth brought something that scientific management had largely lacked, a psychological dimension. She was trained in psychology. She wrote directly on the psychological aspects of management, including selection, training, and worker well-being. She is recognized as one of the first figures to bring psychological thinking into management thought, in a sustained way. Until then, the worker was mostly treated as a mechanical system, to be optimized. Be precise about how far this went, though. It did not yet amount to the fuller behavioral perspective that Chapter four covers. That perspective emerged later, and from different research. What Lillian Gilbreth opened was an early door, toward the human side of work that the mechanical strand had left unexamined.

Beyond Industry

Hospitals and the Home

The Gilbreths also took their methods well outside the factory. In hospitals, they studied surgical work. For instance, they examined how a surgical team's motions during a procedure could be streamlined. They also applied the same elementary-motion analysis to tasks in the home. That range tells you something important. Motion study was never conceived as a factory-only technique. Its logic applies to any setting where a physical task is repeated often enough. Repeat a wasted motion a few times, and it hardly matters. Repeat it thousands of times, and the cost accumulates meaningfully.

Criticisms

Who Captures the Benefit?

Motion study drew criticism that overlaps heavily with the criticisms of scientific management in Subchapter three point three. The first is the same deskilling effect. A method prescribed in exact detail by elementary-motion analysis leaves as little room for judgment as a time-studied method. The second is the same risk of intensification. A shorter, more efficient method can be used to raise the expected output, instead of reducing effort. Which leads to a question worth stating directly. When an improvement makes a task faster and less tiring, who actually captures the benefit? Suppose the organization simply raises the output standard to match the new method. The worker's fatigue may fall somewhat. But nearly all of the productivity gain goes to the organization. It does not reach the worker as reduced total effort, or as higher pay. The Gilbreths' own writing argued for sharing the benefit with workers. Yet nothing in the method guarantees that. How the gain is distributed is a separate managerial choice.

The Modern Legacy

What the Gilbreths Added

The Gilbreths' legacy runs through several related fields. Ergonomics and human factors, as we have seen. Workplace layout design, more generally. Process mapping, which documents a workflow's steps visually, to find waste and redundancy. And the broader waste-elimination thinking that returns in Subchapter five point six. There, later operations-management approaches use the same logic, removing steps that add no value. So what did the Gilbreths add that Taylor did not? A dual focus. Worker well-being and organizational output were declared complements, not a trade-off to be negotiated. And with it, an early, genuine opening toward the psychological side of management, which the rest of the classical era left closed.

Case Vignette

2 Benefits From 1 Redesign

Let's see the whole argument in a composite case, constructed for instruction. Rosa supervised a small assembly team. One recurring task made each worker turn, walk several steps to a shared parts bin across the room, and carry parts back. They did that dozens of times per shift. Rosa mapped the task into its elementary motions. Then she put a small stock of the most frequently used parts in a bin, mounted at each workstation. For the large majority of repetitions, the walk disappeared entirely. The task became measurably faster. And workers reported, without being asked, that their shifts felt noticeably less tiring. That is the dual benefit, exactly as the Gilbreths described it. But Rosa still faced the harder question. What should happen to the gain? She recommended keeping the output standard unchanged for the time being, so workers finished with genuine time in hand. The motion study did not make that choice for her. She had to make it herself.

Check Yourself

Time Study or Motion Study?

Let's test the central distinction. Using a stopwatch to record how long an experienced worker takes is time study. Filming a task and reviewing it frame by frame, to find unnecessary hand movements, is motion study. Redesigning a tool's handle so the wrist bends less is motion study as well. Setting a piece-rate standard from observed completion times is time study. And breaking a surgical procedure into its hand motions, to streamline it, is motion study. Here is one to try on your own. Several workers report shoulder strain from repeatedly reaching overhead for a frequently used component. What is the likely cause, and would a timing change or a motion change fix it? Next, Subchapter three point seven turns back to the organization as a whole, with administrative theory beyond Fayol.

About Principles of Management at UPI Study

Principles of Management (Business 101) is a self-paced online course of 117 video lessons in 17 chapters, from the classical schools and the four management functions to leadership, motivation, change, human resources, strategy and ethics. 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 Every course with PRO →

Why take it here

Why students take Principles of Management with UPI Study

The core of every business degreePrinciples of Management covers how organizations plan, organize, lead and control their work. It is a core course in business administration and management degrees, and the base for later courses in leadership, organizational behavior and strategy.
Credit at a fraction of the priceThe same 3 credits can cost $750 or more at a US college. Here it is one payment, self-paced, with lifetime access.
Finish your degree soonerTransfer credits reduce the courses you still owe, so you can graduate earlier or lighten a heavy semester.
Strengthen an applicationA completed college-level course on an official transcript shows admissions and scholarship committees you can do the work.
Study on your own scheduleNo start dates, no deadlines. Watch the lessons, practice, and take the final when you are ready.
130,000+students helped with college creditsACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.

Where the credit goes

Universities that work with NCCRS

Principles of 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 UniversityThomas Edison State UniversitySigned partnerUniversity of the PeopleUniversity of the PeopleSigned partnerCharter Oak State CollegeCharter Oak State CollegeSigned partnerStrayer UniversityStrayer UniversitySigned partnerColumbia Southern UniversityColumbia Southern UniversitySigned partnerIndiana TechIndiana TechSigned partnerPenn StatePenn StateWorks with NCCRSSouthern New Hampshire UniversitySouthern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRSSUNYSUNYWorks 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 Time, Motion, and the Worker: The Gilbreths' Efficiency Studies

What is the difference between time study and motion study?
Time study, associated with Frederick Taylor, measures how long a task takes under the current method in order to set a standard. Motion study, the contribution of Frank and Lillian Gilbreth, analyzes the movements a task requires in order to eliminate unnecessary ones and redesign the method itself. The two are complementary, since a method improved through motion study can then be timed to set a new standard.
What are elementary motions in motion study?
Elementary motions are the small set of basic movement categories, such as reaching, grasping, and positioning, into which Frank Gilbreth broke down manual work; he called them therbligs. The Gilbreths filmed workers and reviewed the footage frame by frame to catch movements too quick to see in real time. Treating each motion as a separate unit let them spot motions that added no value, such as walking to a distant bin, and remove them.
How did the Gilbreths contribute to ergonomics?
The Gilbreths noticed that many unnecessary motions came from where tools, materials, and equipment sat relative to the worker's body, not from poor technique. They redesigned workplace layouts, moved frequently used items within easy reach, and reshaped tools to fit the hand, reducing fatigue as well as raising output. That work is a direct ancestor of modern ergonomics and human factors engineering.
What was Lillian Gilbreth's contribution to management?
Lillian Gilbreth, who was trained in psychology, brought a sustained psychological dimension to management thought, something scientific management had largely lacked. She wrote on selection, training, and worker well-being, treating workers as more than mechanical systems to optimize. Her work opened an early door toward the human side of work, though it did not yet amount to the fuller behavioral perspective that emerged later from different research.

About the Principles of Management course

How many college credits is Principles of Management?
Principles of Management (Business 101) carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
How much does Principles of Management cost and what is included?
$250, paid once, with lifetime access: all 117 video lessons, a practice quiz after each, the graded work and final exam, and an official transcript when you finish. Students who want several courses choose UPI Study PRO instead.
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
UPI Study has signed partner agreements with universities such as Thomas Edison State University, University of the People and Charter Oak State College, and works with universities such as Penn State, SNHU and SUNY. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities. Use "Find my college" on this page to check yours.
How long does Principles of Management take?
It is self-paced with no deadlines. The 117 lessons total about 24 hours of video; most students add reading and practice time and finish in a few weeks to a few months, on their own schedule.
How are the exams done?
Quizzes and assignments are online in the course. The final exam is taken online with proctoring; a person on the UPI Study team checks assignments, usually within two days.
How do my credits reach my college?
When the course shows 100% complete, request the official transcript from your dashboard. It is sent to the college you name, and you can send it to more than one. Check your college first with "Find my college" on this page, or ask Athena.

Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Principles of Management.

117 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.

Enroll in Principles of Management →Download the syllabusEvery course with PRO →
Principles of Management
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →