TAYLORISM. – Scientific organization of labor, which arose in America at the end of the 19th century through the work of F. W. Taylor.
In the original conception of the author, the principal aim of the new system should be to ensure, through the transformation of work and management methods within the enterprise, the maximum prosperity for both employers and workers; in this way, the antagonism between the two parties would automatically cease, since both would find the satisfaction of their fundamental interests—low production costs for employers and high wages for workers. Taylor starts from the principle that maximum prosperity can only be achieved by maximizing production. Indeed, whoever can produce four units compared to another who, under the same conditions, can only produce two, can better pay their employees, sell goods at a lower price, and enjoy a higher overall profit margin. From this comes the necessity to combat all forms of inefficiency, which may arise from technical causes or from psycho-physical and psychological factors (poorly chosen work tools, lack of or deficiency in necessary working aptitudes, natural laziness, inadequate or superfluous movements, etc.).
The measures to be implemented are: rational selection of work tools, selection and training of personnel through new methods, assistance to the worker during the execution of their task, supervision of the worker with a stopwatch, and wage increases proportional to the work performed.
This presupposes, among other things, a radical change in the guiding concepts of an enterprise’s management function. Two types of managers are required: those who study how to improve production quantitatively and qualitatively, and those who oversee the execution of work within the established time.
With this new science, intended to replace old empiricism in human labor, new relationships would be established between company management and workers; the worker, scientifically trained for their task, would feel connected to those who developed the work plan and to those who trained them; management would actively cooperate with employees and share work and responsibilities with them. Regarding wages, Taylor establishes that when a worker completes their task within the allotted time, they are entitled to a bonus that can vary, depending on the case, from thirty to one hundred percent of the base wage; a bonus is also due to foremen based on the number of workers under their supervision who complete their tasks within the assigned time; this would serve as an incentive to train less skilled workers, who could gradually be brought up to the level of the more skilled.
Many criticisms have been leveled at Taylorism. It has first been observed that the new system imposes an exhausting aridity on labor; by abolishing all forms of private initiative and prescribing identical gestures for all, it reduces workers to the level of machines. To this, supporters of the system have countered that scientific organization of labor encourages more than the old system does private initiatives, which are in fact welcomed and adopted if recognized as beneficial to the improvement of the enterprise. Furthermore, a worker trained through rational technical education to make the best use of their aptitudes and who works with well-designed machines in rationally organized workshops can refine their skills to the point of reaching managerial positions. Finally, a worker’s efficiency is not determined solely by the repetition of unchanging movements, but also by readiness and the ability to remain constantly attentive and composed.
It has also been lamented that, due to selection favoring the best elements, too many average workers—yet capable of productive labor—would be unfairly excluded from the new organization of work. To this, it is replied that this should not happen, because increased production entails business growth and a demand for more labor; thus, hiring would necessarily include workers of average ability. Another objection is that increased production, more easily than with old systems, opens the door to unemployment. But even if production had to be contained, the advantage for the worker would remain of earning more or receiving the same wage while working for a shorter time. Taylorism has also been criticized for the torture of timekeeping, a tool of worker exploitation. However, while it is a means used by scientific organization of labor, it does not define the system. Moreover, science is based on the study of the nature of phenomena, and when one intends to study human labor, it is impossible to do without recording the time it takes to perform II.
It has also been objected that double the work should correspond to double the wage, which does not occur. However, it has been pointed out that one must also consider the mass of consumers, who ultimately pay both the worker’s wage and the employer’s profits.
Other objections have been raised against Taylorism, but Taylor insisted that it is not this aspect, nor the entirety of the system, that characterizes scientific organization of labor, but rather the spiritual revolution of the workforce, which acquires new rights and assumes new obligations, as well as the change in mentality among management.
Taylorism, even immediately after its formulation by Gilbreth, Barth, and Thompson, was opposed by workers’ organizations themselves, which saw in it a threat rather than protection of their interests. Only after the war, which ended in 1918, did the movement spread to Europe, especially in countries most advanced in industrial organization, undergoing modifications in response to the needs and psychology of individual nations.