Introduction
Taylor’s main position in the monograph ‘Scientific Management’ is that even the most basic form of labor entails some form of science (Taylor, 2010). He asserts that when the right person is carefully selected for a job, then it is essential to develop the correct science of that specific task through scientific training.
The outcome of such an practice will therefore be greater as compared to the outcome that would result from the application of initiative and incentive schemes. On the other hand, John Stuart Mill advocated for a more laissez-faire approach when dealing with employees’ rights.
Mill argued that the departure from a justified distribution despite the fact that it is necessitated by some immense good is certainly evil. He stated that even the employees at the lowest levels make notable input to the general creation of wealth.
Therefore, some standard of justice needs to be applied in the distribution of the assets of an organizational. Thus, the aim of this paper is to reveal whether John Stuart Mill would have supported F. Taylor’s ‘Scientific Management.’
Discussion
Based on Taylor’s scientific management theory, the idea behind new face employees is acquired through unconditional uniformity where managers take on new burdens, duties, and responsibilities (Taylor, 2010). Mill would have opposed such an argument since it implies that a manager should take on the burden of amalgamating all of the conventional knowledge used in the previous times.
The manager would then be expected to categorize, tabulate, and minimize such knowledge in accordance with the regulations, laws, and procedure that have been set. Mill believed considerably in the self-sufficiency of an individual especially those based on level-headedness and freedom.
Therefore, Taylor’s assertions imply that placing laws and limitations will impinge on the employees’ rationality since they result to a manager’s opinion on one group, a move that according to Mill is an injustice to the character of the employees.
Taylor’s argument that the management places a new and a heavy load on themselves to seek disciplines for each element of their employee work coincides with Mill’s argument for a more nuanced and consequentiality management perspective. However, Taylor calls for particular sets of outcomes especially that of work which is to be performed in accordance with the standards of the science developed by the managers.
Mill believes that the motivating force is the evasion of certain sets of outcomes that determine the actions that should be undertaken to avoid a predefined outcome.
Thus, according to Mill, all the actions should be right to share since they tend to enhance contentment. The only divergence of this argument from Taylor’s scientific management is that the management takes over every work for which they are incredibly fitted compared to their employees.
Furthermore, incentives should be handed out in various forms such as optimism of swift promotion and higher wages. There should also be a friendly contact between the management and the employees representing a genuine in their welfare (Taylor, 2010). Mill also proposed such measures.
However, his proposal centered more on revisionist interpretation especially with regards to generous work prices and the respect of workers’ rights such as reduced labor hours and the improvement of the working environment. Therefore, such considerations should not be based on personal deliberations only.
Mill observed the previous notion that responsibilities should be thrown upon the employees under a compensation that fits the work of their labor. Scientific management calls for a rigid rule to consult and deal with only one employee at a time given.
At the same time, every employee is expected to have his/her own special capability and limitations. In a similar manner, Mill called for the safeguarding of occupational choices as justice necessitates a move that requires incentive payments to persuade employees with rare talents to be deployed in a competent way.
Therefore, Taylor and Mill believe that managers should not deal with the employees as a group because their objective is to develop every employee to his/her highest level of competence and prosperity. However, Taylor emphasizes on finding the right employee as a preliminary step. Through training, such an individual becomes competent in conducting the assigned tasks and achieving the desired (Taylor, 2010).
This contradicts Mill belief that employees should be given the freedom to direct the process that leads to their personal formation of character and not some metaphysical eminence of mind that is distinct and disconnected.
Mill is therefore against the concept of proportioning compensations in accordance with the work completed especially when it depends on innate disparities of strength and capacity. To him, such a principle of payment is in itself unfair, as it gives those who are not doing the most and those who are favored by nature (Taylor, 2010).
Conclusion
This paper concludes that John Stuart Mill would only have supported certain aspects of Taylor’s ‘Scientific Management’ including the notion that management should place new and heavy load for themselves to seek disciplines for each element of their employee work.
Mill also agreed on having an identical division of labor and responsibilities between the management and the employees. However, he disagrees on compensation and personal contemplation when recruiting an employee. From these arguments, therefore, it is evident that Mill will support some elements of scientific management as proposed by F. Taylor.
Reference
Taylor, F. W. (2010). The Principles of Scientific Managemen. In D. Pacey (Ed), Selections from The Principles of Scientific Management (pp. 15-28). NewYork: Taylor and Francis