fundamentals of management 500 words,2 outside references,the references are to be sited at end of paper,cant use wikipedia as a references,the questions at the beginning of paper are just a guide for the paper,you are to cite your source,it must be typed,doubled spaced 12 pt fontthe pages are to be numbered,it has to be microsoft word documented, Fundamentals of Scientific Management  (1919) By Frederick Winslow Taylor Questions: Who was Frederick Winslow Taylor and why did he write this document? What were the advantages of Scientific Management for employers and for workers? W ould you feel more productive working according to these principles? What is soldiering  and how was it incompatible with scientific management? Are the interests of the employer and employee really the same? The principal object of management should be to secure the maximum prosperity for the employer, coupled with the maximum prosperity for each employee. The words œmaximum prosperity are used, in their broad sense, to mean not only large dividends for the company or owner, but the development of every branch of the business to its highest state of excellence, so that the prosperity may be permanent. In the same way maximum prosperity for each employ, means not only higher wages than are usually received by men of his class, but, of more importance still, it also means the development of each man to his state of maximum efficiency, so that he may be able to do; generally speaking, the highest grade of work for which his natural a bilities fit him, and it further means giving him, when possible, this class of work to do. It would seem to be so self “ evident that maximum prosperity for the employer, coupled with maximum prosperity for the employee, ought to be the two leading objects of management, that even to state this fact should be unnecessary. And yet there is no question that, throughout the industrial world, a large part of the organization of employers, as well as employees, is for war rather than for peace, and that perhaps the majority on either side do not believe that it is possible so to arrange their mutual relations that their interests become identical. The majority of these men believe that the fundamental interests of employees and employers are necessarily antagoni stic. Scientific management, on the contrary, has for its very foundation the firm conviction that the true interests of the two are one and the same; that prosperity for the employer cannot exist through a long term of years unless it is accompanied by pr osperity for the employee and vice versa; and that it is possible to give the workman what he most wants “ high wages “ and the employer what he wants “ a low labor cost “ for his manufactures. It is hoped that some at least of those who do not sympathize with ea ch of these objects may be led to modify their views; that some employers, whose attitude toward their workmen has been that of trying to get the largest amount of work out of them for the smallest possible wages, may be led to see that a more liberal poli cy toward their men will pay them better; and that some of those workmen who begrudge a fair and even a large profit to their employers, and who feel that all of the fruits of their labor should belong to them, and that those for whom they work and the cap ital invested in the business are entitled to little or nothing, may be led to modify these views. No one can be found who will deny that in the case of any single individual the greatest prosperity can exist only when that individual has reached his high est state of efficiency; that is, when he is turning out his largest daily output. The truth of this fact is also perfectly clear in the case of two men working together. To illustrate: if you and your workman have become so skillful that you and he toget her are making two pairs of shoes in a day, while your competitor and his workman are making only one pair, it is clear that after selling your two pairs of shoes you can pay your workman much higher wages than your competitor who produces only one pair of shoes is able to pay his man, and that there will still be enough money left over for you to have a larger profit than your competitor. In the case of a more complicated manufacturing establishment, it should also be perfectly clear that the greatest per manent prosperity for the workman, coupled with the greatest prosperity for the employer, can be brought about only when the work of the establishment is done with the smallest combined expenditure of human effort, plus nature’s resources, plus the cost fo r the use of capital in the shape of machines, buildings, etc. Or, to state the same thing in a different way: that the greatest prosperity can exist only as the result of the greatest possible productivity of the men and machines of the establishment “ that is, when each man and each machine are turning out the largest possible output; because unless your men and your machines are daily turning out more work than others around you, it is clear that competition will prevent your paying higher wages to your wo rkmen than are paid to those of your competitor. And what is true as to the possibility of paying high wages in the case of two companies competing close beside one another is also true as to whole districts of the country and even as to nations which are in competition. In a word, that maximum prosperity can exist only as the result of maximum productivity. Later in this paper illustrations will be given of several companies which are earning large dividends and at the same time paying from 30 per cent to 100 per cent higher wages to their men than are paid to similar men immediately around them, and with whose employers they are in competition. These illustrations will cover different types of work, from the most elementary to the most complicated. If t he above reasoning is correct, it follows that the most important object of both the workmen and the management should be the training and development of each individual in the establishment, so that he can do (at his fastest pace and with the maximum of fficiency) the highest class of work for which his natural abilities fit him. These principles appear to be so self “ evident that many men may think it almost childish to state them. Let us, however, turn to the facts, as they actually exist in this countr y and in England. The English and American peoples are the greatest sportsmen in the world. Whenever an American workman plays baseball, or an English workman plays cricket, it is safe to say that he strains every nerve to secure victory for his side. He d oes his very best to make the largest possible number of runs. The universal sentiment is so strong that any man who fails to give out all there is in him in sport is branded as a œquitter, and treated with contempt by those who are around him. When the sa me workman returns to work on the following day, instead of using every effort to turn out the largest possible amount of work, in a majority of the cases this man deliberately plans to do as little as he safely can “ to turn out far less work than he is wel l able to do “ in many instances to do not more than one “ third to one “ half of a proper day’s work. And in fact if he were to do his best to turn out his largest possible day’s work, he would be abused by his fellow “ workers for so doing , even more than if he h ad proved himself a œquitter in sport. Underworking, that is, deliberately working slowly so as to avoid doing a full day’s work, œsoldiering, as it is called in this country, œhanging it out, as it is called in England, œca canae, as it is called in S cotland, is almost universal in industrial establishments, and prevails also to a large extent in the building trades; and the writer asserts without fear of contradiction that this constitutes the greatest evil with which the working “ people of both Englan d and America are now afflicted. It will be shown later in this paper that doing away with slow working and œsoldiering in all its forms and so arranging the relations between employer and employ, that each workman will work to his very best advantage and at his best speed, accompanied by the intimate cooperation with the management and the help (which the workman should receive) from the management, would result on the average in nearly doubling the output of each man and each machine. What other reforms, among those which are being discussed by these two nations, could do as much toward promoting prosperity, toward the diminution of poverty, and the alleviation of suffering? America and England have been recently agitated over such subjects as the tariff, the control of the large corporations on the one hand, and of hereditary power on the other hand, and over various more or less socialistic proposals for taxation, etc. On these subjects both peoples have been profoundly stirred, and yet hardly a voice has been raised to call attention to this vastly greater and more important subject of œsoldiering, which directly and powerfully affects the wages, the prosperity, and the life of almost every working “ man, and also quite as much the prosperity of every indu strial establishment in the nation. The elimination of œsoldiering and of the several causes of slow working would so lower the cost of production that both our home and foreign markets would be greatly enlarged, and we could compete on more than even te rms with our rivals. It would remove one of the fundamental causes for dull times, for lack of employment, and for poverty, and therefore would have a more permanent and far “ reaching effect upon these misfortunes than any of the curative remedies that are n ow being used to soften their consequences. It would insure higher wages and make shorter working hours and better working and home conditions possible. Why is it, then, in the face of the self “ evident fact that maximum prosperity can exist only as the re sult of the determined effort of each workman to turn out each day his largest possible day’s work, that the great majority of our men are deliberately doing just the opposite, and that even when the men have the best of intentions their work is in most ca ses far from efficient? There are three causes for this condition, which may be briefly summarized as: First . The fallacy, which has from time immemorial been almost universal among workmen, that a material increase in the output of each man or each machine in the trade would result in the end in throwing a large number of men out of work. Second . The defective systems of management which are in common use, and which make it necessary for each workman to soldier, or work slowly, in order that he may protect his own best interests. Third . The inefficient rule “ of “ thumb methods, which are still almost universal in all trades, and in practicing which our workmen waste a large part of their effort ¦ It is not here claimed that any single panacea exist s for all of the troubles of the working “ people or of employers. As long as some people are born lazy or inefficient, and others are born greedy and brutal, as long as vice and crime are with us, just so long will a certain amount of poverty, misery, and u nhappiness be with us also. No system of management, no single expedient within the control of any man or any set of men can insure continuous prosperity to either workmen or employers. Prosperity depends upon so many factors entirely beyond the control of any one set of men, any state, or even anyone country, that certain periods will inevitably come when both sides must suffer, more or less. It is claimed, however, that under scientific management the intermediate periods will be far more prosperous, far ha ppier, and more free from discord and dissension. And also, that the periods will be fewer, shorter and the suffering less. And this will be particularly true in any one town, any one section of the country, or any one state which first substitutes the pri nciples of scientific management for the rule of thumb. That these principles are certain to come into general use practically throughout the civilized world, sooner or later, the writer is profoundly convinced, and the sooner they come the better for all the people. Source: Frederick W. Taylor, The Principles of Scientific Management (New York: Harper Bros., 1911): 5 “ 29 Time and m otion st udies were the basis for Taylor ‘ s theories.