Evolution of Management Thinking and Practices – 19th to 20th Century – Asrar Qureshi’s Blog Post #917

Evolution of Management Thinking and Practices – 19th to 20th Century – Asrar Qureshi’s Blog Post #917

Dear Colleagues!  This is Asrar Qureshi’s Blog Post #917 for Pharma Veterans. Pharma Veterans  aims to share knowledge and wisdom from Veterans for the benefit of Community at large. Pharma Veterans Blog is published by Asrar Qureshi on  WordPress, the top blog site. Please email to asrar@asrarqureshi.com for publishing your contributions here.

The Gilbreths

Henry Gantt

Henry Towne

Morris Cooke

The purpose of this series is to show how major changes evolved in the management thinking and practices.  I understand it is presenting a very large subject in a digest form, and is particularly for those who believe in understanding management, practicing it, and experimenting to develop new ideas for better performance.

Most of the important developments took place in the one hundred years from second half of the 19th century to first half of 20th century. It does not mean nothing has happened since, but that largely, new thinkers have been expanding and refining the older basics.

Human elements was emphasized by many management thinkers because the workers’ work conditions were very poor. They worked long hours on low wages and under pitiful conditions with no job security either. Almost all contributors to management thinking emphasized on improving work conditions, increasing wages, and paying for performance.

Henry R. Towne (1844 – 1924)

Henry Towne, president of the Yale and Towne Manufacturing Company, began applying systematic management practices as early as 1870. In 1866 he wrote a paper, The Engineer as an Economist, that suggested that ASME – American Society of Mechanical Engineers – become a clearinghouse for information on managerial practices, since there was no management association. Towne also published several papers and a book, Evolution of Industrial Management, on the use of "gain sharing" to increase worker productivity. In his last book Towne contrasted the status of scientific management in 1886 and in 1921, noting the establishment of industrial management courses, and crediting Frederick Taylor as the apostle of the scientific movement.

Henry Towne was an early advocate for the scientific study of management and helped to establish the field of management engineering. He was a prolific writer on topics related to factory management and efficiency. His work helped to popularize the use of time studies and work analysis in industrial settings. Towne also played a major role in the development of the ASME. When he was designing goods, Henry Towne advocated for combining management and economics. After the death of his partner, Linus Yale, Henry Towne took over as sole leader of the company, and he went on to transform the industry. Yale locks are still considred best-in-class.

Henry Gantt (1861 – 1919)

Henry Gantt was an American who worked as a mechanical engineer and management consultant. He’s best remembered for the tool that bears his name and his works in the development of what’s called scientific management. The Gantt chart is a now a staple of project management.

Henry Gantt graduated with a Bachelor’s degree (AB) from McDonogh School (United States) in 1878. Then he went on to the Stevens Institute of Technology (New Jersey, United States) to obtain his Master’s degree in Engineering (ME). After obtaining this degree Gantt worked as a teacher until 1887. From 1887 Henry Gantt chose a new challenge and joined Midvale Steel Company in Philadelphia, United States. His manager Frederick Taylor involved Gantt in a number of large infrastructure projects. Together with Taylor, he applied different scientific management principles in order to implement these projects successfully.

Frank Gilbreth (1868 – 1924) and Lillian Gilbreth (1878 – 1972)

The husband and wife team of Gilbreths brought many siginifcant contributions, mostl notably motions studies. They believed in regulation and consistency in the workplace. Rather than encouraging a company of many working parts, they valued efficiency above all else. The couple believed there is one best way to get any job done and that process should be replicated through the manufacturing process, eliminating extraneous steps and producing the most efficient results. They used 18 units to analyze how tasks were completed – searching for an object with eyes or hands, grasping an object with hands, assembling and disassembling two parts, etc. From there, they’d figure out which motions were necessary, then eliminate any unnecessary motions to increase efficiency. For example, during surgery, doctors ask for instruments that are then handed to them by a nurse instead of searching for the instrument themselves. Because nurses and doctors have separate tasks, they can focus on them and perform them in a skillful, timely manner. 

As engineers, Frank and Lillian closely studied motion and time to calculate the most efficient way to complete a given task. Taking the scientific approach, they measured time and motion to 1/2000 of a second using photography to understand what works best. Their insight was unlike that of most other theorists, as they channeled physical science rather than psychology. In their studies, Frank and Lillian often referenced the movement of their twelve children, whom they invited to join their efficiency experiments. Frank stated the method’s “fundamental aim is the elimination of waste, the attainment of worthwhile desired results with the least necessary amount of time and effort.”

Frank and Lillian believed fundamentally that happy, healthy workers were vital to an efficient, successful workplace. They prioritized finding a method of optimization that would boost profits without sacrificing the health, safety or well-being of workers. By cutting any unnecessary movements, the couple reasoned, employee fatigue lessened, allowing them to do better work for longer and feel less exhausted by their workday – and profits improved. In fact, the Gilbreths asked companies that benefited from their methods to increase wages for employees.

Morris Cooke (1872 – 1960) 

While Taylor, the Gilbreths, Gantt, and Emerson were working with industrial enterprises, Morris Cooke (1872–1960) was extending the mantra of efficiency in non-industrial organizations. Cooke focused his attention on educational and municipal organizations.

Cooke conducted a study of administration in educational organizations funded by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. The resulting study was a bombshell in the academic world. Cooke's findings included, among other things, widespread use of inbreeding (hiring your own graduates), inefficient committee management, autonomous departments working against university coordination, and pay based on tenure.

In 1911, Cooke was selected as director of public works and brought scientific management to the governance of Philadelphia. In four years he saved the city over $1 million in garbage collection costs alone. Cooke wrote Our Cities Awake (1918) to put forth his case for using scientific management for better-managed municipalities.

Hugo Munsterberg (1863 – 1916) 

While the efficiency engineers studied mechanical efficiency, the industrial psychologists studied human efficiency, with the same goal in mind of improving productivity. The father of industrial psychology was Hugo Munsterberg. In 1892, Munsterberg established his psychological laboratory at Harvard, which was to become the foundation stone in the industrial psychology movement.

Munsterberg published Psychology and Industrial Efficiency (1913), which included theories directly related to Taylor's scientific management. The book contained three parts. Part one, the "best possible man," was a study of the demand jobs made on people, and the importance of finding people whose mental capabilities made them well-matched for the work. Part two, the "best possible work," described the psychological conditions under which the greatest output might be obtained from every worker. Part three, the "best possible effect," examined the necessity of creating the influences on human needs that were desirable for the interests of business.

Walter Dill Scott (1869 – 1955)

Walter Dill Scott (1869–1955) taught at Northwestern University from 1901 to 1920 and then served as president of the university for nineteen years. Scott was interested in employee attitudes and motivation in production and devised a system, adopted by the army, for classifying personnel and testing officer candidates. In fact, he was awarded the Distinguished Service Medal for his work.

From March 1910 till October 1911, Scott wrote a series of articles entitled The Psychology of Business later published in System magazine. These articles were based on actual business cases and represented one of the earliest applications of the principles of psychology to motivation and productivity in industry.

This completes our selected readings for the early periods. From the next post, we shall focus on 20th century and the modern theories.

Concluded.

Disclaimers: Pictures in these blogs are taken from free resources at Pexels, Pixabay, and Google. Credit is given where available. If a copyright claim is lodged, we shall remove the picture with appropriate regrets.

For most blogs, I research from several sources which are open to public. Their links are mentioned under references. There is no intention to infringe upon anyone’s copyrights. If, however, it happens unintentionally, I offer my sincere regrets.

References:

https://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Or-Pr/Pioneers-of-Management.html

https://www.kyinbridges.com/how-did-henry-towne-contribution-to-management-thought/#google_vignette

https://www.projectmanager.com/blog/henry-gantt-chart-history

https://www.toolshero.com/toolsheroes/henry-gantt/

https://www.business.com/articles/management-theory-of-frank-and-lillian-gilbreth/