The title may seem like an oxymoron. Understandably so. After all, publication after publication^6,13 and lecture after lecture informed us that F.W. Taylor (1856-1915) viewed workers as machine-like. Nothing more than a mere physical object boosting efficiency. No thoughts, no ideas, no feelings. Docile. Mindlessly submitting to their operator’s instructions. Viewing and, consequently, treating people like a machine is hardly a means of nurturing human flourishing. On the contrary, such a view is a recipe for alienation and the cultivation of ill-being. The question is: “Is this portrayal accurate or a typical misinterpretation attributed to F.W. Taylor¹?” This is difficult to say, as Taylor’s work is not readily available¹. Therefore, we rely on others’ accounts, including mine.

This blog examines what F.W. Taylor actually proposed in his original work^1,2,3. I continue to explore the concepts of living the good life, human flourishing, and well-being by focusing on the original work of F.W. Taylor, the Father of Scientific Management. This blog encourages contemporary managers to be curious about the authentic ideas of the pioneering management scientists. With a new appreciation for the pioneers’ original work, contemporary managers can follow their path to organizational success – one that nurtures flourishing employees, satisfies customers, produces profitable organizations, and healthy societies.

Training

Frederick Winslow Taylor (1856-1915) qualified as a patternmaker and machinist from The Enterprise Hydraulic Works in Philadelphia in 1878³. Later on, he qualified as a mechanical engineer from Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, New Jersey³. In recognition of his pioneering work in the field of scientific management, the University of Pennsylvania awarded Taylor an honorary Doctor of Science (1906).

Career Highlights

Taylor was active from 1878 to 1915³. During this period, America transitioned from an agrarian society to an industrial economy. Industrialization was characterized by technological advancements, the mushrooming of factories, and the production of iron and steel in particular. Railroads and the oil industry, specifically petroleum refinement, benefited from industrialization. Employers largely relied on unskilled or low-skilled labor who performed repetitive manual tasks, as is evidnet in the work of Taylor. In reading Owen⁷, it is clear that, at the time, it was customary for  employers to deem workers as living (animate) machines. At this time, the concepts of individuality and motivation were primitive, if they existed at all. Yet, these concepts were central to Taylor’s work. Furthermore, the lingering effects of the economic depression of 1873³ were ideal for testing Taylor’s Scientific Management.

The years at Midvale Steel and MIC

Taylor joined the Midvale Steel Company in 1878 and occupied various positions. These include machinist, ‘foreman’, superintendent, and chief engineer³. He left Midvale in 1890 to become a consultant for the Simonds Rolling Machine Company³. Later that year (1890), Taylor was appointed general manager of the Manufacturing Investment Company (MIC)³. During this time, Taylor acquainted himself with bookkeeping to bolster his management philosophy³.

Management consultant

In 1893, Taylor became a management consultant to various companies³. One of his clients was the Bethlehem Iron Company. Here, Taylor conducted his epic pig-iron experiments, testing his ideas about matching the best-fit person to the job. From 1901 until his death in 1915, Taylor was a spokesperson for the scientific management movement. Taylor noted that his ventures were most successful when he had complete control over his experiments².

The Father of Scientific Management

Taylor focused on the organizational technical function (production, manufacturing, adaptation) at the operational level. Today, it is acknowledged that the organizational technical function is concerned with strategy execution to attain organizational goals, which constitute performance⁴.

Taylor was interested in the one best way of production³. The one best way relied on the development of each person’s individuality and was accompanied by fair pay³. In other words, Taylor acknowledged that each human is unique and can make their own decisions. The one best way was based, among others, on principles of time-and-motion studies. Taylor thought that group work, or, as he put it, ‘herding people together,’ destroyed individual incentives to perform at one’s best^1,2,3, namely, to flourish. So did similar or the same pay for differential output^1,2.

Taylor wanted to scientifically determine the maximum flawless output of a particular product within a given time and a fair pay for such output, under conditions that were not harmful to the individual^2,3. For example, the amount of pig-iron that could be loaded on a train car in a day, and the appropriate pay for such output. He empirically determined that a ‘first-class workman’ could load about 47 tons of pig-iron on a train car compared to the estimated 18-25 tons and the 12,5 tons at Bethlehem. The first-class workman could earn $1.85 a day than the previous $1,15². His system would be (a) fair to both employers and employees and (b) secure the maximum prosperity for both employer and employee^1,2,3.

Maximum prosperity was used in a broader sense than money³. It included (a) lasting excellence, (b) fully developing each person’s endowed competence through training, which implies a mental component apart from physical effort, (c) deploying workers in positions that permit them to express their competence and encouraging initiative to suggest ways/ideas of doing their jobs better^1,2,3, which implies workers, as individuals, can think, have opinions, and are free to express themselves based on their talents/competence and beliefs, rooted in their agency, and (d) better working conditions², fostering sincere relationships among organizational members – conditions cultivating human flourishing. In contrast, machines, at the time, could not learn, have ideas, or express opinions on improving their job performance.Taylor’s notion of maximum prosperity thus supports the humanity of workers and is congruent with present-day employee engagement, which leadership unlocks^5,6.

Mental revolution

Taylor maintained that the most important aspect of his management philosophy, which underpins scientific management, required a mental revolution^1,2,3. Without this mental revolution, scientific management cannot exist. He believed that his system was not a device for securing efficiency², as it was, and still is, believed to be today¹³. He testified in Congress that his management philosophy requires (a) employees to reconsider their duties towards their work, their colleagues, and their employers, and (b) managers, employers, owners, and board of directors to reconsider their duties to their colleagues in management, their employees, and all of their daily problems^2,3.

This mental revolution would enable employees to be more productive and earn a larger share of the economic pie that management traditionally wanted to retain for itself^2,3. Increased productivity expands the economic pie and resolves the conflict surrounding its sharing. The mental revolution can help both sides focus on growth and prevent conflict over profit-sharing. Harmony between workers and management can help them collaborate and unite to achieve a mutual goal that satisfies both parties^2,3.

People are not machines

The mental revolution requires management to discard the idea that people are machine-like³, a principle emphasized by Robert Owen in 1813⁷. The mindset that people are unique human beings can assist management in matching suitably competent people (the person best-fit^2,3) to appropriate jobs and a fair pay. This idea resonates with today’s talent management and employee engagement^5,8,9. Taylor’s idea that people are not machines but unique human beings is encapsulated in his management principles.

Taylor’s Management Principles

Taylor’s management philosophy is summarized in four principles^1,2,3, namely:

1. Management must develop a science for each element of a person’s work, which replaces the old rule-of-thumb method based on workers’ judgment.
2. Management must scientifically select, train, teach, and develop employees, substituting the past practice of workers haphazardly choosing their own work and training.
3. Management must cooperate closely with the workers to ensure all of the work is performed in accordance with Scientific Principle 1.
4. The new way of working results in an almost equal division of the work and the responsibility between management and the workers. Management takes on the tasks they are better suited to do, rather than the workers being accountable for almost all of the work.

Taylor viewed Principle 1 as the most important. He acknowledged that in some situations Principle 2 could be more important². However, Principle 4 may be crucial in nurturing human flourishing.

Taylor’s Management Principles and Human Flourishing

Taylor’s Management Principle 4 has several implications for human flourishing that demand brief attention. Successfully implementing Taylor’s Principles of Scientific Management requires the right person to head the organization², namely the person best-fit^2,3, for example, the CEO. The head of the organization is accountable for its successful performance, as evidenced by goal achievement, whether financial or otherwise. Competent workers, viz. best-fit and deployed appropriately, create and deliver customer value by performing their jobs², which constitutes strategy execution in pursuit of organizational performance^4,5.

Taylor pointed out that customers can easily be overlooked because they are not explicitly mentioned in the context of scientific management². Taylor did not elaborate on customers. However, his examples illustrate that customer needs were paramount^2,3. Taylor further pointed out that the absence of references to customers may direct attention to workers and managers². Though, he is clear that organizational performance depends on managers, workers, and customers².

Because Taylor did not elaborate on customers, we need to interpret what he meant. Given his work^1,2,3, it is reasonable to imagine that Taylor held a similar view to the one we hold today. Today, we acknowledge that customer value – whether economic, functional, psychological, or a combination of these – is the primary reason for an organization’s existence. Customer value is expressed in the organizational purpose and is a component of the direction-setting element of strategy formulation. Direction-setting is conceived at the organizational strategic level by top management⁴.

Customer value is delivered at the organizational operational level, constituting strategy execution. As alluded to, suitably competent employees, deployed appropriately (the best-fit person), execute strategy by performing their daily jobs, productively^2,3. This means workers are permitted to express their competence, realize autonomy, and experience relatedness in performing their jobs^4,5,6. Taylor did not use these exact words, but his explanations² are interpreted as embracing these tenets. By implication, the head of the organization must create conditions conducive to productive job performance, which is explained by his notion of maximum prosperity. Thus, Taylor’s Principle 4 facilitates Principles 1, 2, and 3. Therefore, I deem Principle 4 the most important for nurturing flourishing workers.

Principle 1

Taylor illustrated Principle 1 with numerous examples^1,2,3. These examples correspond to modern-day job design, namely, determining roles and responsibilities to optimize work processes (activities) that create value and enhance performance¹³. Job design focuses on what matters most in value creation to support organizational goals¹³.

Taylor stated that: (a) Principle 1 (job design) must prevent waste of human effort, (b) workers must be encouraged to make suggestions for improvements, specifically take initiative to contribute ideas to get the job done, and (c) in no way are workers called upon to work at a pace or under conditions harmful to their health². These statements suggest respect for humanity. Taylor’s statements are consistent with Fayol (previous blog) and correspond to today’s employee engagement, which aims to nurture employees’ occupational health⁶. Taylor’s original account thus contradicts portrayals of Taylorism as a mechanistic approach, that emphasizes physical effort, limits worker autonomy, and makes little effort to enhance their working lives^6,13.

Taylor advocated for working conditions that enable workers to thrive and be happy², that signify human flourishing. Machines, unlike people, cannot thrive and experience happiness; thus, Taylor differentiated people and machines. To ensure that workers thrive and are happy, he recommended recreational periods to prevent overworking². Taylor also proposed that management provides (a) clear instructions setting expectations to accompany job design and (b) the necessary means permitting workers to perform their jobs², which indicates a regard for workers. Again, Taylor did not elaborate on these provisions. It is reasonable to interpret these provisions to correspond to policies, procedures, training, information, budgets, and operational controls. These provisions, together with job design, facilitatecoordination, ensuring the smooth running of the organization⁴.

Principle 2

Taylor’s Principle 2 involves matching suitably competent workers to appropriate jobs/positions that utilize their competence autonomously which fosters relatedness. Taylor’s Principle 2 corresponds to modern-day task allocation, a component of job design¹³. Principle 2 also aligns with the employee lifecycle, encompassing the phases of attraction, selection, (re-)deployment, training, development, appraisal  and reward, retention, and retirement.

Given the organization’s purpose, i.e., delivering customer value sustainably, management must determine the competence a worker must have, or acquire, to perform a job effectively². Taylor’s explanation^1,2,3 implies that competence encompasses knowledge, skills, experience, behavior, and attitudes required to perform a job successfully.

Taylor’s explanation^1,2,3 corresponds to our current interpretation of competence¹⁴, namely (a) employees understand their role and purpose in organizational performance, (b) they are allowed to apply their competence in fulfilling their role, and (c) they endeavor to improve their performance through training and development, continuously⁶. Thus, Taylor’s Principle 2 corresponds to our notions of talent management⁸ and employee engagement⁶.

Given the foregoing account, it is conceivable that Taylor’s Principle 2 is compatible with Hogan and Warrenfeltz’s (2003) developmental competence framework¹⁴, which consists of four domains. These domains are (i) intra-personal – self-awareness, self-regulation, self-management, (ii) interpersonal – capacity to interact with a diverse group of people, (iii) business – technical skills required to do a job effectively, and (iv) leadership – influencing, building and maintaining effective teams pursuing an inspiring vision¹⁴.

Each job/position should focus on the few relevant measurable competencies that matter most in job performance. It stands to reason that jobs at the organizational operational level require more technical than leadership competence, while jobs at the higher echelons require more leadership than technical competence¹⁴.

Principle 3

Taylor’s explanation of Principle 3 is interpreted to relate to supervision and encompasses labor relations. Taylor’s examples refer to both individual and collective relations^1,2,3, or unionization. Cooperation depends on two-way communication, which involves the sharing of information, such as instructions setting expectations of job performance, and receiving feedback^1,2,3, such as ideas to improve job performance. By implication, Principle 3 suggests embracing transparency and inclusiveness, which are the cornerstones of open strategy¹⁵. Transparency refers to the level of visibility afforded to workers, enabling them to understand their role in achieving organizational goals. Inclusivenessrefers to workers’ participation, such as taking initiative² in proposing improvements to doing their daily jobs, i.e., strategy execution.

Taylor’s exposition emphasizes that the new way of working, including cooperation between management and workers, increases both the quality and quantity of output^1,2. Thus, it reduces production costs and allows workers to increase their pay^1,2, as demonstrated by the pig-iron experiments.

Taylor’s Principles of Scientific Management, as outlined here, are congruent with the Figure on the landing page. The organizational head (Principle 4) is pivotal to success² by (a) setting the organizational purpose based on customer value offered in selected markets served and (b) deploying suitably competent workers in appropriate positions², whether production units, team leaders (‘foremen’), middle or senior managers, utilizing their competence autonomously, which fosters relatedness among organizational members, (c) in creating and delivering customer value (Principles 1, 2, and 3)^2,4,5. In this way, the organizational head aligns key actions with strategic intent and accomplishes coordination and cooperation – the foundation of a competitive advantage – and trumps its rivals⁴. Management uses the mechanism ‘structural dimensions of organization for implementing strategy’ to align key actions (strategy execution) with strategic intent (strategy formulation)⁴.

This explanation supports the notion that planning and execution (doing) are distinct, yet interrelated parts of the same job³. Specifically, to foresee the future and make action plans to achieve it (see Fayol in the previous blog). However, different stakeholders perform the separate parts of the job^2,3. Because different stakeholders perform the separate parts of the same job, these parts are treated as different jobs. This separation leads to the inexecutable formulation-implementation divide, that frustrate employees, and yields poor organizational performance^4,11. Taylor’s Management Principles are interpreted as aiming to prevent the planning-implementation divide by coordination that galvanizes cooperation among organizational members⁴. Thus, giving effect to the mental revolution that results in harmony between workers and management.

Parting Thoughts

The original account of Taylor’s ideas demonstrates that he was concerned with human flourishing, although he did not use the exact words, contrary to what is still written about him^6,13. Taylor, ostensibly, was a remarkable human, criticized and praised, both personally and professionally³. He persevered in advancing his ideas despite opposition, which prevail because they are sound³.

Taylor’s Management Principles suggest a systemic, systematic, scientific approach to work, redesigning the total system to achieve effective output with maximum productivity, without substantially increasing human effort². This approach considers the impact on the entire system when altering a part³.

At no time was the individual worker to suffer because of Taylor’s Scientific Management². Workers’ health was a predominant concern, echoing contemporary employee engagement^4,6. Taylor’s management principles are still used today under labels that resonate with modern audiences, such as human performance improvement, job design, talent management, employee engagement, and workforce reporting^{4,6,8,9,10,11}.

Taylor advocated that managers’ focus should not be merely on the workers but also account for organizational factors that impede performance². Such factors include poor planning and the unavailability of resources to perform one’s job². These factors are beyond the worker’s control but within the scope of management², resonating with organizational redesign and human performance improvement^9,10, which foster employee engagement^4,6. Taylor’s System of Scientific Management requires mutual respect between employees and management, which promotes harmony and replaces conflict and fear^2,3, consistent with talent management and employee engagement^4,6,8,9.

Taylor maintained that the first step to achieve harmony and trust is to pay high wages accompanied by low labor costs, which is possible by increasing productivity^1,2,3. Note: Money was not the primary incentive or motivation for employees to improve productivity². Taylor acknowledged that different sentiments³ impact motivation, as we do today⁶. Notably, the experience of an injustice has the strongest negative impact on voluntary cooperation², demonstrating Taylor’s concern for humanity. The experience of injustice results from frustrating the inborn motivational needs, namely, to express competence, realize autonomy, and feel a sense of relatedness, and defeats human flourishing^4,6,7,9,10. On the contrary, machines cannot experience an injustice; they can only break down if not properly operated and maintained.     

Taylor was reportedly perceived as arrogant, caustic, and inflexible – a difficult person – yet hardworking, fun, caring, and, most importantly, fair to humanity³. Fairness to humanity was expressed by the need for a better understanding of valuing human resources and promoting better human relations³; perhaps a foreign idea for the times he lived in and seemingly incongruent with his perceived personality. Valuing human resources remains a contemporary topic of interest¹¹, manifesting in various guises^4,6,8,9, that impact human flourishing.

Taylor did not elaborate on all his ideas, leaving room for interpretation and, in some cases, misunderstandings. These misunderstandings, however, are consistent with the ideas of the times in which he lived, e.g., people were living machines. Given Taylor’s own words and explanations^1,2,3, accounted for here, about humanity does not comport with the descriptions attributed to him, namely, that workers were machine-like. In my reading, Taylor clearly demonstrated a genuine concern for humanity, which was perhaps inconceivable at the time of industrialization.

Nevertheless, we still need a mental revolution to appreciate and fully leverage Taylor’s Scientific Management, summarized in four basic principles. Thus, ensuring that flourishing employees can contribute productively to strategy execution in pursuit of organizational performance, which is reflected in customer satisfaction, profitable organizations, and healthy societies.

References

Based on:

¹     Merrill HF (Ed.). Classics in Management. American Management Association; 1970.

²     Taylor FW. The Principles of Scientific Management. Indo-European Publishing; 2022.

³     Wrege CD, Greenwood RG. Frederick W. Taylor the Father of Scientific Management: Myth and Reality. Homewood, IL: Irwin; 1991.

See:

⁴    Nienaber H, McNeill RG. Leadership diagnostic: Unlocking human competence for effective strategy execution. In Matos, F. & Rosa, A. (Eds.). Proceedings of the 18th European Conference on Management Leadership and Governance (ECMLG). (pp. 347– 356). Academic Conferences International, Ltd., Reading, UK; November 10-11, 2022.

⁵     CIPD. Over-skilled and Underused: Investigating the Untapped Potential of UK Skills. Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development; 2018.

⁶     Kahn, WA. To be fully there: Psychological presence at work. Human Relations. 1992; 45(4): 321–349.

⁷  Owen, R. An address to the superintendents of manufacturies (1813). In Merrill, HF (Ed.). Classics in Management. American Management Association; 1970.

⁸      Thunnissen M. Talent management. Employee Relations. 2016; 38(1): 57-72.

     http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ER-08-2015-0159

⁹      Rothwell WJ, Hohne CK, King SB. Human Performance Improvement Building Practitioner Performance. (3^rd ed.), Routledge; 2018.

¹⁰   Karasek R, Theorell T. Healthy Work: Stress, Productivity, and the Reconstruction of Work Life. Basic Books; 1990. Available at https://www.questia.com.

¹¹    CIPD. Workforce Reporting. Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, London; 2025.

¹²   Martin RL. CEOs should stop thinking strategy is someone else’s job, it is theirs. Harvard Business Review; (2017). Available at: https://hbr.org/2017/11/ceos-should-leave-strategy-to-their-team-and-save-their-focus-for-execution(accessed 20 December 2018).

¹³   CIPD. Job design. Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development; 2025.

¹⁴  Hogan R, Warrenfeltz R. Educating the modern manager. Academy of Management Learning and Education. 2003; 2(1):74–84.

¹⁵   Hautz J, Seidl D, Whittington R. Open strategy: dimensions, dilemmas, dynamics. Long Range  Planning. 2017; 50:298–309.