内容简介

本书中，泰勒系统地提出了科学管理的基本思想、基本内容以及科学管理的具体方法。在科学管理的基本思想方面，泰勒提出了专业分工、标准化、最优化等一些管理思想。在科学管理的基本内容方面，泰勒对企业作业管理、组织管理等进行了全面阐述，其中包括对工人的挑选和培训、标准作业条件、明确规定作业量、建立激励性的差别工资报酬制度。在科学管理的具体方法方面，泰勒提出了定额管理、差别计件工资制、挑选并合理使用第一流工人以及如何进行标准管理的一系列具体的步骤与方法。在本书中泰勒立足于美国当时资源浪费严重，劳动生产率低下的事实，着眼于企业的基层管理，提出了科学管理原理。

THE PRINCIPLES OF

SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT

科学管理原理

版权专有　侵权必究

图书在版编目（CIP）数据

科学管理原理／（美）泰勒著；黄榛译.—北京：北京理工大学出版社，

2012.9

ISBN 978-7-5640-6062-6

Ⅰ．①科…　Ⅱ．①泰…②黄…　Ⅲ．①科学管理　Ⅳ．①C931

中国版本图书馆CIP数据核字(2012)第123730号

出版发行／北京理工大学出版社

社　　址／北京市海淀区中关村南大街5号

邮　　编／100081

电　　话／(010)68914775（总编室）　68944990（批销中心）　68911084（读者服务部）

网　　址／http：//www.bitpress.com.cn

经　　销／全国各地新华书店

印　　刷／北市天宇万达印刷有限公司

开　　本／880毫米×1230毫米　1/32

印　　张／7

字　　数／170千字

版　　次／2012年9月第1版　　2012年9月第1次印刷　　　　责任校对／周瑞红

定　　价／19.80元　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　责任印制／边心超

图书出现印装质量问题，本社负责调换

目 录

引言

第一章　科学管理的基础

1．管理的最终目标：财富最大化

2．“磨洋工”现象

3．“磨洋工”出现的原因

第二章　科学管理的原理

1．一般管理和科学管理的区别

2．“搬生铁”实例

3．管理者和员工之间的矛盾

4．关于工作量的调查

5．体力劳动背后隐藏的规律

6．培训的重要性

7．对砌砖工的科学管理

8．“检查钢珠”实例

9．重复性工作中效率如何提升

10．科学管理是从最简单工作中逐步建立的

11．任务观念在科学管理中的重要性

12．再说培训

13．科学管理的优势

14．科学管理根除了“磨洋工”弊病

泰勒小传

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER I

Fundamentals of Scientific Management

CHAPTER II

The Principles of Scientific Management

作者页

|引言|

罗斯福总统在白宫向州长们讲话时曾预言：“保护我们国家的资源，只是提高国家整体工作效率这一重大问题的开端。”

整个美国很快便认识到了保护物资资源的重要意义，并且，为了有效地达到这个目的而发起了大规模运动。但直到现在，对于“提高国家整体工作效率这一重大问题”的重要意义，我们的认识依然是模糊的。

我们可以看到：我们的森林在消失，我们的水力资源被浪费，我们的土壤被洪水冲刷到了大海里，我们的煤和铁也濒临枯竭。但是，我们日复一日的失策、指挥不当和低效率等行为，给人力资源带来了更大的浪费，这不正是罗斯福先生所提到的“国家整体工作效率”不足吗？关于这一点，我们可没有那么容易看得到，即使有人意识到了，也是模糊不清的。

我们能够看到并感觉到物质资源的直接浪费。但是，人们对业务生疏、效率低下或指挥不当等造成的浪费，却是不易察觉的。要意识到这些，需要善于记住先例，并发挥想象。尽管这方面的日常损耗要比物质资源的直接浪费严重得多，但因为认识上的困难，后者已经引起人们的深切关注，而前者几乎无动于衷。

直到现在，我们还不曾有过关于“提高国家效率”的公开辩论，而且政府也没有召开会议来研究怎么处理这个问题。不过有迹象表明，人们已经普遍感到有提高效率的必要了。

从大公司的经理到家庭佣仆，对于有才干的人才的需求从来没有像现在这样强烈。而人才的需求大于供给，也是前所未有的。

然而，我们期待的是现成的、能胜任工作岗位的人，一般都是别人训练出来的。只有当我们充分认识到，我们应该系统地合力培养和造就这些有才干的人，而不是只想寻找别人已培养好的人时，我们才能走上提高全国效率的坦途，这是我们的责任，也是我们的机会。

过去普遍流行的观念可由下面这句话得以完美表达：“工业界的领袖皆是天生的，而非后天成就的。”一直以来的理论则是：如果能找到合适的人，就可以放心让他去拿主意、想办法。但将来我们会认识到，我们的领导者必须是经过培养的——就像天生胜任的一样。而且，没有哪个伟大人物（过去人事管理体制下的）能够与一些普通人形成的、有效合作的集体一决高低。

过去，人是第一位的；将来，体制必须是第一位的。然而，这并不是说不再需要伟大人物。正相反，任何先进体制的首要目标就是发掘第一流的人才。而且，在系统的管理之下，与过去相比，最好的人才能更有把握、更迅速地被提升到管理岗位上来。

撰写本文是出于以下几个目的：

第一，通过一系列简明的例证，来指出效率低下使得整个国家遭受巨大损失，而这种现象在日常行为中几乎无所不在。

第二，试图说明解决效率低下的绝佳途径在于系统化管理，并不在于网罗某些独特的或非比寻常的大人物。

第三，证明最先进的管理是一门真正的科学，其基础建立在明确规定的纪律、条例和原则之上；从而进一步说明，科学管理原理几乎可以应用到人类所有的活动中去——从我们最简单的个人行为，到需要紧密而复杂的合作的大型企业的业务运作，都会有用武之地。总而言之，通过一系列的简单例证，我会让读者相信，只要这些原则得到正确的运用，必定能够立竿见影，并获得令人震惊的成效。

本文原本是向美国机械工程师协会提交的报告。笔者深信，这里所选用的实例将会引起工程师、工业和制造业等企业经理的极大兴趣。同样，对服务于这些企业的所有员工也是如此。笔者也希望这篇文章能让其他的读者明白，这些原则在所有的社会行为中也是同样适用的，如我们的家庭管理，农场管理，我们的大小商业活动、教堂、慈善机构、大学和政府各部门的业务管理。

第一章　科学管理的基础

管理的主要目标应该是使雇主的财富最大化，同时也使每一位雇员的财富最大化。

1．管理的最终目标：财富最大化

广义上讲，这里用到的“财富最大化”不仅意味着公司或其所有者能获得更多的利润，还意味着各行各业都达到了最好的经营状况。只有这样才能实现永久的社会财富最大化。

同样的道理，雇员的财富最大化不仅意味着他可比其他同级别的雇员得到更多的薪酬，更为重要的是，还意味着每位雇员的劳动生产率达到了最高。因此，一般来说，如果给予他机会，他就能够从事与其天赋和聪明才智相适应的最高级别的工作。

毋庸赘言，雇主的财富最大化及雇员的财富最大化应该是管理的两个首要目标。但毫无疑问的是，在整个工业界，总体上雇主的组织与雇员的组织之间，残酷斗争多于真诚合作，以致雇主和雇员两者的相互关系不可能协调到利益完全一致的地步。

这些人大多认为，雇主和雇员的根本利益是必然对立的。科学管理正相反，坚信二者的真正利益是一致的；如果没有雇员的富裕，雇主的富裕无法长久持续，反过来也是一样；而同时给予双方最想要的——雇员的高工资和雇主的产品低劳工成本——也是可以实现的。这些正是科学管理的基础。

希望那些不赞同上述观点的人中，至少有一些人会改变他们自己的看法；某些对雇员的态度是只想以极低的工资，换来工人们竭尽所能生产的雇主们将会发现，对雇员们更慷慨的策略对自己反而更有利；某些不愿意雇主取得一笔合理的，甚至是巨额的利润，认为劳动果实应该归他们自己所有，而他们的雇主或投资的人应当只享有很少，甚至不该享有任何权利的雇员们，希望他们会改变自己的看法。

在只有一人的情况下，没人会否认：只有当这个人达到他最佳的工作效率，即当他达到他最大日产量时，才会有最大程度的富裕。

这种情况在两人合作时也是很明显的。举个例子：如果你和你的工人变得技艺娴熟，每天能够生产两双鞋，而你的竞争对手和他的工人却只能生产一双。那么很明显，卖掉鞋子后，你给自己的工人支付的工资比对手多，同时剩下的钱也更多，这样你的利润也更高了。

而同样清楚的是，在一个更为复杂的制造企业中，只有以最小的综合支出（包括人工、自然资源和以机器、房屋等形式使用的资本支出等）完成企业的工作，才能够带来雇主和雇员的最大富裕的长久实现。换句话说，那就是只有当企业的员工和机器，都发挥出最大的潜在生产率，即只有每个人和每一台机器，都达到最大可能的产出量时，最大程度的富裕才能实现。因为，除非你的员工和机器的日产量比周围其他人更多，否则你给自己的员工支付的工资，将无法比你的竞争对手为其员工支付的多。这种关于支付更高工资的可能，不论是两家激烈竞争的公司之间，还是处于竞争中的一国不同区域，甚至国与国之间的情况，与上述事例都是一样的。一句话，只有达到最大生产力，才能实现最大程度的富裕。本文稍后将给出几家公司的实例，这些公司在得到丰厚回报的同时，给予员工高于其竞争对手的职工30%〜100%的工资。这些实例包括了从最简单到最复杂的各种各样的工作。

如果以上推论正确，那么职工和管理人员二者共同的重要目的，都是企业中每个成员的培训和成长，以便其能够（以其最快速度和最高的效率）胜任其能力范围内最高级的工作。

2．“磨洋工”现象

这些原理似乎是显而易见的，许多人可能认为再去陈述这些几乎都显得幼稚。但让我们来看看事实，在本国和英国都确实存在的事实。

英国和美国的人民是世界上最伟大的运动员。当一个美国工人在玩棒球，或者一个英国工人玩板球的时候，可以肯定地说，他会全力以赴去为他所在队伍争取胜利。他会尽最大能力拿到每一个可能拿到的分数。对于任何在比赛中没有使出浑身解数的人，人们的反应可是很激烈的，他会被冠上“懦夫”的标签，并且遭到周围人的鄙视。

当这个工人第二天回到工作单位的时候，他不会竭尽全力地干活，大多数情况下，他会刻意地计划着少干一些活儿——远比他完全能做到的活儿少——大多不超过正常程度的1/3〜1/2。事实上，如果他真的做到了他的最大程度，他将会因此受到同事们的指责辱骂，甚至比在运动场上被骂成“懦夫”的次数还多。这种故意放慢工作以避免完全做完一天工作的做法（在本国称为“磨洋工”，在英国叫做“闲逛”，在英格兰则谓之“慢行”），在工业企业中很普遍，在建筑工业里也非常流行。

笔者可以确定，这是所有英国和美国人都深恶痛绝的陋习。

本文后部将指出，摈弃“磨洋工”以及各种偷懒行为，改善雇主与雇员之间的关系，使得每个工人愿尽他的最佳能力和最佳速度去干活，加上和管理层亲密无间的合作，并得到管理人员的帮助（这是工人理应得到的），那么，其结果必将普遍地导致每个人和每部机器的产量翻番。在促进繁荣、减少贫困和减轻痛苦上，两国人民当前热议的各种改革措施中，有哪条能比这一条贡献更大呢？美国和英国近来为以下诸问题所困扰：一方面要统治大公司，另一方面要统治遗产继承权，还有多少带有社会主义性质的税收提案等。在这些问题上，两国人民的焦虑是深远的，但是对这个更重大的“磨洋工”问题却几乎没什么人关注，虽然它能够直接而有力地影响到国家每个人的生活，甚至每一家工业企业的繁荣。

排除掉“磨洋工”的若干因素，就会降低生产成本，使我们的国内外市场得以大大扩展，使我们在和竞争对手的竞争中取得更有利的条件；这就会消除造成淡季、失业、贫穷的根本原因，还将比目前用以缓和这些问题和灾祸的任何其他方法产生更为深远和永久的影响。高工资、短工时、更好的工作和家庭条件都将成为可能。

3．“磨洋工”出现的原因

可是，面对这样显而易见的事实（即只有每位工人尽最大的努力达到他最大日产量时，才会实现财富最大化），为什么我们大部分人还是故意反其道而行之？甚至当人们想要努力工作时，多数情况下他们的工作效率仍然低下？

总体上，造成这种情况的原因有如下三条：

第一，不知何时起，工人中广为流传着一种错误的观念：在企业中，如果每个人或每台机器的产出量增加，那么最终会导致大量的工人失业。

第二，目前通常所采用的不完善的管理制度，使得每个工人为了保护自己的最大利益而不可避免地“磨洋工”或缓慢工作。

第三，几乎各行各业仍在沿用单凭经验行事的低效方法。这导致我们的工人浪费了大部分的劳动。

本文将尝试阐明：工人们摈弃单凭经验行事的方法，以采用科学的工作方法以取而代之，将取得巨大收益。

以下就上述三个方面的原因略加进一步的说明：

第一，绝大多数工人依然相信，如果他们以最高的效率工作，那么对整个行业来说他们就做了件极不公正的事，因为这样会让很多的工人失去工作。然而，各个行业的发展历史表明：每一项革新，不论发明了一种新机器，还是引进了一种更好的工作方法，都会提高所在行业工人的生产能力，降低生产成本，最终带来的是更多的工作岗位，而不是更多的工人失业。

任何日用商品的减价，会立即引起对这种商品需求的激增。下面以鞋为例做出说明。引进机器之后，所有原来手工进行的工作都转由机器完成，使得工作费用只有原来的一小部分，出售时价格也就降低了许多。因此，如今工人阶级中，几乎每个男人、妇女和孩子每年都能买上一两双鞋，常年有鞋可穿。而以前每个工人也许每五年才买一双鞋，大部分时间都赤着脚，穿鞋只是一种奢侈或迫不得已的需要。尽管随着制鞋机器的引进，每位制鞋工人产量大大地增加了，但与此同时对鞋的需求也增加了，这使得现在的制鞋工人比以前任何时候都要多。

几乎所有行业中的工人都面临着上述的客观事实。但是，由于他们对其所在行业的历史知之甚少，他们仍然像他们的父辈那样坚信：每位工人每天竭尽全力工作与其根本利益是相违背的。

在这种错误观念的支配下，英美两国大部分工人每天故意“磨洋工”以减少产出。几乎每个工会都已经或正在制订各种条例，以减少工人们的工作量。而那些对工人具有强大影响力的劳工领袖及帮助工人的有慈善心肠的人们，则每天都在传播这一错误的观念，同时还“忠告”工人们：你们已经工作过度了。

过去就有关于“血汗工厂”工作及条件的诸多议论，现在也时常有。笔者十分同情那些超负荷工作的人们，但更为同情那些收入低下的人。可是，每一位超负荷工作的工人背后，就有着一百个故意少干活的人——大大地少干活。正是由于这些人故意地“磨洋工”，最后必然导致工资非常低。可是，怎样根治这一弊病，至今仍然无人置一言。

作为工程师和管理者，相比社会上其他阶层的人，我们对这些事实的认识有着切身的体会。所以我们最适合领导这场与上述谬论抗争的运动，教育工人乃至整个国家认识到这一点。然而，在这一方面我们几乎什么都没做，而是将其完全交到了那些煽风点火者（实际上，其中很多人是被误导）和那些对实际工作环境完全不了解的感情用事者手里，

第二，造成“磨洋工”的第二个原因，是现行管理制度下雇主与雇员之间的不良关系。雇主不知如何恰当地安排各项工作的时间，会使得工人为保护既得利益而“磨洋工”。而这一原因，对不了解这一问题的人是不可能用一两句话就能解释清楚的。

因此，笔者在此引用一篇于1903年6月在美国机械工程师协会上宣读的文章（题为《工厂管理》）的部分内容，旨在详细说明“磨洋工”的第二个原因：

“‘磨洋工’产生的原因有二。第一，人类天性使然，趋于轻松随便，这可称为‘本性磨洋工’；第二，由于人与人之间的关系而造成的复杂想法和重重顾虑而引起的‘磨洋工’，可称为‘故意磨洋工’。”

“毫无疑问，无论从事何种行业，普通人都趋向于轻轻松松、慢慢腾腾地工作，人们只有在自己经过深思熟虑和仔细观察之后，或由于榜样的力量，或出于良心发现，又或者是由于外部的压力，才会加快工作的速度。”

“当然，也有一些精力旺盛、活力十足、志向远大的人，他们自发选择快速、高标准和刻苦工作，即便可能违背他们的最佳利益。但这些人的态度作为反面例子却凸显出目前的普遍趋势。”

“在同一工作岗位上用同样的薪酬方式招收大量工人的做法，使得这一普遍趋势愈发明显。”

“在这种情况的影响下，一个高效的工人也会逐渐放慢自己的节奏，降低效率。同一个懒散的人工作一段时间后，工作积极的人会不可避免地产生这样的想法：‘那个懒鬼少干了一半工作量的活，却能拿到和我相同的工资，那我干吗还要这样拼命工作？’”

“对处在这些条件下工作的工人进行谨慎的时间研究后，揭露了这个荒谬可笑又令人可怜的事实。”

“举例说明：笔者给一个天生精力充沛的人作了计时，在上下班时候，他步行速度是每小时5〜6千米，甚至有时还会跑着回家；一旦他开始工作，他的速度却立即降到每小时大约2千米。比如，当推动已装载货物的手推车时，即使经过斜坡他也会保持很快的速度，以便最快地减轻负重；而返回时速度就会马上降到每小时2千米，不放过每一个加长休息时间的机会。为了不比他懒惰的同事干得多，他还会故意加重自己的疲劳，让自己工作慢下来。”

“这些人在有声望的领班带领下工作，并被他们的雇主时刻关注。雇主们显然已经注意到了这种情况，领班却无可奈何：‘你可以防止他们坐下休息，但休想让他们快速干活。’”

“人类‘本性磨洋工’的确很严重，但到目前为止，工人和雇主们都在承受的最大的弊病却是‘故意磨洋工’。这种磨洋工是工人从自身利益角度出发研究出来的，而这几乎在目前所有的管理方法下都存在。”

“笔者对最近听说的一个事很感兴趣。一个有经验的小球僮向新球僮解释捡球时放慢步伐的必要性——新球僮非常喜欢这份工作而且工作积极，告诉他薪酬是按小时计算的，球捡得越快，得到的钱就越少，最后还警告说，如果他还这么积极，其他人将会给他好看的。”

“这代表了一类不大严重的故意磨洋工。雇主有着清醒的认识，只要他想改变，很轻易就能打破这一现状。”

“然而，更多的情况则是工人故意不让雇主知道他们的干活速度。”

“这种情况非常的普遍，以至于在一个大型企业中，几乎找不到一个能干的工人——他不仅将大量的时间耗费在研究怎样使工作慢下来，并且还试图让雇主相信，他干活的速度还不赖——不论他是计时工、计件工、包工，还是在目前任何普通的管理系统下的工人。”

“简单地说，造成这个情况的原因是几乎所有的雇主事先确定适合各类雇员的最高工资额，不管是计时工还是计件日。”

“每个工人很快就会发现这种计算方法对他的影响，并且认识到如果他的雇主相信有人比他干得多时，他迟早也会被迫干得那么多，而工资却增加得很少或干脆不会增加。”

“雇主们对各类工作每天能干多少的了解，或来自他们自己的经验——而这经验会随着年龄增长逐渐变得模糊；抑或来自偶然或非系统性的观察；最好的也只是来自每项工作的最快完成时间记录。在很多情况下，雇主确信某种工作能够比以前干得更快，但很少有人会采取强力的措施，来强迫工人以最快速度干活，除非他有工人能更快干活的证据。”

“确保不比以前干得更快，明显地成了每个工人的‘兴趣’。年轻而缺少经验的工人会受到他们的前辈的教导，对那些‘贪婪又自私’的人则加以劝说和施加社会压力，以避免他们获得暂时性的工资增长而创造新的记录，避免工人们为了得到与之前同样的工资而必须更加努力的工作。”

“在通常最好的计时工资制之下，把每个人的工作量和工作效率精确记录下来，个人工资随着工作进步而增长，不能达到标准的人被解雇，并被新的经过仔细挑选的人替代，这样在很大程度上消除了本性磨洋工与故意磨洋工。”

“然而，在计件工作的情况下故意磨洋工技巧得到了完全的发展；当工人刻苦工作并增加产量之后，发现完成一件产品得到的工价减少了20%〜30%，而不增加产量能防止出现这种情况，那么他会完全忽略雇主利益，工作时故意磨洋工。磨洋工必然导致故意误导和欺骗他的雇主，即使最正直坦率的工人也被迫变得多少有些虚伪，这是不幸的。工人很快就会把雇主当做对手看待——即使没有直接当做敌人；而领导和下属之间应有的互信，以及他们为了分享成果而工作的那种感觉与热情，荡然无存了。”

“在平常计件系统下，站在工人的角度来看，这种对立的感觉在很多情况下非常明显，他们雇主的任何主张——即便有理——也会被报以怀疑的目光。磨洋工成为了工人的习惯，即使提高工作效率能够减少他们的工作量，他们仍然会煞费苦心地限制自己所操作机器的产量。”

关于“磨洋工”的第三个原因，本文后面将以大量篇幅来说明。在各行各业中，通过用科学方法代替单凭经验的工作方法，即便是微小细节上的改变，雇主和雇员双方都能得到巨大的收益。在任何一种行业中，通过消除不必要的动作，用快速的动作代替缓慢和低效的动作，都可以节省时间，提高产量。只有亲眼看到通过全面的动作和时间研究后得到的改进，人们才能充分认识到这一点。

可以简要说明一下：由于所有行业中的工人都是通过对周围人的观察来掌握工作中的细节，所以做同一件事可用许多不同的方法——也许每个行业中的每个动作都有五十、六十甚至一百种方法。同样，每种工作中都有种类繁多的工具。那么，具体到每个行业中每个活计上所使用的方法和工具，总有一种方法、一样工具比所有其他的都要更快更好。要发现这种方法、这样的工具，只能通过对所有在用的方法和工具进行科学的研究与分析，伴以精准的、详细的动作和时间研究。这就要求在整个机械工艺中，逐渐以科学方法替代单凭经验的方法。

本文将指出，现行管理制度必然造成这样一种情况，即每个工人都认为自己完成工作的方法是最好的，管理层给予的帮助和建议则很少。本文还将表明，尽管科学或工艺的规律和原则的确存在，可要各自孤军作战的工人们照其行事是不可能的。

作为一个普遍原理（本文后面会举例证明这一事实），笔者坚持认为，这种在几乎所有的机械工艺中存在的、以每个工人的每个动作为基础的科学是如此的伟大且意义非常，如果没有同事或领导的指导和帮助，或是其本人缺乏教育或智力低下，哪怕最适合做这个工作的工人也不能完全理解这门科学。为了按照科学的规律和原则来完成工作，就要更公平地区分管理层和工人各自的责任。发展这门科学的管理人员，应该指导和帮助工人在科学的原则下工作，而且应当为工作成果承担比以前更多的责任。

本文主要内容是为了向人们表明，要按照科学原则工作，管理层必须接手大量目前在工人手中的工作；几乎工人的每个动作，都应以管理层已准备好的动作为引导，以便他能比以前更快更好地工作。每个工人每天都能从领导那里得到指导和友善的帮助，而不是要么就被老板驱使和压迫，要么就完全放任自流，得不到任何帮助。

这种管理层和工人之间紧密、亲切、个人的合作，是现代科学或责任管理的精髓。

一系列的实际例证表明，通过这种友好合作，双方公平地分担每天的责任，一切如前所述的影响企业每个员工和每台机器最大产出的重大阻碍都将被扫除。相比在原有管理制度下，工人能获得的30%〜100%的工资增长，以及每天与管理层的亲密互动，将完全消除一切导致“磨洋工”的原因。在这种制度下，不用几年，工人们就会发现，平均产出的增加非但不会让人失去工作，反而能提供更多的工作岗位。这样就彻底推翻了原来的谬论——工人产出越多，失业越多。

笔者的看法是，只有通过采用现代科学管理，这个重大问题（磨洋工）才能最终得以解决。应该通过书面与口头的教育使得社会上各阶层的人（不仅是工人）认识到每个人和每台机器都达到最大产量的重要性。或许本文大多数读者会说，这些都还只是理论而已。恰恰相反，经过将近三十年发展，科学管理的理论或者说原理，正逐渐变得不言自明。在这发展期间，一个接一个的公司，包括大范围的各行各业中的公司，逐渐将传统管理转变成科学管理。至少50000名美国工人正在这种管理制度下工作，他们的工资比周围同等能力水平的工人要高30%〜100%，雇佣他们的公司也比以前更兴旺。在这些公司里，工人和机器的平均产量均翻了一倍。这些年里，在这种管理制度下工作的工人从没有过一次罢工。代表传统管理制度的特点，诸如怀疑、提防和多少有些公开的冲突，已被管理层和工人之间的友好合作取代了。

有一些已经发表的论文，说明了目前应采用的一些权宜之计、在科学管理制度下运作的细节以及从传统管理转变成科学管理要采取的步骤。但不幸的是，这些文章的大部分读者都没有正确领会其中的精髓。科学管理是由一些普遍通用的原则和一些可应用于多方面的基本原理，以及任何个人就如何应用这些原则的说明组成的。当然，这些原则的说明决不应与原则本身混淆不清。

这里并不是说，存在某种能够解决工人或雇主所有问题的万能药。只要有人天生懒惰低能，有人天生贪婪残忍，只要邪恶与犯罪仍然存在，我们就无法避免贫穷、不幸和烦恼。没有哪种制度或权宜之计——不论在何人控制之下——能保证雇主或工人的持续富裕。富裕取决于太多的因素，不可能被任何人甚至任何政权完全掌握，在一段时期内，劳资双方多少都要遭受些痛苦。然而，可以断言，在科学管理下，将会更繁荣、更愉快，不协调与纠纷会更少。而这种时期会更少更短，遭受的痛苦也更小。那些首先用科学管理代替单凭经验管理的城镇、州和国家表现得尤为突出。

笔者深信，这些原则将会得到整个文明世界的普遍采用，而且越早采用，对全人类就越有利。

第二章　科学管理的原理

笔者发现，刚开始关注科学管理的人士最想弄明白以下三个问题：

第一，科学管理与普通管理本质的区别在哪里？

第二，为什么科学管理会比其他类型的管理获得更好的成果？

第三，选派合适的人选担任公司领导是否是最重要的问题？

如果你物色到了合适的人选，你敢授予他选择公司管理模式的权力吗？

以下内容的主要目的，就是对上述问题作出令人满意的答复。

1．一般管理和科学管理的区别

在开始论述科学管理（或简称“任务管理”）原理之前，有必要先概述下现在通行管理制度中的最佳模式。只有这样，人们才能完全意识到，一般管理的最佳模式与科学管理之间的巨大差异。

一家500〜1000名工人的工业企业，多数情况下至少有二三十种不同的分工。每个工种的相关知识都是由口头传授的。经过长期的发展，这些工作从远古祖先劳作的最初形态，逐渐转变为如今仍处发展中的细化专业的各种职业，大规模的分工协作。

每一代人都发挥各自的智慧，为各行各业中的各项工作找到了比以前更高效的方法。因此，广义上说，目前所采用的那些方法，是各行各业自创始以来不断进化发展形成的最合适、最好用的方法。尽管如此，只有熟悉了解这些行业的人才能充分地认识到，所有行业的所有工作所采用的方法几乎不可能是一样的。相反，每项工作可能采用了50或者100种不同的办法，而不是普遍采用其中的一种并将其作为行业标准。只要稍加思索就会明白这无法避免。因为我们所采用的是通过口头相授的方式，或者更多的是通过无意识的观察习得的方式。

实际上，这些方法从未经过系统整理和分析。以每一代甚至每十年的智慧和经验，较好的方法无疑会传给下一代。诸多这样的传统知识和经验，可以说是行业中人的主要资产或财富。可是，如今管理者已清楚地认识到，在一般管理的最佳模式下，大部分的传统知识由其领导的二三十种行业中的500〜1000名工人掌握着，而非管理者。当然，管理者，包括领班和监工，多数情况下本身就是所在行业中的一流工人。但是，这些领班与监工们比谁都清楚，他们的知识与技巧，比起他们属下所有工人的知识和技巧来，要远远少得多。

因此，最富经验的管理人员，会让工人思考如何采用最高效最经济的办法来完成工作。他们认识到自己面临的任务就是，如何促使每位工人在工作中竭尽全力，充分应用其掌握的知识和技能，且带着良好的意愿——简言之，就是如何充分调动工人的“积极性”，给雇主带来最大的收益。所以，简单地说管理层所面对的问题，就是让每个工人的能力得到最好的发挥。笔者从最广泛的意义上来使用“积极性”这一术语，包括从工人身上能挖掘到的一切优良品质。

另一方面，明智的管理人员不会奢望完全调动工人的积极性，除非他认为他所给予的，比通常工人从雇主那里获得的还要多。本文的读者众多，只能那些曾经担任过经理或从事过具体经营管理的人才会认识到：普通工人在实际工作中的主动性与管理者所期待的“主动性”相差甚远。可以说，20个企业中有19个企业中的工人认为，竭力为雇主积极工作完全违背其自身利益；所以，他们非但不全力为雇主更好地完成更多的工作任务，而且还有意尽量放慢工作速度，同时，还试图让他们的领导相信他们干得非常快。[1]

因此，笔者再度强调，要想完全激发工人的积极主动，管理者必须给工人一般企业所没有的“特殊激励”。这种“特殊激励”方式多样，比如，快速提拔或晋升，提高薪酬（既可提高计件价格，也可是给予超产优产奖或红利），缩短工作时间，优化工作环境与条件等；更为重要的是：除了这种“特殊激励”之外，管理者还应真心实意地关怀工人、真心为工人着想，与工人打成一片。只有通过给予这种特殊的诱导或激励，才有可能争取工人的“主动性”。在一般的管理模式之下，给工人施以这种“特殊激励”的必要性是公认的，以至于多数对此感兴趣的人认为采用现代薪酬方案（如计件活、奖励计划、红利计划）差不多就是管理系统的全部了。然而，这种特别的薪酬制度仅仅是科学管理的附属要素之一。

那么，广义上讲，通常所采用的最佳管理模式可以这样下定义：即工人们最大限度地发挥其积极主动，且作为回报，从其雇主那里取得某些特殊激励的管理模式。这种管理与科学管理（或“任务管理”）不同，可称为“积极性加激励”管理。

“积极性加激励”管理被奉为通常采用的最佳管理模式。事实上，笔者认为，很难去说服一般管理者，使其相信在整个领域里存在着比之更好的管理模式。因此，笔者所面临的任务，就是试图以一种令人完全信服的方式证明，另一管理模式比“积极性加激励”管理要好且好得多。

一般管理者对“积极性加激励”管理的偏好根深蒂固，以至于仅凭理论上的优势，无法让他们相信还有其他的比这更好的管理制度。因此，为了论证科学管理制度比其他管理制度要优越，下文将列举一系列两种制度下的实例。一些基本原则及理论将被视为这些实例的实质。科学管理的一般原理与普通的“单凭经验”的管理的区别，从本质上看就简单明了。所以，在例证之前有必要先加以阐述。

在旧式管理模式之下，企业要取得任何成就几乎完全依赖于员工“积极性”的充分调动，但是在实际工作中，这种充分调动几乎是不可能的；与此相反，科学管理却能够在更大范围内以绝对的一致性充分调动员工的“积极性”（即竭尽全力、带着良好的意愿、充分应用其掌握的技巧）。在科学管理制度下，除了员工这方面的改进之外，管理者也要承担未曾想过的新的事务、职能及责任。例如，管理者要负责将过去掌握在工人手里的所有传统知识汇集起来，加以分类、编制，并将其简化为一条条的规章制度和操作规程，以大大地有助于员工的日常工作。除此之外，管理层还要亲自承担其他三种新的、繁重的任务。

管理者要承担的新任务可概括为以下四个方面：

第一，研发出一套工人操作中每一环节的科学方法，以替代过去单凭经验行事的方法。

第二，科学地挑选工人，并进行培训教育，使其成长。而过去是任工人自己挑选工作、自我培训。

第三，与工人们密切合作，以确保一切事务都是按照已形成的科学原则进行。

第四，管理层与工人在工作和职责的划分上应是大体同等的。管理层应该承担起那些自己比工人更胜任的工作，而不是像过去一样，把几乎所有的工作和大部分的职责都推给工人。

也正是工人们“积极性加激励”的组合，再加上管理层所承担的新任务，才使得科学管理比旧有管理制度要高效得多。

上述前三个方面多数情况下，在“积极性加激励”管理下仅在小范围内初现雏形，但作用不大；但在科学管理下，它们却是整个管理制度的核心。

对第四个方面，即“均分管理者和工人的工作和职责”，需作进一步的说明。“积极性加激励”管理的基本原理要求每位工人几乎承担所有责任，从总体策划、具体细节到生产工具；除此之外，他还必须从事实际的体力劳动。另一方面，一套科学方法的研发（包括设定各种标准、规则和章程），只有经过系统的记录和索引等，才能产生实际作用，以取代单凭工人判断的做法。为了有效应用这些科学数据，还需要一间办公室，用以保存卷宗[2]，此外还需要为计划员配备一张办公桌。如此，在过去的管理制度下，所有计划都是由工人根据个人经验实践的；而在新的管理制度下，则由管理者按照科学原理实施。因为即使工人十分适应科学数据的整理和应用，也不可能要求工人既从事机器操作又从事办公拟定计划的工作。如此一来显而易见，大多数情况下我们需要一部分人预先制订工作计划，而另一部分人负责实践操作。

在科学管理下，计划部门专门负责预先制订工作计划，并通过细化分工找到多快好省的工作方法。每位技工开始作业前，必须先由另外一些人完成各种事先的工作。所有这些都包括我们所说过的“均分管理者和工人之间的工作和职责”。

总体而言，在“积极性加激励”的管理下，实际上全部问题“由工人决定”，而在科学管理下，一半的问题“由管理层决定”。

也许，现代科学管理中最突出的要素是任务观念。每个工人的工作至少提前一天就由管理层作好计划。而每个工人都会收到书面的作业指南，其中，详细说明了要完成的工作任务及应使用的操作方法。这样，预先作出的计划就构成了一项任务。如上所述，这些任务不是由工人单独完成，多数情况下都是由工人和管理层共同努力完成的。每项任务都详细说明了需要完成的工作任务、操作方法以及工作时长。无论何时，工人只要在规定的时限内圆满地完成了工作，就能在正常工资上获得30%〜70%的涨幅。这些任务应经过精心计划，以确保工人在其能力范围内更精细地完成工作。同时，在任何情况下，都不要求以损害工人身体健康的速度来完成工作。每项任务应使得工人常年以这种速度作业，身心愉快，逐渐成长，变得富有，而不是超负荷工作。在很大程度上，科学管理就是预先制定工作任务计划，并使之落实。

2．“搬生铁”实例

笔者充分注意到，也许本文的大部分读者会认为，新型管理区别于老式管理的四个方面看起来只是在唱高调。笔者就此重申，不会仅仅通过宣告新型管理制度的存在来使读者相信它们的价值。笔者希望通过一系列的实例去证明这四个方面的巨大力量和效果，以此使人信服。首先将表明的是，新型管理完全适用于从最基本的到最复杂的所有工作；其次，一旦它得到应用，比起“积极性加激励”管理来，届时必然会取得更丰硕的成果。

第一个实例是搬运生铁。之所以挑选这项工作，只因为它是工人操作中最原始、最初级的劳动。工人不用工具，只用双手。搬生铁的工人弯下腰，拣起一块重约42千克的生铁，走几米或十几米远，将它堆放在地上或另一堆生铁上。这项工作的性质是如此原始和初级，笔者甚至相信可以将一头聪明的猩猩训练成生铁搬运工，它可能都干得比人更有效率。但即将表明的搬运生铁的科学是这样的深广，以至最胜任这项工作的工人也无法懂得这门科学的原则，无法按照这些原则去干活，除非他能得到一位比他受过更好培训的人的帮助。进一步提供的实例将表明，在几乎所有的机械工艺上，构成每个工人动作基础的科学是这样的深广，即使是最胜任这项工作的工人，也不可能（不论是由于缺乏教育或智力上的低能）懂得这门科学。这是作为一般原则加以阐述的，随着下面一个个实例的列举，其道理将随之显现出来。在搬运生铁上表明这四个方面之后，还将列举若干实例，说明在机械工艺上不同工种的应用——从最简单形式的劳动到更复杂形式的劳动。

当笔者给伯利恒钢铁公司介绍科学管理时，做的第一件工作就是把搬运生铁改为计件工。西班牙战争爆发时，厂房附近广场上有8万多吨生铁，码成了一些小堆。当时，生铁价格很低，出售得不到利润，只好堆在那里。随着西班牙战争的发展，生铁价格上涨，这大堆生铁也开始出售了。这让我们在初级的工作中有了一个良好的机会向工厂的工人们、同样也向老板们和经理们表明，实行计件工要比老式的计时工优越得多。

伯利恒钢铁公司有5座高炉，多年来，它们的产品一直由一个生铁搬运小组搬运。这个小组当时约有75人，他们是熟练的、具有一般水平的生铁搬运工，由一个出色的工头领导，而工头自己也曾是一名生铁搬运工。总的来说，这项工作干得跟当时其他任何地方都差不多。

有条铁路转轨到工厂的广场上，就靠着生铁堆放地的边沿。一块斜跳板靠在一节车厢边上，工人们从生铁堆上搬起一块重约42千克的生铁，走上斜跳板，把生铁扔在车厢里。

我们发现，这个小组平均每人每天装货约12.5吨。经过细致研究，我们惊奇地发现，一个一等的生铁搬运工每天应能搬运47～48吨生铁，而不是12.5吨。我们认为此事事关重大，因此进行了多次调查，直到我们完全确定这个调查的正确性。然而，当我们确定对一个头等的生铁搬运工来说47吨是一天恰当的工作量之后，运用现代科学管理的任务，就很明显地摆在经理们的面前了。我们的任务就是要使这8万吨生铁的装车速度达到每人每天47吨，而不是当时的12.5吨。我们进一步的任务是使工人不致因活计过重而发生罢工，不与工人发生任何争吵，并使工人们在以每天47吨的速度干活时比过去12.5吨时感到更高兴、更满足。

第一步是要科学地挑选工人。在这种管理模式下，在和工人打交道时，作为一条硬性规定，一次只能与一个工人谈话或打交道，因为每个工人都有其各自的特长和不足，且因为我们并不是和工人群体打交道，而是试图发挥每个人最大限度的效率。我们首先要做的是找一个合适工人，为此，我们用了三四天时间仔细观察和研究这75个人，最后从中挑选了4个人，他们的体力看来每天足能搬运47吨生铁。之后，我们又仔细研究了这4人中的每一个。我们查了他们尽可能远的历史，详细询问了他们每一个人的性格、习惯和抱负。最后，我们从4人中挑出了一个，作为开始研究的最佳人选。他是一个身材矮小的来自宾夕法尼亚的荷兰裔人，他每天晚上干完活后快步走回离厂大约两千米的家，人还显得挺精神，就像他早上快步走来上工时一模一样。我们发现，他在每天挣1.15美元的工资下，仍能买一小块地，并且在每天清早上工前和晚上下工后，为自己盖幢小房，并赶着垒墙。他还以十分“吝啬”而闻名，爱钱如命，正如有一个人和我们谈到他时说的：“一个便士在他看来就像车轮那般大。”这个工人的名字叫施密特。

这样，摆在我们面前的任务就缩小到了让施密特每天搬运47吨生铁，并能让他乐于这样干。具体操作步骤如下：我们把施密特从生铁搬运小组中叫出来，并对他这样说：

“施密特，你是一个有价值的人吗？”

“这个，我不懂你的意思。”

“不！你懂。我所要知道的是，你是不是一个很有价值的人。”

“我还是不明白你的意思。”

“这样吧，你回答我的问题。我所要知道的是，你是一个很有价值的人还是这些没什么价值的伙计中的一个；我想知道，你是愿意一天挣1.85美元呢，还是满足于挣1.15美元一天，就像那些没什么价值的伙计们一样。”

“我一天想挣1.85美元就是一个很有价值的人吗？那对，是的，我就是一个很有价值的人。”

“噢，你惹恼我了。当然你要1.85美元一天——谁都想要！你很清楚这和你是不是有价值的人无关。看在老天爷的份上，快回答我的问题，别再浪费我的时间了。到这儿来，看见那堆生铁吗？”

“看见了。”

“你看见那个车厢吗？”

“看见了”

“好，如果你是个很有价值的人，明天你把那堆生铁装进车厢，就可以挣到1.85美元。现在，打起精神来，回答我的问题。告诉我，你是不是一个很有价值的人？”

“嗯……只要我明天把那堆生铁装上车厢就能挣1.85美元吗？”

“是的，当然能，今年一年只要每天你将同样一堆生铁装完，你就能每天挣1.85美元。那是一个有价值的人该干的活，这道理，你和我一样明白。”

“那好吧，明天，我就为1.85美元把那堆生铁装上车。而且我每天都能挣那么多钱，是吧？”

“是的，是的。”

“那这样我就是一个很有价值的人了！”

“好，等一等，等一等。作为一个很有价值的人，从明天起，你就要完全照这个人的吩咐，从早到晚地去干活。你见过这个人的，不是吗？”

“不，我没见过他。”

“好吧，如果你是一个很值钱的人的话，就照他说的做。他叫你搬你就搬，他叫你休息你就休息，就这么干；不许回嘴。作为一个有价值的人，他叫你怎么干，你就怎么干，不许回嘴。明白吗？他叫你走你就走，叫你坐你就坐，不许和他顶嘴。你明早就来这里干活，到了晚上我就会知道，你到底是不是真的有价值的人。”

看起来是一次多少有些粗鲁的对话——如果用在一个有教养的技工甚至一个聪明的工人身上的话，确实是有些粗鲁。对待像施密特这样有些迟钝的人来说，这样的对话是适当的，也不失和气，因为成功地把他的注意力集中到他想要的高工资上，否则的话，他会认为这是一件干不了的苦力活。

在“积极性加激励”管理方式下，通常所用的对话方式是怎么样的呢，比如这样问他：

“施密特，你是个一流的生铁搬运工，也熟悉你的行当。你每天一直搬运12.5吨。我就搬运生铁做过大量调查，我肯定你能比原来每天干的更多。你想不想试试看每天搬运47吨生铁，而不是12.5吨？”

你完全想象得到施密特的答案会是什么。

施密特开始整天按新要求干活了，按照作息时间，一个人拿着表，站在他前面，告诉他：“现在开始搬吧；现在坐下休息；现在搬；现在休息……”等等。让他干活，他就干活，让他休息，他就休息，这样到下午五点半，他把47.5吨生铁装上了车。本人在伯利恒的三年中，他每天都照着安排的进度干活，几乎从没耽误过。在这期间，他平均每天挣得比1.85美元稍多些，而以前，他每天的工资从未得到超过1.15美元——这是当时伯利恒工厂通用的工资额。也就是说，比起其他非计件活的工人来，他的工资多了60%。之后，将工人们一个个地挑选出来加以训练，使这些人每天都能以47.5吨的速度搬运生铁，他们的工资也比周围的工人多了60%。

在构成科学管理中心环节的四个方面中，笔者在以上就其中的三方面作了简要的叙述：第一是精心挑选工人，第二和第三是刺激工人的积极性，然后对其进行训练和帮助，使之按科学方法去干活。虽然至今未见关于搬运生铁的科学讨论，但我相信，在结束这段实例之前，读者相信的确有一门关于搬运生铁的科学，而且这门科学非常深奥，如果没有上级的帮助，即使能胜任这项工作的工人也不可能完全理解，甚至也不能按这门科学的规律办事。

3．管理者和员工之间的矛盾

在当过一段制模工和机械工学徒之后，笔者于1878年进入中部溪谷钢铁公司机械车间。这时已接近1873年经济大萧条后期，由于商业不景气，许多机械工在行业里找不到工作。我也没能当上机械工，只好做一个散工。幸运的是，进车间不久，车间管理员被发现有盗窃行为，结果找不到人来顶替，由于笔者比其他人受教育程度高（笔者曾准备进大学），管理员的职位就给了我。此后不久，我成了一名机械工，操作一台车床。由于我比操作相同车床的工人干的活更多，几个月后，我被任命为车床班组长。

几年来，几乎这个车间的所有工作，都是按计件活计酬。那时车间实际上是工人们在运行，而不是由班组长管理——事实上现在国家大部分工厂仍是如此。工人们在一起精心地计划每天各项工作的速度，给车间的每部机器规定限度，使每天的工作限制在最好程度的三分之一左右。车间每进入一个新工人，其他工人就会立刻告诉他，每种活他该做多少，如果不按照指示办事，不用多久，他就会被工人们从车间赶走。

当笔者被任命为班组长后，工人们一个个地找我，和我谈了如下类似的话：

“弗雷德，看到你担任班组长，我们十分高兴。你是知道游戏规则的，我们相信你不会支持计件活的。你要是和我们站一起，那就什么事也没有，如果你想破坏游戏规则，我们一定会把你扔出墙外的。”

笔者坦率地告诉他们，我现在是为管理者工作，所以我打算尽一切努力提高车间的工作效率。这立即引发了一场斗争，尽管在大多数情况下这样的斗争是较友好的，在私下我们是朋友。但是斗争归斗争，并且随着时间的推移，变得越来越激烈。笔者用尽一切方法，希望能让工人们每天的工作达到适当的程度，比如降低那些顽固不化的工人的工资或将他们解雇、降低计件活的价格，还有雇用新工人，教他们怎样工作，并让他们答应一旦他们学会怎样工作之后就会干出合理的活计。由于来自工作内外的压力，这些增加产出的工人最后不得不降低产量，保持与其他人一样的水平，不然就得卷铺盖滚蛋。没有经历过这些争斗的人，很难体会到其中不断增强的敌意。在斗争中，工人们通常能使出一些奏效的办法。他们想办法用各种不同的方式将机器弄坏，表面上看是偶然损坏或正常损耗，然后把问题扔给领班，是他让他们不停地工作，导致机器使用过度而损坏。很少有领班能抗住工人的联合压力。在这种情况下，问题因为车间的日夜开工而变得更加复杂。

在斗争中，笔者有两个其他领班没有的优势，奇怪的却是缘于笔者不是工人出生。

第一，由于笔者不是工人出生，老板相信我对公司的利益更加关心。相比那些工人来，老板更愿意相信我的话。当工人们向公司主管报告，由于领班能力不足导致机器过度使用而毁坏，主管却选择相信我。我告诉他，机器是这些人故意破坏的，以此抵制计件工的实行。对这种破坏公物的行为，主管还同意了本人提出的办法，即告之：“在工厂里，再也不允许出现机器故障。如果哪台机器出了问题，作为罚款，操作机器的工人必须支付一部分修理费用。这些罚款将全部交给互助会，用来帮助那些生病的工人。”这样就解决了故意破坏机器的行为。

第二，如果笔者曾经是工人中的一员，曾与工人们住在一起，那么我就很难顶住工人们施加的社会压力，更不可能站在他们的对立面。每当我出现在街上，就可能会被骂成“工贼”或别的难听的话；我的妻子也遭到辱骂；我的孩子们被别的孩子们扔石头。一些工人朋友有几次劝我不要走路回家——我的家离工厂约二英里半，是沿着铁路线的冷僻小道。我被告知，如果再这样搞下去，将会有生命危险。然而，尽管如此，任何怯懦的表现只会增加而不是降低危险。因此，我让这些朋友们转告工厂里其他工人，我打算每天晚上照旧从那条小道步行回家，而且不曾也不打算携带任何武器；他们可以随时开枪，将我打死。

斗争大约持续了三年时间，在这期间，机器的产量得到很大的提高。大多情况下，产量翻了一番。结果，在担任了好几任班组长后，我被提升为工厂的领班。对于任何一个理性的人来说，这种成功显然无法补偿他与工人们的紧张关系。生活只是与他人不停争斗，那就毫无价值了。我的工人朋友，多次在私下里友好地问我，从工人们的切身利益出发，我还会不会要求他们干更多的活。作为一个诚实的人，我告诉他们，如果站在他们的角度，我也会反对干更多的活，就像他们现在做的一样。因为在过时的计件工资制下，他们并不会得到更多的工资，反而被迫干得更辛苦。

4．关于工作量的调查

因此，成为领班后不久，笔者决定努力找到一种新的管理制度，使得工人与管理者的利益达成一致，而不是相互冲突。大约三年以后，初步形成了一种管理模式。这种模式在笔者提交给美国机械工程师协会的论文中作了阐述，论文的题目是《计件工资制》和《工厂管理》。

在寻找这种制度的过程中，笔者意识到，工人和管理者之间和睦协作的最大障碍，在于管理者对工人每天合理的工作量的无知。笔者意识到，尽管我是工厂的领班，但我手下工人的群体知识与技巧远比我本人的多。因此，在取得时任中部溪谷钢铁公司总裁的威廉．塞勒先生的同意后，我花费了一些钱，就各种工作所需的时间进行了一番仔细而科学的调查。

塞勒先生之所以同意这样做，一定程度上是作为对笔者的奖励，因为我在领班任期内“干得不错”，让工人干了更多的活。不过，塞勒先生声明，他认为任何这样的科学调查都不会得到什么有价值的结果。

在当时进行的若干调查中，其中一项是试图找出一些规则或定律，能使领班提前得知，对于一个胜任某种体力工作的人，一天的工作量是多少；亦即体力工作的疲劳程度对一位一流工人的影响。我们所做的第一步，是雇用一位年轻的大学毕业生，查阅所有关于这个主题的英文、德文、法文资料。接着做了两类实验：一类是生理学家研究人类耐力的实验，另一类是工程师们研究一人力等于多少马力的实验。实验大多如此进行：一些人通过曲柄绞车来吊运重物，另一些人则通过走动、跑动或其他的方法来提升重物。然而实验数据十分有限，无法从中推断出有价值的规律。因此，我们开始了一系列的试验。

我们挑选了两个身体强壮而且状态稳定的头等工人。实验期间，他们将得到双倍的工资。他们被告知，必须一直尽最大能力干活，我们会不时地观测他们，看他们是不是在“磨洋工”，一旦发现谁有欺骗行为，他将会被解雇。实验期间，这两名工人都很尽心尽力。

必须指出的是，在这些实验中，我们并不想去探索一个人在一次短促突击或几天时间内最多能干多少活，我们要研究的是对一个头等工来说，一天都干了什么，以及年复一年，工人仍能保持精力充沛工作的日工作量。我们给这些工人安排了各种各样的任务，那名年轻大学生负责观察，并用秒表记录完成每个动作所需的时间。每一个可能影响到最终结果的要素，我们都会对其进行仔细的研究和记录。我们希望最终能从中得出，一个人每天能够发挥相当于多少马力[3]的力量，即每人每天能做多少呎磅[4]的功。

完成了这一系列的实验之后，我们将每个工人一天干的活转换成以呎磅为单位的能量来进行计量。让我们吃惊的是，工人消耗多少呎磅能量与他干活的疲劳程度之间，并没有恒定、一致的联系。在某些工种上，工人或许发挥还不到八分之一马力时，就已经精疲力竭了，而在其他一些工种上可能直到发挥近二分之一马力时才会疲倦。我们试图找到头等工人每天的最大工作量，以此来发现指导工作的规律，但是，我们失败了。

不过，我们得到了大量有价值的数据，知道了多个工种的合理工作量。然而，再花更多的钱去研究确切规律是不明智的。若干年后，当有足够的资金来进行研究的时候，我们又开始了一系列的实验，这些实验与第一系列的实验差不多，但做得更加彻底。结果同前面的实验一样，虽取得了有价值的信息，但却没有发现任何规律。又过了若干年，我们开始了第三系列的实验，这次我们不厌其烦地努力将实验进行得更加彻底。只要是有可能影响到结果的任何要素，不论以任何方式，不论其多么微小，我们都会仔细地进行记录与研究。这次有两位大学生负责这些实验，历时三个月左右。将这次实验得到的单个工人日工作量的数据转化为能量之后，问题就很清楚了：一个工人所发挥的“马力”（他每天的呎磅能量）和他的疲劳程度之间并无直接联系。然而，我一直相信，一名头等工人日工作构成上会存在一些特定的规律，且数据都是非常仔细地收集和记录下来的，我确信想要的信息就藏在这些数据中。于是，我把这些数据交给了卡尔．G．巴思先生，希望他能找到藏匿其中的规律。巴思先生是一位比我们都强很多的数学家。我们决定以一种全新的方式调查这个问题，把各个要素用图绘表示出来，为我们提供了一条可以鸟瞰每个因素的曲线图。不久，巴思先生发现了支配一个头等工人干重活时疲劳反应的规律。这个规律从性质上说是非常简单的，甚至有些让人好奇为什么没有在多年前就发现它。这个规律是这样的：

规律前提是，当一个工人感到疲竭时，就达到了他能力的极限。干重活相当于马拉运货车、而不是快步马的劳作。这些活实际上是由工人手臂使劲地推或拉构成，也就是说工人通过将他手里的东西提起或推动来运用自己的力量。这个规律是，每天有一定的百分比的时间工人能够负重。例如，当搬运生铁时（每块生铁重42千克），一名头等工人每天的负载时间只有43%，而剩余57%的时间则无法负载。负载变得轻时，工人在一天中能够负载的时间就会增加。当一个工人搬运半块生铁（21千克）时，他一天的负载时间大概占58%，而休息时间则成了42%。而当负载更轻时，负载时间的百分比会更大，直到最后达到这样一种程度：一个工人搬了一整天生铁，却不会感到疲竭。这时，作为对一个工人耐久力的指南，这个规律就失去了作用。这时就需要去探索一些别的规律来显示工人干活的能力。

当一个工人徒手搬运一块重42千克的生铁时，无论他站着也好，走动也好，他感受到的疲劳程度是一样的；因为不管他是否在活动，他胳臂上肌肉的紧张程度是一样的——尽管他在负载下站着并不发挥任何“马力”。这就印证了这样的事实，即在各种重活中，工人在干活时发挥能量的呎磅数和干活时的疲劳程度之间，没有什么恒定的联系。这就表明，在所有这类活计上，有必要经常地让工人的胳臂完全摆脱负载（即让工人休息）。一个工人在重负载时，他胳臂上的肌肉组织正处在衰竭的过程中，这就需要经常地给予休息时间，让血液通过循环使这些组织还原至正常时的状态。

现在，让我们转回到伯利恒钢铁公司的生铁搬运工那里。如果施密特因为想挣高工资而被允许动手搬运那堆47吨的生铁，但却未经懂得搬运生铁艺术或科学的人的指导，那么，也许才到十一二点钟他就累倒了。因为他持续不断地干活，他的肌肉得不到适当地休息，而这是肌肉的恢复所必需的，这样的话，他可能很早就完全精疲力尽了。但是如果有一个懂得这个规律的人每天监督和指导他干活，直到使他养成利用适当的间隙进行休息的习惯，他就能在一整天中以平均的速度干活，而不会让自己感到过度劳累。

对一个适合以搬运生铁为正式职业的工人来说，一个首要的前提是他必须比较的愚蠢和迟钝，大概跟头牛差不多。也正是由于这样的原因，心智灵敏而聪明的工人就完全不适合干这类折磨人的单调无味的工作。因此，最适宜于搬运生铁的工人却是不懂得如何真正科学地干这类工作的人——他可能愚蠢到连“百分比”这样的词都无法理解。他必须经常在一个比他更聪明的人的训练下，养成按照科学规律干活的习惯，这样他才有可能获得成功。笔者坚信，即使在已知的最初级的工种上，也会有一种科学。只要仔细挑选最适宜于这类活计的工人，并且发现了干这种活的科学规律，然后按照规律训练这些工人，那么最终一定会得到比在“积极性加激励”管理下更丰硕的成果。

让我们再次回到这些生铁搬运工这里来，看看在通常的管理模式下，是不是真的不可能取得同样的结果。

笔者曾把问题摆在许多优秀的经理们面前，问他们在补贴活、计件活或任何通常计划的管理下，他们能否使每人每天的搬运量接近47吨。[5]

结果，没有人认为能够取得超过18〜25吨的搬运量。要知道，伯利恒的工人们每天的搬运量只有12.5吨。

让我们更深入地研究一下这个问题：就科学地挑选工人来说，在这个75人的生铁搬运组里，实际情况是8人中大约只有1人每天能搬运47.5吨。而另外7人在体力上无法以这种速度干活。这并不是因为这个能干的人比班组里其他工人更厉害，他只是凑巧属于像头牛一样的工人，这并不罕见，也不会因为难找而价值连城。正相反，他非常的愚蠢，甚至不适合干绝大多数种类的体力活。对工人并不要求特别出众，只是从很平常的工人中挑出少数特别适宜于干这类活计的人。虽然在这个特定的班组里，8人中只有1人适宜干这个活，但我们还是毫不费力地找到了我们需要的、适合做这种搬运生铁工作的工人——其中一些人来自工厂其他班组，另一些则来自附近的农村。

在“积极性加激励”的管理下，管理者的态度是把工作全都交给工人。在老的管理模式下，班组里的工人会怎样合理选择搬运生铁的人呢？他们有没有可能摆脱其他7人而只保留第8人？不可能的！无论如何，他们也不能做出正确的自我选择。即便他们能充分意识到这样做可以获得高工资（他们还没聪明到能适当地掌握这种必要性），但由于那些和他们一起工作，却不适合干这种活的朋友和兄弟可能会暂时失去工作，使得他们没有办法进行自我挑选。即踢掉8人中不适合搬运生铁的7人。

在老的管理模式下，促使这些生铁搬运工（当他们被合理地挑选出来）按照科学规律去从事重体力劳动的可能性在哪里？工人们能否正确地确定作息时间？如前所述，通常管理模式的主要概念是，每个工人在他自己所从事的行业上，比起任何一个管理者都更为熟练，因此，工作怎样才能做得最好的细节就必然留给工人去选择了。这样，把工人一个个地交给一位称职的老师，使工人形成新的操作习惯，直到工人能持续而习惯地按科学规律（别人已经设计好的）去操作的想法，便和老的管理思路发生了矛盾。因为老的管理思路认为每个工人最善于按自己的办法去安排自己的工作。除此之外，适合搬运生铁的工人是很笨的，他们并不会合理地训练自己。因此可以想见，在通常的管理模式下，用科学规律替代单凭经验，科学地选择工人，并促使工人们按科学规律操作，都是不可能的。老式管理把全部责任推给工人，而科学管理则将工作中的一大部分责任交给管理者。

5．体力劳动背后隐藏的规律

8个生铁搬运工有7人要丢掉工作，这可能会引起大多数读者的同情。其实，这种同情完全是多余的，因为伯利恒钢铁公司会立即给这些人安排其他工作。事实上，把他们从不适合的生铁搬运工作上撤下来，对他们自己是有好处的。因为这是找到适合他们工作的第一步，在新的工作上只要经过适当培训，他们就能够永久且合理地挣得更高的工资。

读者可能会认识到在搬运生铁的背后存在某种科学，但他仍然可能会怀疑，在别的体力劳动上是否存在什么科学。本文的重要目的之一，就是说服读者相信每个工人的每一个简单的动作都可以归纳出一种科学。为了充分说服读者相信这一事实，笔者打算从手头掌握的成千个事例中，再选出若干其他简单的事例来加以说明。

例如，一般人可能会问，铲运这种活计也会有什么科学吗？聪明的读者若有意识地探索铲运科学的基础知识，那么或许只需15〜20个小时的思索和分析，便能找到这种科学的本质所在。另一方面，单凭经验行事的观念仍然根深蒂固，以至笔者至今从未遇见过一个负责铲运的工头说他曾发现过铲掘科学。但这门科学确实存在，而且非常的基础，甚至几乎是不言自明的。

对一个头等铲运工来说，应有一个特定数额的每次铲运量，即铲运负荷量，能使其完成最大的日铲运量。那么，这个铲运负荷量是多少呢？一个头等铲运工每锨的负重是2千克、4千克、6千克，还是8、10、12千克，或是18千克呢？还有，其日工作量会不会与铲运负荷量成正比呢？只有通过仔细的实验，才能解答这个问题。首先要挑选2〜3名头等铲运工。为了使他们在实验时的工作真实可信，支付给他们额外的工资。然后逐渐改变铲运的负荷量，让实验人员仔细观察其所引起的一切变化，为期数周。结果发现，一个头等铲运工每锨负重约10千克时，每天的铲运量最大。也就是说，每锨负重10千克比每锨11千克或8千克能使工人铲运更多。当然，不能要求铲运工做到每锨的负荷量正好是9.5千克。不过，即使每锨的负荷量可能由于各种原因会有1.4千克或1.8千克的差异——不论是高于还是低于9.5千克，只要他一天中平均每次铲运负荷量大致为10千克时，他也能完成最大的日铲运量。

笔者并不希望让人误以为这就是铲运科学或艺术的全部。其实，还要与许多其他要素合起来才能构成这门科学。但是，需要指出的是，这一部分科学知识在铲运工作中起到了重要作用。

为了实践这一规律，在伯利恒钢铁公司的试验中，不允许铲运工挑选、保管自己的铁锨。于是，工厂必须准备8〜10种不同类型的铁锨。而且，每种铁锨只适合铲运某种特定的物料。这不仅工人们平均每锨铲运量约为10千克，而且，这些铁锨能满足不同的要求，尤其将这种工作当做一门科学来进行研究时。因此，我们修建了一个大型铲运工具库，不仅用来保存铁锨，还用来存放诸如铁镐、撬棍等其他各种经过精心设计和规格化了的劳动工具。这样，无论要处理何种物料，都能给铲运工分发一把规格合适的铁锨：比如处理矿石时用小规格的铁锨，铲灰土时则用大规格的铁锨。铁矿石比重大，铲运时宜用小锨；而碎煤较易滑落，且比重轻，宜用小锨。我们对伯利恒钢铁公司单凭经验的管理下的工作进行了调查。结果发现，每个铲运工都有各自的铁锨。既用来铲运矿石，又用来铲运碎煤。铲运矿石时每锨重达12千克，而铲运碎煤时，每锨还不到2千克。在第一种情况下，工人负重工作，以至于干不了一整天的工作；而在第二种情况下，由于负重低到荒谬的程度，工人不可能完成一天正常的工作量。

接下来，简单举例说明构成铲运科学的其他要素。我们用秒表计时进行了上千次观察，来研究工人的铲运速度；也就是，当工人使用合适的铲掘工具时，从他将铁锨插入物料堆到铲出合理重量物料耗费的时间。首先，要观察铲掘中间主要部分的情况，其次，观察从底部铲掘的情况，包括铲掘灰土、木质、矿石等不同的物料。之后，再研究将铁锨抬起，将其中物料投向某一特定距离与高度的位置所需的精确时间。这一项时间研究测试了多种距离与高度的不同组合的情况。有了这类数据，加上搬运生铁的耐久力规律，管理者就能指导工人合理使用力气，进而能合理分配每天的任务，只要工人们能出色地完成，就能保证得到大笔奖金。

当时在伯利恒钢铁公司，大致有600个铲掘工人和其他工人，这些工人分散在长约两英里[6]、宽约半英里的工场上。为了让每个工人在工作时时能得到合适的工具和合理的指示，就有必要建立一套详细的制度，以代替老式的管理计划，即在少量的工场领班的领导下，把工人们分成群组或班组进行管理。工人在上班前，从属于自己的、标有号码的专用分类架上取出两张纸，一张指导他干什么活和领取什么工具，另一张则表明其曾经做过的工作和前一天收入多少等。有许多工人是没有读写能力的外国人，但他们只要看一眼就能知道这份报告的要点。黄色的纸说明他前一天没有完成规定的任务，并告知他没有挣足一天1.85美元的工资。只有那些有价值的人才能继续待在这个班组里。这也就进一步表示，他得在接下来的一天挣到全份工资。当工人们取得白色纸片，他们就明白一切良好；而一旦取得黄色纸片，则意味着要比之前做得更好，不然他们将会被调离工作岗位。

用这种办法与每个工人打交道，就需要为负责这份工作的主管和办事员设立一个办公室。在这里，他们提前制定每个工人的工作计划，按照工场的详细图解或地图调整工人们的位置，就像棋手在棋盘上拨动棋子那样。另外，还设置了一套电话和通讯系统。这样，一处工人过多而另一处工人太少以及窝工造成大量时间浪费的现象，就完全避免了。在老一套制度下，工人们在一个较大的班组里，由一个领班带领着日复一日地工作，不论工作是多是少，班组规模都倾向于保持不变，以保证有能力处理任何新情况。

6．培训的重要性

当不再通过整个群体或班组与工人打交道，而是具体研究单个个体时，如果这个工人完不成任务，就应指派一名称职的老师去教他如何最好地完成工作，指导、帮助和鼓励他。同时，研究他是否能成为一句合格的工人。因此，将单个工人个别对待，不会因为工作没做好就立即蛮横地开除他，或降低其工资，而是给他必要的时间和帮助，使其精通手头工作，或者更换一种更适合他智力或体力的工作。

所有这些需要管理层的精诚协作，并且需要制定一套更加精细的组织制度，以区别于将工人们分成大班组的老式做法。在这种情况下，组织中的一批人，通过研究上述观测的劳动时间，制定科学的管理制度；一批人充当老师，他们大部分本身也是熟练工人，在工作中对工人进行帮助和指导；一批人在工具房工作，负责提供工具并维持秩序；还有一批人，事先把工作安排好，以使工人能以最少的时间转移工作地点，并准确地记录每个工人的收入，等等。这些就构成了一个“管理者和工人们之间相互合作”的初级范例。

问题自然就产生了，精心设计这样一种复杂的组织是否值得，即这样的一套组织是否负担过重？以下是一份这一制度建立后第三年工作成果的报表，是对这个问题的最好回答。

工作成果报表

项目

老计划

新计划

(计件工）

工场工人裁减数/人

400到〜600

140

每人每天平均工作量/吨

16

59

每人每天平均收入/美元

1.15

1.88

每吨平均费用/美元

0.072

0.033

注：表中所列的低至每吨0.033美元的费用，包括办公室、

工具房费用以及所有主管、领班、办事员、计时员等的工资。

一年来，新管理制度比原来的管理制度节省总计36417.69美元，在接下来的六个月中，当工厂的全部工作都改为计件工时，每年的节省额可达75000〜80000美元。

或许，在所取得的全部成果中最重要的还是工人们自身产生的效果。曾对工人生活状况做过一个详细调查，结果发现，在140名工人中，只有两人喝酒。当然，这并不是说其余的人滴酒不沾；而是说，那些嗜酒者会发现，跟上预定的工作进度几乎是不可能的，所以他们在工作时，头脑必须清醒。他们中的很多人（即使不是绝大多数人）都在存钱，而且他们都比以前生活得更好了。这是笔者所见过的由挑选出来的工人组成的最优秀的团体。他们将其主管和技术指导看成是他们最好的朋友，而不是强迫他们干苦活累活的工头和强迫他们超负荷工作却只给一般工资的黑心老板；这些最好的朋友指导他们工作，帮助他们挣取比以前高得多的工资。任何人都不可能在这些工人和他们的雇主之间挑起争端。这就简单而有力地证明了管理的两个主要目的，即“雇员财富最大化与雇主财富最大化的共同实现”。显然，这是科学管理四个基本原则的应用所带来的成果。

此外，对影响工人日常工作的动机进行科学研究是有价值的。以挫伤工人劳动劲头和积极性为例，这种情况一般发生在将工人们监管在班组之中，而不是将其作为个体分别对待之时。仔细分析一下就会发现：当工人们被分班入组后，工人的工作效率与工人作为个体受到激励时相差甚远；当工人在班组里干活时，他们的个人工作效率几乎总是降到班组里最差劲的工人的水平，甚至更低；把他们赶到一起工作，就会把他们的工作效率往下拉，而不是提升。由于这个原因，伯利恒钢铁工厂发布了一项总命令，未经工厂总指挥签署的特别许可（有效期只有一周），在一个劳动班组里干活的工人不得超过4个，要尽可能地给每位工人安排一份个别的任务。由于工厂约有5000工人，总指挥的事情实在太多，以至没有多少时间去签署这些特别许可。

班组工作以这种方式瓦解之后，一种精干非凡的矿砂铲运班随之形成。每位成员均经过精挑细选和进行个别科学培训。其中，每人每天都会被分派单独一辆车卸料。其所得工资由其个人工作业绩决定，谁卸的矿砂最多，就付给谁最高的工资。这就创造了一个难得的机会，证明了个体化管理工人的重要性。这种矿砂大多来自苏必利尔湖区域，同样的矿砂用完全一样的车辆运输到匹兹堡和伯利恒。匹兹堡的矿砂工、装卸工正短缺，听说伯利恒已组建了优秀的矿砂铲运组，一家匹兹堡钢厂派代理人来雇佣伯利恒的工人。从同样的车辆上、用同样的铁锨卸载同样的矿砂，伯利恒钢铁公司支付的卸料费是每吨矿砂3.2美分，而匹兹堡钢厂愿出4.9美分。仔细分析这种情况以后会发现，在伯利恒，每从车上卸载一吨矿砂付费超过3.2美分是不明智的，因为照这样付费，伯利恒工人每人每天所得会超过1.85美元，而这本身就已经超过伯利恒周围地区标准工资的60%有余。

经过长期的一系列试验，结合密切的观察，证明了这样的事实：给具有这种能力的工人一项经过仔细计量的任务，对他们来说需要干整整一天；为补偿工人的这份特殊的努力，除了付给通常的工资以外，再付给高出60%的工资。工资的增加使工人们在各方面变得更好：日子更好过了，开始攒钱了，更有理智了，工作做得更踏实了。但当他们的工资比过去高出60%时，也有一些人干活变得不规律起来，变得多少有些偷懒、奢侈和放荡起来。换句话说，试验表明，对绝大多数人来说，富裕得太快是不行的。

由于这个原因，我们决定不给矿砂搬运工涨工资。我们把这些工人带到办公室进行个别谈话，情况大致如下：

“帕特里克，就我们看来，你是个很有价值的人，你每天收入已经1.85美元有余，这足以证明你是我们铲掘班组里所需要的那种人。现在，有一个人从匹兹堡到我们这里，出价铲掘每吨矿砂付4.9美分，而我们这里只能付给每吨3.2美分。因此我想，你最好向那个人申请这份工作。你应该知道，你离开我们，我们是会感到十分遗憾的，但是这足以证明你是个很有价值的人，你能找到一个赚更多钱的机会，我们也是十分高兴的。但你要记住，将来什么时候你要失业，你就可以马上回到我们这儿来。在我们这儿的班组里，像你这样有价值的工人总会有份工作干的。”

几乎所有的矿砂铲掘工都会接受这项建议而到匹兹堡去，但大约六个星期的光景，他们中的绝大部分又回到伯利恒，以每吨3.2美分的老价钱装卸矿砂。笔者和一个回来的人作过如下的交谈：

“帕特里克，你回来干什么，我以为我们已经失去了你。”

“呃，先生，我告诉你是怎么回事。我们到那里后，我和吉米同另外8个人被分配到一节车皮干活。我们开始铲矿砂，正像我们在这里干的那样。约摸半小时后，我看到身边的一个小恶棍几乎什么也没干，我就对他说，‘你为什么不干活？我们若不把矿砂从这车上卸下来，那么到开工资的日子，我们就会没什么钱可拿。’他转过身来冲我说，‘你管得着吗！……你别多管闲事，要不我就把你扔出车去！’我真想用唾沫啐他一家伙，但所有的人都撂下了锨，看样子像是要支持他似的；于是，我绕道到吉米那里大声说（确保整个班组都能听到），‘那好，吉米，那个小恶棍铲一锨，我们也铲一锨，多一锨也不干。’于是我们盯住他，只要他铲，我们才铲。开工资的日子到了，结果我们的收入比在伯利恒时少了。之后，我和吉米到头头那儿去，要求单独给我们一节车皮，就像我们在伯利恒时那样，但是他要我们别管闲事。这样，到第二个开工资的日子，我们的收入还是比在伯利恒时少。于是，我就把我们过去班组的人都召集起来，把他们全带回了这里。”

当他们为自己干活，每吨挣3.2美分，但是比在每吨4.9美分的班组里干活挣得还多。这再次表明，即使是按照最基本的科学原则办事，也能取得巨大的成果。但也同样表明，要运用这些最基本的原则，管理者在和工人取得协作方面必须尽到他们的本分。匹兹堡的经理们懂得在伯利恒是怎样取得这些成果的，但他们不愿意干这些琐碎的麻烦事，诸如不愿为事先规划而花钱，为每一铲掘工分派一节特定的车皮，为每人的工作量准备一份个人记录，并以此为依据付给他应得的工资等。

7．对砌砖工的科学管理

砌砖在行业中是最古老的，近百年来，这一行业中所使用的工具和材料很少或根本没有什么改进。尽管有成百万人从事这个行业，但多少代人都没有对它进行过大的改进。因此，在这个行业中，人们指望通过科学的分析和研究，哪怕改进一点点也好。

我们协会的一位成员弗兰克·B·吉尔布雷斯先生年轻时曾研究过砌砖这个工作，开始对科学管理原理产生了兴趣，决定要把这原理应用到砌砖的工艺上去。他对砌砖过程的每个动作进行了认真而又有趣的分析和研究，把所有不必要的动作一个个地排除掉，用快动作代替慢动作。他对以任何形式影响砌砖工人操作速度和疲劳度的细小因素，都进行过验证。

从砌砖工每只脚该站的位置到墙、灰浆箱和砖堆等的位置，他都进行了精确的设计。这样，砌砖工每砌一块砖，就毋劳来回走动了。

他研究出搁灰浆箱和堆放砖的最佳高度，设计了一种支架，搁上一张平板，所有的材料都堆置在上面，使砖、砌砖工和墙处于各自的合适的位置上。这些支架由一名专司其事的工人掌管，随着墙的升高，他就为所有的砌砖工调高支架，这样砌砖工在取每块砖和每刀灰浆时，就无须再一俯一伸作劳累的动作了。这些年来，每个砌砖工（体重一般为68千克）每次为砌一块砖（重约3千克），都得俯身到他的双脚处，然后再伸直，想想看，这得浪费多少体力啊！

进一步研究的结果，砖块从车上卸下之后，运送给砌砖工之前，先由一名工人进行仔细分类，并把这些砖块的最佳边缘冲上，搁在一个简易的木框架上。框架是这样制作的，它能让砌砖工在最快的时间里和最便利的位置上抓取到每块砖。这样一来，砌砖时，砌砖工就无须再将每块砖翻过来倒过去地检点一下，也无须再花时间去选择砖的哪边哪端最好，以便砌在墙的外沿。在许多情况下，他还无须再花时间去清理支架上杂乱堆放的砖块。这个砖块“包”（吉尔布雷斯先生对他那装好砖块的木框架的称呼）由辅助工搁在可调整高度的支架的适当位置上，靠近灰浆箱。

我们常见到，砌砖工把每块砖搁上灰浆床后，一般用泥刀把砖的一端敲打几下，直到接缝处的厚薄度合适为止。吉尔布雷斯先生发现，要是把灰浆调得正合适，那么砌上砖块时，只要用手压一下，使砖达到合适的位置，砖就砌好了。因此，他坚持要灰浆调和工在调和灰浆时特别注意，以便省去砌砖工敲打每块砖的时间。

吉尔布雷斯先生经过仔细研究砌砖工在所有标准情况下砌砖的动作后，把砌每场砖的18个动作压缩至5个，在某种情况下甚至低到只要两个动作。在他的题为《砌砖动作》一书中“动作研究”一章里，他就砌砖这一行业的动作进行了详细的分析。此书由纽约和芝加哥迈伦·C·克拉克出版公司和伦敦E·F·N·斯邦出版。

分析一下吉尔布雷斯先生把砌砖工的动作从18个压缩到5个的方法，可以知道他做的改进是通过如下三种方法取得的：

第一，砌砖工过去认为必要的某些动作，他给安全省略了，这些动作经过他仔细研究和实验已证明没有什么用处。

第二，他设置了些简易工具，诸如可调整高度的支架和放置砖块的框架，这些只要有一名廉价的辅助工的少许协作，就可为砌砖工完全排除大量劳累又费时间的动作，而这些动作在没设置支架和框架时是必需的。

第三，他教砌砖工在做简单动作时要双手同时并用，而在以前，他们老是用右手做完一个动作后，才用左手去做另一动作。

例如，吉尔布雷斯先生教砌砖工用左手捡起一块砖的同时，右手操起一泥刀灰浆。当然，双手同时操作之所以可能，是用一个深的灰浆箱替代了老的灰浆板（上面的灰浆摊得很薄，要取到灰浆还得往前挪动一两步），灰浆箱和砖堆又搁近了，并且是放在高度适合的新的支架上。

在任何行业中，应用吉尔布雷斯先生所称之为科学的动作研究和工时研究，都可以将任何不必要的动作完全排除，慢动作也可以由较快的动作所替代。这样，上述的改进方法就具有了典型意义。

绝大多数有实践经验的人（几乎所有的手艺人都反对将他们的方法和习惯作任何改动）对这类研究实际上可能取得的成果表示怀疑。吉尔布雷斯先生报告说，几个月前，他指导盖起的一幅砖结构建筑物，从商业的标准证明，由于应用了他的科学研究成果，取得了巨大的收益。由砌砖工会的砌砖工砌一堵3.6米厚的墙，用两种砖，给墙的两边的接缝抹泥和画线，吉尔布雷斯先生计算了一下，一批经他挑选并熟练了那套新方法的工人，每人每小时能砌砖350块；而农村来的用老方法的工人的平均速度是每人每小时120块。吉尔布雷斯的砌砖工由班组长教给其砌砖的新方法，如果谁经过培训仍然不得要领，即予解雇，而通过培训而熟练使用新方法的工人，工资便会得到巨额（并非小额）的增长。为了促使工人个体化发展并鼓励每人发挥他最大的能力，吉尔布雷斯先生还搞出了一套精巧的办法，用以计量和记录每人砌砖的数量，并在操作的间隙告诉每个工人他已完成的砌砖量。

只要把这份工作和我们某些领导无方的砌砖工会的专制情况作一比较，就可以看出大量劳动力在白白地浪费掉。在国外某一个城市，砌砖工会对属于为城市工作性质的工种，限制他们的会员每人每天砌砖275块，为私人老板干，则限制为每人每天375块。这个工会的会员可能还由衷地相信，对工作量的这种限制会有利于他们的行业。但他们应知道，这种有意识的“磨洋工”简直就是犯罪，不可避免的后果是，每个人需要为他们的住房付出更高的租金，甚至使得会员及其行业失去工作的机会，被赶出城去，而不是引进城来。

一个在公元前就已存在并将继续存在的行业，直到今天所使用的工具实际上还没有什么变化。为什么简化砌砖动作并由此取得巨额收益这类事就不能发生在以前呢？

这些年来，作为个体的砌砖工们，十分可能已经认识到排除这些不必要动作的可能性。然而在过去，即使哪个砌砖工发明了吉尔布雷斯先生的每项革新，但他却很难通过这些革新而单独提高他的速度，因为在所有情况下，都是由若干砌砖工在一排操作，建筑物四周的墙必须以同样的速度升高，所以，哪一个砌砖工也不能比他边上的伙伴干得更快些，也没有哪一个砌砖工有权力使其他人与之协作更快地干活。只有通过实施标准化的方法，采用最佳工具和操作条件以及实施协作，才能保证操作速度得以加快。而要实施各项标准和实施协作，其职责完全落在管理者身上。管理者必须不断用一位或更多的教员，为每个新工人讲述新的更简化的动作；必须经常注意干得慢的那些工人，不断地帮助他们，直到他们达到规定的速度。经过适当指导后，不论谁如果不想或不能按新方法以较高的速度操作，都务必将其解雇。同时，管理者也必须了解这样一个根本性的事实：除非工人们能得到额外的收入，不然他们就不会按这些严格的准则办事，也不会更卖力地干活。

上述的一切，都意味着对每个工人要进行个别研究和区别对待，在过去却是把他们圈在大集体里进行处理的。

管理者还必须看到那些辅助工的劳动，他们为砌砖工准备砖块和灰浆，以及调整支架等，要使他们把工作干得恰到好处，以和砌砖工密切协作，并且总是在劳动间隙及时地把每个砌砖工的工作进度告诉他，使他不至于无意地在进度上掉队。因此应该看到，正是由于管理者承担起了新的职责和新的工作，雇主们又对之加以实践，才使这项革新收到了巨大的成果，要是没有管理者的协助，工人们即使完全掌握了新方法，也是得不到这些惊人成果的。

吉尔布雷斯先生的砌砖方法为真正有效的协作提供了一个简明的例证。这不是以一群工人为一方和管理者进行协作，而是管理者中的若干人（每人以他个人的特殊方式）对每个工人进行个别帮助。一方面是研究工人的需要和缺点，并把更好更快的方法教给他，另一方面，对其接触的其他工人，他要认识到这些工人能帮助他，并和他协作，即他们能又快又好地干完自己那份活。

笔者之所以如此详细地阐述吉尔布雷斯先生的办法，是为了充分说明，这种工作效率的增长和工作的协调，在“积极性加激励”的管理制度下是不可能取得的（把问题推给工人并让工人去单独解决），那个制度已是过去的一套道理。而吉尔布雷斯先生的成功，就在于运用了构成科学管理本质的四个要素：

第一，砌砖科学的形成（在于管理者而非工人），包括每个人每个动作的严格规则，以及所有工具和操作条件的完善化和标准化。

第二，精心地挑选砌砖工人，并把他们培养成头等工人，剔除一切不愿或不能采用新方法的人。

第三，通过管理者的经常关注和帮助，通过每天付给工人一大笔奖金（由于干活快且能照着吩咐干），把头等砌砖工和砌砖科学结合起来。

第四，工人和管理者之间在工作和责任上几乎是均分的。管理者几乎整日和工人在一起进行操作，帮助工人，鼓励工人，为他们提供方便；而在过去，管理者只是站在一旁，很少给工人以什么帮助，把方法、工具、速度以及密切协作等几乎全部责任撂给工人。

这四个要素中，数第一个（砌砖科学的形成）最有趣和最引人注意了。其他三个中的每一个，不管怎么说，也是取得成功所必需的。

切记，在运用这各种要素进行指挥时，还必须有乐观、坚决和能刻苦工作的领袖，他既能耐心等待，又关心工作。

大部分情况下（尤其是当要做的工作非常复杂的时候），发现工作中蕴涵的科学是新型管理四个要素中最重要的。

8．“检查钢珠”实例

作为一个很好的例子，简单而又不寻常的检查自行车钢珠的工作，可以用来证明上述的情况。

当前些年自行车的流行热达到最高峰的时候，自行车轴承中每年需要几百万淬硬钢做成的小钢珠。在制作这些钢珠的20或更多个操作步骤中，最重要的或许是将这些钢珠抛光之后的检验过程，为的是在装配前排除那些烧裂的或不完美的钢珠，以保住钢珠都是合格的。

笔者接到了将美国最大的自行车钢珠制造厂系统化的任务。在接到这个重组任务之前，这个公司已经运行了8〜10年，所采取的是普通计日工，因此检验这些钢珠的120个女孩都是技术娴熟、业务精通的工人。

哪怕是再初级的工作，要迅速地将老式孤立的计日工转变为科学协作是不可能办到的。

然而，大部分情况下，工作中必然存在某些缺点，而且这些缺点可以立即得到改进并使全体员工受益。

在这个例子中，我们发现这些检验员（女孩们）每天工作10个半小时（星期六休半日假）。

她们的工作过程大致如下：将一排钢珠放到左手背上的指缝中，让他们在上面滚动，并通过强光照射和右手的磁铁来检查，那些有缺陷的钢珠将被挑出来并扔到一个特殊的盒子里。要找出的缺陷有四种：凹痕、过软、刮痕和裂痕，这些痕迹都非常的细小，没有经过特殊训练的人是无法用肉眼看到的。这项工作需要检验员的注意力高度集中、神经高度紧张，更别说他们的座位要非常舒服，而且身体不能是疲惫的。

一个偶然的研究发现，原本应该处于工作中的10个半小时里，这些女孩有相当一部分时间完全是无事可干的，因为工作周期实在太长了。

对于工作时间的安排，人们的常识是让工人们能“工作时认真工作，玩的时候尽情地玩”，并不要让两者混在一起。

由于负责对工作程序进行科学研究的桑福德·E·汤普森先生尚未到达，因此，我们决定缩短工作时间。

检验室中原来领班的新任务是与那些水平较高的检验员进行面谈，说服他们在10小时内完成原来一天的工作，让她们知道这样做能将工作时间缩短10小时，并且得到的日工资与原来10个半小时所得相等。

大约两周后，领班报告说所有与他谈过的女孩都同意在10个小时内完成原本10个半小时的工作，并且经受了这样的改变。

笔者没有自作聪明地让所有女孩就这项提议进行投票决定，因为此时进行投票的话，这些女孩一致认为10个半小时的工作时间很不错，也不需要任何改革，这样的话她们就很难做出合理的选择。

这样就解决了工作时间的问题。几个月后，工作时间逐渐地缩短到10小时、9个半小时、9小时，直到8个半小时（日工资不变）；而且每一次缩短日工作时间，女孩的产出都会得到增加而不是减少。

这个部门从老式方法到科学方法的转变是在桑福德·E·汤普森先生的指导下完成的，而桑福德·E·汤普森先生或许是我国在动作与时间研究方面最有经验的人了。

在大学的生理科实验中，有一些实验是用来确定测试者“个人系数”的。实验过程大概如下：向测试者突然出示一些特定的对象，测试者认清后立刻做出相应的反应，比如说看到字母A或B则立刻按下某个电子按钮。从开始出示字母到测试者按下按钮的时间将被一个敏锐的科学仪器精确地记录。

这项实验最终显示，不同的人“个人系数”有着很大的差别。有一些人天生感知迅速反应灵敏，当眼睛看到某些信息之后立刻传送到大脑，大脑则迅速地做出反应，即发送适当的动作信号到手上。这种人“个人系数”低，而那些感知与反应都比较慢的人，则“个人系数”高。

汤普森先生意识到自行车钢珠检验员所需要的是低“个人系数”。当然，通常的耐性和勤劳也是必需的。

从公司和这些女孩的终极利益出发，辞退那些低“个人系数”的就有必要了。不幸的是，这样就将许多更聪明、更勤奋、更让人依赖的女孩包括在内，使她们仅仅因为没有迅速感知和快速反应的能力而被解雇。

在逐渐选择这些女孩的同时，还有一些其他的变革。要防范的一个风险是，因为工人的工资是由工作产出数量决定，所以一味追求数量，将会使质量逐渐下降。

因此，一般情况下要做的是，在增加产量之前，需要采取一定的步骤以保证产品质量不会下降。

对这些挑出有缺陷钢珠的女孩们来说，工作质量显得尤为重要。

因此，第一步，是要确保一旦她们怠慢了工作，就能被发觉。这可以通过复查来完成。有四个最可靠的女孩来充当复查员，她们每一个要检查许多前一天普通检验员检验过的钢珠；识别这些钢珠的号码已经被领班打乱，所以复查员不知道她检验的是谁的工作成果。除此之外，检验长还会在第二天检验一遍这四个复验员复查过的钢珠，这个检验长是由于其精确与正直而被挑选出来的。

一个有效的手段被用来检查复查员的诚实度和准确度。每隔两三天，领班都会特别准备一些钢珠，其中包括特定数目的完好钢珠和每种缺陷的钢珠。没有哪个检验员或复查员能够辨别这些钢珠，由此便能防范她们怠慢和虚报。

通过这种方式，解雇所有试图消极怠工或给出错误报告的工人。

通过这种方式确保工作质量不会下降之后，又立即采取了有效的手段来增加产量。改进过的计日工代替了过去不负责任的做法。对于每天产品的质量和数量都做了精准的记录以防止领班产生任何个人偏见，并保证对每个检验员的完全公平。经过较短的一段时间，这个记录使得领班能够激励所有检验员的工作热情，通过增加那些优秀检验员的工资，降低那些平庸检验员的工资，解雇那些无法提高的检验员。之后，又对每个女孩工作花费的时间进行了测算，并进行了精确的时间研究，这是通过秒表计时和记录间隔时间以决定每种检验应消耗的时间，提供完美的工作条件以保证每个女孩都能做到最快最好地完成工作，同时还要避免给她们太繁重的工作使她们有过度劳累的危险。这项调查表明，女孩们有相当一部分时间处于半空闲状态，比如边工作边聊天，或者干脆什么也不做。

尽管工作时间从10个半小时缩短到了8个半小时，而对这些女孩们近距离的观察表明，在连续工作一个半小时之后她们就会变得有些焦躁不安。她们明显需要休息，疲惫袭来时停止一小段时间的工作是明智的，因此，每隔一小时十五分钟，我们都安排了十分钟的休息时间。在休息时间里（上下午各两次），强迫她们停止工作，并鼓励她们离开座位，去散散步、聊聊天。

无疑有一些人会说这些女孩受到了残酷的对待。她们的座位分得很开，工作时根本不方便交谈。

然而，缩短她们的工作时间，提供目前我们所知的最有利的工作条件，她们能够稳定地工作，而不是故作姿态。

只有改组达到了这一阶级，即只有合适地挑选这些女工，而且一方面采取措施避免她们被过度驱使，另一方面消除她们怠慢工作的可能并提供最有利的工作条件，才能采取最后的步骤来保证女工们想要的高工资和雇主们想要的高产量与高质量——低人工成本。

下一步骤是要每天分配给每个女孩合适的工作量——这正好需要一个称职的技工一整天的工作，同时还要在她完成这个任务时给予她一笔可观的奖金或红利。

此例中，可通过采用差别计件工资制[7]来完成这一点。在这种制度下，每个女孩的工资是与她的工作产量及工作质量成比例地增加的。

稍后内容将显示，差别计件（复查员检验的钢珠情况构成了这个差别的基础）使得工作的产量得到了很大提高，同时工作的质量也有了显著的改进。

在她们出色地完成工作任务之前，有必要每小时测量一下每个女孩的产量，对于每个产量落后的人，都要派遣一名老师去看看她哪里做错了，以便让她改正，并鼓励和帮助她赶上整体进度。

在这背后，有一个总的原则是所有对管理感兴趣的人都应该接受的。

对于奖赏，如果要让它起到激励工人出色地完成任务的目的，必须在工作完成之后立即兑现。但只有很少的人才会期待一周或者最长一月的时间努力工作以便在最后拿到一份奖励。

如果要做到最好，每个工人都要能测量自己已完成的工作，并且清楚地明白每天最后能得到的奖励。对于文化程度低的工人，比如检查自行车钢珠的年轻女孩或小孩，应该有合适的激励措施，不论是来自上级领导的个人关怀，还是能看得到的每小时一次的实际奖励。

公司通过出售股票给员工或者年底给员工分红等形式来激励工人努力工作，这就是股份制或分红制，但是收效甚微，根本原因之一就是对员工不能及时奖励。

他们每天慢慢工作的美好时光看起来比努力工作六个月后与其他人一起分享的奖励更有吸引力。分红计划很难起作用的第二个原因，是没有哪种合作形式能让工人充分发挥他的抱负。个人抱负的实现相比公共福利，更能鼓励工人发挥其工作能力。在合作中少量放错岗位的游手好闲者，那些“磨洋工”却又得到与他人相同利益的人，无疑会把那些更好的工人拉到与他们一个水平。

在通往协作大道的过程中，其他一些很难对付的困难是，如何更加公平地分配利润，而且虽然工人总是准备好分享利润，但他们既不愿也不可能共同承担损失。进一步的是，在许多情况下，让他们来分享利润和分担损失都是不公平而且不合理的，这很大程度上是因为这些是他们无法影响或控制的，而且他们也没有对此做出什么贡献。

回到检验自行车钢珠的那些女孩们身上来，所有改进的结果是，35个女孩就完成了以前120个人做的工作。而且在这种高速度下完成检验工作的精准度比以前低速度时还要高出三分之二。

这些女孩得到好处是：

第一，她们得到的工资比以前高了，80%〜100%。

第二，她们每天的工作时间从10个半小时缩短到了8个半小时。而且每天有四次休息时间，因此对一个健康的女孩来说便不会过度劳累。

第三，每个女孩都感觉得到了管理层的特殊关照和兴趣，如果出了什么问题，她也有人可以依靠，从管理层得到帮助和教导。

第四，所有年轻的女孩子每个月都有一个连续两天带薪休息的假期，且时间可由她们自己选择。尽管这一点我不是太确定，但在我印象中这些女孩都被给予了这项特权。

对于公司来说好处是：

第一，公司产品的质量得到了很大的提升。

第二，尽管有办事人员、教导员、时间研究员、复查员的薪酬，还支付了工人更高的工资，但实际上，检验成本大大降低了。

第三，公司和雇员之间最友善的关系，几乎避免了各种劳动纠纷或罢工。

这些成果是由于有利的工作条件代替了不利的工作条件所带来的。然而，应当注意，比起其他因素来，有一个因素更重要。那就是仔细地挑选素质高的年轻女工，即以感知快的年轻女工，取代那些感知慢的年轻女工。用“个人系数”低的年轻女工取代那些“个人系数”高的女工。即科学地挑选工人。

迄今为止，作者所举的实例有意识地局限于一些比较初级的工种上，因此，读者心中必然还会存在一种十分强烈的怀疑：对比较聪明的技工们来说，这种合作是否可行；也就是说，对于那些有归纳能力的——因此有可能愿意选择更科学更完善方法的人来说，这种合作是否可行？以下实例的目的在于证明这样的事实：在更高级的工种中，要形成的科学规律是十分复杂的，高价的技工在探索这些规律并加以选择、发展和培养他自己按这些规律办事时，需要（基于廉价工人）比他自己受过更高级教育的人的协作。这些实例将十分清楚地说明我们原先的假设，实际在所有的技工工艺上，构成每个工人行为基础的科学是极深奥的，即使他最胜任其所从事的工作，由于缺乏教育或智力不足，也理解不了这种科学。

9．重复性工作中效率如何提升

比如说，绝大多数读者心中也许会存在一个疑问（在这样的情况下：一家企业年复一年地大量生产同样的机器，在这样的生产过程中，每个技工不断重复有限序列的操作），每个工人的机智加上他不时地从班组长那里得到的帮助，难道不能形成一种特好的方法和一种个人的技艺（尽管还不能对之进行科学研究），从而从实质上提高工效吗？

若干年前，有一家雇佣了大约300个工人的公司，制造同一种机器已达10〜15年之久，他们派人请我去他们公司，就关于引进科学管理可能带来的收益作一个报告。他们公司的车间有一位好主管，有优秀的班组长和工人，干的是计件活，已经运转好些年了。这个企业车间的条件无疑在本国平均水平之上。当主管听说如果采用一种新的任务管理制度，虽然使用和目前一样多的工人和机器，产量也能翻一番以上时，他显然非常不快。他认为这类说法只不过是在吹嘘而已，肯定是假的，并说这种轻率的宣传只会使他感到恶心，并不能增强他的信心。但他很爽快地同意了我们的建议，即由他挑出一台他认为能代表车间平均产出的机器，让我们用这台机器去证明，通过科学方法可以使产量翻番。

他所选择的机器公正地代表了车间的水平，这台机器在过去的10〜12年间一直是由一个头等技工操作，这个技工的能力比起该企业中其他工人的水平来说是略胜一筹的。在这种不断地重复生产同样机器的车间里，工作必须大大地加以细分，这样每个工人一年干的工作相对来说都局限于少量的部件上。因此，两方都在场的情况下，我们对这个技工完成每个部件实际所用的时间作了仔细的记录。全部的操作时间，包括他完成每个部件、送料的实际速度、调整机器和拆卸等，都记录在案。用这种方法获得了这样一份代表车间平均水平的报表之后，我们就要将科学管理的基本原则应用到这台机器上。

采用了四根经过精心制作的计算尺，我们就这部机器每个单元和手头上的活计的关系进行了仔细的分析，以便确定金属切割机的最大工作能力。它的以各种速度运转的拉力，它的传动能力以及其合理速度将通过计算尺来决定，并通过调整中间轴和推动滑轮，使机器按合理的速度进行运转。以高速钢做成恰当形状的各种工具在此进行适当的修琢、处理和打磨（但应认识到的是，在这以前一直在车间里普遍使用的高速钢，在我们展示的活动中也同样加以使用）。然后我们又制作了一根巨大的特殊计算尺，用以指示精确的速度和传送率，使得在这部特定车床上做的每类活计都会在最可能短的时间内完成。照这个办法使工人能按照新方法进行操作之后，一件件活计就这样在车床上做出来。对比我们早期试验中所干的活计和按照科学原则运转机器后在时间上所得到的收益来看，最慢的也比原来的快2.5倍，而最快的可以达到9倍。

从单凭经验的管理到现代科学管理的变革，所包含的不仅是要研究干活的恰当速度，从而对车间的工具、设备等进行改革，更重要的是车间所有工人在对待工作和雇主的态度上也已经完全改变了。为保证获得巨大收益而对机器进行必要的实质性改革，以及随之而来的用秒表对每个工人应干活所需要的时间进行细致的观察，相对来说都还是能够较快完成的。但是300多工人的精神状态和习惯的改变却只能通过一序列有目的的讲课后才能慢慢实现，并最后使每个工人明白，只要他们在每天的工作上和管理层全心全意的协作，他们就能得到很大的好处。在三年间，这个车间里每人和每台机器的产量都翻了一番多。工人们都是经过仔细挑选的，在几乎所有的情况下，工作从低级向高级逐步提升，并被他们的教师（责任班组长）教导说，他们可以挣得比以前更高的工资。每个工人日工资的平均增长率大致是35%；而与此同时，做某一指定数量活计所支付的工资总额则比以前要低。干活速度的加快意味着以最快的手工操作方法替代孤立的单凭经验的老方法，并对每个工人的手工操作工作进行细致的分析（所谓手工操作工作是指那些专靠一个工人手工的敏捷快速完成的工作，是独立于机器所干活计之外的）。科学的手工操作工作所节约的时间，在许多情况下甚至比机器操作所节约的时间还要多。

看起来有必要好好解释一下，为什么借助于一根计算尺，并在研究了切割金属的工艺之后，一个经过科学训练的工人——即使以前从未见过这些特定的活计，也不曾在这台机器上操作过，比起在这台特定的机器上干这种活计已满10〜12年的一名优秀技工来，其工作速度甚至还能快上2.5〜9倍？总之，速度之所以能这么快的增长，是因为切割金属的工艺涉及一门重大的真正的科学，事实上这门科学十分复杂，以至如果得不到以此为专业的人们的协助，即便任何能够年复一年地操作一台机床的技工也没法弄懂它，或照着它的规律去干活。不熟悉金工车间活计的人们会倾向于把制作每件活计看作一个特殊的问题，与任何其他各类的金工活计无关。例如，他们认为，与制作一部引擎部件有关的问题需要对一整套制作引擎的技巧进行专门的研究，也可以说是毕生的研究，而这些问题与制作机床或刨床部件时所遇到的问题完全不同。然而事实上，比起对切割金属工艺或科学的整体研究（基于这门知识，人们就有能力去真正快速地干各种各样的金工活计）来，研究那些引擎部件或机床部件所特有的零件却是微不足道的。

真正的问题是：怎样从一个铸件或锻件上快速地清除切屑，怎样在最短的时间里把这个铸件或锻件做得既光滑又准确，至于所做的这个铸件或锻件究竟是一台轮机、一台印刷机或一辆汽车上的，则是无关紧要的。正是由于这个原因，对于能使用计算尺又懂得切割金属科学的工人来说，尽管他以前从未见过这种特殊的活计，也完全能够把长年专业于做这种机器部件的熟练技工远远甩在身后。

聪明而有教养的工人发现，改进任何机械工艺的职责是在他们身上，而不是在那些实际操作的工人身上，这种情况下，他们几乎总是会走向一条形成一门科学的道路，而过去则只是停留在单纯的经验或传统知识上。当教育赋予人们概括事物的习惯后，人们在探索各种规律时就会发现，各行各业都面临着许许多多的问题，这些问题都有类似之处，这样他们就不可避免地要把这些问题归成若干有逻辑性的类别，并探索某些一般的规律或法则，以指引他们去求得问题的解法。如前所述，“积极性加刺激性”管理方法的根本原则或这套管理方法的根本原理，必然是让每个工人自己解决一切问题，而科学管理的原理则是把这些问题的解决交于管理层手中。工人每天的时间是花费在双手进行的实际操作上，因此，尽管他受过必要的教育，思考时也有归纳的习惯，但他仍缺乏时间和形成这些规律的时机，这是由于，哪怕只是研究一条简单的规律，例如工时研究，都需要两个人协作：一个人进行操作，另一人用秒表为其计时。而且就算这个工人发现了什么规律（这在以前只有凭经验的知识），个人的利益不可避免地会促使他对他发现的规律严加保密，这样，他就可以利用个人的这种独特知识，做出比别人更多的工作，拿到更多的工资。

另一方面，在科学管理下，从事管理工作的人员有责任并且有兴趣去发展规律，替代老的经验，并公正无私地教会他们下属的所有工人以最快的办法去工作。由于运用这些规律而取得的效益总是非常可观的，对发展这些规律所需的时间和试验，任何公司都乐于资助。这样，在科学管理下，实实在在的科学知识迟早一定会替代老的经验；而要在老式的管理制度下，按科学规律办事是不可能的。

切割金属工艺或科学的形成，就是恰当的例证。1880年下半年，正是作者开始做上述试验的前后，他征得中部溪谷钢铁公司总裁威廉·塞勒斯先生的同意，进行了一系列试验，以测定在切割钢铁时所使用的工具应以怎样的角度和形状为最佳，同时还要测定切割钢铁的恰当速度。在开始这些试验的时候，他相信不会超过六个月。事实上，如果事先知道试验会比所需要的时间更长的话，就不会得到为此要耗费大笔款项的许可。

做这些实验所用的第一台机器是直径66英寸[8]的立式镗床，用统一质量的硬质钢做大件机车轮箍，日复一日地进行切削，逐渐从中了解，究竟怎样制作、成型和使用切割工具才能提高工作效率。六个月后，所得实际情报的价值远远大于为试验所花费的在物料和工资上的费用。已完成的少量试验足以说明，所得到的实际知识仅仅是尚待发展的一小部分。这一小部分的知识，正是我们每日试图指导和帮助技工完成任务所迫切需要的。

这方面的试验断断续续进行了约二十六年，有十台不同的试验机器是专门配备用来做这项工作的。仔细记录了30000〜50000次试验，还做了许多其他没有记录的试验。为了研究这些规律，试验机器将362吨以上重量的钢铁切成了碎屑，据估计，这样的调查花费了150000〜200000美元。

类似此种性质的工作，无论哪位热爱科学研究的人都会十分感兴趣。然而就本文的目的而言，则应充分认识到，其之所以能获得这些使试验持续许多年的动力，并为试验的成就提供资金和机会，并不是为了抽象地去搜索科学知识，而是为了一个十分现实的事实，那就是我们还缺乏每天工作所需要的情报，而这些情报是为协助我们的机工们以最佳的方法和最快的速度去操作所必需的。

所做的这些试验，使我们能正确地回答两个问题——这是每个机工在一台金属切割机（诸如车床、钻床或铣床）上干活时都会遇到的。这两个问题是：

要以最高时效完成活计，机器上切削速度应该多快才算合适？怎样输送才算合适？

听起来似乎十分简单，只要是一个受过培训的好技工都答得上来。但事实上，在经过了二十六年的工作以后，我们发现在每种情况下的回答都涉及要解决一个复杂的数学问题，其中必须判断12个独立变数的影响。

下述12个变数中的每一个，对问题的回答都起了重要的影响。每个变数的数字，代表这个因素对切割速度的作用。例如，在第一个变数(A)后面，我们引述：“就半硬钢或冷铁和一种很软的低碳钢的情况说，两者的比例是1比100。”这段引述的意思是说，切削软钢的速度可以比硬钢快100倍。所有这些因素提供的比例，说明判断范围的广泛。过去，每个机工实际上都是在开始工作后才去决定开动机器的最佳速度和最佳的输送方法。

(A) 切削金属的质量，就是指它的硬度或其他影响切削速度的质量。其比例是半硬钢或冷铁为1，很软的低碳钢为100。

(B) 用以制作工具的钢的化学构成以及工具的热处理，其比例为，用中碳钢制作的工具为1，最好的高速工具为7。

(C) 刨削的厚度或工具切削金属的螺旋条的厚度。其比例为1（每英寸刨削3/16）到3.5（每英寸刨削1/64）。

(D) 工具切削边沿的外形或轮廓。其比例为，在线型工具为1时宽嘴工具为6。

(E) 工具上是否充分使用一流细水或其他冷却剂。其比例为，在工具干运转时的1比在工具充分使用时的1.14。

(F) 切割的深度。其比例为切割深度半英寸时为1，深度1/8英寸时为1.36。

(G) 切割持续时间，也就是在不再磨切的情况下，处于刨切压力下一项工具所必须持续的时间。其比例为，当工具每间隔一个半小时要进行磨切的为1，每隔20分钟要进行磨切的为1.20。

(H) 工具口和间隙的角度。其比例为，角度68°时为1，角度61°时为1.023。

(J)由于发生震颤而造成操作和工具上的伸缩性。其比例为，震颤的工具为1，运转平稳的工具为1.15。

(K)受切割的铸件和锻件的直径。

(L)切削或刨削在工具切割面上的压力。

(M)机器的拉力、速度和输送转换。

为了调查在金属切割速度上12项变数的效果竟耗时16年之久，这在许多人看来似乎有些荒唐，但对那些具有亲身经验的实验者来说，问题的严重困难在于它包含了许多可变因素；还在于当研究12项可变因素的效果时，由于在实验过程中要使11项可变因素保持稳定和一致有困难，使得进行每个单项实验时要耗费大量时间。比起调查第12项因素来，要保持11项可变因素的稳定则困难得多。

这样，就在切割速度的第一项可变因素上，逐次调查其效果。为了使这方面的知识能提供实际应用，有必要找出一个数学公式，以简明的形式表述已找到的规律。作为已产生的12道公式的例子，可列出下列3式：

P = 45，000 D14/15F3/4

V = 90/ (T1/8)

V = 11.9/ (F0.665 (48D/3)0.2373 + 2.4/(18 + 24D))

在找到了这些规律，并确定了以数学方式表达的各种公式后，仍然还存在艰巨的任务，那就是如何使这些复杂的数学问题能尽快地得到解决，以便把这些知识应用于实践中。如果一位优秀的数学家面临这些公式，试图求得正确的答案（也就是说，在正常的工作情况下要取得正确的切割速度和输送），那么，他解决单独一个问题就要耗费2〜6小时；在绝大多数情况下，比起工人们在机器上干的全份活计来，解决数学问题所需的时间要长得多。因此，我们面临一项十分重大的任务，就是要找出能迅速解决问题的方法，作者就常常把全部问题换个地引介给国内著名的数学家。谁要能找到能迅速解决问题的实用的方法，就可付给他合理的费用。有些人只对问题瞟了一眼；其他人出于礼貌的原因，把问题在手头保留了两三个星期。他们几乎给了我们同样的答案：在许多情况下，要解决同时包含4个可变因素的数学问题不是不可能的，在某些情况下，包含5个或6个可变因素的也是这样，但要解决一项包含12个可变因素的问题，无论用什么方法都是明显地不可能的，除非用低效的“反复试验”方法。

尽管数学家们对此给予了一个小小的定义，但因为我们经营的金工车间日常工作的迫切需要，探索快速解决问题的方法是相当重要的。经历了为期十五年的时间，我们用了大量时间和精力去探索简捷的解决办法，在不同时期，均有四五个人在这工作上几乎拿出了他们全部的时间，最后，当我们在伯利恒钢铁公司的时候，终于搞出了计算尺。对此，我们在《论金属切割的工艺》这篇论文中作了阐述，而在卡尔·G·巴思先生向美国机械工程师协会提出的题为《作为泰罗管理体制一部分的为金工车间设计的计算尺》中有更详尽的阐述。使用这个计算尺，任何优秀的技工，不管他懂不懂得数学，都能在不到半分钟的时间内，使某一复杂问题得到解决，这样，就使多年在金属切割工艺上的实验所得应用于实际工作。

这就是一个很好的例证，对复杂的科学数据总能找到某些可供日常实际使用的方法，尽管这些数据看起来似乎超出普通操作工人技术培训的经验和范畴之外。这种计算尺已在无数学知识的机械技工的日常工作中使用了许多年。

粗略地看一看以上那些代表切割规律的复杂的数学公式，就可以明白为什么任何机工如果只凭个人经验而不求助于这些规律，即使他重复干同一件活计许多次，也不可能对以下两个问题作出准确的答案，即：

我该采用什么速度？该怎么输送？

即便他可能无数次地重复地干这份工作。

再回到上述的机工那里，他一次又一次地加工同一件活计已达10〜12年，在他干每件活时，就他所了解的上百种可使用的方法中，他可以选准其中一个最好的方法。必须引起注意的是，所有金工车间的金属切割机器实际上都是由机器的操作者用推测的方法来掌握速度，他们并不具有通过研究金属切割工艺所取得的知识。正因为这样，在经我们加以系统化的金工车间里，在上百台机器中，我们找不到一台已由它的操作者凭经验找到接近于合适的切割速度的事例。因此，机工们为了和金属切割的科学相竞争，在他能找到恰当的速度之前，便在他机器的副轴上新加上滑轮，有时还对他的工具的形状和加工方法进行一些改革，等等。尽管工人们也知道该做些什么，但许多这样的改革却不是他力所能及的。

机工在从事重复工作中取得的单凭经验作法的某些知识实际上不足以与切割金属的科学同日而语，如果这个道理成立的话，那么以下的事情就显而易见了，那就是即使让高级技工日复一日地凭他的经验干多种多样的活计，也无法和这样的科学去竞争。为了以最快的时间去干每样活计，高级技工每天要做各种各样的工作，他除去需要关于切割金属的丰富知识以外，还需要有关以最快的方法做各种手工活的广博知识和经验。读者还会记得吉尔布雷斯先生通过对砌砖动作和工时研究而取得的成果，都会看到在每个手工工人面前都存在着一种巨大的可能性，那就是在他对自己的活计掌握的一套科学动作和对工时进行分析之后，他便能够以更快的速度去完成一切手工活计。

将近二十年过去了，与金工车间的资方有联系的从事工时研究的人们，把他们的全部时间都用在研究科学的动作上，对与机工活计有关的一切因素均用秒表进行精确的记录，并对之进行研究。因此，当构成资方一部分的并和工人们在一起协作的老师们既掌握了切割金属的科学，又掌握了和这种活计有关的同样精确的动作和时间分析的科学时，就不难看出，为什么甚至最高级的技工，如没有他的老师的日常帮助，也没法干出最佳的活计来。如果读者已弄清楚了这个事实，那么写这篇论文的重要目的之一就算实现了。

希望已提供的实例能说明，为什么比起“积极性加刺激性”的管理来，在所有的情况下，科学管理一定会为公司和它的雇员们取得压倒性的更巨大的成果。同样应该搞清楚的是，这些成果的取得，并不是由于一种管理机构的模式比另一种具有明显优越性，而是以一套根本的原则替代了另一套完全不同的原则——在工业管理中以一种基本原理代替另一种基本原理。

10．科学管理是从最简单工作中逐步建立的

回顾所有这些实例，可看出最后的成果是连接在以下几点上的：(1)以一种科学去替代工人的个人判断；(2)不是听由工人以任意的方式去选择操作方法和进行自我培养，而是对每个工人进行研究、教育和培训，可以说是经过实验之后科学地选择并培养出来的；(3)管理部门和工人的密切协作，两者一起按已形成的科学规律干活，而不是把每个问题交给个别工人去解决。在使用这些新的原则上，两方面所承担的几乎相等，资方做那部分对他们最适合的工作，余下的由工人们去完成。

这篇论文的撰写，其目的就在于说明上述基本原理。我们会进一步阐述它的一般原则所涉及的某些因素。

形成一种科学，听来像是一项令人可畏的任务，事实上要对切割金属这样的科学进行充分的研究，也必然需要多年的工作。当然，切割金属的科学从它的复杂性和形成科学所需的时间看，在机械工艺中也的确是一个具有典型意义的例子。然而，即使在这门十分复杂的科学中，开始研究仅几个月，便获得足够的知识，比为实验工作所付出的代价要多得多。实际上，在机械工艺所有科学的发展上，情况莫不如此。为切割金属而形成的最初规律可能是粗糙的，但这部分不完整的知识比起原来全然缺乏确切情报的单凭经验的十分不完整的做法来，则要优越得多；这能使工人们在资方的协助下高效率高质量地完成任务。

例如，无需花多长时间就可以找出一两种类型的工具，尽管比起后些年形成的这种类型的工具并不那么完善，但比起通常所用的一切其他的类型较为优越。使用这些工具，可以使每个机工有可能马上提高速度。虽然只在一个比较短的时间内，这种类型的工具就被其他工具所取代，但它们依次为之后的改进[9]开辟了道路。

在绝大部分机械工艺中存在的科学，无论如何要比切割金属的科学简单得多。事实上，在几乎所有的情况下，已形成的规律是十分简单的，一般人甚至很少会将其称之为一门科学。在绝大部分行业中，这门科学的形成就是通过在工人们干他们的小部分活计时，对他们的动作进行比较简单的分析和时间测定；这项工作通常只要一个人配备一只秒表和一本有适当栏目的记录本就可进行。现在已有成百个这样的研究工时的人从事于这门基本科学知识，而在这以前还只是单凭经验办事。吉尔布雷斯先生对砌砖动作的分析，比起其他搞工时研究的人所作的调查研究要更细致得多。要发展这一类简单的规律，可采取以下步骤：

第一，找10〜15个不同的人（最好来自国内各部门的众多不同的企业），这些人对所要分析的工种具有特殊的专长。

第二，研究其中每个人在做被调查的活计时所应用的基本动作或意图的确切次序，以及他所使用的工具。

第三，用秒表去检验做这些基本动作的每一步所需要的时间，进而选择能用最快速度去干活计的动作的每个组成部分。

第四，排除一切假动作、慢动作和无用的动作。

第五，在摒弃了一切不必要的动作之后，把最快的动作和最佳的工具汇集成一个序列。

当这一新的方法（包括一系列能取得最快和最佳效率的动作）取代了以前所使用的10〜15种较差的序列时，这个最佳方法就成为了标准，并在一定时间内将其作为；先让教师们（或职能领班）掌握，再由他们教给企业里的每个工人，直到有一系列更快更佳的动作取代它时为止。就是这种简易的办法使科学管理的原理一个接一个地建立起来了。

可以用同样的办法来分析一个行业所使用的每种工具。在“积极性加刺激性”的制度下，资方的管理理念是号召每个工人运用他最佳的判断力，做到以最佳的速度与效率完成工作任务。这样，在所有的情况下，为了达到不同的目的，就形成形式和种类十分繁杂的工具。资方首先需要的是在凭经验办事的办法下对同一工具进行多种改进，一一进行仔细的调查；其次，在分析了每种工具所能取得的速度后，把若干工具的优点集中于一件工具上，这件工具将使工人能比以前干得更快些、更自如些。这一件工具被作为标准工具而得到采用，以取代以前所使用的其他许多种类的工具；这一件工具将由所有工人作为标准件一直使用下去，直到经由动作和时间分析证明了另一件工具比它更优越时，才能被其取代。

从以上说明中可以看出，在绝大多数情况下，要形成一门科学以替代单凭经验办事，这个任务并不是十分困难的，连未经过充分科技培训的普通人都能完成；但另一方面，要在这类甚至是最简易的改进上取得成功，也必须建立记录、制度和协作，而这些在以前只是靠个人的某种努力。

参考文献

[1]作者曾试图在一篇名为《工厂管理》并在美国机械工程师会宣读的论文中将这种不幸状态产生的原因解释清楚。

[2]例如，一个寻常加工厂在科学管理制度下要用到的数据组成的记录可能要用到几千页纸。

[3]1马力=745.6999瓦

[4]1呎磅=1.3546牛·米

[5]许多人曾对一个一流工人能在一天内搬运47.5吨生铁这一描述的准确性提出质疑。因此，笔者提供了下列与此项工作相关的数据，以供对此持怀疑态度的人作参考：

首先，我们的试验显示了以下法则的存在：对于一个适合生铁搬运工作的一流工人来说，一天中只能有42%的时间处于负载状态，而58%的时间必须是没有负载的。

其次，对一个将生铁从广场上的生铁堆搬运到与之毗邻的铁轨上的车厢里的工人来说，他每天必须要搬运47.5吨的生铁，而且他们的确做到了。

这些工人每搬运一吨生铁将得到3.9分钱，其每天的平均收入则是1.85美元，而在过去他们每天只能赚到1.15美元。

除了这些事实之外，还有：

每天47.5吨，即48205千克生铁。

每块生铁41.7千克，每天1156块生铁。

42%的负载时间，一天工作时间600分钟；乘以0.42即每天252分钟负载时间。

252分钟共搬运1156块生铁，每块生铁负载时间为0.22分钟。

一个生铁搬运工以0.006分钟每英尺[10]的速度行走。生铁堆到车厢的平均距离为10米。然而，还有一点是许多生铁搬运工在到达斜板时会改为跑动，而且许多也会在卸载后跑下斜板。所以实际搬运时，许多人将会以一种比以上的数字还要快的速度移动。事实上，工人每搬运10到20块生铁时，就会休息一下，通常就是坐一小会。这个休息时间是不计入他们的返回（从车厢回到生铁堆旁）时间的。那些怀疑的人可能没有意识到，当这些工人返回时，他们是完全没有负载的，所以他们的肌肉在这段时间里有机会得到恢复。需要注意的是，由于生铁堆与车厢平均距离为36英尺，因此这些工人每天负载移动和不负载移动的距离均约为13千米。

如果有人对这些数字感兴趣，并用各种方式进行乘除运算，他会发现这些事实可以得到完全验证。

[6]1英尺=0.3048米

[7]1英里=1609.344米

[8]请查看笔者在美国工程师协会宣读过的《计件工资制》。

[9]1英寸=0.0254米

[10]机械工艺的试验者一再发现自己面对这样的问题，即是将他得到知识投入实际应用，还是等有了比较确切的结果再说。他清楚认识到，他的确已经有一些进展，但是仍然有进一步改进的可能性（甚至必然性）。当然，每种特殊情况都要进行独立的考虑，我们得到的总体结论是，在大多数情况下，把一个人的结论尽快地在实际应用中进行严格的试验，还是明智的。然而，这样的测试一个不可缺少的条件是，试验者有充分的机会和完整的授权，以确保试验的公平与完整。而由于广泛地偏爱老式方法，以及对新方法的怀疑，这个条件却是很难实现的。

11．任务观念在科学管理中的重要性

本文曾几次提到的另一种科学调查模式应该受到特别关注，这就是要细致研究影响人们动机的因素。乍看起来，似乎这只是由个人去观察和判断的事，而不是实实在在进行科学实验的一项适当课题。确实，由于用以实验的人是个十分复杂的生物体，所以，对这一类实验所形成的规律，比起涉及其他物质东西的规律来，会遇到更多的例外情况。但是，这类规律对绝大部分的人是适用的，无疑是存在的，若经清楚地说明，那在和人打交道时，就会是一种十分有价值的向导。在形成这些规律时，曾精确、仔细的计划和实验了为期若干年，和本文所提到的在若干其他原理上所进行的实验，在总的方法上十分相似。

属于这一类的最重要的规律，就它和科学管理的关系来说，恐怕要算任务观念在工人工作效率上所产生的影响。事实上，这已成为科学管理结构中的一个重要因素，对许多人说来，科学管理已被认为是“任务管理”。

在任务观念上是绝对没有什么新鲜东西的。我们每人都会记得，就各自的情况说来，在他的中小学生时代，这个观念的运用结果良好。讲效率的老师不会给一班同学上一堂没完没了的课。在每个学生面前，老师每天都安排了具体、明确的作业，并向学生们讲清，他们在课堂上只能学这么多；也只有这样，学生们才能取得合适而循序的进步。如果不给作业，只是要学生在课堂上做得越多越好，那么一般学生的进步将是十分缓慢的。我们全都是已成长起来的孩子，自然会明白这个道理。当每天给予一般工人一项具体作业任务，他应在特定的时间内予以完成——这构成了一个健全工人一天的工作。这样，这个一般工人才会就他自己和他的雇主来说，以最大的干劲去工作。这就给工人提供了一个明确的标准，有了这标准，他便可以随时计量自己的工作进度。完成了任务，便会给他带来最大的满足。

作者在其他文章里曾述及对工人们所进行的一系列实验，结果证明了这样的事实，即不可能通过任何延长劳动时间的办法来使工人们干得更勤快些，除非这些工人得到他们的工资会有大幅度和永久性增长的保证。这一系列的实验还证实，只要工资能得到大幅度的增长，就可以找到大量愿以最快速度干活的工人，但必须向工人保证工资的这种超乎平均的增长是永久性的。我们的实验表明，要使一个工人以他的最高速度干活，其增长工资的比率应以工人从事的具体活计的不同而不同。

这样，每天给工人们布置一项作业任务，要求高速度地工作；那么，只要他们干得出色，就应当保证付与合理的高工资，这是绝对必要的。这不仅包括给每个工人以每天的作业定额，还包括只要他在特定的时间里完成了任务就付给他一大笔奖金。除非有人在同一工人身上先试试老办法，再试试新办法，否则就难于评价上述两个因素的正确应用，在使工人把工作效率提到最高标准的过程中（并就此把他的效率固定在高标准上）会起怎样的帮助；也除非有人看到对在许多不同工种中干活的不同等级的工人们实行过类似的精确的实验之后才会相信。——对任务和奖金这两个因素的正确应用所带来的显著的和几乎相同的良好效果，必须看到它受到好评。

这两个因素——任务和奖金（这些在以前的文章中已有所指出，应用起来可以有若干方法），构成了科学管理结构上的两个最重要的因素。由于以下的事实，这两个因素显得特别重要，因为它们本身就是个顶点，在整个科学管理的结构上就要求比其他因素更提前加以应用，对这些其他因素，诸如一个计划部门、精确的时间分析、方法和工具的标准化、一套日常工作的制度、培训职能领班或老师，在许多情况下还有指示卡片、计算尺等，在后面还要较详尽地涉及。

12．再说培训

系统培训工人。使他们以最高速度工作的必要性，本文已提到若干次。更详尽地阐明这种培训是怎样进行的，看来是很有必要的。在现代化体制管理下的一个金工车间里，怎样以最佳方法去干每件活计的详细书面指示，是由计划部门的人们事先准备出来的。这些指示代表着计划室若干人协同工作，每人都有他自己的专业或职责。例如，有人是应用正确速度和切割工具的专家，他可以借用前述的计算尺来取得正确的速度；另一人的特长是分析工人在机器上干活或调动活计时的最快和最佳动作；第三个人通过所积累的工时分析记录订下一份时间表，为活计的每个环节列出正确的速度。所有这些人的指示都写在一张指示卡片上。

这些计划人员的绝大部分时间都耗费在计划部门，这是因为他们必须和他们在工作中不断使用的记录和数据相接触，而这样的工作又需要一张写字桌，还要排除外界的干扰。同时，不能扔下许多工人不加管理，那样他们就不会去关心那些书面指示——人的秉性就是这样，因此有必要配备一些老师（称作职能领班）去照看工人们，让他们能明白又能按照这些书面指示去干活。

在这种职能管理体制下，老式制度下的单个领班由8个具有不同职能的人所替代，每人都有他们各自的任务；这些人作为计划部门的代理人，是专家性的老师，长期待在车间里，对工人进行帮助指导。由于每个人是根据他所拥有的知识和个人技艺挑选出来的，所以他们既能告诉工人该怎么干，而且必要时还能在工人面前自己动手操作，这样就能更快地给工人以最佳的示范。

这些老师中第一位（称为检查员），要懂得怎样制定图纸和工作指令，他教工人怎样干出合乎质量的活计来；该精细的活怎样干才能精细，而无需精细的则可以粗放些和快些，——为要取得成功，一种干法和另一种干法是同等重要的。第二位老师（班组头头）教工人怎样在他的机器上安排活计，并教他怎样使自己的动作合乎最快和最佳的方法。第三位老师（管速度的头头）要注意使机器能以最佳速度运转，将合适的工具用在特殊的用途上，使机器能在最可能短的时间里生产出规定完成的产品。除了这些老师所给予的帮助外，工人还从其他四种人那里得到指令和帮助。这四种人是“管维修的头头”（负责对机器、皮带等的调整、清扫和一般维护），“时间记录职员”（负责关于计算工资的书面报告和统计表等），“路线职员”（负责对工人发布干活的命令和指示工人从一种活计向另一种活计挪动），如果一个工人和他的任何一个头头间发生纠纷，“纪律管理员”就会访问他。

当然，在所有从事同一工种的工人中并不需要从职能领班那里取得同等的个别教导和关照。比起长期从事同一工种的工人来，那些新来这一工种的工人自然需要更多的教导和关照。

经过这些教导和细致的训练之后，为工人安排活计自然变得十分顺利和方便了，但同时给人一个印象，所有这些都趋向把工人变成一个个像机械一样操作的人——一个呆板的人。这正像刚来到这种制度下干活的工人们常说的那样：“怎么？没有谁来指示我或让我干，我就不准想一下或动一下了？”在所有其他现代化的专业分工上，也会引起同样的批评和抵制。例如，外科大夫比起本国早期的移民来，并不见得是生活得更狭窄或是更呆板的一种人。边远的居民不仅应是一名外科大夫，还应是一名建筑师、房屋营造者、木材经理人、农民、士兵和医生，并且会用枪杆子去处置他的法律案件。这样，你就不会说现代外科大夫的生活更狭窄，或者说他比起边远的居民来，是一个呆板的人。外科大夫所遇到的和要解决的许多问题，就和边远的居民拓展道路一样，具有同样的复杂性和艰巨性。

应记住的是，对外科大夫的培训，在形式上几乎和在科学管理下给予工人的教育和培训一样。对外科大夫早期的教育，都是在富有经验的人们最严格的监督下，以最精细的方法，教他在工作的每个环节上该怎样才能最出色地干好。他们给他提供了最好的工具，其中每一件都是经过特殊研究而制成的；他们要他坚持以最佳的方法去使用这样的每一件工具。所有这些教育决不会使他的眼界狭窄，正相反，他很快就掌握了他的前辈们最优越的知识，并授受了标准的工具和办法——这些都代表了当今世界最优越的知识。之后，他就能运用自己的独创和机智给世界知识宝库增添新的财产，而不是去重复构造一些陈旧的东西。在现代的科学管理下，和他的许多老师协作的工人也一样有机会得到发展，这比起全部问题由工人自己解决而没有任何帮助的工作来，至少效果一样，而在一般情况下总是更好些。

如果这样的事实竟是真的——工人可以不经这种教育，也不需要各自工作中所发现的规律的帮助，就可以发展成为更优秀的人，那么随之而来的道理是，现在大学里就数学、物理、化学、拉丁文、希腊文等方面求教于老师的年轻人，可不经老师帮助，自己便可将这些东西学得更好。两种情况的唯一差别在于，学生得上他们老师那里去，而从在科学管理下技工所干活计的性质来说，老师必须到工人这里来。通过必然会发展的科学的帮助和老师的教导，其必然结果是，每个有一定智力的工人，比起他以前所能做的工作来，会干得更好些、更有兴趣，最后会更有发展前途和更多利益。也许那些先前除了锨铲和搬运垃圾或把车间的物品从一头搬到另一头之外就什么也干不了的工人，经过帮助，在许多情况下可以干较初级的机工活了。随这种变化而来的是，劳动环境改善了，工种也较有趣了，工资也更高了。低级机工或助手，以前也许只能操作一台铝压机，而这时则可以让他们去干更复杂的价值更高的车工和刨工活计。至于高度熟练的和更聪明的机工们就成为了职能领班和老师。诸如此类，就这样逐步发展和提升。

13．科学管理的优势

科学管理比起老式管理来，工人在应用他的聪明才智以设计新的和更好的工作办法和改进他的工具的问题上，看起来会缺乏积极性。事实是这样：在科学管理下，工人在日常操作时，不允许他随便使用自己认为合适的工具和办法。但是，工人提出的改进建议，不管是办法也好，或是工具也好，都应受到各种形式的鼓励。对工人的建议，资方应对其进行仔细的分析，如有必要还应进行一系列的实验，以精确地判断新建议和老办法的相对优点。一旦发现新办法比老办法显著优越时，就应采用它作为全企业的标准。对工人的这种建议，应给予充分的荣誉；为了他的聪明才智，还应发给一笔现金奖作为酬劳。这样，在科学管理下，工人的积极性比起老的个人计划来，会得到更好的发挥。

科学管理历史发展到现在，已发出这样的警告，对管理结构的实质或根本的道理，是不容误解的。同样的管理结构，在一种情况下会产生灾害性的结果，而在另一种情况下又可早获收益。同样的管理机制，当用来为科学管理的根本原理服务时，会产生最佳结果，但如果掺入了应用它的人的错误思想时，就会导致失败和灾难。一种结构，在采用科学管理时，要应用它的实质，但成百的人在这个问题上没搞对。甘特、巴思先生等人和作者曾就科学管理一题向美国机械工程师协会提交论文。在这些论文中，曾以相当篇幅阐述所运用的结构。这种结构的要素可列举如下：

时间分析，连同正确完成分析所使用的工具和办法。

职能或分工领班制，它比老式的单人领班更为优越；行业中所用的一切工具以及工人们从事的每一工种动作的标准化；合乎需要的一个计划室或部门；资方的“例外原则”，应用计算尺或类似的节约时间的工具；资方的任务观念，如工人出色完成作业则发给他一大笔奖金；“差别费率”；为工业产品的分类和制造时所使用的工具设立记忆法制度；日常工作制度；现代成本制度；等等。

以上这些，仅仅是结构的要素或要目。科学管理就其实质说，包含有一定的道理，如前所述，即资方的四大根本原则。

自然，当这个结构的要素，诸如时间分析、职能领班，等等，在运用时并没有结合起资方的真正宗旨，其结果在许多情况下会是灾难性的。不幸的是，即使是十分赞赏科学管理原则的人，如果不注重那些对改革有多年经验的人们的警告，就匆匆忙忙地把过去的改为新式的，那就常会遇到麻烦，开始可能是罢工，接下去便是失败。

笔者在他的题为《工厂管理》一文中曾指出，要特别注意的是，在试图快些地从老的改变为新的管理制度时，经理们是会冒风险的。但在许多情况下，这种警告并未引起注意。需要进行的实际变革有几个方面：需待进行的工时研究；与工作有联系的一切工具的标准化；需要个别分析每部机器，并使之置于完整状态下，等等。这些都需要花费时间。工作中的这些要素如能尽快地加以研究改进，事情就会办得更好一些。另一方面，将“积极性加刺激性”的管理改为科学管理时涉及的一个真正的大问题，是所有从事管理的人员（包括工人）精神状态和习性的彻底改变。这种改变只能缓慢地实现，需要向工人讲许多堂实物教学课，只有当工人接受了教育后，才能充分说服他，使它相信新的比老的在干活时更具优越性。工人精神状态的这种改变需要一定的时间，不能超越一定的速度去一味求快。笔者曾一再警告过那些人，即使在一个单纯的企业里，这种变革的实现也需要2〜3年，在某些情况下，甚至要4〜5年。

最初影响工人们的一些变革，应十分缓慢地进行。开始时，每次只能和一个工人打交道，直到这个工人已经被充分说服，并运用新的方法有了较大的收获，否则就不应进行下一步的变革，这样才有可能使工人一个接一个地顺利转过去。当在公司所雇佣的人中有四分之一到三分之一已从老的方法改变成新的方法以后，这种变革就会很快地进展了，因为在这时候，全企业的舆论会出现彻底的改变；而且那些仍在老制度下干活的工人都会期望去分享他们所看得见的那部分收益，那收益是在新体制下工作的工人所取得的。

由于笔者个人已从介绍这种管理制度的业务上（指的是一切有报酬的工作）引退了，所以不再会在强调这样的事实上有所犹豫：那些能得到专家们服务的公司，实在是幸运的。这些专家们在引介科学管理时具有必要的实际经验，他们对科学管理有专门的研究。即使是有经验的企业经理，也不足以承担这项改革任务。实现这样一种改革，要有对变革进行过指导的人（特别是在工种复杂的企业里）来实施，还必须具有能克服各种特殊困难的个人经验，这些困难是经常会遇到的，特别在过渡时期。出于这个原因，笔者希望把他的有生之年，主要用于帮助那些愿把这项工作当做自己职业的人们，并为一般公司的经理和老板们就他们为实现这种变革而应采取的步骤提建议。

作为对那些考虑采取科学管理的人们的一种警告，提供以下实例。

有几个人，当他们对变革怎样不招致罢工和怎样才不影响营业的效果等方面还缺乏足够的经验时，就试图在一家颇为复杂、雇佣了三四千人的企业里搞变革，匆匆忙忙地想增加产量。在这样的企业里，要推行这种改革，必须有具有非凡的能力，同时又是热心肠的人们，这些人还必须是真正地把工人们的利益放在心里的人。在改革开始前，尽管笔者警告过他们，这种改革必须十分缓慢地进行，像他们那样的企业，少于三五年是完不成的，可他们完全忽视了这种警告。显然，他们认为，只要充分应用科学管理的机制，结合着“积极性加刺激性”的管理原则而不是科学管理的原则，他们就可以在一两年内，完成过去至少需要加倍时间才能完成的事。例如，精确的工时研究是一种强有力的工具，在许多情况下可以用来促进工人们和资方之间的协调，那就是逐步地教育、培训和引导工人们用新的较佳的办法工作，或者在另一些情况下，它多少可以起到一根棍棒的作用，驱使工人们每天干更多的活，但工资却不增加。不幸的是，负责这项工作的人们，并没有付出所需的时间和辛劳，来培训日后能够领导和教育工人们的领班或老师。他们试图通过老式的领班，以他的新武器——精确的工时研究为武器，违反工人们的意愿，驱使工人们去干更艰苦的活，却又不增加多少工资，而不是渐渐教育和引导工人实行新的办法，并通过实物教学去说服工人们，使他们知道，科学管理虽然意味着工人们多少要更艰苦地工作，但也意味着带来更多的财富。所有无视这种根本原则的后果就是一系列的罢工，随之而来的是试图作这种变革的人们的垮台，整个企业的处境会比采取改革措施前差得多。

这个实例是作为一堂实物教学课而列举的，说明那种作法是没有好结果的。它企图运用新管理模式而又摒弃它的实质，试图缩短一个必要的较长的操作过程而完全无视过去经验，应该强调的是，从事这种工作的人们都是能干的和热诚的，失败并不是由于他们缺乏能力，而在于他们干的是一种不可能办到的事。这些人不应再犯同样的错误，但愿他们的经验能成为对别人的一种警告。

不管怎样，对这个问题这样说还是恰当的。在我们从事引介科学管理工作的三十年间，即使处在从老的到新的更替的危急时刻，凡按照科学管理的原则办事的，都不曾发生过一次罢工。在这种工作上已有过经验教训的人们如果改用恰当的方法，也就不会发生罢工或其他危险的麻烦了。

作者坚持认为，在一家工种复杂的企业中，除非公司的董事们充分理解并相信科学管理的基本原则，除非他们重视采取这种变革所涉及的一切，特别是所需的时间，除非他们迫切需要科学管理，否则，它的经理们就不该去做从老式到新式的变革。

无疑，一些对工人关心的人会抱怨，因为在科学管理下，尽管工人做的工作是以前的两倍，但他得到的工资却不是原来的两倍。然而对公司股利更感兴趣的人则会抱怨说，工人得到的工资可比以前的要高多了。

从事情表面看起来似乎的确是非常不公平的，比如说一个能干的生铁手动工搬运的生铁比以前能力不足的人要多出3.6倍，其工资却只增加了60%。

然而，没有考虑到所有的要素就下最终判断，也是不公平的。乍一看，我们只注意到了其中的两方，工人和他们的雇主。我们忽视了第三方，全体人民——消费者，那些购买前两方的产品并支付给工人工资和雇主利润的人。

因此，人民的权利要高于雇主或工人的权利，而这个第三方也应从任何获利中分享到合理的利益。事实上，看看工业历史就能发现，最终全体人民从产业进步中得到了更多的好处。比如说过去几百年中，引进机器而代替手工劳动，是产量趋向增加的最重要的要素，并因此极大地促进了整个文明世界的繁荣。毫无疑问的是，从这些改变中得到最大好处的是全体人民——即所有消费者。

14．科学管理根除了“磨洋工”弊病

经过很短的时间，尤其是有专利设备的情况下，引进机械的人的股利得到了很大提升，而且大部分情况下（不幸的是并非所有），雇员也得到了高工资、短工时以及更好的工作条件。但是，最终最主要的收获则到了全体人民手中。

正如引进机械所产生的影响一样，科学管理的出现起了很大的作用。

回到生铁搬运工的那个例子。我们必须假定，产量增加带来的大部分收获将以生铁变得更便宜的方式流向人民手中。在决定怎么平衡工人和雇主的分配之前，就搬运生铁的工人应该得到多少合理公平的补偿，以及公司应留下多少作为利润的问题，我们需要从各方面来看待整个问题。

其一，如之前所说的，生铁搬运工并不是什么难以寻找的优秀人才，他只是一个多少有些像头牛一样的人，智力低下而身体强壮。

其二，做这个工作的工人与其他的普通工人完成适当的一天工作的疲劳程度是一样的。（如果他在工作中过度劳累，那么分配给他的任务显然就不正确，而且与科学管理的目的相去甚远。）

其三，依照科学的方法和别人的教导来竭力完成一天的工作任务，而不是依靠工人的积极主动来完成一天最大可能的工作。

其四，当所有人都尽最大能力工作时，同一总体水平的工人（综合考虑其多方面的能力）应当得到同样的工资。（比如，同样完成一整天的工作，但他的工资比其他同水平的人高3.6倍，那对其他人来说是非常不公平的。）

最后，如前面解释过的，他的工资得到60%的涨幅，并不是由领班或主管随意决定的，而是长时期、系统、客观实验的结果，并公平地决定多少工资才是最符合工人真正最佳利益的。

因此，生铁搬运工60%的工资涨幅应该得到人们的祝贺而不是怜悯。

然而，毕竟事实在大部分情况下比意见或理论更有说服力，所以以下事实是非常有意义的：过去三十年中，在科学管理下的工人对于工资的涨幅感到非常满意，而雇主们对于利润的增加也同样感到非常的高兴。

笔者认为，在确凿的事实面前，越来越多的第三方（即全体人民）将坚信他们会得到公平待遇。这就成为管理者和工人发挥最大效率的源动力。从而，再也不能容忍这样的管理者：只会把眼睛盯着企业利润；拒绝承担其全部工作职责；只会驱使工人努力工作，并试图付低工资却让工人干更繁重的劳动。而且，再也不能容忍就工作所提出的苛求：工资要增加、工时要越短，而工作效率越来越低了。

笔者相信即将采取的措施将带来科学管理。首先，提高雇主和雇员的工作效率；其次，公平合理地划分双方共同努力得来的利润，唯一的目的是通过对这个问题所有要素的公正的科学调查，来达到对所有三方的公平。一度双方都反对这种改进。工人们不愿有人干涉他们单凭经验的老式做法，而管理层则不愿承担新的责任；不过最终公众思想的进步将迫使雇主和雇员形成一套新的规则。

可以说，上述一切并没有什么过去人们所未知的新鲜事，这是真实的。科学管理并不必然包含什么大发明，也不是发现了什么新鲜或惊人的事。不过，科学管理确实包含了一个过去没有的许多要素的结合，即把老的知识收集起来，加以分析、组合并归类成规律和条例，构成一种科学；并使得工人们和管理层双方对彼此的职责、责任、态度有了彻底的改变。而且，两者之间的职责有了新的分工，其亲密、友善协作的程度，在老的管理原则下是不可能有的。这一切，如果没有逐步形成的新管理机制的帮助，在许多情况下还是不可能实现的。

这些所有要素的组合——而不是某单个要素——构成了科学管理，它可以概括如下：

科学，而非单凭经验的方法。

协调，而非不和谐。

合作，而非个人主义。

最高的产量，取代有限的产量。

发挥每个人最高的效率，实现财富最大化。

作者重申：“一个人独自、不需他人帮助就能达到很高的个人成就的时代正在飞速逝去。而通力合作的时代则正在到来：每个人完成最适合他能力的工作，每个人都保留他的个性并在自己特定的位置上享有最大的权威，同时不失去他个人的独创性与主动性，并与其他许多工人和谐合作。”

上述有关在新管理模式下实现增产的例证，代表了可能获得的收益。这些例子并不是什么特殊或例外的情况，而是从可列举出来的上千个类似的实例中挑选出来的。

现在就让我们来考察一下在采纳这些原则后所能得到的好处。

总起来说，它将为全世界带来最高的收益。

现今这一代比起过去若干年代所取得的最大物质利益要大得多：这一代一般人付出一定的努力，就可能比过去的一般人生产出多二三倍甚至四倍的对人有价值的东西来。当然，由于人的努力而形成的生产能力的增长，除了个人的技巧以外，还有其他许多原因，诸如蒸汽和电气的发现与使用，机器的使用，大大小小的发明，以及科学和教育的进步。然而，不论这种生产能力增长的原因来自何处，举国上下之所以能实现更大的富裕，还得归功于个人生产能力的增长。

有些人担心每个人劳动生产率的大幅提高将导致其他人失业。这些人应该认识到，正是劳动生产率上的差异导致了文明与不开化、富裕与贫穷之间的区别。在这个地区，一般人的劳动生产率可能是另一个地区的五六倍。事实是，造成英国（也许是世界上最朝气蓬勃的国家）大量失业的主要原因是，比起别的国家来，英国人的劳动生产率受到了更多的、有意的限制。他们的头脑被错误的观念占领，努力工作是与他们的最佳利益相违背的。

科学管理的普遍实行，会使从事工业工作的人的生产能力和劳动生产率很容易地得到成倍的提高。想想看，这对整个国家意味着什么？想想看，工作时间缩得更短，而生活必需品和奢侈品的增产有了实现的可能，教育、文化和娱乐生活的增长也有了良好的机会等，所有这些都意味着什么？当整个世界由于这种增长而获益时，雇主和工人们最关心的却是他们本身以及周围与他们直接相关的人们所能得到的特殊利益。对采取科学管理的雇主们和工人们（尤指是那些率先采用的）来说就意味着他们之间一切的纷争和不和的因素将得到排除。什么是一个合理的工作日已不再是要谈判和讨价还价的课题，而将是一个科学调查的问题。“磨洋工”没有了，因为“磨洋工”的目的已不复存在。随同这种管理模式而来的工资的大量增长，基本排除产生纷争的一个缘由——工资问题。但远远超越于其他一切因素的是，劳资双方之间周密、亲切的合作和经常的个人接触将趋向于减少摩擦和不满——双方利益相同，整天为完成同一目标而并肩合作，就不容易发生争吵。

由于成本下降、产量成倍的增长，将使得采用这种管理模式的公司（尤其那些率先采用的）比起以前来竞争力更强。这将使他们的市场得到很大的扩展，以至于即使在淡季，工人们也有活干，而他们也总是能得到巨额的利润。

这意味着富裕增长、贫穷减少——不仅是这些工人，还有他们周围的整个社区。

实现产量大增长的要素之一是，每个工人都经过系统培训，能发挥他最高的效率，而且经过教导之后能做出比在老的管理模式下更高级的工作；同时，他对他的雇主和整个工作环境的态度变得友善，而在以前，他相当一部分时间都是在批评、警惕，有时甚至是公开的斗争。对所有在这个体制下工作的人来说，这个收获无疑是在这整个问题中最重要的一个要素。

上述目标的实现，比起解决大多数使英美两国人民不安的问题来，不是显得重要得多吗？对于熟悉这些事实的人们来说，努力使整个社会认识到这个重要性，不正是我们的职责吗？

泰勒小传

弗雷德里克·温斯洛·泰勒(Frederick Winslow Taylor,1856—1915)一个在死后被尊称为“科学管理之父”的人；一个影响了流水线生产方式产生的人；一个被社会主义伟大导师列宁推崇备至的人；一个影响了人类工业化进程的人。一个由于视力被迫辍学的人；一个被工人称为野兽般残忍的人；一个与工会水火不容，被迫在国会上作证的人；一个被现代管理学者不断批判的人。

这个人就是泰勒，管理思想发展史中最重要，同时也是最富有争议的人。

1856年3月20日，他出生于美国费城杰曼顿一个富裕的律师之家。祖父塞缪尔·泰勒，于1677年在新泽西州的伯灵顿定居。父亲是普林斯顿大学毕业的律师，积下了家产。母亲埃米莉·安妮特·泰勒，是一个狂热的死刑废除提倡者，曾与莫特共事。泰勒的早期教育是由他母亲来启蒙的，接下来，他先后在法国和德国学习两年，并在欧洲旅行了18个月。

1872年，入读新罕布什尔州的埃克塞特市菲利普斯·埃克塞特专科学校，潜心学习。

1874年，考入哈佛大学法律系，不久，因眼疾辍学。

1875年，进入费城恩特普里斯水压工厂当模具工和机工学徒。

1878年，转入费城米德维尔钢铁公司(Midvale steel Works)工作。从机械工人做起，历任车间管理员、小组长、工长、技师等职，他在该厂一直干到1890年。

1881年，泰勒开始在米德维尔钢铁厂进行劳动时间和工作方法的研究，为以后创建科学管理奠定了基础。同年，在米德瓦尔开始进行著名的“金属切削试验”，经过两年初步试验之后，给工人制定了一套工作量标准，米德瓦尔的试验是工时研究的开端。

1883年，通过业余学习，获得新泽西州霍肯博的史蒂文斯技术学院机械工程学位。

1884年，担任米德维尔钢铁公司的总工程师。同年5月3日，与费城的路易斯·M·斯普纳结婚。

1886年，加入美国机械工程师协会(The American Society of Mechanical Engineers)。

1890年，离开米德维尔，到费城一家造纸业投资公司任总经理。

1893年，辞去投资公司职务，独立从事工厂管理咨询工作。此后，他在多家公司进行科学管理的实验。在斯蒂尔公司，泰勒创立成本会计法。在西蒙德滚轧机公司，泰勒改革了滚珠轴承的检验程序。

1895年，在美国机械工程师协会发表《计件工资制》。

1898年，在伯利恒钢铁公司大股东沃顿(Joseph Wharton)的鼓动下，以顾问身份进入伯利恒钢铁公司(Bethlehem Steel Company)，此后在伯利恒进行了著名的“搬运生铁块试验”和“铁锹试验”，搬运生铁块试验，是在这家公司的五座高炉的产品搬运班组大约75名工人中进行的。这一研究改进了操作方法，训练了工人，结果使生铁块的搬运量提高了3倍。铁锹试验是系统地研究铲上负载后，研究各种材料能够达到标准负载的锹的形状、规格，以及各种原料装锹的最好方法的问题。此外泰勒还对每一套动作的精确时间做了研究，从而得出了一个“一流工人”每天应该完成的工作量。这一研究的结果是非常杰出的，堆料场的劳动力从400～600人减少为140人，平均每人每天的操作量从16吨提高到59吨，每个工人的日工资从1.15美元提高到1.88美元。

1898年，与怀特（Munsell Wright）共同发明高速钢。

1901年，离开伯利恒钢铁公司，不再同任何工业公司来往，只从事不收取报酬的管理咨询、写作和演讲工作，推广科学管理。

1903年，正式出版《工场管理》。同年，在美国机械工程师协会的年会上宣讲《商店管理》(Shop Management)。

1906年，正式出版《论金属切削技术》。同年，当选美国机械工程师协会主席，获得宾夕法尼亚大学名誉科学博士学位。

1909年，发表《制造业者为什么不喜欢大学生》。在伊利诺斯大学演讲《论成功之道》。这年冬天，泰勒受哈佛大学企业管理研究生院院长盖伊(Edwin F. Gay)的邀请，到哈佛讲授科学管理，一直持续到他去世。

1910年，洲际贸易委员会举行东部铁路公司运费听证会，科学管理开始广为传播。

1911年，发表《效率的福音》，同年正式出版《科学管理原理》。在陆军军械部部长克罗泽的支持下，泰勒在马萨诸塞的沃特顿兵工厂和伊利诺斯的罗克艾兰兵工厂进行科学管理实验。具体实施科学管理的梅里克在沃特顿兵工厂解雇拒绝配合的工会会员引起罢工，国会众议院组成特别委员会展开调查。

1911年10月至1912年2月，美国国会举行关于泰勒制和其他工场管理制度的听证会，泰勒出庭作证。

1912年，正式出版《在美国国会听证会上的证词》。

1915年3月21日因患肺炎在费城逝世，终年59岁。墓碑位于一座能俯视费城钢铁厂烟囱的小山上，墓碑上刻着：“科学管理之父——弗雷德里克·温斯洛·泰勒”。

INTRODUCTION

President Roosevelt in his address to the Governors at the White House, prophetically remarked that “The conservation of our national resources is only preliminary to the larger question of national efficiency.”

The whole country at once recognized the importance of conserving our material resources and a large movement has been started which will be effective in accomplishing this object. As yet, however, we have but vaguely appreciated the importance of “the larger question of increasing our national efficiency.”

We can see our forests vanishing, our water-powers going to waste, our soil being carried by floods into the sea; and the end of our coal and our iron is in sight. But our larger wastes of human effort, which go on every day through such of our acts as are blundering, ildirected or inefficient, and which Mr. Roosevelt refers to as a lack of“national efficiency,”are less visible, less tangible, and are but vaguely appreciated.

We can see and feel the waste of material things. Awkward, inefficient, or ill-directed movements of men, however, leave nothing visible or tangible behind them. Their appreciation calls for an act of memory, an effort of the imagination. And for this reason, even though our daily loss from this source is greater than from our waste of material things, the one has stirred us deeply, while the other has moved us but little. As yet there has been no public agitation for “greater national efficiency,” no meetings have been called to consider how this is to be brought about. And still there are signs that the need for greater efficiency is widely felt.

The search for better, for more competent men, from the presidents of our great companies down to our household servants, was never more vigorous than it is now. And more than ever before is the demand for competent men in excess of the supply.

What we are all looking for, however, is the readymade, competent man; the man whom some one else has trained. It is only when we fully realize that our duty, as well as our opportunity, lies in systematically cooperating to train and to make this competent man, instead of in hunting for a man whom some one else has trained, that we shall be on the road to national efficiency.

In the past the prevailing idea has been well expressed in the saying that “Captains of industry are born, not made”; and the theory has been that if one could get the right man, methods could be safely left to him. In the future it will be appreciated that our leaders must be trained right as well as born right, and that no great man can (with the old system of personal management) hope to compete with a number of ordinary men who have been properly organized so as efficiently to cooperate.

In the past the man has been first; in the future the system must be first. This in no sense, however, implies that great men are not needed. On the contrary, the first object of any good system must be that of developing first-class men; and under systematic management the best man rises to the top more certainly and more rapidly than ever before. This paper has been written:

First. To point out, through a series of simple illustrations, the great loss which the whole country is suffering through inefficiency in almost all of our daily acts.

Second. To try to convince the reader that the remedy for this inefficiency lies in systematic management, rather than in searching for some unusual or extraordinary man.

Third. To prove that the best management is a true science, resting upon clearly defined laws, rules, and principles, as a foundation. And further to show that the fundamental principles of scientific management are applicable to all kinds of human activities, from our simplest individual acts to the work of our great corporations, which call for the most elaborate cooperation. And, briefly, through a series of illustrations, to convince the reader that whenever these principles are correctly applied, results must follow which are truly astounding.

This paper was originally prepared for presentation to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. The illustrations chosen are such as, it is believed, will especially appeal to engineers and to managers of industrial and manufacturing establishments, and also quite as much to all of the men who are working in these establishments. It is hoped, however, that it will be clear to other readers that the same principles can be applied with equal force to all social activities: to the management of our homes; the management of our farms; the management of the business of our tradesmen, large and small; of our churches, our philanthropic institutions our universities, and our governmental departments.

CHAPTER I

Fundamentals of Scientific Management

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 “maximum 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 employee 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, ge nerally speaking, the highest grade of work for which his natural abilities 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 antagonistic. 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 prosperity 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 each 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 policy 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 capital 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 highest 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 skilful that you and he together 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 permanent 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 for 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 workmen 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 percent to 100 percent 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 the 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 efficiency) 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 country 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 does 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 “quitter,” and treated with contempt by those who are around him.

When the same 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 well 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 had proved himself a “quitter”in sport. Under working, that is, deliberately working slowly so as to avoid doing a full day's work, “soldiering,” as it is called in this country,“hanging it out,” as it is called in England, “ca canae,”as it is called in Scotland, 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 England and America are now afflicted.

It will be shown later in this paper that doing away with slow working and “soldiering” in all its forms and so arranging the relations between employer and employs 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 “soldiering,” 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 industrial, establishment in the nation.

The elimination of “soldiering” 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 terms 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 now 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 result 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 cases 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.

This paper will attempt to show the enormous gains which would result from the substitution by our workmen of scientific for rule-of-thumb methods.

To explain a little more fully these three causes:

First. The great majority of workmen still believe that if they were to work at their best speed they would be doing a great injustice to the whole trade by throwing a lot of men out of work, and yet the history of the development of each trade shows that each improvement, whether it be the invention of a new machine or the introduction of a better method, which results in increasing the productive capacity of the men in the trade and cheapening the costs, instead of throwing men out of work make in the end work for more men.

The cheapening of any article in common use almost immediately results in a largely increased demand for that article. Take the case of shoes, for instance. The introduction of machinery for doing every element of the work which was formerly done by hand has resulted in making shoes at a fraction of their former labor cost, and in selling them so cheap that now almost every man, woman, and child in the working-classes buys one or two pairs of shoes per year, and wears shoes all the time, whereas formerly each workman bought perhaps one pair of shoes every five years, and went barefoot most of the time, wearing shoes only as a luxury or as a matter of the sternest necessity. In spite of the enormously increased output of shoes per workman, which has come with shoe machinery, the demand for shoes has so increased that there are relatively more men working in the shoe industry now than ever before.

The workmen in almost every trade have before them an object lesson of this kind, and yet, because they are ignorant of the history of their own trade even, they still firmly believe, as their fathers did before them, that it is against their best interests for each man to turn out each day as much work as possible.

Under this fallacious idea a large proportion of the workmen of both countries each day deliberately work slowly so as to curtail the output. Almost every labor union has made, or is contemplating making rules which have for their object——curtailing the output of their members, and those men who have the greatest influence with the working-people, the labor leaders as well as many people with philanthropic feelings who are helping them, are daily spreading this fallacy and at the same time telling them that they are overworked.

A great deal has been and is being constantly said about “sweat-shop” work and conditions. The writer has great sympathy with those who are overworked, but on the whole a greater sympathy for those who are under paid. For ever individual, however, who is overworked, there are a hundred who intentionally under work—— greatly under work——every day of their lives, and who for this reason deliberately aid in establishing those conditions which in the end inevitably result in low wages. And yet hardly a single voice is being raised in an endeavor to correct this evil.

As engineers and managers, we are more intimately acquainted with these facts than any other class in the community, and are therefore best fitted to lead in a movement to combat this fallacious idea by educating not only the workmen but the whole of the country as to the true facts. And yet we are practically doing nothing in this direction, and are leaving this field entirely in the hands of the labor agitators (many of whom are misinformed and misguided), and of sentimentalists who are ignorant as to actual working conditions.

Second. As to the second cause for soldiering——the relations which exist between employers and employees under almost all of the systems of management which are in common use——t is impossible in a few words to make it clear to one not familiar with this problem why it is that the ignorance of employers as to the proper time in which work of various kinds should be done makes it for the interest of the workman to “soldier.”

The writer therefore quotes herewith from a paper read before The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, in June, 1903, entitled “Shop Management,” which it is hoped will explain fully this cause for soldiering:

“This loafing or soldiering proceeds from two causes. First, from the natural instinct and tendency of men to take it easy, which may be called natural soldiering. Second, from more intricate second thought and reasoning caused by their relations with other men, which may be called systematic soldiering.”

“There is no question that the tendency of the average man (in all walks of life) is toward working at a slow, easy gait, and that it is only after a good deal of thought and observation on his part or as a result of example, conscience, or external pressure that he takes a more rapid pace.”

“There are, of course, men of unusual energy, vitality, and ambition who naturally choose the fastest gait, who set up their own standards, and who work hard, even though it may be against their best interests. But these few uncommon men only serve by forming a contrast to emphasize the tendency of the average.”

“This common tendency to‘take it easy’is greatly increased by bringing a number of men together on similar work and at a uniform standard rate of pay by the day.”

“Under this plan the better men gradually but surely slow down their gait to that of the poorest and least efficient. When a naturally energetic man works for a few days beside a lazy one, the logic of the situation is unanswerable.”

“Why should I work hard when that lazy fellow gets the same pay that I do and does only half as much work?”

“A careful time study of men working under these conditions will disclose facts which are ludicrous as well as pitiable.”

“To illustrate: The writer has timed a naturally energetic workman who, while going and coming from work, would walk at a speed of from three to four miles per hour, and not infrequently trot home after a day's work. On arriving at his work he would immediately slow down to a speed of about one mile an hour. When, for example, wheeling a loaded wheelbarrow, he would go at a good fast pace even up hill in order to be as short a time as possible under load, and immediately on the return walk slow down to a mile an hour, improving every opportunity for delay short of actually sitting down. In order to be sure not to do more than his lazy neighbor, he would actually tire himself in his effort to go slow.”

“These men were working under a foreman of good reputation and highly thought of by his employer, who, when his attention was called to this state of things, answered:‘Well, I can keep them from sitting down, but the devil can't make them get a move on while they are at work.’”

“The natural laziness of men is serious, but by far the greatest evil from which both workmen and employers are suffering is the systematic soldiering which is almost universal under all of the ordinary schemes of management and which results from a careful study on the part of the workmen of what will promote their best interests.”

“The writer was much interested recently in hearing one small but experienced golf caddy boy of twelve explaining to a green caddy, who had shown special energy and interest, the necessity of going slow and lagging behind his man when he came up to the ball, showing him that since they were paid by the hour, the faster they went the less money they got, and finally telling him that if he went too fast the other boys would give him a licking.”

“This represents a type of systematic soldiering which is not, however, very serious, since it is done with the knowledge of the employer, who can quite easily break it up if he wishes.”

“The greater part of the systematic soldiering, however, is done by the men with the deliberate object of keeping their employers ignorant of how fast work can be done.”

“So universal is soldiering for this purpose that hardly a competent workman can be found in a large establishment, whether he works by the day or on piece work, contract work, or under any of the ordinary systems, who does not devote a considerable part of his time to studying just how slow he can work and still convince his employer that he is going at a good pace.”

“The causes for this are, briefly, that practically all employers determine upon a maximum sum which they feel it is right for each of their classes of employees to earn per day, whether their men work by the day or piece.”

“Each workman soon finds out about what this figure is for his particular case, and he also realizes that when his employer is convinced that a man is capable of doing more work than he has done, he will find sooner or later some way of compelling him to do it with little or no increase of pay.”

“Employers derive their knowledge of how much of a given class of work can be done in a day from either their own experience, which has frequently grown hazy with age, from casual and unsystematic observation of their men, or at best from records which are kept, showing the quickest time in which each job has been done. In many cases the employer will feel almost certain that a given job can be done faster than it has been, but he rarely cares to take the drastic measures necessary to force men to do it in the quickest time, unless he has an actual record proving conclusively how fast the work can be done.”

“It evidently becomes for each man's interest, then, to see that no job is done faster than it has been in the past. The younger and less experienced men are taught this by their elders, and all possible persuasion and social pressure is brought to bear upon the greedy and selfish men to keep them from making new records which result in temporarily increasing their wages, while all those who come after them are made to work harder for the same old pay.”

“Under the best day work of the ordinary type, when accurate records are kept of the amount of work done by each man and of his efficiency, and when each man's wages are raised as he improves, and those who fail to rise to a certain standard are discharged and a fresh supply of carefully selected men are given work in their places, both the natural loafing and systematic soldiering can be largely broken up. This can only be done, however, when the men are thoroughly convinced that there is no intention of establishing piece work even in the remote future, and it is next to impossible to make men believe this when the work is of such a nature that they believe piece work to be practicable. In most cases their fear of making a record which will be used as a basis for piece work will cause them to soldier as much as they dare.”

“It is, however, under piece work that the art of systematic soldiering is thoroughly developed; after a workman has had the price per piece of the work he is doing lowered two or three times as a result of his having worked harder and increased his output, he is likely entirely to lose sight of his employer's side of the case and become imbued with a grim determination to have no more cuts if soldiering can prevent it. Unfortunately for the character of the workman, soldiering involves a deliberate attempt to mislead and deceive his employer, and thus upright and straightforward workmen are compelled to become more or less hypocritical. The employer is soon looked upon as an antagonist, if not an enemy, and the mutual confidence which should exist between a leader and his men, the enthusiasm, the feeling that they are all working for the same end and will share in the results is entirely lacking.”

“The feeling of antagonism under the ordinary piece-work system becomes in many cases so marked on the part of the men that any proposition made by their employers, however reasonable, is looked upon with suspicion, and soldiering becomes such a fixed habit that men will frequently take pains to restrict the product of machines which they are running when even a large increase in output would involve no more work on their part.”

Third. As to the third cause for slow work, considerable space will later in this paper be devoted to illustrating the great gain, both to employers and employees, which results from the substitution of scientific for rule-of-thumb methods in even the smallest details of the work of every trade. The enormous saving of time and therefore increase in the output which it is possible to effect through eliminating unnecessary motions and substituting fast for slow and inefficient motions for the men working in any of our trades can be fully realized only after one has personally seen the improvement which results from a thorough motion and time study, made by a competent man.

To explain briefly: owing to the fact that the workmen in all of our trades have been taught the details of their work by observation of those immediately around them, there are many different ways in common use for doing the same thing, perhaps forty, fifty, or a hundred ways of doing each act in each trade, and for the same reason there is a great variety in the implements used for each class of work. Now, among the various methods and implements used in each element of each trade there is always one method and one implement which is quicker and better than any of the rest.

And this one best method and best implement can only be discovered or developed through a scientific study and analysis of all of the methods and implements in use, together with accurate, minute, motion and time study. This involves the gradual substitution of science for rule of thumb throughout the mechanic arts.

This paper will show that the underlying philosophy of all of the old systems of management in common use makes it imperative that each workman shall be left with the final responsibility for doing his job practically as he thinks best, with comparatively little help and advice from the management. And it will also show that because of this isolation of workmen, it is in most cases impossible for the men working under these systems to do their work in accordance with the rules and laws of a science or art, even where one exists.

The writer asserts as a general principle (and he proposes to give illustrations tending to prove the fact later in this paper) that in almost all of the mechanic arts the science which underlies each act of each workman is so great and amounts to so much that the workman who is best suited to actually doing the work is incapable of fully understanding this science, without the guidance and help of those who are working with him or over him, either through lack of education or through insufficient mental capacity. In order that the work may be done in accordance with scientific laws, it is necessary that there shall be a far more equal division of the responsibility between the management and the workmen than exists under any of the ordinary types of management. Those in the management whose duty is to develop this science should also guide and help the workman in working under it, and should assume a much larger share of the responsibility for results than under usual conditions is assumed by the management.

The body of this paper will make it clear that, to work according to scientific laws, the management must take over and perform much of the work which is now left to the men; almost every act of the workman should be preceded by one or more preparatory acts of the management which enable him to do his work better and quicker than he otherwise could. And each man should daily be taught by and receive the most friendly help from those who are over him, instead of being, at the one extreme, driven or coerced by his bosses, and at the other left to his own unaided devices.

This close, intimate, personal cooperation between the management and the men is of the essence of modern scientific or task management.

It will be shown by a series of practical illustrations that, through this friendly cooperation, namely, through sharing equally in every day's burden, all of the great obstacles (above described) to obtaining the maximum output for each man and each machine in the establishment are swept away. The 30 percent to 100 percent increase in wages which the workmen are able to earn beyond what they receive under the old type of management, coupled with the daily intimate shoulder to shoulder contact with the management, entirely removes all cause for soldiering. And in a few years, under this system, the workmen have before them the object lesson of seeing that a great increase in the output per man results in giving employment to more men, instead of throwing men out of work, thus completely eradicating the fallacy that a larger output for each man will throw other men out of work.

It is the writer's judgment, then, that while much can be done and should be done by writing and talking toward educating not only workmen, but all classes in the community, as to the importance of obtaining the maximum output of each man and each machine, it is only through the adoption of modern scientific management that this great problem can be finally solved. Probably most of the readers of this paper will say that all of this is mere theory. On the contrary, the theory, or philosophy, of scientific management is just beginning to be understood, whereas the management itself has been a gradual evolution, extending over a period of nearly thirty years. And during this time the employees of one company after another, including a large range and diversity of industries, have gradually changed from the ordinary to the scientific type of management. At least 50, 000 workmen in the United States are now employed under this system; and they are receiving from 30 percent to 100 percent higher wages daily than are paid to men of similar caliber with whom they are surrounded, while the companies employing them are more prosperous than ever before. In these companies the output, per man and per machine, has on an average been doubled. During all these years there has never been a single strike among the men working under this system. In place of the suspicious watchfulness and the more or less open warfare which characterizes the ordinary types of management, there is universally friendly cooperation between the management and the men.

Several papers have been written, describing the expedients which have been adopted and the details which have been deve loped under scientific management and the steps to be taken in changing from the ordinary to the scientific type. But unfortunately most of the readers of these papers have mistaken the mechanism for the true essence. Scientific management fundamentally consists of certain broad general principles, a certain philosophy, which can be applied in many ways, and a description of what any one man or men may believe to be the best mechanism for applying these gene ral principles should in no way be confused with the principles themselves.

It is not here claimed that any single panacea exists 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 unhappiness 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 any one 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 happier, and more free from discord and dissension. And also, that the periods will be fewer, short er 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 principles 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.

CHAPTER II

The Principles of Scientific Management

The writer has found that there are three questions uppermost in the minds of men when they become interested in scientific management.

First. Where do the principles of scientific management differ essentially from those of ordinary management?

Second. Why are better results attained under scientific management than under the other types?

Third. Is not the most important problem that of getting the right man at the head of the company? And if you have the right man cannot the choice of the type of management be safely left to him?

One of the principal objects of the following pages will be to give a satisfactory answer to these questions. Before starting to illustrate the principles of scientific management, or“task management” as it is briefly called, it seems desirable to outline what the writer believes will be recognized as the best type of management which is in common use. This is done so that the great difference between the best of the ordinary management and scientific management may be fully appreciated.

In an industrial establishment which employs say from 500 to 1, 000 workmen, there will be found in many cases at least twenty to thirty different trades. The workmen in each of these trades have had their knowledge handed down to them by word of mouth, through the many years in which their trade has been developed from the primitive condition, in which our far-distant ancestors each one practiced the rudiments of many different trades, to the present state of great and growing subdivision of labor, in which each man specializes upon some comparatively small class of work.

The ingenuity of each generation has developed quicker and better methods for doing every element of the work in every trade. Thus the methods which are now in use may in a broad sense be said to be an evolution representing the survival of the fittest and best of the ideas which have been developed since the starting of each trade. However, while this is true in a broad sense, only those who are intimately acquainted with each of these trades are fully aware of the fact that in hardly any element of any trade is there uniformity in the methods which are used. Instead of having only one way which is generally accepted as a standard, there are in daily use, say, fifty or a hundred different ways of doing each element of the work. And a little thought will make it clear that this must inevitably be the case, since our methods have been handed down from man to man by word of mouth, or have, in most cases, been almost unconsciously learned through personal observation. Practically in no instances have they been codified or systematically analyzed or described. The ingenuity and experience of each generation of each decade, even, have without doubt handed over better methods to the next. This mass of rule-of-thumb or traditional knowledge may be said to be the principal asset or possession of every tradesman. Now, in the best of the ordinary types of management, the managers recognize frankly the fact that the 500 or 1,000 workmen, included in the twenty to thirty trades, who are under them, possess this mass of traditional knowledge, a large part of which is not in the possession of the management. The management, of course, includes foremen and superintendents, who themselves have been in most cases first-class workers at their trades. And yet these foremen and superintendents know, better than any one else, that their own knowledge and personal skill falls far short of the combined knowledge and dexterity of all the workmen under them. The most experienced managers therefore frankly place before their workmen the problem of doing the work in the best and most economical way. They recognize the task before them as that of inducing each workman to use his best endeavors, his hardest work, all his traditional knowledge, his skill, his ingenuity, and his goodwill in a word, his“initiative,”so as to yield the largest possible return to his employer. The problem before the management, then, may be briefly said to be that of obtaining the best initiative of every workman. And the writer uses the word“initiative”in its broadest sense, to cover all of the good qualities sought for from the men.

On the other hand, no intelligent manager would hope to obtain in any full measure the initiative of his workmen unless he felt that he was giving them something more than they usually receive from their employers. Only those among the readers of this paper who have been managers or who have worked themselves at a trade realize how far the average workman falls short of giving his employer his full initiative. It is well within the mark to state that in nineteen out of twenty industrial establishments the workmen believe it to be directly against their interests to give their employers their best initiative, and that instead of working hard to do the largest possible amount of work and the best quality of work for their employers, they deliberately work as slowly as they dare while they at the same time try to make those over them believe that they are working fast[1]. The writer repeats, therefore, that in order to have any hope of obtaining the initiative of his workmen the manager must give some special incentive to his men beyond that which is given to the average of the trade. This incentive can be given in several different ways, as, for example, the hope of rapid promotion or advancement; higher wages, either in the form of generous piece-work prices or of a premium or bonus of some kind for good and rapid work; shorter hours of labor; better surroundings and working conditions than are ordinarily given, etc., and, above all, this special incentive should be accompanied by that personal consideration for, and friendly contact with, his workmen which comes only from a genuine and kindly interest in the welfare of those under him. It is only by giving a special inducement or“incentive”of this kind that the employer can hope even approximately to get the“initiative”of his workmen. Under the ordinary type of management the necessity for offering the workman a special inducement has come to be so generally recognized that a large proportion of those most interested in the subject look upon the adoption of some one of the modern schemes for paying men (such as piece work, the premium plan, or the bonus plan, for instance) as practically the whole system of management. Under scientific management, however, the particular pay system which is adopted is merely one of the subordinate elements.

Broadly speaking, then, the best type of management in ordinary use may be defined as management in which the workmen give their best initiative and in return receive some special incentive from their employers. This type of management will be referred to as the management of“initiative and incentive”in contradistinction to scientific management, or task management, with which it is to be compared.

The writer hopes that the management of“initiative and incentive” will be recognized as representing the best type in ordinary use, and in fact he believes that it will be hard to persuade the ave rage manager that anything better exists in the whole field than this type. The task which the writer has before him, then, is the difficult one of trying to prove in a thoroughly convincing way that there is another type of management which is not only better but overwhelmingly better than the management of“initiative and incentive. ”

The universal prejudice in favor of the management of“initiative and incentive”is so strong that no mere theoretical advantages which can be pointed out will be likely to convince the average manager that any other system is better. It will be upon a series of practical illustrations of the actual working of the two systems that the writer will depend in his efforts to prove that scientific management is so greatly superior to other types. Certain elementary principles, a certain philosophy, will however be recognized as the essence of that which is being illustrated in all of the practical examples which will be given. And the broad principles in which the scientific system differs from the ordinary or“rule-of-thumb”system are so simple in their nature that it seems desirable to describe them before starting with the illustrations.

Under the old type of management success depends almost entirely upon getting the“initiative”of the workmen, and it is indeed a rare case in which this initiative is really attained. Under scientific management the“initiative”of the workmen (that is, their hard work, their good-will, and their ingenuity) is obtained with absolute uniformity and to a greater extent than is possible under the old system; and in addition to this improvement on the part of the men, the managers assume new burdens, new duties, and responsibilities never dreamed of in the past. The managers assume, for instance, the burden of gathering together all of the traditional knowledge which in the past has been possessed by the workmen and then of classifying, tabulating, and reducing this knowledge to rules, laws, and formulae which are immensely helpful to the workmen in doing their daily work. In addition to developing a science in this way, the management take on three other types of duties which involve new and heavy burdens for themselves.

These new duties are grouped under four heads:

First. They develop a science for each element of a man's work, which replaces the old rule rule of thumb method.

Second. They scientifically select and then train, teach, and develop the workman, whereas in the past he chose his own work and trained himself as best he could.

Third. They heartily cooperate with the men so as to insure all of the work being done in accordance with the principles of the science which has been developed.

Fourth. There is an almost equal division of the work and the responsibility between the management and the workmen. The management take over all work for which they are better fitted than the workmen, while in the past almost all of the work and the greater part of the responsibility were thrown upon the men.

It is this combination of the initiative of the workmen, coupled with the new types of work done by the management, that makes scientific management so much more efficient than the old plan.

Three of these elements exist in many cases, under the mana gement of“initiative and incentive,”in a small and rudimentary way, but they are, under this management, of minor importance, whereas under scientific management they form the very essence of the whole system.

The fourth of these elements,“an almost equal division of the responsibility between the management and the workmen,”requires further explanation. The philosophy of the management of initiative and incentive makes it necessary for each workman to bear almost the entire responsibility for the general plan as well as for each detail of his work, and in many cases for his implements as well. In addition to this he must do all of the actual physical labor. The development of a science, on the other hand, involves the establishment of many rules, laws, and formulae which replace the judgment of the individual workman and which can be effectively used only after having been systematically recorded, indexed, etc. The practical use of scientific data also calls for a room in which to keep the books, records[2], etc., and a desk for the planner to work at.

Thus all of the planning which under the old system was done by the workman, as a result of his personal experience, must of necessity under the new system be done by the management in accordance with the laws of the science; because even if the workman was well suited to the development and use of scientific data, it would be physically impossible for him to work at his machine and at a desk at the same time. It is also clear that in most cases one type of man is needed to plan ahead and an entirely different type to execute the work.

The man in the planning room, whose specialty under scientific management is planning ahead, invariably finds that the work can be done better and more economically by a subdivision of the labor; each act of each mechanic, for example, should, be preceded by various preparatory acts done by other men. And all of this involves, as we have said,“an almost equal division of the responsibility and the work between the management and the workman. ”

To summarize: Under the management of“initiative and incentive” practically the whole problem is“up to the workman,” while under scientific management fully one-half of the problem is “up to the management. ”

Perhaps the most prominent single element in modern scientific management is the task idea. The work of every workman is fully planned out by the management at least one day in advance, and each man receives in most cases complete written instructions, describing in detail the task which he is to accomplish, as well as the means to be used in doing the work. And the work planned in advance in this way constitutes a task which is to be solved, as explained above, not by the workman alone, but in almost all cases by the joint effort of the workman and the management. This task specifies not only what is to be done but how it is to be done and the exact time allowed for doing it. And whenever the workman succeeds in doing his task right, and within the time limit specified, he receives an addition of from 30 percent to 100 percent to his ordinary wages. These tasks are carefully planned, so that both good and careful work are called for in their performance, but it should be distinctly understood that in no case is the workman called upon to work at a pace which would be injurious to his health. The task is always so regulated that the man who is well suited to his job will thrive while working at this rate during a long term of years and grow happier and more prosperous, instead of being overworked. Scientific management consists very largely in preparing for and carrying out these tasks.

The writer is fully aware that to perhaps most of the readers of this paper the four elements which differentiate the new management from the old will at first appear to be merely high-sounding phrases; and he would again repeat that he has no idea of convincing the reader of their value merely through announcing their existence. His hope of carrying conviction rests upon demonstrating the tremendous force and effect of these four elements through a series of practical illustrations. It will be shown, first, that they can be applied absolutely to all classes of work, from the most elementary to the most intricate; and second, that when they are applied, the results must of necessity be overwhelmingly greater than those which it is possible to attain under the management of initiative and incentive.

The first illustration is that of handling pig iron, and this work is chosen because it is typical of perhaps the crudest and most elementary form of labor which is performed by man. This work is done by men with no other implements than their hands. The pig-iron handler stoops down, picks up a pig weighing about 92 pounds, walks for a few feet or yards and then drops it on to the ground or upon a pile. This work is so crude and elementary in its nature that the writer firmly believes that it would be possible to train an intelligent gorilla so as to become a more efficient pig-iron handler than any man can be. Yet it will be shown that the science of handling pig iron is so great and amounts to so much that it is impossible for the man who is best suited to this type of work to understand the principles of this science, or even to work in accordance with these principles without the aid of a man better educated than he is. And the further illustrations to be given will make it clear that in almost all of the mechanic arts the science which underlies each workman's act is so great and amounts to so much that the workman who is best suited actually to do the work is incapable (either through lack of education or through insufficient mental capacity) of understanding this science. This is announced as a general principle, the truth of which will become apparent as one illustration after another is given. After showing these four elements in the handling of pig iron, several illustrations will be given of their application to different kinds of work in the field of the mechanic arts, at intervals in a rising scale, beginning with the simplest and ending with the more intricate forms of labor. One of the first pieces of work undertaken by us, when the writer started to introduce scientific management into the Bethlehem Steel Company, was to handle pig iron on task work. The opening of the Spanish War found some 80,000 tons of pig iron placed in small piles in an open field adjoining the works. Prices for pig iron had been so low that it could not be sold at a profit, and it therefore had been stored. With the opening of the Spanish War the price of pig iron rose, and this large accumulation of iron was sold. This gave us a good opportunity to show the workmen, as well as the owners and managers of the works, on a fairly large scale the advantages of task work over the old-fashioned day work and piece work, in doing a very elementary class of work.

The Bethlehem Steel Company had five blast furnaces, the product of which had been handled by a pig-iron gang for many years. This gang, at this time, consisted of about 75 men. They were good, average pig-iron handlers, were under an excellent foreman who himself had been a pig-iron handler, and the work was done, on the whole, about as fast and as cheaply as it was anywhere else at that time.

A railroad switch was run out into the field, right along the edge of the piles of pig iron. An inclined plank was placed against the side of a car, and each man picked up from his pile a pig of iron weighing about 92 pounds, walked up the inclined plank and dropped it on the end of the car.

We found that this gang were loading on the average about 12 and a half long tons per man per day. We were surprised to find, after studying the matter, that a first-class pig-iron handler ought to handle between 47, and 48 long tons per day, instead of 12 and a half tons. This task seemed to us so very large that we were obliged to go over our work several times before we were absolutely sure that we were right. Once we were sure, however, that 47 tons was a proper day's work for a first-class pig-iron handler, the task which faced us as managers under the modern scientific plan was clearly before us. It was our duty to see that the 80,000 tons of pig iron was loaded on to the cars at the rate of 47 tons per man per day, in place of 12 and a half tons, at which rate the work was then being done. And it was further our duty to see that this work was done without bringing on a strike among the men, without any quarrel with the men, and to see that the men were happier and better contented when loading at the new rate of 47 tons than they were when loading at the old rate of 12 and a half tons.

Our first step was the scientific selection of the workman. In dealing with workmen under this type of management, it is an inflexible rule to talk to and deal with only one man at a time, since each workman has his own special abilities and limitations, and since we are not dealing with men in masses, but are trying to develop each individual man to his highest state of efficiency and prosperity. Our first step was to find the proper workman to begin with. We therefore carefully watched and studied these 75 men for three or four days, at the end of which time we had picked out four men who appeared to be physically able to handle pig iron at the rate of 47 tons per day. A careful study was then made of each of these men. We looked up their history as far back as practicable and thorough inquiries were made as to the character, habits, and the ambition of each of them. Finally we selected one from among the four as the most likely man to start with. He was a little Pennsylvania Dutchman who had been observed to trot back home for a mile or so after his work in the evening about as fresh as he was when he came trotting down to work in the morning. We found that upon wages of $ 1.15 a day he had succeeded in buying a small plot of ground, and that he was engaged in putting up the walls of a little house for himself in the morning before starting to work and at night after leaving. He also had the reputation of being exceedingly “close,”that is, of placing a very high value on a dollar. As one man whom we talked to about him said,“A penny looks about the size of a cart wheel to him. ” This man we will call Schmidt.

The task before us, then, narrowed itself down to getting Schmidt to handle 47 tons of pig iron per day and making him glad to do it. This was done as follows. Schmidt was called out from among the gang of pig-iron handlers and talked to somewhat in this way:

“Schmidt, are you a high-priced man?”

“Well, I don't know what you mean. ”

“Oh yes, you do. What I want to know is whether you are a high-priced man or not.”

“Well, I don't know what you mean.”

“Oh, come now, you answer my questions. What I want to find out is whether you are a high-priced man or one of these cheap fellows here. What I want to find out is whether you want to earn $ 1.85 a day or whether you are satisfied with $ 1.15, just the same as all those cheap fellows are getting. ”

“Did I want $ 1.85 a day? Was I a high-priced man? Well, yes, I was a high-priced man.”

“Oh, you're aggravating me. Of course you want $ 1.85 a day every one wants it! You know perfectly well that that has very little to do with your being a high-priced man. For goodness' sake answer my questions, and don't waste any more of my time. Now come over here. You see that pile of pig iron?”

“Yes. ”

“You see that car?”

“Yes. ”

“Well, if you are a high-priced man, you will load that pig iron on that car tomorrow for $ 1.85. Now do wake up and answer my question. Tell me whether you are a high-priced man or not. ”

“Well, did I got $ 1.85 for loading dot pig iron on dot car tomorrow?”

“Yes, of course you do, and you get $ 1.85 for loading a pile like that every day right through the year. That is what a high-priced man does, and you know it just as well as I do. ”

“Well, not all right. I could load dot pig iron on the car to-morrow for $ 1.85, and I get it every day, don't I?”

“Certainly you do certainly you do. ”

“Well, done, I was a high-priced man. ”

“Now, hold on, hold on. You know just as well as I do that a high-priced man has to do exactly as he's told from morning till night. You have seen this man here before, haven't you?”

“No, I never saw him. ”

“Well, if you are a high-priced man, you will do exactly as this man tells you tomorrow, from morning till night. When he tells you to pick up a pig and walk, you pick it up and you walk, and when he tells you to sit down and rest, you sit down. You do that right straight through the day. And what's more, no back talk. Now a high-priced man does just what he's told to do, and no back talk. Do you understand that? When this man tells you to walk, you walk; when he tells you to sit down, you sit down, and you don't talk back at him. Now you come on to work here tomorrow morning and I'll know before night whether you are really a high-priced man or not.”

This seems to be rather rough talk. And indeed it would be if applied to an educated mechanic, or even an intelligent laborer. With a man of the mentally sluggish type of Schmidt it is appropriate and not unkind, since it is effective in fixing his attention on the high wages which he wants and away from what, if it were called to his attention, he probably would consider impossibly hard work.

What would Schmidt's answer be if he were talked to in a manner which is usual under the management of“initiative and incentive”? Say, as follows:

“Now, Schmidt, you are a first-class pig-iron handler and know your business well. You have been handling at the rate of 12 and a half tons per day. I have given considerable study to handling pig iron, and feel sure that you could do a much larger day's work than you have been doing. Now don't you think that if you really tried you could handle 47 tons of pig iron per day, instead of 12 and a half tons?”

What do you think Schmidt's answer would be to this?

Schmidt started to work, and all day long, and at regular intervals, was told by the man who stood over him with a watch,“Now pick up a pig and walk. Now sit down and rest. Now walk——now rest,”etc. He worked when he was told to work, and rested when he was told to rest, and at half-past five in the afternoon had his 47 and a half tons loaded on the car. And he practically never failed to work at this pace and do the task that was set him during the three years that the writer was at Bethlehem. And throughout this time he averaged a little more than $ 1.85 per day, whereas before he had never received over $ 1.15 per day, which was the ruling rate of wages at that time in Bethlehem. That is, he received 60 percent higher wages than were paid to other men who were not working on task work. One man after another was picked out and trained to handle pig iron at the rate of 47 and a half tons per day until all of the pig iron was handled at this rate, and the men were receiving 60 percent more wages than other workmen around them.

The writer has given above a brief description of three of the four elements which constitute the essence of scientific management: first, the careful selection of the workman, and, second and third, the method of first inducing and then training and helping the workman to work according to the scientific method. Nothing has as yet been said about the science of handling pig iron. The writer trusts, however, that before leaving this illustration the reader will be thoroughly convinced that there is a science of handling pig iron, and further that this science amounts to so much that the man who is suited to handle pig iron cannot possibly understand it, nor even work in accordance with the laws of this science, without the help of those who are over him.

The writer came into the machine-shop of the Midvale Steel Company in 1878, after having served an apprenticeship as a pattern maker and as a machinist. This was close to the end of the long period of depression following the panic of 1873, and business was so poor that it was impossible for many mechanics to get work at their trades. For this reason he was obliged to start as a day laborer instead of working as a mechanic. Fortunately for him, soon after he came into the shop the clerk of the shop was found stealing. There was no one else available, and so, having more education than the other laborers (since he had been prepared for college) he was given the position of clerk. Shortly after this he was given work as a machinist in running one of the lathes, and, as he turned out rather more work than other machinists were doing on similar lathes, after several months was made gang boss over the lathes.

Almost all of the work of this shop had been done on piece work for several years. As was usual then, and in fact as is still usual in most of the shops in this country, the shop was really run by the workmen, and not by the bosses. The workmen together had carefully planned just how fast each job should be done, and they had set a pace for each machine throughout the shop, which was limited to about one-third of a good day's work. Every new workman who came into the shop was told at once by the other men exactly how much of each kind of work he was to do, and unless he obeyed these instructions he was sure before long to be driven out of the place by the men.

As soon as the writer was made gang-boss, one after another of the men came to him and talked somewhat as follows:

“Now, Fred we're very glad to see that you've been made gang-boss. You know the game all right, and we're sure that you're not likely to be a piece-work hog. You come along with us, and every-thing will be all right, but if you try breaking any of these rates you can be mighty sure that we'll throw you over the fence. ”

The writer told them plainly that he was now working on the side of the management, and that he proposed to do whatever he could to get a fair day's work out of the lathes. This immediately started a war; in most cases a friendly war, because the men who were under him were his personal friends, but none the less a war, which as time went on grew more and more bitter. The writer used every expedient to make them do a fair day's work, such as discharging or lowering the wages of the more stubborn men who refused to make any improvement, and such as lowering the piece-work price, hiring green men, and personally teaching them bow to do the work, with the promise from them that when they had learned how, they would then do a fair day's work. While the men constantly brought such pressure to bear (both inside and outside the works) upon all those who started to increase their output that they were finally compelled to do about as the rest did, or else quit. No one who has not had this experience can have an idea of the bitterness which is gradually developed in such a struggle. In a war of this kind the workmen have one expedient which is usually effective. They use their ingenuity to contrive various ways in which the machines which they are running are broken or damaged——apparently by accident, or in the regular course of work——and this they always lay at the door of the foreman, who has forced them to drive the machine so hard that it is overstrained and is being ruined. And there are few foremen indeed who are able to stand up against the combined pressure of all of the men in the shop. In this case the problem was complicated by the fact that the shop ran both day and night.

The writer had two advantages, however, which are not possessed by the ordinary foreman, and these came, curiously enough, from the fact that he was not the son of a working man.

First, owing to the fact that he happened not to be of working parents, the owners of the company believed that he had the interest of the works more at heart than the other workmen, and they there-fore had more confidence in his word than they did in that of the machinists who were under him. So that, when the machinists reported to the Superintendent that the machines were being smashed up because an incompetent foreman was overstraining them, the Superintendent accepted the word of the writer when he said that these men were deliberately breaking their machines as a part of the piece-work war which was going on, and he also allowed the writer to make the only effective answer to this Vandalism on the part of the men, namely:“There will be no more accidents to the machines in this shop. If any part of a machine is broken, the man in charge of it must pay at least a part of the cost of its repair, and the fines collected in this way will all be handed over to the mutual beneficial association to help care for sick workmen. ” This soon stopped the willful breaking of machines.

Second. If the writer had been one of the workmen, and had lived where they lived, they would have brought such social pressure to bear upon him that it would have been impossible to have stood out against them. He would have been called“scab”and other foul names every time he appeared on the street, his wife would have been abused, and his children would have been stoned. Once or twice he was begged by some of his friends among the workmen not to walk home, about two and a half miles along the lonely path by the side of the railway. He was told that if he continued to do this it would be at the risk of his life. In all such cases, however, a display of timidity is apt to increase rather than diminish the risk, so the writer told these men to say to the other men in the shop that he proposed to walk home every night right up that railway track; that he never had carried and never would carry any weapon of any kind, and that they could shoot and bed…

After about three years of this kind of struggling, the output of the machines had been materially increased, in many cases dou bled, and as a result the writer had been promoted from one gangboss-ship to another until he became foreman of the shop. For any right-minded man, however, this success is in no sense a recompense for the bitter relations which he is forced to maintain with all of those around him. Life which is one continuous struggle with other men is hardly worth living. His workman friends came to him continually and asked him, in a personal, friendly way, whether he would advise them, for their own best interest, to turn out more work. And, as a truthful man, he had to tell them that if he were in their place he would fight against turning out any more work, just as they were doing, because under the piece-work system they would be allowed to earn no more wages than they had been earning, and yet they would be made to work harder.

Soon after being made foreman, therefore, he decided to make a determined effort to in some way change the system of management, so that the interests of the workmen and the management should become the same, instead of antagonistic. This resulted, some three years later, in the starting of the type of management which is described in papers presented to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers entitled“A Piece-Rate System”and“Shop Management. ”

In preparation for this system the writer realized that the greatest obstacle to harmonious cooperation between the workmen and the management lay in the ignorance of the management as to what really constitutes a proper day's work for a workman. He fully realized that although he was foreman of the shop, the combined knowledge and skill of the workmen who were under him was certainly ten times as great as his own. He therefore obtained the permission of Mr. William Sellers, who was at that time the President of the Midvale Steel Company, to spend some money in a careful, scientific study of the time required to do various kinds of work.

Mr. Sellers allowed this more as a reward for having, to a certain extent,“made good”as foreman of the shop in getting more work out of the men, than for any other reason. He stated, however, that he did not believe that any scientific study of this sort would give results of much value.

Among several investigations which were undertaken at this time, one was an attempt to find some rule, or law, which would enable a foreman to know in advance how much of any kind of heavy laboring work a man who was well suited to his job ought to do in a day; that is, to study the tiring effect of heavy labor upon a first-class man. Our first step was to employ a young college graduate to look up all that had been written on the subject in English, German, and French. Two classes of experiments had been made: one by physiologists who were studying the endurance of the human animal, and the other by engineers who wished to determine what fraction of a horse-power a man-power was. These experiments had been made largely upon men who were lifting loads by means of turning the crank of a winch from which weights were suspended, and others who were engaged in walking, running, and lifting weights in various ways. However, the records of these investigations were so meager that no law of any value could be deduced from them. We therefore started a series of experiments of our own.

Two first-class laborers were selected, men who had proved themselves to be physically powerful and who were also good steady workers. These men were paid double wages during the experiments, and were told that they must work to the best of their ability at all times, and that we should make certain tests with them from time to time to find whether they were“soldiering”or not, and that the moment either one of them started to try to deceive us he would be discharged. They worked to the best of their ability throughout the time that they were being observed.

Now it must be clearly understood that in these experiments we were not trying to find the maximum work that a man could do on a short spurt or for a few days, but that our endeavor was to learn what really constituted a full day's work for a first-class man; the best day's work that a man could properly do, year in and year out, and still thrive under. These men were given all kinds of tasks, which were carried out each day under the close observation of the young college man who was conducting the experiments, and who at the same time noted with a stop-watch the proper time for all of the motions that were made by the men. Every element in any way connected with the work which we believed could have a bearing on the result was carefully studied and recorded. What we hoped ultimately to determine was what fraction of a horse-power a man was able to exert, that is, how many foot-pounds of work a man could do in a day.

After completing this series of experiments, therefore, each man's work for each day was translated into foot-pounds of energy, and to our surprise we found that there was no constant or uniform relation between the foot-pounds of energy which the man exerted during a day and the tiring effect of his work. On some kinds of work the man would be tired out when doing perhaps not more than one-eighth of a horse-power, while in others he would be tired to no greater extent by doing half a horse-power of work. We failed, therefore, to find any law which was an accurate guide to the maximum day's work for a first-class workman.

A large amount of very valuable data had been obtained, which enabled us to know, for many kinds of labor, what was a proper day's work. It did not seem wise, however, at this time to spend any more money in trying to find the exact law which we were after. Some years later, when more money was available for this purpose, a second series of experiments was made, similar to the first, but some what more thorough.

This, however, resulted as the first experiments, in obtaining valuable information but not in the development of a law. Again, some years later, a third series of experiments was made, and this time no trouble was spared in our endeavor to make the work thorough. Every minute element which could in anyway affect the pro blem was carefully noted and studied, and two college men devoted about three months to the experiments. After this data was again translated into foot-pounds of energy exerted for each man each day, it became perfectly clear that there is no direct relation between the horse-power which a man exerts (that is, his foot-pounds of energy per day) and the tiring effect of the work on the man. The writer, however, was quite as firmly convinced as ever that some definite, clear-cut law existed as to what constitutes a full day's work for a first-class laborer, and our data had been so carefully collected and recorded that he felt sure that the necessary information was included somewhere in the records. The problem of developing this law from the accumulated facts was therefore handed over to Mr. Carl G. Barth, who is a better mathematician than any of the rest of us, and we decided to investigate the problem in a new way, by graphically representing each element of the work through plotting curves, which should give us, as it were, a bird-eye view of every element. In a comparatively short time Mr. Barth had discovered the law governing the tiring effect of heavy labor on a firstclass man. And it is so simple in its nature that it is truly remarkable that it should not have been discovered and clearly understood years before. The law which was developed is as follows:

The law is confined to that class of work in which the limit of a man's capacity is reached because he is tired out. It is the law of heavy laboring, corresponding to the work of the cart horse, rather than that of the trotter. Practically all such work consists of a heavy pull or a push on the man's arms, that is, the man's strength is exerted by either lifting or pushing something which he grasps in his hands. And the law is that for each given pull or push on the man's arms it is possible for the workman to be under load for only a definite percentage of the day. For example, when pig iron is being handled (each pig weighing 92 pounds), a first-class workman can only be under load 43 percent of the day. He must be entirely free from load during 57 percent of the day. And as the load becomes lighter, the percentage of the day under which the man can remain under load increases. So that, if the workman is handling a halfpig, weighing 46 pounds, he can then be under load 58 percent of the day, and only has to rest during 42 percent. As the weight grows lighter the man can remain under load during a larger and larger percentage of the day, until finally a load is reached which he can carry in his hands all day long without being tired out. When that point has been arrived at this law ceases to be useful as a guide to a laborer's endurance, and some other law must be found which indicates the man's capacity for work.

When a laborer is carrying a piece of pig iron weighing 92 pounds in his hands, it tires him about as much to stand still under the load as it does to walk with it, since his arm muscles are under the same severe tension whether he is moving or not. A man, however, who stands still under a load is exerting no horse-power whatever, and this accounts for the fact that no constant relation could be traced in various kinds of heavy laboring work between the footpounds of energy exerted and the tiring effect of the work on the man. It will also be clear that in all work of this kind it is necessary for the arms of the workman to be completely free from load (that is, for the Workman to rest) at frequent intervals. Throughout the time that the man is under a heavy load the tissues of his arm muscles are in process of degeneration, and frequent periods of rest are required in order that the blood may have a chance to restore these tissues to their normal condition.

To return now to our pig-iron handlers at the Bethlehem Steel Company. If Schmidt had been allowed to attack the pile of 47 tons of pig iron without the guidance or direction of a man who under-stood the art, or science, of handling pig iron, in his desire to earn his high wages he would probably have tired himself out by 11 or 12 o'clock in the day. He would have kept so steadily at work that his muscles would not have had the proper periods of rest absolutely needed for recuperation, and he would have been completely exhausted early in the day. By having a man, however, who under-stood this law, stand over him and direct his work, day after day, until he acquired the habit of resting at proper intervals, he was able to work at an even gait all day long without unduly tiring himself.

Now one of the very first requirements for a man who is fit to handle pig iron as a regular occupation that he shall be so stupid and so phlegmatic that he more nearly resembles in his mental make-up the ox than any other type. The man who is mentally alert and intelligent is for this very reason entirely unsuited to what would, for him, be the grinding monotony of work of this character. Therefore the workman who is best suited to handling pig iron is unable to understand the real science of doing this class of work. He is so stupid that the word“percentage”has no meaning to him, and he must consequently be trained by a man more intelligent than himself into the habit of working in accordance with the laws of this science before he can be successful.

The writer trusts that it is now clear that even in the case of the most elementary form of labor that is known, there is a science, and that when the man best suited to this class of work has been carefully selected, when the science of doing the work has been deve loped, and when the carefully selected man has been trained to work in accordance with this science, the results obtained must of necessity be overwhelmingly greater than those which are possible under the plan of“initiative and incentive. ”

Let us, however, again turn to the case of these pig-iron handlers, and see whether, under the ordinary type of management, it would not have been possible to obtain practically the same results.

The writer has put the problem before many good managers, and asked them whether, under premium work, piece work, or any of the ordinary plans of management, they would be likely even to approximate 47 tons[3]。 Per man per day, and not a man has suggested that an output of over 18 to 25 tons could be attained by any of the ordinary expedients. It will be remembered that the Bethlehem men were loading only 12.5 tons per man.

To go into the matter in more detail, however: As to the scientific selection of the men, it is a fact that in this gang of 75 pig-iron handlers only about one man in eight was physically capable of handling 47.5 tons per day. With the very best of intentions, the other seven out of eight men were physically unable to work at this pace. Now the one man in eight who was able to do this work was in no sense superior to the other men who were working on the gang. He merely happened to be a man of the type of the ox, ——no rare specimen of humanity, difficult to find and therefore very highly prized. On the contrary, he was a man so stupid that he was unfitted to do most kinds of laboring work, even. The selection of the man, then, does not involve finding some extraordinary individual, but merely picking out from among very ordinary men the few who are especially suited to this type of work. Although in this particular gang only one man in eight was suited to doing the work, we had not the slightest difficulty in getting all the men who were needed——some of them from inside of the works and others from the neighboring country——who were exactly suited to the job.

Under the management of“initiative and incentive”the attitude of the management is that of“putting the work up to the workmen. ” What likelihood would there be, then, under the old type of management, of these men properly selecting themselves for pig-iron handling? Would they be likely to get rid of seven men out of eight from their own gang and retain only the eighth man? No！ And no expedient could be devised which would make these men properly select themselves. Even if they fully realized the necessity of doing so in order to obtain high wages (and they are not sufficiently intelligent properly to grasp this necessity), the fact that their friends or their brothers who were working right alongside of them would temporarily be thrown out of a job because they were not suited to this kind of work would entirely prevent them from properly selecting themselves, that is, from removing the seven out of eight men on the gang who were unsuited to pig-iron handling.

As to the possibility, under the old type of management, of inducing these pig-iron handlers (after they had been properly selected) to work in accordance with the science of doing heavy laboring, namely, having proper scientifically determined periods of rest in close sequence to periods of work. As has been indicated before, the essential idea of the ordinary types of management is that each workman has become more skilled in his own trade than it is possible for any one in the management to be, and that, therefore, the details of how the work shall best be done must be left to him. The idea, then, of taking one man after another and training him under a competent teacher into new working habits until he continually and habitually works in accordance with scientific laws, which have been developed by some one else, is directly antagonistic to the old idea that each workman can best regulate his own way of doing the work. And besides this, the man suited to handling pig iron is too stupid properly to train himself. Thus it will be seen that with the ordinary types of management the development of scientific know ledge to replace rule of thumb, the scientific selection of the men, and inducing the men to work in accordance with these scientific principles are entirely out of the question. And this because the philosophy of the old management puts the entire responsibility upon the workmen, while the philosophy of the new places a great part of it upon the management.

With most readers great sympathy will be aroused because seven out of eight of these pig-iron handlers were thrown out of a job. This sympathy is entirely wasted, because almost all of them were immediately given other jobs with the Bethlehem Steel Company. And indeed it should be understood that the removal of these men from pig-iron handling, for which they were unfit, was really a kindness to themselves, because it was the first step toward finding them work for which they were peculiarly fitted, and at which, after receiving proper training, they could permanently and legitimately earn higher wages.

Although the reader may be convinced that there is a certain science back of the handling of pig iron, still it is more than likely that he is still skeptical as to the existence of a science for doing other kinds of laboring. One of the important objects of this paper is to convince its readers that every single act of every workman can be reduced to a science. With the hope of fully convincing the reader of this fact, therefore, the writer proposes to give several more simple illustrations from among the thousands which are at hand. For example, the average man would question whether there is much of any science in the work of shoveling. Yet there is but little doubt, if any intelligent reader of this paper were deliberately to set out to find what may be called the foundation of the science of shoveling, that with perhaps 15 to 20 hours of thought and analysis he would be almost sure to have arrived at the essence of this science. On the other hand, so completely are the rule-of-thumb ideas still dominant that the writer has never met a single shovel contractor to whom it had ever even occurred that there was such a thing as the science of shoveling. This science is so elementary as to be almost self-evident.

For a first-class shoveler there is a given shovel load at which he will do his biggest day's work. What is this shovel load? Will a first-class man do more work per day with a shovel load of 5 pounds, 10 pounds, 15 pounds, 20, 25, 30, or 40 pounds? Now this is a question which can be answered only through carefully made experiments. By first selecting two or three first-class shovelers, and paying them extra wages for doing trustworthy work, and then gradually varying the shovel load and having all the conditions accompanying the work carefully observed for several weeks by men who were used to experimenting, it was found that a first-class man would do his biggest day's work with a shovel load of about 21 pounds. For instance, that this man would shovel a larger tonnage per day with a 21-pound load than with a 24-pound load or than with an 18-pound load on his shovel. It is, of course, evident that no shoveler can always take a load of exactly 21 pounds on his shovel, but nevertheless, although his load may vary 3 or 4 pounds one way or the other, either below or above the 21 pounds, he will do his biggest day's work when his average for the day is about 21 pounds.

The writer does not wish it to be understood that this is the whole of the art or science of shoveling. There are many other elements, which together go to make up this science. But he wishes to indicate the important effect which this one piece of scientific knowledge has upon the work of shoveling.

At the works of the Bethlehem Steel Company, for example, as a result of this law, instead of allowing each shoveler to select and own his own shovel, it became necessary to provide some 8 to 10 different kinds of shovels, etc., each one appropriate to handling a given type of material not only so as to enable the men to handle an average load of 21 pounds, but also to adapt the shovel to several other requirements which become perfectly evident when this work is studied as a science. A large shovel tool room was built, in which were stored not only shovels but carefully designed and standardized labor implements of all kinds, such as picks, crowbars, etc. This made it possible to issue to each workman a shovel which would hold a load of 21 pounds of whatever class of material they were to handle: a small shovel for ore, say, or a large one for ashes. Iron ore is one of the heavy materials which are handled in a works of this kind, and rice coal, owing to the fact that it is so slippery on the shovel, is one of the lightest materials. And it was found on studying the rule-of-thumb plan at the Bethlehem Steel Company, where each shoveler owned his own shovel, that he would frequently go from shoveling ore, with a load of about 30 pounds per shovel, to handling rice coal, with a load on the same shovel of less than 4 pounds. In the one case, he was so overloaded that it was impossible for him to do a full day's work, and in the other case he was so ridiculously underloaded that it was manifestly impossible to even approximate a day's work.

Briefly to illustrate some of the other elements which go to make tip the science of shoveling, thousands of stop-watch observations were made to study just how quickly a laborer, provided in each case with the proper type of shovel, can push his shovel into the pile of materials and then draw it out properly loaded. These observations were made first when pushing the shovel into the body of the pile. Next when shoveling on a dirt bottom, that is, at the outside edge of the pile, and next with a wooden bottom, and finally with an iron bottom. Again a similar accurate time study was made of the time required to swing the shovel backward and then throw the load for a given horizontal distance, accompanied by a given height. This time study was made for various combinations of distance and height. With data of this sort before him, coupled with the law of endurance described in the case of the pig-iron handlers, it is evident that the man who is directing shovelers can first teach them the exact methods which should be employed to use their strength to the very best advantage, and can then assign them daily tasks which are so just that the workman can each day be sure of earning the large bonus which is paid whenever he successfully performs this task.

There were about 600 shovelers and laborers of this general class in the yard of the Bethlehem Steel Company at this time. These men were scattered in their work over a yard which was, roughly, about two miles long and half a mile wide. In order that each workman should be given his proper implement and his proper instructions for doing each new job, it was necessary to establish a detailed system for directing men in their work, in place of the old plan of handling them in large groups, or gangs, under a few yard foremen. As each workman came into the works in the morning, he took out of his own special pigeonhole, with his number on the outside, two pieces of paper, one of which stated just what implements he was to get from the tool room and where he was to start to work, and the second of which gave the history of his previous day's work; that is, a statement of the work which he had done, how much he had earned the day before, etc. Many of these men were foreigners and unable to read and write, but they all knew at a glance the essence of this report, because yellow paper showed the man that he had failed to do his full task the day before, and informed him that he had not earned as much as $ 1.85 a day, and that none but high-priced men would be allowed to stay permanently with this gang. The hope was further expressed that he would earn his full wages on the following day. So that whenever the men received white slips they knew that everything was all right, and whenever they received yellow slips they realized that they must do better or they would be shifted to some other class of work.

Dealing with every workman as a separate individual in this way involved the building of a labor office for the superintendent and clerks who were in charge of this section of the work. In this office every laborer's work was planned out well in advance, and the workmen were all moved from place to place by the clerks with elaborate diagrams or maps of the yard before them, very much as chessmen are moved on a chess-board, a telephone and messenger system having been installed for this purpose. In this way a large amount of the time lost through having too many men in one place and too few in another, and through waiting between jobs, was entirely eliminated. Under the old system the workmen were kept day after day in comparatively large gangs, each under a single foreman, and the gang was apt to remain of pretty nearly the same size whether there was much or little of the particular kind of work on hand which this foreman had under his charge, since each gang had to be kept large enough to handle whatever work in its special line was likely to come along. When one ceases to deal with men in large gangs or groups, and proceeds to study each workman as an individual, if the workman fails to do his task, some competent teacher should be sent to show him exactly how his work can best be done, to guide, help, and encourage him, and, at the same time, to study his possibilities as a workman. So that, under the plan which individualizes each workman, instead of brutally discharging the man or lowering his wages for failing to make good at once, he is given the time and the help required to make him proficient at his present job, or he is shifted to another class of work for which he is either mentally or physically better suited.

All of this requires the kindly cooperation of the management, and involves a much more elaborate organization and system than the old-fashioned herding of men in large gangs. This organization consisted, in this case, of one set of men, who were engaged in the development of the science of laboring through time study, such as has been described above; another set of men, mostly skilled laborers themselves, who were teachers, and who helped and guided the men in their work; another set of tool-room men who provided them with the proper implements and kept them in perfect order, and another set of clerks who planned the work well in advance, moved the men with the least loss of time from one place to another, and properly recorded each man's earnings, etc. And this furnishes an elementary illustration of what has been referred to as cooperation between the management and the workmen.

The question which naturally presents itself is whether an elaborate organization of this sort can be made to pay for itself; whether such an organization is not top-heavy. This question will best be answered by a statement of the results of the third year of working under this plan.

Task Work

Old Plan

New Plan

The number of yard laborers was reduced from between

400〜600

Down to about 140

Average number of tons per man per day

16

59

Average earnings per man per day

$ 1.15

$ 1.88

Average cost of handling a ton of 2240 lbs

$ 0.072

$ 0.033

And in computing the low cost of $ 0. 033 per ton, the office and tool-room expenses, and the wages of all labor superintendents, foremen, clerks, time-study men, etc., are included.

During this year the total saving of the new plan over the old amounted to $ 36,417.69, and during the six months following, when all of the work of the yard was on task work, the saving was at the rate of between $ 75,000 and $ 80,000 per year.

Perhaps the most important of all the results attained was the effect on the workmen themselves. A careful inquiry into the condition of these men developed the fact that out of the 140 workmen only two were said to be drinking men. This does not, of course, imply that many of them did not take an occasional drink. The fact is that a steady drinker would find it almost impossible to keep up with the pace which was set, so that they were practically all sober. Many, if not most of them, were saving money, and they all lived better than they had before. These men constituted the finest body of picked laborers that the writer has ever seen together, and they looked upon the men who were over them, their bosses and their teachers, as their very best friends; not as nigger drivers, forcing them to work extra hard for ordinary wages, but as friends who were teaching them and helping them to earn much higher wages than they had ever earned before.

It would have been absolutely impossible for any one to have stirred up strife between these men and their employers. And this presents a very simple though effective illustration of what is meant by the words“prosperity for the employee, coupled with prosperity for the employer,”the two principal objects of management. It is evident also that this result has been brought about by the application of the four fundamental principles of scientific management.

As another illustration of the value of a scientific study of the motives which influence workmen in their daily work, the loss of ambition and initiative will be cited, which takes place in workmen when they are herded into gangs instead of being treated as separate individuals. A careful analysis had demonstrated the fact that when workmen are herded together in gangs, each man in the gang becomes far less efficient than when his personal ambition is stimulated; that when men work in gangs, their individual efficiency falls almost invariably down to or below the level of the worst man in the gang; and that they are all pulled down instead of being elevated by being herded together. For this reason a general order had been issued in the Bethlehem steel Works that not more than four men were to be allowed to work in a labor gang without a special permit, signed by the General Superintendent of the works, this special permit to extend for one week only. It was arranged that as far as possible each laborer should be given a separate individual task. As there were about 5, 000 men at work in the establishment, the General Superintendent had so much to do that there was but little time left for signing these special permits.

After gang work had been by this means broken up, an unusually fine set of ore shovelers had been developed, through careful selection and individual, scientific training. Each of these men was given a separate car to unload each day, and his wages depended upon his own personal work. The man who unloaded the largest amount of ore was paid the highest wages, and an unusual opportunity came for demonstrating the importance of individualizing each workman. Much of this ore came from the Lake Superior region, and the same ore was delivered both in Pittsburgh and in Bethlehem in exactly similar cars. There was a shortage of ore handlers in Pittsburgh, and hearing of the fine gang of laborers that had been developed at Bethlehem, one of the Pittsburgh steel works sent an agent to hire the Bethlehem men. The Pittsburgh men offered 49/10 cents a ton for unloading exactly the same ore, with the same shovels, from the same cars, that were unloaded in Bethlehem for 32/10 cents a ton. After carefully considering this situation, it was decided that it would be unwise to pay more than 32/10 cents per ton for unloading the Bethlehem cars, because, at this rate, the Bethlehem laborers were earning a little over $ 1.85 per man per day, and this price was 60 percent more than the ruling rate of wages around Bethlehem.

A long series of experiments, coupled with close observation, had demonstrated the fact that when workmen of this caliber are given a carefully measured task, which calls for a big day's work on their part, and that when in return for this extra effort they are paid wages up to 60 percent beyond the wages usually paid, that this increase in wages tends to make them not only more thrifty but better men in every way; that they live rather better, begin to save money, become more sober, and work more steadily. When, on the other hand, they receive much more than a 60 percent increase in wages, many of them will work irregularly and tend to become more or less shiftless, extravagant, and dissipated. Our experiments showed, in other words, that it does not do for most men to get rich too fast.

After deciding, for this reason, not to raise the wages of our ore handlers, these men were brought into the office one at a time, and talked to somewhat as follows:

“Now, Patrick, you have proved to us that you are a highpriced man. You have been earning every day a little more than $ 1.85, and you are just the sort of man that we want to have in our ore-shoveling gang. A man has come here from Pittsburgh, ho is offering 49/10 cents per ton for handling ore while we can pay only 32/10 cents per ton. I think, therefore, that you had better apply to this man for a job. Of course, you know we are very sorry to have you leave us, but you have proved yourself a high-priced man, and we are very glad to see you get this chance of earning more money. Just remember, however, that at any time in the future, when you get out of a job, you can always come right back to us. There will always be a job for a high-priced man like you in our gang here. ”

Almost all of the ore handlers took this advice, and went to Pittsburgh, but in about six weeks most of them were again back in Bethlehem unloading ore at the old rate of 32/10 cents a ton. The writer had the following talk with one of these men after he had returned:

“Patrick, what are you doing back here? I thought we had gotten rid of you. ”

“Well, Sir, I'll tell you how it was. When we got out there Jimmy and I were put on to a car with eight other men. We started to shovel the ore out just the same as we do here. After about half an hour I saw a little devil alongside of me doing pretty near nothing, so I said to him, ‘Why don't you go to work? Unless we get the ore out of this car we won't get any money on pay-day.’He turned to me and said,‘Who in … are you?’”

“‘ Well,’I said,‘that's none of your business’; and the little devil stood up to me and said, ‘You'll be minding your own business, or I'll throw you off this car!’‘Well, I could have spit on him and drowned him, but the rest of the men put down their shovels and looked as if they were going to back him up; so I went round to Jimmy and said (so that the whole gang could hear it), now, Jimmy, you and I will throw a shovel full whenever this little devil throws one, and not another shovel full. ’So we watched him, and only shoveled when he shoveled. ”

“When pay-day came around, though, we had less money than we got here at Bethlehem. After that Jimmy and I went in to the boss, and asked him for a car to ourselves, the same as we got at Bethlehem, but he told us to mind our own business. And when another pay-day came around we had less money than we got here at Bethlehem, so Jimmy and I got the gang together and brought them all back here to work again. ”

When working each man for himself, these men were able to earn higher wages at 32/10 cents a ton than they could earn when they were paid 49/10 cents a ton on gang work; and this again shows the great gain which results from working according to even the most elementary of scientific principles. But it also shows that in the application of the most elementary principles it is necessary for the management to do their share of the work in cooperating with the workmen. The Pittsburgh managers knew just how the results had been attained at Bethlehem, but they were unwilling to go to the small trouble and expense required to plan ahead and assign a separate car to each shoveler, and then keep an individual record of each man's work, and pay him just what he had earned.

Bricklaying is one of the oldest of our trades.

For hundreds of years there has been little or no improvement made in the implements and materials used in this trade, nor in fact in the method of laying bricks. In spite of the millions of men who have practiced this trade, no great improvement has been evolved for many generations. Here, then, at least one would expect to find but little gain possible through scientific analysis and study. Mr. Frank B. Gilbreth, a member of our Society, who had himself studied bricklaying in his youth, became interested in the principles of scientific management, and decided to apply them to the art of bricklaying. He made an intensely interesting analysis and study of each movement of the bricklayer, and one after another eliminated all unnecessary movements and substituted fast for slow motions. He experimented with every minute element which in any way affects the speed and the tiring of the bricklayer. He developed the exact position which each of the feet of the bricklayer should occupy with relation to the wall, the mortar box, and the pile of bricks, and so made it unnecessary for him to take a step or two toward the pile of bricks and back again each time a brick is laid.

He studied the best height for the mortar box and brick pile, and then designed a scaffold, with a table on it, upon which all of the materials are placed, so as to keep the bricks, the mortar, the man, and the wall in their proper relative positions. These scaffolds are adjusted, as the wall grows in height, for all of the bricklayers by a laborer especially detailed for this purpose, and by this means the bricklayer is saved the exertion of stooping down to the level of his feet for each brick and each trowel full of mortar and then straightening up again. Think of the waste of effort that has gone on through all these years, with each bricklayer lowering his body, weighing, say, 150 pounds, down two feet and raising it up again every time a brick (weighing about 5 pounds) is laid in the wall! And this each bricklayer did about one thousand times a day.

As a result of further study, after the bricks are unloaded from the cars, and before bringing them to the bricklayer, they are carefully sorted by a laborer, and placed with their best edge up on a simple wooden frame, constructed so as to enable him to take hold of each brick in the quickest time and in the most advantageous position. In this way the bricklayer avoids either having to move the brick over or end for end to examine it before laying it, and he saves, also, the time taken in deciding which is the best edge and end to place on the outside of the wall. In most cases, also, he saves the time taken in disentangling the brick from a disorderly pile on the scaffold. This“pack”of bricks (as Mr. Gilbreth calls his loaded wooden frames) is placed by the helper in its proper position on the adjustable scaffold close to the mortar box.

We have all been used to seeing bricklayers tap each brick after it is placed on its bed of mortar several times with the end of the handle of the trowel so as to secure the right thickness for the joint. Mr. Gilbreth found that by tempering the mortar just right, the bricks could be readily bedded to the proper depth by a downward pressure of the hand with which they are laid. He insisted that his mortar mixers should give special attention to tempering the mortar, and so save the time consumed in tapping the brick.

Through all of this minute study of the motions to be made by the bricklayer in laying bricks under standard conditions, Mr. Gilbreth has reduced his movements from eighteen motions per brick to five, and even in one case to as low as two motions per brick. He has given all of the details of this analysis to the profession in the chapter headed“Motion Study,”of his book entitled“Bricklaying System,”published by Myron C. Clerk Publishing Company, New York and Chicago; E. F. N. Spon, of London.

An analysis of the expedients used by Mr. Gilbreth in reducing the motions of his bricklayers from eighteen to five shows that this improvement has been made in three different ways:

First. He has entirely dispensed with certain movements which the bricklayers in the past believed were necessary, but which a careful study and trial on his part have shown to be useless.

Second. He has introduced simple apparatus, such as his adjustable scaffold and his packets for holding the bricks, by means of which, with a very small amount of cooperation from a cheap laborer, he entirely eliminates a lot of tiresome and time-consuming motions which are necessary for the brick-layer who lacks the scaffold and the packet.

Third. He teaches his bricklayers to make simple motions with both hands at the same time, where before they completed a motion with the right hand and followed it later with one from the left hand.

For example, Mr. Gilbreth teaches his brick-layer to pick up a brick in the left hand at the same instant that he takes a trowel full of mortar with the right hand. This work with two hands at the same time is, of course, made possible by substituting a deep mortar box for the old mortar board (on which the mortar spread out so thin that a step or two had to be taken to reach it) and then placing the mortar box and the brick pile close together, and at the proper height on his new scaffold.

These three kinds of improvements are typical of the ways in which needless motions can be entirely eliminated and quicker types of movements substituted for slow movements when scientific motion study, as Mr. Gilbreth calls his analysis, time study, as the writer has called similar work, are, applied in any trade.

Most practical men would (knowing the opposition of almost all tradesmen to making any change in their methods and habits), however, be skeptical as to the possibility of actually achieving any large results from a study of this sort. Mr. Gilbreth reports that a few months ago, in a large brick building which he erected, he demonstrated on a commercial scale the great gain which is possible from practically applying his scientific study. With union bricklayers, in laying a factory wall, twelve inches thick, with two kinds of brick, faced and ruled joints on both sides of the wall, he ave raged, after his selected workmen had become skilful in his new methods, 350 bricks per man per hour; whereas the average speed of doing this work with the old methods was, in that section of the country, 120 bricks per man per hour. His bricklayers were taught his new method of bricklaying by their foreman. Those who failed to profit by their teaching were dropped, and each man, as he became proficient under the new method, received a substantial (not a small) increase in his wages. With a view to individualizing his workmen and stimulating each man to do his best, Mr. Gilbreth also developed an ingenious method for measuring and recording the number of bricks laid by each man, and for telling each workman at frequent intervals how many bricks he had succeeded in laying.

It is only when this work is compared with the conditions which prevail under the tyranny of some of our misguided bricklayers' unions that the great waste of human effort which is going on will be realized. In one foreign city the bricklayers' union have restricted their men to 275 bricks per day on work of this character when working for the city, and 375 per day when working for private owners. The members of this union are probably sincere in their belief that this restriction of output is a benefit to their trade. It should be plain to all men, however, that this deliberate loafing is almost criminal, in that it inevitably results in making every workman's family pay higher rent for their housing, and also in the end drives work and trade away from their city, instead of bringing it to it.

Why is it, in a trade which has been continually practiced since before the Christian era, and with implements practically the same as they now are, that this simplification of the bricklayer's movements, this great gain, has not been made before?

It is highly likely that many times during all of these years individual bricklayers have recognized the possibility of eliminating each of these unnecessary motions. But even if, in the past, he did invent each one of Mr. Gilbreth's improvements, no bricklayer could alone increase his speed through their adoption because it will be remembered that in all cases several bricklayers work together in a row and that the walls all around a building must grow at the same rate of speed. No one bricklayer, then, can work much faster than the one next to him. Nor has any one workman the authority to make other men cooperate with him to do faster work. It is only through enforced standardization of methods, enforced adoption of the best implements and working conditions, and enforced cooperation that this faster work can be assured. And the duty of enforcing the adoption of standards and of enforcing——this cooperation rests with the management alone. The management must supply continually one or more teachers to show each new man the new and simpler motions, and the slower men must be constantly watched and helped until they have risen to their proper speed. All of those who, after proper teaching, either will not or cannot work in accordance with the new methods and at the higher speed must be discharged by the management. The management must also recognize the broad fact that workmen will not submit to this more rigid standardization and will not work extra hard, unless they receive extra pay for doing it.

All of this involves an individual study of and treatment for each man, while in the past they have been handled in large groups.

The management must also see that those who prepare the bricks and the mortar and adjust the scaffold, etc., for the bricklayers, cooperate with them by doing their work just right and always on time; and they must also inform each bricklayer at frequent intervals as to the progress he is making, so that he may not unintentionally fall off in his pace. Thus it will be seen that it is the assumption by the management of new duties and new kinds of work never done by employers in the past that makes this great improvement possible, and that, without this new help from the management, the workman even with full knowledge of the new methods and with the best of intentions could not attain these startling results.

Mr. Gilbreth's method of bricklaying furnishes a simple illustration of true and effective cooperation. Not the type of cooperation in which a mass of workmen on one side together cooperate with the management; but that in which several men in the management (each one in his own particular way) help each workman individua lly, on the one hand, by studying his needs and his shortcomings and teaching him better and quicker methods, and, on the other hand, by seeing that all other workmen with whom he comes in contact help and cooperate with him by doing their part of the work right and fast.

The writer has gone thus fully into Mr. Gilbreth's method in order that it may be perfectly clear that this increase in output and that this harmony could not have been attained under the management of“initiative and incentive”(that is, by putting the problem up to the workman and leaving him to solve it alone) which has been the philosophy of the past. And that his success has been due to the use of the four elements which constitute the essence of scientific management.

First. The development (by the management, not the workman) of the science of bricklaying, with rigid rules for each motion of every man, and the perfection and standardization of all implements and working conditions.

Second. The careful selection and subsequent training of the bricklayers into first-class men, and the elimination of all men who refuse to or are unable to adopt the best methods.

Third. Bringing the first-class bricklayer and the science of bricklaying together, through the constant help and watchfulness of the management, and through paying each man a large daily bonus for working fast and doing what he is told to do.

Fourth. An almost equal division of the work and responsibility between the workman and the management. All day long the management work almost side by side with the men, helping, encourag ing, and smoothing the way for them, while in the past they stood one side, gave the men but little help, and threw on to them almost the entire responsibility as to methods, implements, speed, and harmonious cooperation.

Of these four elements, the first (the development of the science of bricklaying) is the most interesting and spectacular. Each of the three others is, however, quite as necessary for success.

It must not be forgotten that back of all this, and directing it, there must be the optimistic, determined, and hard-working leader who can wait patiently as well as work.

In most cases (particularly when the work to be done is intricate in its nature) the“development of the science”is the most important of the four great elements of the new management. There are instances, however, in which the“scientific selection of the workman” counts for more than anything else.

A case of this type is well illustrated in the very simple though unusual work of inspecting bicycle balls.

When the bicycle craze was at its height some years ago several million small balls made of hardened steel were used annually in bicycle bearings. And among the twenty or more operations used in making steel balls, perhaps the most important was that of inspecting them after final polishing so as to remove all fire-cracked or otherwise imperfect balls before boxing.

The writer was given the task of systematizing the largest bicycle ball factory in this country. This company had been running for from eight to ten years on ordinary day work before he undertook its reorganization, so that the one hundred and twenty or more girls who were inspecting the balls were“old bands”and skilled at their jobs.

It is impossible even in the most elementary work to change rapidly from the old independence of individual day work to scientific cooperation.

In most cases, however, there exist certain imperfections in working conditions which can at once be improved with benefit to all concerned.

In this instance it was found that the inspectors (girls) were working ten and one-half hours per day (with a Saturday half holiday.) Their work consisted briefly in placing a row of small poli shed steel balls on the back of the left hand, in the crease between two of the fingers pressed together, and while they were rolled over and over, they were minutely examined in a strong light, and with the aid of a magnet held in the right hand, the defective balls were picked out and thrown into especial boxes. Four kinds of defects were looked for——dented, soft, scratched, and fire-cracked—— and they were mostly so minute as to be invisible to an eye not especially trained to this work. It required the closest attention and concentration, so that the nervous tension of the inspectors was conside rable, in spite of the fact that they were comfortably seated and were not physically tired.

A most casual study made it evident that a very considerable part of the ten and one-half hours during which the girls were supposed to work was really spent in idleness because the working period was too long. It is a matter of ordinary common sense to plan working hours so that the workers can really“work while they work”and“play while they play,”and not mix the two.

Before the arrival of Mr. Sanford E. Thompson, who undertook a scientific study of the whole process, we decided, therefore, to shorten the working hours.

The old foreman who had been over the inspecting room for years was instructed to interview one after another of the better inspectors and the more influential girls and persuade them that they could do just as much work in ten hours each day as they had been doing in ten and one-half hours. Each girl was told that the proposition was to shorten the day's work to ten hours and pay them the same day's pay they were receiving for the ten and one-half hours. In about two weeks the foreman reported that all of the girls he had talked to agreed that they could do their present work just as well in ten hours as in ten and one-half and that they approved of the change.

The writer had not been especially noted for his tact so he decided that it would be wise for him to display a little more of this quality by having the girls vote on the new proposition. This decision was hardly justified, however, for when the vote was taken the girls were unanimous that 10 1/2 hours was good enough for them and they wanted no innovation of any kind.

This settled the matter for the time being. A few months later tact was thrown to the winds and the working hours were arbitrarily shortened in successive steps to 10 hours, 9 1/2, 9, and 8 1/2 (the pay per day remaining the same); and with each shortening of the working day the output increased instead of diminishing.

The change from, the old to the scientific method in this department was made under the direction of Mr. Sanford E. Thompson, perhaps the most experienced man in motion and time study in this country, under the general superintendence of Mr. H. L. Gantt.

In the Physiological departments of our universities experiments are regularly conducted to determine what is known as the“personal coefficient”of the man tested. This is done by suddenly bringing some object, the letter A or B for instance, within the range of vision of the subject, who, the instant he recognizes the letter has to do some definite thing, such as to press a particular electric button. The time which elapses from the instant the letter comes in view until the subject presses the button is accurately recorded by a delicate scientific instrument.

This test shows conclusively that there is a great difference in the“personal coefficient”of different men. Some individuals are born with unusually quick powers of perception accompanied by quick responsive action. With some the message is almost instantly transmitted from the eye to the brain, and the brain equally quickly responds by sending the proper message to the hand.

Men of this type are said to have a low“personal coefficient,” while those of slow perception and slow action have a high“personal coefficient. ”

Mr. Thompson soon recognized that the quality most needed for bicycle ball inspectors was a low personal coefficient. Of course the ordinary qualities of endurance and industry were also called for.

For the ultimate good of the girls as well as the company, however, it became necessary to exclude, all girls who lacked a low “personal coefficient. ” And unfortunately this involved laying off many of the most intelligent, hardest working, and most trustworthy girls merely because they did not possess the quality of quick perception followed by quick action.

While the gradual selection of girls was going on other changes were also being made.

One of the dangers to be guarded against, when the pay of the man or woman is made in any way to depend on the quantity of the work done, is that in the effort to increase the quantity the quality is apt to deteriorate.

It is necessary in almost all cases, therefore, to take definite steps to insure against any falling off in quality before moving in any way towards an increase in quantity.

In the work of these particular girls quality was the very essence. They were engaged in picking out all defective balls.

The first step, therefore, was to make it impossible for them to slight their work without being, found out. This was accomplished through what is known as over-inspection, Each one of four of the most trust-worthy girls was given each day a lot of balls to inspect which had been examined the day before by one of the regular inspectors; the number identifying the lot to be over-inspected having been changed by the foreman so that none of the over-inspectors knew whose work they were examining. In addition to this one of the lots inspected by the four over-inspectors was examined on the following day by the chief inspector, selected on account of her especial accuracy and integrity.

An effective expedient was adopted for checking the honesty and accuracy of the over-inspection. Every two or three days a lot of balls was especially prepared by the foreman, who counted out a definite number of perfect balls, and added a recorded number of defective balls of each kind. Neither the inspectors nor the over-inspectors had any means of distinguishing this prepared lot from the regular commercial lots. And in this way all temptation to slight their work or make false returns was removed.

After insuring in this way against deterioration in quality, effective means were at once adopted to increase the output. Improved day work was substituted for the old slipshod method. An accurate daily record was kept both as to the quantity and quality of the work done in order to guard against any personal prejudice on the part of the foreman and to insure absolute impartiality and justice for each inspector. In a comparatively short time this record enabled the foreman to stir the ambition of all the inspectors by increasing the wages of those who turned out a large quantity and good quality, while at the same time lowering the pay of those who did indifferent work and discharging others who proved to be incorrigibly slow or careless. A careful examination was then made of the way in which each girl spent her time and an accurate time study was undertaken, through the use of a stop-watch and record blanks, to determine how fast each kind of inspection should be done, and to establish the exact conditions under which each girl could do her quickest and best work, while at the same time guarding against giving her a task so severe that there was danger from over fatigue or exhaustion. This investigation showed that the girls spent a considerable part of their time either in partial idleness, talking and half working, or in actually doing nothing.

Even when the hours of labor had been shortened from 10 1/2 to 8 1/2 hours a close observation of the girls showed that after about an hour and one-half of consecutive work they began to get nervous. They evidently needed a rest. It is wise to stop short of the point at which overstrain begins, so we arranged for them to have a ten minutes period for recreation at the end of each hour and one quarter. During these recess periods (two of ten minutes each in the morning and two in the afternoon) they were obliged to stop work and were encouraged to leave their seats and get a complete change of occupation by walking around and talking, etc.

In one respect no doubt some people will say that these girls were brutally treated. They were seated so far apart that they could not conveniently talk while at work.

Shortening their hours of labor, however, and providing so far as we knew the most favorable working conditions made it possible for them to really work steadily instead of pretending to do so. And it is only after this stage in the reorganization is reached, when the girls have been properly selected and on the one hand such precautions have been taken as to guard against the possibility of overdriving them, while, on the other hand, the temptation to slight their work has been removed and the most favorable working conditions have been established, that the final step should be taken which insures them what they most want, namely, high wages, and the employers what they most want, namely, the maximum output and best quality of work,——which means a low labor cost.

This step is to give each girl each day a carefully measured task which demands a full day's work from a competent operative, and also to give her a large premium or bonus whenever she accomplishes this task.

This was done in this case through establishing what is known as differential rate piece work[4]. Under this system the pay of each girl was increased in proportion to the quantity of her output and also still more in proportion to the accuracy of her work.

As will be shown later, the differential rate (the lots inspected by the over-inspectors forming the basis for the differential) resulted in a large gain in the quantity of work done and at the same time in a marked improvement in the quality. Before they finally worked to the best advantage it was found to be necessary to measure the output of each girl as often as once every hour, and to send a teacher to each individual who was found to be falling behind to find what was wrong, to straighten her out, and to encourage and help her to catch up.

There is a general principle back of this which should be appreciated by all of those who are especially interested in the management of men. A reward, if it is to be effective in stimulating men to do their best work, must come soon after the work has been done. But few men are able to look forward for more than a week or perhaps at most a month, and work hard for a reward which they are to receive at the end of this time.

The average workman must be able to measure what he has accomplished and clearly see his reward at the end of each day if he is to do his best. And more elementary characters, such as the young girls inspecting bicycle balls, or children, for instance, should have proper encouragement either in the shape of personal attention from those over them or an actual reward in sight as often as once an hour.

This is one of the principal reasons why cooperation or“profitsharing” either through selling stock to the employees or through dividends on wages received at the end of the year, etc., have been at the best only mildly effective in stimulating men to work hard. The nice time which they are sure to have to-day if they take things easily and go slowly proves more attractive than steady hard work with a possible reward to be shared with others six months later. A second reason for the inefficiency of profit-sharing schemes had been that no form of cooperation has yet been devised in which each individual is allowed free scope for his personal ambition. Personal ambition always has been and will remain a more powerful incentive to exertion than a desire for the general welfare. The few misplaced drones, who do the loafing and share equally in the profits, with the rest, under cooperation are sure to drag the better men down toward their level.

Other and formidable difficulties in the path of cooperative schemes are, the equitable division of the profits, and the fact that, while workmen are always ready to share the profits, they are neither able nor willing to share the losses. Further than this, in many cases, it is neither right nor just that they should share either the profits or the losses, since these may be due in great part to causes entirely beyond their influence or control, and to which they do not contribute.

To come back to the girls inspecting bicycle balls, however, the final outcome of all the changes was that thirty-five girls did the work formerly done by one hundred and twenty. And that the accuracy of the work at the higher speed was two-thirds greater than at the former slow speed.

The good that came to the girls was, First. That they averaged from 80 to 100 percent higher wages than they formerly received.

Second. Their hours of labor were shortened from 10 1/2 to 8 1/2 per day, with a Saturday half holiday. And they were given four recreation periods properly distributed through the day, which made overworking impossible for a healthy girl.

Third. Each girl was made to feel that she was the object of especial care and interest on the part of the management, and that if anything went wrong with her she could always have a helper and teacher in the management to lean upon.

Fourth. All young women should be given two consecutive days of rest (with pay) each month, to be taken whenever they may choose. It is my impression that these girls were given this privilege, although I am not quite certain on this point.

The benefits which came to the company from these changes were:

First. A substantial improvement in the quality of the product.

Second. A material reduction in the cost of inspection, in spite of the extra expense involved in clerk work, teachers, time study, over-inspectors, and in paying higher wages.

Third. That the most friendly relations existed between the management and the employees, which rendered labor troubles of any kind or a strike impossible.

These good results were brought about by many changes which substituted favorable for unfavorable working conditions. It should be appreciated, however, that the one element which did more than all of the others was, the careful selection of girls with quick perception to replace those whose perceptions were slow—— (the substitution of girls with a low personal coefficient for those whose personal coefficient was high) ——the scientific selection of the workers.

The illustrations have thus far been purposely confined to the more elementary types of work, so that a very strong doubt must still remain as to whether this kind of cooperation is desirable in the case of more intelligent mechanics, that is, in the case of men who are more capable of generalization, and who would therefore be more likely, of their own volition, to choose the more scientific and better methods. The following illustrations will be given for the purpose of demonstrating the fact that in the higher classes of work the scientific laws which are developed are so intricate that the high-priced mechanic needs (even more than the cheap laborer) the cooperation of men better educated than himself in finding the laws, and then in selecting, developing, and training him to work in accordance with these laws. These illustrations should make perfectly clear our original proposition that in practically all of the mechanic arts the science which underlies each workman's act is so great and amounts to so much that the workman who is best suited to actually doing the work is incapable, either through lack of education or through insufficient mental capacity, of understanding this science. A doubt, for instance, will remain in the minds perhaps of most readers (in the case of an establishment which manufactures the same machine, year in and year out, in large quantities, and in which, therefore, each mechanic repeats the same limited series of operations over and over again), whether the ingenuity of each workman and the help which he from time to time receives from his foreman will not develop such superior methods and such a personal dexterity that no scientific study which could be made would result in a material increase in efficiency.

A number of years ago a company employing about three hundred men, which had been manufacturing the same machine for ten to fifteen years, sent for us to report as to whether any gain could be made through the introduction of scientific management. Their shops had been run for many years under a good superintendent and with excellent foremen and workmen, on piece work. The whole establishment was, without doubt, in better physical condition than the average machine-shop in this country. The superintendent was distinctly displeased when told that through the adoption of task management the output, with the same number of men and machines, could be more than doubled.

He said that he believed that any such statement was mere boasting, absolutely false, and instead of inspiring him with confidence, he was disgusted that any one should make such an impudent claim. He, however, readily assented to the proposition that he should select any one of the machines whose output he consi dered as representing the average of the shop, and that we should then demonstrate on this machine that through scientific methods its output could be more than doubled. The machine selected by him fairly represented the work of the shop. It had been run for ten or twelve years past by a first-class mechanic who was more than equal in his ability to the average workmen in the establishment. In a shop of this sort in which similar machines are made over and over again, the work is necessarily greatly subdivided, so that no one man works upon more than a comparatively small number of parts during the year. A careful record was therefore made, in the presence of both parties, ox the time actually taken in finishing each of the parts which this man worked upon. The total time required by him to finish each piece, as well as the exact speeds and feeds which he took, were noted and a record was kept of the time which he took in setting the work in the machine and removing it. After obtaining in this way a statement of what represented a fair average of the work done in the shop, we applied to this one machine the principles of scientific management.

By means of four quite elaborate slide-rules, which have been especially made for the purpose of determining the all-round capacity of metal-cutting machines, a careful analysis was made of every element of this machine in its relation to the work in hand. Its Pulling power at its various speeds, its feeding capacity, and its proper speeds were determined by means of the slide-rules, and changes were then made in the countershaft and driving pulleys so as to run it at its proper speed. Tools, made of high-speed steel, and of the proper shapes, were properly dressed, treated, and ground. (It should be understood, however, that in this case the high-speed steel which had heretofore been in general use in the shop was also used in our demonstration.) A large special slide-rule was then made, by means of which the exact speeds and feeds were indicated at which each kind of work could be done in the shortest possible time in this particular lathe. After preparing in this way so that the workman should work according to the new method, one after another, pieces of work were finished in the lathe, corresponding to the work which had been done in our preliminary trials, and the gain in time made through running the machine according to scientific principles ranged from two and one-half times the speed in the slowest instance to nine times the speed in the highest.

The change from rule-of-thumb management to scientific management involves, however, not only a study of what is the proper speed for doing the work and a remodeling of the tools and the implements in the shop, but also a complete change in the mental attitude of all the men in the shop toward their employers. The physical improvements in the machines necessary to insure large gains, and the motion, study followed by minute study with a stop-watch of the time in which each workman should do his work, can be made comparatively quickly. But the change in the mental attitude and in the habits of the three hundred or more workmen can be brought about only slowly and through a long series of object-lessons, which finally demonstrates to each man the great advantage which he will gain by heartily cooperating in his every-day work with the men in the management. Within three years, however, in this shop, the output had been more than doubled per man and per machine. The men had been carefully selected and in almost all cases promoted from a lower to a higher order of work, and so instructed by their teachers (the functional foremen) that they were able to earn higher wages than ever before. The average increase in the daily earnings of each man was about 35 percent., while, at the same time, the sum total of the wages paid for doing a given amount of work was lower than before. This increase in the speed of doing the work, of course, involved a substitution of the quickest hand methods for the old independent rule-of-thumb methods, and an elaborate analysis of the hand work done by each man. (By hand work is meant such work as depends upon the manual dexterity and speed of a workman, and which is independent of the work done by the machine.) The time saved by scientific hand work was in many cases greater even than that saved in machine-work.

It seems important to fully explain the reason why, with the aid of a slide-rule, and after having studied the art of cutting metals, it was possible for the scientifically equipped man, who had never before seen these particular jobs, and who had never worked on this machine, to do work from two and one-half to nine times as fast as it had been done before by a good mechanic who had spent his whole time for some ten to twelve years in doing this very work upon this particular machine. In a word, this was possible because the art of cutting metals involves a true science of no small magnitude, a science, in fact, so intricate that it is impossible for any machinist who is suited to running a lathe year in and year out either to understand it or to work according to its laws without the help of men who have made this their specialty. Men who are un-familiar with machine-shop work are prone to look upon the manufacture of each piece as a special problem, independent of any other kind of machine-work. They are apt to think, for instance, that the problems connected with making the parts of an engine require the especial study, one may say almost the life study, of a set of engine-making mechanics, and that these problems are entirely different from those which would be met with in machining lathe or planer parts. In fact, however, a study of those elements which are peculiar either to engine parts or to lathe parts is trifling, compared with the great study of the art, or science, of cutting metals, upon a knowledge of which rests the ability to do really fast machine-work of all kinds.

The real problem is how to remove chips fast from a casting or a forging, and how to make the piece smooth and true in the shortest time, and it matters but little whether the piece being worked upon is part, say, of a marine engine, a printing-press, or an automobile. For this reason, the man with the slide rule, familiar with the science of cutting metals, who had never before seen this particular work, was able completely to distance the skilled mechanic who had made the parts of this machine his specialty for years.

It is true that whenever intelligent and educated men find that the responsibility for making progress in any of the mechanic arts rests with them, instead of upon the workmen who are actually laboring at the trade, that they almost invariably start on the road which leads to the development of a science where, in the past, has existed mere traditional or rule-of-thumb knowledge. When men, whose education has given them the habit of generalizing and everywhere looking for laws, find themselves confronted with a multitude of problems, such as exist in every trade and which have a general similarity one to another, it is inevitable that they should try to gather these problems into certain logical groups, and then search for some general laws or rules to guide them in their solution. As has been pointed out, however, the underlying principles of the management of“initiative and incentive,”that is, the underlying philosophy of this management, necessarily leaves the solution of all of these problems in the hands of each individual workman, while the philosophy of scientific management places their solution in the hands of the management. The workman's whole time is each day taken in actually doing the work with his hands, so that, even if he had the necessary education and habits of generalizing in his thought, he lacks the time and the opportunity for developing these laws, because the study of even a simple law involving say time study requires the cooperation of two men, the one doing the work while the other times him with a stop-watch. And even if the workman were to develop laws where before existed only rule-of-thumb knowledge, his personal interest would lead him almost inevitably to keep his discoveries secret, so that he could, by means of this special knowledge, personally do more work than other men and so obtain higher wages.

Under scientific management, on the other hand, it becomes the duty and also the pleasure of those who are engaged in the management not only to develop laws to replace rule of thumb, but also to teach impartially all of the workmen who are under them the quickest ways of working. The useful results obtained from these laws are always so great that any company can well afford to pay for the time and the experiments needed to develop them. Thus under scientific management exact scientific knowledge and methods are everywhere, sooner or later, sure to replace rule of thumb, whereas under the old type of management working in accordance with scientific laws is an impossibility. The development of the art or science of cutting metals is an apt illustration of this fact. In the fall of 1880, about the time that the writer started to make the experiments above referred to, to determine what constitutes a proper day's work for a laborer, he also obtained the permission of Mr. William Sellers, the President of the Midvale Steel Company, to make a series of experiments to determine what angles and shapes of tools were the best for cutting steel, and also to try to determine the proper cutting speed for steel. At the time that these experiments were started it was his belief that they would not last longer than six months, and, in fact, if it had been known that a longer period than this would be required, the permission to spend a considerable sum of money in making them would not have been forthcoming.

A 66-inch diameter vertical boring-mill was the first machine used in making these experiments, and large locomotive tires, made out of hard steel of uniform quality, were day after day cut up into chips in gradually learning how to make, shape, and use the cutting tools so that they would do faster work. At the end of six months sufficient practical information had been obtained to far more than repay the cost of materials and wages which had been expended in experimenting. And yet the comparatively small number of experiments which had been made served principally to make it clear that the actual knowledge attained was but a small fraction of that which still remained to be developed, and which was badly needed by us, in our daily attempt to direct and help the machinists in their tasks.

Experiments in this field were carried on, with occasional interruption, through a period of about 26 years, in the course of which ten different experimental machines were especially fitted up to do this work. Between 30,000 and 50,000 experiments were carefully recorded, and many other experiments were made, of which no record was kept. In studying these laws more than 800,000 pounds of steel and iron was cut up into chips with the experimental tools, and it is estimated that from $ 150,000 to $ 200,000 was spent in the investigation.

Work of this character is intensely interesting to any one who has any love for scientific research. For the purpose of this paper, however, it should be fully appreciated that the motive power which kept these experiments going through many years, and which supplied the money and the opportunity for their accomplishment, was not an abstract search after scientific knowledge, but was the very practical fact that we lacked the exact information which was needed every day, in order to help our machinists to do their work in the best way and in the quickest time.

All of these experiments were made to enable us to answer correctly the two questions which face every machinist each time that he does a piece of work in a metal-cutting machine, such as a lathe, planer, drill press, or miring machine. These two questions are:

In order to do the work in the quickest time, At what cutting speed shall I run my machine.? and What feed shall I use?

They sound so simple that they would appear to call for merely the trained judgment of any good mechanic. In fact, however, after working 26 years, it has been found that the answer in every case involves the solution of an intricate mathematical problem, in which the effect of twelve independent variables must be determined.

Each of the twelve following variables has an important effect upon the answer. The figures which are given with each of the variables represent the effect of this element upon the cutting speed. For example, after the first variable (A) we quote,

“The proportion is as I in the case of semi-hardened steel or chilled iron to 100 in the case of a very soft, low-carbon steel. ” The meaning of this quotation is that soft steel can be cut 100 times as fast as the hard steel or chilled iron. The ratios which are given, then, after each of these elements, indicate the wide range of judgment which practically every machinist has been called upon to exercise in the past in determining the best speed at which to run the machine and the best feed to use.

(A) The quality of the metal which is to be cut; i. e., its hardness or other qualities which affect the cutting speed. The proportion is as 1 in the case of semi-hardened steel or chilled iron to 100 in the case of very soft, low-carbon steel.

(B) The chemical composition of the steel from which the tool is made, and the heat treatment of the tool. The proportion is as 1 in tools made from tempered carbon steel to 7 in the best high-speed tools.

(C) The thickness of the shaving, or, the thickness of the spiral strip or band of metal which is to be removed by the tool. The proportion is as 1 with thickness of shaving 3/16 of an inch to 3 1/2 with thickness of shaving 1/64 of an inch.

(D) The shape or contour of the cutting edge of the tool. The proportion is as 1 in a thread tool to 6 in a broad-nosed cutting tool.

(E) Whether a copious stream of water or other cooling medium is used on the tool. The proportion is as 1 for tool running dry to 1.14 for tool cooled by a copious stream of water.

(F) The depth of the cut. The proportion is as 1 with 1/2 inch depth of cut to 1.36 with 1/8 inch depth of cut.

(G) The duration of the cut, i. e., the time which a tool must last under pressure of the shaving without being reground. The proportion is as 1 when tool is to be ground every 1 1/2 hours to 1.20 when tool is to be ground every 20 minutes.

(H) The lip and clearance angles of the tool. The proportion is as 1 with lip angle of 68 degrees to 1.023 with lip angle of 61 degrees.

(J) The elasticity of the work and of the tool on account of producing chatter. The proportion is as 1 with tool chattering to 1.15 with tool running smoothly.

(K) The diameter of the casting or forging which is being cut.

(L) The pressure of the chip or shaving upon the cutting surface of the tool.

(M) The pulling power and the speed and feed changes of the machine.

It may seem preposterous to many people that it should have required a period of 16 years to investigate the effect of these twelve variables upon the cutting speed of metals. To those, however, who have had personal experience as experimenters, it will be appreciated that the great difficulty of the problem lies in the fact that it contains so many variable elements. And in fact the great length of time consumed in making each single experiment was caused by the difficulty of holding eleven variables constant and uniform throughout the experiment, while the effect of the twelfth variable was being investigated. Holding the eleven variables constant was far more difficult than the investigation of the twelfth element.

As, one after another, the effect upon the cutting speed of each of these variables was investigated, in order that practical use could be made of this knowledge, it was necessary to find a mathematical formula which expressed in concise form the laws which had been obtained. As examples of the twelve formulae which were developed, the three following are given:

P = 45, 000 D14/15 F3/4

V = 90/ (T1/8)

V = 11.9/ (F0.665 (48D/3) 0.2373 + 2.4/(18 + 24D))

After these laws had been investigated and the various formulae which mathematically expressed them had been determined, there still remained the difficult task of how to solve one of these complicated mathematical problems quickly enough to make this knowledge available for every-day use. If a good mathematician who had these formula before Mm were to attempt to get the proper answer (i. e., to get the correct cutting speed and feed by working in the ordinary way) it would take him from two to six hours, say, to solve a single problem; far longer to solve the mathematical problem than would be taken in most cases by the workmen in doing the whole job in his machine. Thus a task of considerable magnitude which faced us was that of finding a quick solution of this problem, and as we made progress in its solution, the whole problem was from time to time presented by the writer to one after another of the noted mathematicians in this country. They were offered any reasonable fee for a rapid, practical method to be used in its solution. Some of these men merely glanced at it; others, for the sake of being courteous, kept it before them for some two or three weeks. They all gave us practically the same answer: that in many cases it was possible to, solve mathematical problems which contained four variables, and in some cases problems with five or six variables, but that it was manifestly impossible to solve a problem containing twelve variables in any other way than by the slow process of“trial and error.”

A quick solution was, however, so much of a necessity in our every-day work of running machine-shops, that in spite of the small encouragement received from the mathematicians, we continued at irregular periods, through a term of fifteen years, to give a large amount of time searching for a simple solution. Four or five men at various periods gave practically their whole time to this work, and finally, while we were at the Bethlehem Steel Company, the sliderule was developed which is illustrated on Folder No. 11 of the paper“On the Art of Cutting Metals,”and is described in detail in the paper presented by Mr. Carl G. Barth to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, entitled“Slide-rules for the Machineshop, as a part of the Taylor System of Management”(Vol. XXV of The Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers). By means of this slide-rule, one of these intricate problems can be solved in less than a half minute by any good mechanics whether he understands anything about mathematics or not, thus making available for every-day, practical use the years of experimenting on the art of cutting metals. This is a good illustration of the fact that some way can always be found of making practical, everyday use of complicated scientific data, which appears to be beyond the experience and the range of the technical training of ordinary practical men. These slide-rules have been for years in constant daily use by machinists having no knowledge of mathematics.

A glance at the intricate mathematical formula (see page 109) which represent the laws of cutting metals should clearly show the reason why it is impossible for any machinist, without the aid of these laws, and who depends upon his personal experience, correctly to guess at the answer to the two questions,

What speed shall I use?

What feed shall I use?

Even though he may repeat the same piece of work many times.

To return to the case of the machinist who had been working for ten to twelve years in machining the same pieces over and over again, there was but a remote chance in any of the various kinds of work which this man did that he should hit upon the one best method of doing each piece of work out of the hundreds of possible methods which lay before him. In considering this typical case, it must also be remembered that the metal-cutting machines throughout our machine-shops have practically all been speeded by their makers by guesswork, and without the knowledge obtained through a study of the art of cutting metals. In the machine-shops systematized by us we have found that there is not one machine in a hundred which is speeded by its makers at anywhere near the correct cutting speed. So that, in order to compete with the science of cutting metals, the machinist, before he could use proper speeds, would first have to put new pulleys on the countershaft of his machine, and also make in most cases changes in the shapes and treatment of his tools, etc. Many of these changes are matters entirely beyond his control, even if he knows what ought to be done.

If the reason is clear to the reader why the rule-of-thumb knowledge obtained by the machinist who is engaged on repeat work cannot possibly compete with the true science of cutting metals, it should be even more apparent why the high-class mechanic, who is called upon to do a great variety of work from day to day, is even less able to compete with this science. The high-class mechanic who does a different kind of work each day, in order to do each job in the quickest time, would need, in addition to a thorough knowledge of the art of cutting metals, a vast knowledge and experience in the quickest way of doing each kind of hand work. And the reader, by calling to mind the gain which was made by Mr. Gilbreth through his motion and time study in laying bricks, will appreciate the great possibilities for quicker methods of doing all kinds of hand work which lie before every tradesman after he has the help which comes from a scientific motion and time study of his work.

For nearly twenty years past, time-study men connected with the management of machine-shops have been devoting their whole time to a scientific motion study, followed by accurate time study, with a stop-watch, of all of the elements connected with the machinist's work. When, therefore, the teachers, who form one section of the management, and who are cooperating with the working men, are in possession both of the science of cutting metals and of the equally elaborate motion-study and time-study science connected with this work, it is not difficult to appreciate why even the highest class mechanic is unable to do his best work without constant daily assistance from his teachers. And if this fact has been made clear to the reader, one of the important objects in writing this paper will have been realized.

It is hoped that the illustrations which have been given make it apparent why scientific management must inevitably in all cases produce overwhelmingly greater results, both for the company and its employees, than can be obtained with the management of“initiative and incentive. ” And it should also be clear that these results have been attained, not through a marked superiority in the mechanism of one type of management over the mechanism of another, but rather through the substitution of one set of underlying principles for a totally different set of principles, by the substitution of one philosophy for another philosophy in industrial management.

To repeat then throughout all of these illustrations, it will be seen that the useful results have hinged mainly upon (1) The substitution of a science for the individual judgment of the workman; (2) The scientific selection and development of the workman, after each man has been studied, taught, and trained, and one may say experimented with, instead of allowing the workmen to select themselves and develop in a haphazard way; and (3) The intimate cooperation of the management with the workmen, so that they together do the work in accordance with the scientific laws which have been developed, instead of leaving the solution of each problem in the hands of the individual workman. In applying these new principles, in place of the old individual effort of each workman, both sides share almost equally in the daily performance of each task, the management doing that part of the work for which they are best fitted, and the workmen the balance.

It is for the illustration of this philosophy that this paper has been written, but some of the elements involved in its general principles should be further discussed. The development of a science sounds like a formidable undertaking, and in fact anything like a thorough study of a science such as that of cutting metals necessarily involves many years of work. The science of cutting metals, however, represents in its complication, and in the time required to develop it, almost an extreme case in the mechanic arts. Yet even in this very intricate science, within a few months after starting, enough knowledge had been obtained to much more than pay for the work of experimenting. This holds true in the case of practically all scientific development in the mechanic arts. The first laws developed for cutting metals were crude, and contained only a partial knowledge of the truth, yet this imperfect knowledge was vastly better than the utter lack of exact information or the very imperfect rule of thumb which existed before, and it enabled the workmen, with the help of the management, to do far quicker and better work.

For example, a very short time was needed to discover one or two types of tools which, though imperfect as compared with the shapes developed years afterward, were superior to all other shapes and kinds in common use. These tools were adopted as standard and made possible an immediate increase in the speed of every machinist who used them. These types were superseded in a comparatively short time by still other tools which remained standard until they in their turn made way for later improvements[5]. The science which exists in most of the mechanic arts is, however, far simpler than the science of cutting metals. In almost all cases, in fact, the laws or rules which are developed are so simple that the average man would hardly dignify them with the name of a science. In most trades, the science is developed through a comparatively simple analysis and time study of the movements required by the workmen to do some small part of his work, and this study is usually made by a man equipped merely with a stop-watch and a properly ruled notebook. Hundreds of these“ime-study men”are now engaged in developing elementary scientific knowledge where before existed only rule of thumb. Even the motion study of Mr. Gilbreth in bricklaying (described on pages 77 to 84) involves a much more elaborate investigation than that which occurs in most cases. The general steps to be taken in developing a simple law of this class are as follows:

First. Find, say, 10 or 15 different men (preferably in as many separate establishments and different parts of the country) who are especially skilful in doing the particular work to be analyzed.

Second. Study the exact series of elementary operations or motions which each of these men uses in doing the work which is being investigated, as well as the implements each man uses.

Third. Study with a stop-watch the time required to make each of these elementary movements and then select the quickest way of doing each element of the work.

Fourth. Eliminate all false movements, slow movements, and useless movements.

Fifth. After doing away with all unnecessary movements, collect into one series the quickest and best movements as well as the best implements.

This one new method, involving that series of motions which can be made quickest and best, is then substituted in place of the ten or fifteen inferior series which were formerly in use. This best method becomes standard, and remains standard, to be taught first to the teachers (or functional foremen) and by them to every workman in the establishment until it is superseded by a quicker and better series of movements. In this simple way one element after another of the science is developed.

In the same way each type of implement used in a trade is studied. Under the philosophy of the management of“initiative and incentive”each work-man is called upon to use his own best judgment, so as to do the work in the quickest time, and from this results in all cases a large variety in the shapes and types of implements which are used for any specific purpose. Scientific management requires, first, a careful investigation of each of the many modifications of the same implement, developed under rule of thumb; and second, after a time study has been made of the speed attainable with each of these implements, that the good points of several of them shall be united in a single standard implement, which will enable the workman to work faster and with greater ease than he could before. This one implement, then, is adopted as standard in place of the many different kinds before in use, and it remains standard for all workmen to use until superseded by an implement which has been shown, through motion and time study, to be still better.

With this explanation it will be seen that the development of a science to replace rule of thumb is in most cases by no means a formidable under-taking, and that it can be accomplished by ordinary, every-day men without any elaborate scientific training; but that, on the other hand, the successful use of even the simplest improvement of this kind calls for records, system, and cooperation where in the past existed only individual effort.

There is another type of scientific investigation which has been referred to several times in this paper, and which should receive special attention, namely, the accurate study of the motives which influence men. At first it may appear that this is a matter for individual observation and judgment, and is not a proper subject for exact scientific experiments. It is true that the laws which result from experiments of this class, owing to the fact that the very complex organism——the human being——is being experimented with, are subject to a larger number of exceptions than is the case with laws relating to material things. And yet laws of this kind, which apply to a large majority of men, unquestionably exist, and when clearly defined are of great value as a guide in dealing with men. In developing these laws, accurate, carefully planned and executed experiments, extending through a term of years, have been made, similar in a general way to the experiments upon various other elements which have been referred to in this paper. Perhaps the most important law belonging to this class, in its relation to scientific management, is the effect which the task idea has upon the efficiency of the workman. This, in fact, has become such an important element of the mechanism of scientific management, that by a great number of people scientific management has come to be known as“task management.”

There is absolutely nothing new in the task idea. Each one of us will remember that in his own case this idea was applied with good results in his school-boy days. No efficient teacher would think of giving a class of students an indefinite lesson to learn. Each day a definite, clear-cut task is set by the teacher before each scholar, stating that he must learn just so much of the subject; and it is only by this means that proper, systematic progress can be made by the students. The average boy would go very slowly if, instead of being given a task, he were told to do as much as he could. All of us are grown-up children, and it is equally true that the average workman will work with the greatest satisfaction, both to himself and to his employer, when he is given each day a definite task which he is to perform in a given time, and which constitutes a proper day's work for a good workman. This furnishes the workman with a clear-cut standard, by which he can throughout the day measure his own progress, and the accomplishment of which affords him the greatest satisfaction.

The writer has described in other papers a series of experiments made upon workmen, which have resulted in demonstrating the fact that it is impossible, through any long period of time, to get work-men to work much harder than the average men around them, unless they are assured a large and a permanent increase in their pay. This series of experiments, however, also proved that plenty of workmen can be found who are willing to work at their best speed, provided they are given this liberal increase in wages. The workman must, however, be fully assured that this increase beyond the average is to be permanent. Our experiments have shown that the exact percentage of increase required to make a workman work at his highest speed depends upon the kind of work which the man is doing.

It is absolutely necessary, then, when workmen are daily given a task which calls for a high rate of speed on their part, that they should also be insured the necessary high rate of pay whenever they are successful. This involves not only fixing for each man his daily task, but also paying him a large bonus, or premium, each time that he succeeds in doing his task in the given time. It is difficult to appreciate in full measure the help which the proper use of these two elements is to the workman in elevating him to the highest standard of efficiency and speed in his trade, and then keeping him there, unless one has seen first the old plan and afterward the new tried upon the same man. And in fact until one has seen similar accurate experiments made upon various grades of workmen engaged in doing widely different types of work. The remarkable and almost uniformly good results from the correct application of the task and the bonus must be seen to be appreciated.

These two elements, the task and the bonus (which, as has been pointed out in previous papers, can be applied in several ways), constitute two of the most important elements of the mechanism of scientific management. They are especially important from the fact that they are, as it were, a climax, demanding before they can be used almost all of the other elements of the mechanism; such as a planning department, accurate time study, standardization of methods and implements, a routing system, the training of functional foremen or teachers, and in many cases instruction cards sliderules, etc. (Referred to later in rather more detail on page 129.)

The necessity for systematically teaching workmen how to work to the best advantage has been several times referred to. It seems desirable, therefore, to explain in rather more detail how this teaching is done. In the case of a machine-shop which is managed under the modem system, detailed written instructions are the best way of doing each piece of work are prepared in advance, by men in the planning department. These instructions represent the combined work of several men in the planning room, each of whom has his own specialty, or function. One of them, for instance, is a specialist on the proper speeds and cutting tools to be used. He uses the slide-rules which have been above described as an aid, to guide him in obtaining proper speeds, etc. Another man analyzes the best and quickest motions to be made by the workman in setting the work up in the machine and removing it, etc. Still a third, through the time-study records which have been accumulated, makes out a timetable giving the proper speed for doing each element of the work. The directions of all of these men, however, are written on a single instruction card, or sheet.

These men of necessity spend most of their time in the planning department, because they must be close to the records and data which they continually use in their work, and because this work requires the use of a desk and freedom from interruption. Human nature is such, however, that many of the workmen, if left to themselves, would pay but little attention to their written instructions. It is necessary, therefore, to provide teachers (called functional foremen) to see that the workmen both understand and carry out these written instructions.

Under functional management, the old-fashioned single foreman is superseded by eight different men, each one of whom has his own special duties, and these men, acting as the agents for the planning department (see paragraph 234 to 245 of the paper entitled“Shop Management”), are the expert teachers, who are at all times in the shop, helping, and directing the workmen. Being each one chosen for his knowledge and personal skill in his specialty, they are able not only to tell the workman what he should do, but in case of necessity they do the work themselves in the presence of the workman, so as to show him not only the best but also the quickest methods.

One of these teachers (called the inspector) sees to it that he understands the drawings and instructions for doing the work. He teaches him how to do work of the right quality; how to make it fine and exact where it should be fine, and rough and quick where accuracy is not required, ——the one being just as important for success as the other. The second teacher (the gang boss) shows him how to set up the job in his machine, and teaches him to make all of his personal motions in the quickest and best way. The third (the speed boss) sees that the machine is run at the best speed and that the proper tool is used in the particular way which will enable the machine to finish its product in the shortest possible time. In addition to the assistance given by these teachers, the workman receives orders and help from four other men; from the“repair boss”as to the adjustment, cleanliness, and general care of his machine, belting, etc.; from the“time clerk,”as to everything relating to his pay and to proper written reports and returns; from the“route clerk,”as to the order in which he does his work and as to the movement of the work from one part of the shop to another; and, in case a workman gets into any trouble with any of his various bosses, the“disciplinarian”interviews him.

It must be understood, of course, that all workmen engaged on the same kind of work do not require the same amount of individual teaching and attention from the functional foremen. The men who are new at a given operation naturally require far more teaching and watching than those who have been a long time at the same kind of jobs.

Now, when through all of this teaching and this minute instruction the work is apparently made so smooth and easy for the workman, the first impression is that this all tends to make him a mere automaton, a wooden man. As the workmen frequently say when they first come under this system,“Why, I am not allowed to think or move without some one interfering or doing it for me!”The same criticism and objection, however, can be raised against all other modem subdivision of labor. It does not follow, for example, that the modem surgeon is any more narrow or wooden a man than the early settler of this country. The frontiersman, however, had to be not only a surgeon, but also an architect, house-builder, lumberman, farmer, soldier, and doctor, and he had to settle his law cases with a gun. You would hardly say that the life of the modem surgeon is any more narrowing, or that he is more of a wooden man than the frontiersman. The many problems to be met and solved by the surgeon are just as intricate and difficult and as developing and broadening in their way as were those of the frontiersman.

And it should be remembered that the training of the surgeon has been almost identical in type with the teaching and training which is given to the workman under scientific management. The surgeon, all through his early years, is under the closest supervision of more experienced men, who show him in the minutest way how each element of his work is best done. They provide him with the finest implements, each one of which has been the subject of special study and development, and then insist upon his using each of these implements in the very best way. AR of this teaching, however, in no way narrows him. On the contrary he is quickly given the very best knowledge of his predecessors; and, provided (as he is, right from the start) with standard implements and methods which represent the best knowledge of the world up to date, he is able to use his own originality and ingenuity to make real additions to the world's knowledge, instead of reinventing things which are old. In a similar way the workman who is cooperating with his many teachers under scientific management has an opportunity to develop which is at least as good as and generally better than that which he had when the whole problem was“up to him”and he did his work entirely unaided.

If it were true that the workman would develop into a larger and finer man without all of this teaching, and without the help of the laws which have been formulated for doing his particular job, then it would follow that the young man who now comes to college to have the help of a teacher in mathematics, physics, chemistry, Latin, Greek, etc., would do better to study these things unaided and by himself. The only difference in the two cases is that students come to their teachers, while from the nature of the work done by the mechanic under scientific management, the teachers must go to him. What really happens is that, with the aid of the science which is invariably developed, and through the instructions from his teachers, each workman of a given intellectual capacity is enabled to do a much higher, more interesting, and finally more developing and more profitable kind of work than he was before able to do. The laborer who before was unable to do anything beyond, perhaps, shoveling and wheeling dirt from place to place, or carrying the work from one part of the shop to another, is in many cases taught to do the more elementary machinist's work, accompanied by the agreeable surroundings and the interesting variety and higher wages which go with the machinist's trade. The cheap machinist or helper, who before was able to run perhaps merely a drill press, is taught to do the more intricate and higher priced lathe and planer work, while the highly skilled and more intelligent machinists become functional foremen and teachers. And so on, right up the line.

It may seem that with scientific management there is not the same incentive for the workman to use his ingenuity in devising new and better methods of doing the work, as well as in improving his implements, that there is with the old type of management. It is true that with scientific management the workman is not allowed to use whatever implements and methods he sees fit in the daily practice of his work. Every encouragement, however, should be given him to suggest improvements, both in methods and in implements. And whenever a workman proposes an improvement, it should be the policy of the management to make a careful analysis of the new method, and if necessary conduct a series of experiments to determine accurately the relative merit of the new suggestion and of the old standard. And whenever the new method is found to be markedly superior to the old, it should be adopted as the standard for the whole establishment. The workman should be given the full credit for the improvement, and should be paid a cash premium as a reward for his ingenuity. In this way the true initiative of the workmen is better attained under scientific management than under the old individual plan.

The history of the development of scientific, management up to date, however, calls for a word of warning. The mechanism of management must not be mistaken for its essence, or underlying philosophy. Precisely the same mechanism will in one case produce disastrous results and in another the most beneficent. The same mechanism which will produce the finest results when made to serve the underlying principles of scientific management, will lead to failure and disaster if accompanied by the wrong spirit in those who are using it. Hundreds of people have already mistaken the mechanism of this system for its essence. Messrs. Gantt, Barth and the writer have presented papers to, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers on the subject of scientific management. In these papers the mechanism which is used has been described at some length. As elements of this mechanism may be cited:

Time study, with the implements and methods for properly making it.

Functional or divided foremanship and its superiority to the old-fashioned single foreman.

The standardization of all tools and implements used in the trades, and also of the acts or movements of workmen for each class of work.

The desirability of a planning room or department.

The“exception principle”in management. The use of sliderules and similar timesaving implements. Instruction cards for the workman.

The task idea in management, accompanied by a large bonus for the successful performance of the task.

The“differential rate. ”

Mnemonic systems for classifying manufactured products as well as implements used in manufacturing.

A routing system.

Modem cost system, etc.

These are, however, merely the elements or details of the mechanism of management. Scientific management, in its essence, consists of a certain philosophy, which results, as before stated, in a combination of the four great underlying principles of management:

First. The development of a true science. Second, The scientific selection of the workman. Third. His scientific education and development. Fourth. Intimate friendly cooperation between the management and the men.

When, however the elements of this mechanism, such as time study, functional foremanship etc., are used without being accompanied by the true philosophy of management, the results are in many cases disastrous. And, unfortunately, even when men who are thoroughly in sympathy with the principles of scientific management undertake to change too rapidly from the old type to the new, without heeding the warnings of those who have had years of experience in making this change, they frequently meet with serious troubles, and sometimes with strikes, followed by failure.

The writer, in his paper on“Shop Management,”has called especial attention to the risks which managers run in attempting to change rapidly from the old to the new management, in many cases, however, this warning has not been heeded. The physical changes which are needed, the actual time study which has to be made, the standardization of all implements connected with the work, the necessity for individually studying each machine and placing it in perfect order, all take time, but the faster these elements of the work are studied and improved, the better for the undertaking. On the other hand, the really great problem involved in a change from the management of“initiative and incentive”to scientific management consists in a complete revolution in the mental attitude and the habits of all of those engaged in the management, as well of the workmen. And this change can be brought about only gradually and through the presentation of many object-lessons to the workman, which, together with the teaching which he receives, thoroughly convince him of the superiority of the new over the old way of doing the work. This change in the mental attitude of the workman imperatively demands time. It is impossible to hurry it beyond a certain speed. The writer has over and over again warned those who contemplated making this change that it was a matter, even in a simple establishment, of from two to three years, and that in some cases it requires from four to five years.

The first few changes which affect the workmen should be made exceedingly slowly, and only one workman at a time should be dealt with at the start. Until this single man has been thoroughly convinced that a great gain has come to him from the new method, no further change should be made. Then one man after another should be tactfully changed over. After passing the point at which from one-fourth to one-third of the men in the employ of the company have been changed from the old to the new, very rapid progress can be made, because at about this time there is, generally, a complete revolution in the public opinion of the whole establishment and practically all of the workmen who are working under the old system become desirous to share in the benefits which they see have been received by those working under the new plan.

Inasmuch as the writer has personally retired from the business of introducing this system of management (that is, from all work done in return for any money compensation), he does not hesitate again to emphasize the fact that those companies are indeed fortunate who can secure the services of experts who have had the necessary practical experience in introducing scientific management, and who have made a special study of its principles. It is not enough that a man should have been a manager in an establishment which is run under the new principles. The man who undertakes to direct the steps to be taken in changing from the old to the new (particularly in any establishment doing elaborate work) must have had personal experience in overcoming the especial difficulties which are always met with, and which are peculiar to this period of transition. It is for this reason that the writer expects to devote the rest of his life chiefly to trying to help those who wish to take up this work as their profession, and to advising the managers and owners of companies in general as to the steps which they should take in making this change.

As a warning to those who contemplate adopting scientific management, the following instance is given. Several men who lacked the extended experience which is required to change without danger of strikes, or without interference with the success of the business, from the management of“initiative and incentive”to scientific management, attempted rapidly to increase the output in quite an elaborate establishment, employing between three thousand and four thousand men. Those who undertook to make this change were men of unusual ability, and were at the same time enthusiasts and I think had the interests of the workmen truly at heart. They were, however, warned by the writer, before starting, that they must go exceedingly slowly, and that the work of making the change in this establishment could not be done in less than from three to five years. This warning they entirely disregarded. They evidently believed that by using much of the mechanism of scientific management, in combination with the principles of the management of“initiative and incentive,”instead of with these principles of scientific management, that they could do, in a year or two, what had been proved in the past to require at least double this time. The know ledge obtained from accurate time study, for example, is a powerful implement, and can be used, in one case to promote harmony between the workmen and the management, by gradually educating, training, and leading the workmen into new and better methods of doing the work, or, in the other case, it may be used more or less as a club to drive the workmen into doing a larger day's work for approximately the same pay that they received in the past. Unfortunately the men who had charge of this work did not take the time and the trouble required to train functional foremen, or teachers, who were fitted gradually to lead and educate the workmen. They attempted, through the old-style foreman, armed with his new weapon (accurate time study), to drive the workmen, against their wishes, and without much increase in pay, to work much harder, instead of gradually teaching and leading them toward new methods, and convincing them through object-lessons that task management means for them somewhat harder work, but also far greater prosperity. The result of all this disregard of fundamental principles was a series of strikes, followed by the down-fall of the men who attempted to make the change, and by a return to conditions throughout the establishment far worse than those which existed before the effort was made.

This instance is cited as an object-lesson of the futility of using the mechanism of the new management while leaving out its essence, and also of trying to shorten a necessarily long operation in entire disregard of past experience. It should be emphasized that the men who undertook this work were both able and earnest, and that failure was not due to lack of ability on their part, but to their undertaking to do the impossible. These particular men will not again make a similar mistake, and it is hoped that their experience may act as a warning to others.

In this connection, however, it is proper to again state that during the thirty years that we have been engaged in introducing scientific management there has not been a single strike from those who were working in accordance with its principles, even during the critical period when the change was being made from the old to the new. If proper methods are used by men who have had experience in this work, there is absolutely no danger from strikes or other troubles.

The writer would again insist that in no case should the managers of an establishment', the work of which is elaborate, undertake to change from the old to the new type unless the directors of the company fully understand and believe in the fundamental principles of scientific management and unless they appreciate all that is involved in making this change, particularly the time required, and unless they want scientific management greatly.

Doubtless some of those who are especially interested in working men will complain because under scientific management the workman, when he is shown how to do twice as much work as he formerly did, is not paid twice his former wages, while others who are more interested in the dividends than the workmen will complain that under this system the men receive much higher wages than they did before.

It does seem grossly unjust when the bare statement is made that the competent pig-iron handler, for instance, who has been so trained that he piles 36/10 times as much iron as the incompetent man formerly did, should receive an increase of only 60 percent in wages.

It is not fair, however, to form any final judgment until all of the elements in the case have been considered. At the first glance we see only two parties to the transaction, the workmen and their employers. We overlook the third great party, the whole people——the consumers, who buy the product of the first two and who ultimately pay both the wages of the workmen and the profits of the employers.

The rights of the people are therefore greater than those of either employer or employee. And this third great party should be given its proper share of any gain. In fact, a glance at industrial history shows that in the end the whole people receive the greater part of the benefit coming from industrial improvements. In the past hundred years, for example, the greatest factor tending toward increasing the output, and thereby the prosperity of the civilized world, has been the introduction of machinery to replace hand labor. And without doubt the greatest gain through this change has come to the whole people——the consumer.

Through short periods, especially in the case of patented apparatus, the dividends of those who have introduced new machinery have been greatly increased, and in many cases, though unfortunately not universally, the employees have obtained materially higher wages, shorter hours, and better working conditions. But in the end the major part of the gain has gone to the whole people.

And this result will follow the introduction of scientific management just as surely as it has the introduction of machinery.

To return to the case of the pig-iron handler. We must assume, then, that the larger part of the gain which has come from his great increase in output will in the end go to the people in the form of cheaper pig-iron. And before deciding upon how the balance is to be divided between the workmen and the employer, as to what is just and fair compensation for the man who does the piling and what should be left for the company as profit, we must look at the matter from all sides.

First. As we have before stated, the pig-iron handler is not an extraordinary man difficult to find, he is merely a man more or less of the type of the ox, heavy both mentally and physically.

Second. The work which this man does tires him no more than any healthy normal laborer is tired by a proper day's work. (If this man is overtired by his work, then the task has been wrongly set and this is as far as possible from the object of scientific management.)

Third. It was not due to this man's initiative or originality that he did his big day's work, but to the knowledge of the science of pig-iron handling developed and taught him by some one else.

Fourth. It is just and fair that men of the same general grade (when their all-round capacities are considered) should be paid about the same wages when they are all working to the best of their abilities. (It would be grossly unjust to other laborers, for instance, to pay this man 3 6/10 as high wages as other men of his general grade receive for an honest full day's work.) Fifth. As is explained (page 74), the 60 percent increase in pay which he received was not the result of an arbitrary judgment of a foreman or superintendent, it was the result of a long series of careful experiments impartially made to determine what compensation is really for the man's tree and best interest when all things are considered.

Thus we see that the pig-iron handler with his 60 percent increase in wages is not an object for pity but rather a subject for congratulation.

After all, however, facts are in many cases more convincing than opinions or theories, and it is a significant fact that those workmen who have come under this system during the past thirty years have invariably been satisfied with the increase in pay, which they have received, while their employers have been equally pleased with their increase in dividends.

The writer is one of those who believes that more and more will the third party (the whole people), as it becomes acquainted with the true facts, insist that justice shall be done to all three parties. It will demand the largest efficiency from both employers and employees. It will no longer tolerate the type of employer who has his eye on dividends alone, who refuses to do his full share of the work and who merely cracks his whip over the heads of his workmen and attempts to drive them into harder work for low pay. No more will it tolerate tyranny on the part of labor which demands one increase after another in pay and shorter hours while at the same time it becomes less instead of more efficient.

And the means which the writer firmly believes will be adopted to bring about, first, efficiency both in employer and employs and then an equitable division of the profits of their joint efforts will be scientific management, which has for its sole aim the attainment of justice for all three parties through impartial scientific investigation of all the elements of the problem. For a time both sides will rebel against this advance. The workers will resent any interference with their old rule-of-thumb methods, and the management will resent being asked to take on new duties and burdens; but in the end the people through enlightened public opinion will force the new order of things upon both employer and employee.

It will doubtless be claimed that in all that has been said no new fact has been brought to light that was not known to some one in the past. Very likely this is true. Scientific management does not necessarily involve any great invention, nor the discovery of new or startling facts. It does, however, involve a certain combination of elements which have not existed in the past, namely, old knowledge so collected, analyzed, grouped, and classified into laws and rules that it constitutes a science; accompanied by a complete change in the mental attitude of the working men as well as of those on the side of the management, toward each other, and toward their respective duties and responsibilities. Also, a new division of the duties between the two sides and intimate, friendly cooperation to an extent that is impossible under the philosophy of the old management. And even all of this in many cases could not exist without the help of mechanisms which have been gradually developed.

It is no single element, but rather this whole combination, that constitutes scientific management, which may be summarized as:

Science, not rule of thumb. Harmony, not discord. Cooperation, not individualism. Maximum output, in place of restricted output. The development of each man to his greatest efficiency and prosperity.

The writer wishes to again state that:“The time is fast going by for the great personal or individual achievement of any one man standing alone and without the help of those around him. And the time is coming when all great things will be done by that type of cooperation in which each man performs the function for which he is best suited, each man preserves his own individuality and is supreme in his particular function, and each man at the same time loses none of his originality and proper personal initiative, and yet is controlled by and must work harmoniously with many other men.”

The examples given above of the increase in output realized under the new management fairly represent the gain which is possible. They do not represent extraordinary or exceptional cases, and have been selected from among thousands of similar illustrations which might have been given.

Let us now examine the good which would follow the general adoption of these principles. The larger profit would come to the whole world in general.

The greatest material gain which those of the present generation have over past generations has come from the fact that the average man in this generation, with a given expenditure of effort, is producing two times, three times, even four times as much of those things that are of use to man as it was possible for the average man in the past to produce. This increase in the productivity of human effort is, of course, due to many causes, besides the increase in the personal dexterity of the man. It is due to the discovery of steam and electricity, to the introduction of machinery, to inventions, great and small, and to the progress in science and education. But from whatever cause this increase in productivity has come, it is to the greater productivity of each individual that the whole country owes its greater prosperity.

Those who are afraid that a large increase in the productivity of each workman will throw other men out of work, should realize that the one element more than any other which differentiates civilized from uncivilized countries——prosperous from poverty——stricken peoples——is that the average man in the one is five or six times as productive as the other. It is also a fact that the chief cause for the large percentage of the unemployed in England (perhaps the most virile nation in the world), is that the workmen of England, more than in any other civilized country, are deliberately restricting their output because they are possessed by the fallacy that it is against their best interest for each man to work as hard as he can.

The general adoption of scientific management would readily in the future double the productivity of the average man engaged in industrial work. Think of what this means to the whole country. Think of the increase, both in the necessities and luxuries of life, which becomes available for the whole country, of the possibility of shortening the hours of labor when this is desirable, and of the increased opportunities for education, culture, and recreation which this implies. But while the whole world would profit by this increase in production, the manufacturer and the workman will be far more interested in the especial local gain that comes to them and to the people immediately around them. Scientific management will mean, for the employers and the workmen who adopt it-oand particularly for those who adopt it first——the elimination of almost all causes for dispute and disagreement between them. What constitutes a fair day's work will be a question for scientific investigation, instead of a subject to be bargained and haggled over. Soldiering will cease because the object for soldiering will no longer exist. The great increase in wages which accompanies this type of management will largely eliminate the wage question as a source of dispute. But more than all other causes, the close, intimate cooperation, the constant personal contact between the two sides, will tend to diminish friction and discontent. It is difficult for two people whose interests are the same, and who work side by side in accomplishing the same object, all day long, to keep up a quarrel.

The low cost of production which accompanies a doubling of the output will enable the companies who adopt this management, particularly those who adopt it first, to compete far better than they were able to before, and this will so enlarge their markets that their men will have almost constant work even in dull times, and that they will eam larger profits at all times.

This means increase in prosperity and diminution in poverty, not only for their men but for the whole community immediately around them.

As one of the elements incident to this great gain in output, each workman has been systematically trained to his highest state of efficiency, and has been taught to do a higher class of work than he was able to do under the old types of management; and at the same time he has acquired a friendly mental attitude toward his employers and his whole working conditions, whereas before a considerable part of his time was spent in criticism, suspicious watchfulness, and sometimes in open warfare. This direct gain to all of those working under the system is without doubt the most important single element in the whole problem.

Is not the realization of results such as these of far more importance than the solution of most of the problems which are now agitating both the English and American peoples? And is it not the duty of those who are acquainted with these facts, to exert themselves to make the whole community realize this importance?

[1]The writer has tried to make the reason for this unfortunate state of things clear in a paper entitled“Shop Management,”read before the American Society of Mechanial Engineers.

[2]For example, the records containing the date used under Scientific management in an ordinary machine shop fill thousands of pages.

[3]Many people have questioned the accuracy of the statement that first-class workmen can load 47.5 tons of pig iron from the ground on to a car in a day. For those who are skeptical, therefore, the following data relating to this work are given:

First. That our experiments indicated the existence of the following law: that a first-classl-aborer, suited to such work as handling pig iron, could be under load only 42 percent of the day and must be free from load 58 percent of the day.

Second. That a man in loading pig iron from piles placed on the ground in an open field on to a car which stood on a track adjoining these piles, ought to handle (and that they did handle regularly) 47.5 long tons (2, 240 pounds per ton) per day.

That the price paid for loading this pig iron was 3.9 cents per ton, and that the men working at it averaged $ 1.85 per day, whereas, in the past, they had been paid only $ 1.15 per day.

In addition to these facts, the following are given:

47.5 long tons equal 106, 400 pounds of pig iron per day.

At 92 pounds per pig, equals 1, 156 pigs per day.

42 percent. of a day under load equals 600 minutes; multiplied by 0.42 equals 252 minutes under load.

252 minutes divided by 1156 pigs equals 0.22 minutes per pig under load.

A pig-iron handler walks on the level at the rate of one foot in 0.006 minutes. The average distance of the piles of pig iron from the car was 36 feet. It is a fact, however, that many of the pig-iron handlers ran with their pig as soon as they reached plank. Many of them also would run down the plank after loading the car. So that when the actual loading went on, many of them moved at a faster rate than is indicated by the above figures. Practically the men were made to take a rest, generally by sitting down, after loading ten to twenty pigs. This rest was in addition to the time which it took them to walk back from the car to the pile. It is likely that many of those who are skeptical about the possibility of loading this amount of pig iron do not realize that while these men were walking back they were entirely free from load, and that therefore their muscles had, during that time, the opportunity for recuperation. It will be noted that with an average distance of 36 feet of the pig iron from the car, these men walked about eight miles under load each day and eight miles free from load. If any one who is interested in these figures will multiply them and divide them, one into the other, in various ways, he will find that all of the facts stated check up exactly.

[4]See paper read before the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, by Fred. W. Taylor, Vol. XVI, p. 856, entitled“Piece Rate System.”

[5]Time and again the experimenter in the mechanic arts will find himself face to face with the problem as to whether he had better make immediate practical use of the knowledge which he has attained, or wait until some positive finality in his conclusions has been reached, He recognizes clearly the fact that he has already made some definite progress, but sees the possibility (even the probability) of still further improvement. Each particular case must of course be independently considerate, but the general conclusion we have reached is that in most instances it wise to put one's conclusions as soon as possible to the rigid test of practical use. The one indispensable condition for such a test, however, is that the experimenter shall have full opportunity, coupled with sufficient authority, to insure a thorough and impartial. And this, owing to the almost universal prejudice in favor of the old, and to the suspicion of the new, is difficult to get.

作者简介

弗雷德里克·泰勒，1856年生于美国费城。西方古典管理理论主要代表人物之一，科学管理运动的创始人，被公认为“科学管理之父”，也被称为“理性效率的大师”。泰勒的科学管理思想深深地扎根在一系列科学实验的基础上，使之成为一门真正的科学。当代许多重要的管理理论都是在泰勒的科学管理理论的基础上的继承和发展。此外，泰勒本人还是一位发明家。他在技术上有许多发明创造，总共拥有100多项专利权。《科学管理原理》出版于1911年，标志着一个管理新时代的到来。至今，这本书仍然带给管理人无穷的启示，是不可不读的管理经典。

策　　划：郭宝胜

责任编辑：武丽娟　梁铜华

封面设计：今朝设计

Table of Contents

内容简介

书名页

版权页

目录

引言

第一章　科学管理的基础

1．管理的最终目标：财富最大化

2．“磨洋工”现象

3．“磨洋工”出现的原因

第二章　科学管理的原理

1．一般管理和科学管理的区别

2．“搬生铁”实例

3．管理者和员工之间的矛盾

4．关于工作量的调查

5．体力劳动背后隐藏的规律

6．培训的重要性

7．对砌砖工的科学管理

8．“检查钢珠”实例

9．重复性工作中效率如何提升

10．科学管理是从最简单工作中逐步建立的

11．任务观念在科学管理中的重要性

12．再说培训

13．科学管理的优势

14．科学管理根除了“磨洋工”弊病

泰勒小传

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER I

Fundamentals of Scientific Management

CHAPTER II

The Principles of Scientific Management

作者页