The Concept of Constructive Dissatisfaction

[satellitedriver]

Methods have their place, and I agree with TieGuy that a good manager will carefully choose which of the 340 methods they will emphasize strongly. The last post mentioned variance, and I think that an excellent manager will tolerate some degree of variance from the exact definition of the method. A marginal manager will enforce everything to the letter, and drive his people insane as a result. The Tampa guy who everyone seems to hate is a great example of this.
The 2 best managers I ever had at FedEx fell into the first category, and were willing to let each driver have a wider measure of discretion over how they did their job. One now runs the entire Express division, and the other is a regional VP. Both of these individuals utilized Tayloristic FedEx methodology but were savvy enough to modify it from it's purest form.
Taylorism does work, but only to the degree that it is moderated by good managerial judgement. It is when it is taken to the extreme (as Taylor believed it should be) that it is anti-productive.

The logic (not the meaning behind it) of this paragraph escapes me.

Both of these individuals utilized Tayloristic FedEx methodology but were savvy enough to modify it from it's purest form.
Taylorism does work, but only to the degree that it is moderated by good managerial judgement. It is when it is taken to the extreme (as Taylor believed it should be) that it is anti-productive.

Please ,define what you mean by extreme.
(as you believe Taylor did)
Also, how does one utilize and modify something from it's purest form without imparting impurities?

 

[MrFedEx]

What I mean is that while Taylorism does indeed work most of the time, it doesn't work very well if taken to extremes. Let's say a manager pushes for complete compliance with no degree of variance on a method. If he angers the employee with threats or discipline, he might get compliance, but there may also be a backlash of anti-productive behavior. Damaging equipment, poor customer service, anti-company sentiment, and sick calls are all examples that come quickly to mind.
While I'm not a big fan of Tayloristic methods, I also admit they work. They just don't work as well when a manager goes overboard and makes excessive demands.

 

[MrFedEx]

Payback for being pushed to the extreme can be hell. Drivers know exactly when and where to call-in for maximum effect, or write-up a vehicle as "unsafe", or a thousand other ways to inflict damage on a company that can never be proven as such by management. A lot of management and motivational theories look good on paper, and may even look good on reports and projections. It's impossible to measure retribution.

 

[tieguy]

What I mean is that while Taylorism does indeed work most of the time, it doesn't work very well if taken to extremes. Let's say a manager pushes for complete compliance with no degree of variance on a method. If he angers the employee with threats or discipline, he might get compliance, but there may also be a backlash of anti-productive behavior. Damaging equipment, poor customer service, anti-company sentiment, and sick calls are all examples that come quickly to mind.
While I'm not a big fan of Tayloristic methods, I also admit they work. They just don't work as well when a manager goes overboard and makes excessive demands.

Most managers and supervisors would not know who frederick taylor is. If a manager was a true disciple of frederick taylor then he would have done his scientific study of the job and he would know what he could expect. Frederick taylor said more and was more then the negative quotes posted above. He also believed his methods required a good working relationship between management and the workers.

 

[MrFedEx]

How can a manager have a good relationship with a worker if he buys into Taylor's belief that the worker is too "stupid" to understand Scientific Management? Do you think that most UPS or FedEx drivers are ignorant of the fact that they are being scientifically-managed? Take a look at the earlier post that quotes Taylor's sentiments regarding the pig-iron laborer. Even if the majority of managers don't know of Taylor, they must be aware of the methodology.
I've got to give you credit TieGuy...you're a pretty bright fellow.

 

[tieguy]

How can a manager have a good relationship with a worker if he buys into Taylor's belief that the worker is too "stupid" to understand Scientific Management? Do you think that most UPS or FedEx drivers are ignorant of the fact that they are being scientifically-managed? Take a look at the earlier post that quotes Taylor's sentiments regarding the pig-iron laborer. Even if the majority of managers don't know of Taylor, they must be aware of the methodology.
I've got to give you credit TieGuy...you're a pretty bright fellow.

Fed,
I'm going back and reviewing historical references and can't find where he said the worker was too stupid? You can't take someone from history and selectively quote him. I don't know the guy nor do I have any feelings for or against him. So if you wish to speculate on the pig iron comment he made then you also have to speculate on what he meant when he spoke of having a good working relationship between management and employees.

And if you wish to put old frederick down then you also have to ponder on his argument that management could build a team where employees would feel they did not need a union?

 

[MrFedEx]

Who was Frederick Taylor?

click

What is Taylorism?

click

Key Quote:
"It is only through enforced standardization of methods, enforced adaption of the best implements and working conditions, and enforced cooperation that this faster work can be assured. And the duty of enforcing the adaption of standards and enforcing this cooperation rests with management alone."

Another Quote:
Workers were supposed to be incapable of understanding what they were doing. According to Taylor this was true even for rather simple tasks. "'I can say, without the slightest hesitation,' Taylor told a congressional committee, 'that the science of handling pig-iron is so great that the man who is ... physically able to handle pig-iron and is sufficiently phlegmatic and stupid to choose this for his occupation is rarely able to comprehend the science of handling pig-iron."

Substitute "delivering packages" for "handling pig-iron" and you'll get the idea.......

The introduction of his system was often resented by workers and provoked numerous strikes.

From an earlier post by Jones...straight from Taylor's mouth.

 

[tieguy]

From an earlier post by Jones...straight from Taylor's mouth.

LOL, you don't need anymore information then one quoted source highlighted by the quoter to convince you those words are the gospel?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
or how about this one:

......Modern management theorists, such as Edward Deming, often credit Taylor, however, with generating the principles upon which they act. Others, such as Juran, though, continue to denigrate his work. Modern theorists generally place more emphasis on worker input and teamwork than was usual in much of Taylor's time. A careful reading of Taylor's work will reveal that he placed the worker's interest as high as the employer's in his studies, and recognized the importance of the suggestion box, for example, in a machine shop........

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Or perhaps this one:

Pay the Worker, Not the Job
Taylor passed the entrance examination to Harvard College but did not enroll, instead becoming apprenticed to a machinist and patternmaker at the Enterprise Hydraulic Works in Philadelphia. After completing an engineering degree at the Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, New Jersey, he went to work at the Midvale Steel Company, where he began his studies of worker productivity. Taylor believed in finding the right jobs for workers, and then paying them well for the increased output. He advocated paying the person and not the job and believed that unions would be unnecessary if workers were paid their individual worth. Taylor doubled productivity at Midvale.

Frederick was an interesting fella. I'm not sure you can focus on one source that may or may not have meant what it sounds like. I think you have to actually do the subject some justice and read beyond a couple of spoon fed quotes.

 

[satellitedriver]

From an earlier post by Jones...straight from Taylor's mouth.

After reading Taylors assessment of pig-iron handlers mentality, I honestly have to say I agree with him.
Way too far a stretch for me to compare the labors of a dullard doing beast of burden work to the complexities of being a safe and efficient UPS employee.
The only similarity I can find is that we both have to carry heavy objects.

 

[MrFedEx]

I don't know that Taylor would have made a distinction between different types of laborers(I doubt it), but your point is a good one. Unfortunately, he's long gone, so nobody will ever know for sure.

 

[tieguy]

I don't know that Taylor would have made a distinction between different types of laborers(I doubt it), but your point is a good one. Unfortunately, he's long gone, so nobody will ever know for sure.

Go back and do your own research. I think you'll find he did make the distinctions. Keep in mind his quotes that were selectively posted were presented in a different time and place and may not have meant what we think. There are many other quotes that appear to counter those on the pig iron workers.

 

[MrFedEx]

It's true that workers with a more advanced skill set(like UPS and FedEx) didn't exist when Taylor proposed his theories, but his disdain for the laboring class is pretty clear-cut throughout his writings. Perhaps he would have considered current workers to be in a higher classification level than laborers doing "grunt" work like handling pig-iron or shoveling coal. The fact remains, however, that both UPS and FedEx drivers are scientifically-managed via company methods and procedures. I think it's less of a problem for UPS because management seems to have a higher level of respect for it's employees than FedEx. You could almost interchange the names "Taylor" and "Smith", and call it "Smithism", with some degree of accuracy. Fred clearly doesn't have any respect for those who work for him...we are only units of production.

 

[tonyexpress]

What I mean is that while Taylorism does indeed work most of the time, it doesn't work very well if taken to extremes. Let's say a manager pushes for complete compliance with no degree of variance on a method. If he angers the employee with threats or discipline, he might get compliance, but there may also be a backlash of anti-productive behavior. Damaging equipment, poor customer service, anti-company sentiment, and sick calls are all examples that come quickly to mind.
While I'm not a big fan of Tayloristic methods, I also admit they work. They just don't work as well when a manager goes overboard and makes excessive demands.

Your example here is demonstrating poor management skills "threats" and a poor employee response. This in my opinion has nothing to with the effectiveness of the methods being taught but rather the way with which they are being implemented. Good managers don't threaten their employees as an effective way to get anything done; you get things done by earning respect and holding each other accountable.

Payback for being pushed to the extreme can be hell. Drivers know exactly when and where to call-in for maximum effect, or write-up a vehicle as "unsafe", or a thousand other ways to inflict damage on a company that can never be proven as such by management. A lot of management and motivational theories look good on paper, and may even look good on reports and projections. It's impossible to measure retribution.

Threats in the reverse direction don't work either!

Your issue appears to run deeper than Taylorism, maybe it's your experience with a, Management by intimidation type of manager that has you professing your sour grapes about management and having to follow the methods.
To me your measures of retribution underscore your feelings of discontent and can be self destructive. While some managers may make your job more challenging using deceptive ways to get back at them or the Company will put you and others at risk.

 

[Jones]

It's true that workers with a more advanced skill set(like UPS and FedEx) didn't exist when Taylor proposed his theories, but his disdain for the laboring class is pretty clear-cut throughout his writings. Perhaps he would have considered current workers to be in a higher classification level than laborers doing "grunt" work like handling pig-iron or shoveling coal. The fact remains, however, that both UPS and FedEx drivers are scientifically-managed via company methods and procedures. I think it's less of a problem for UPS because management seems to have a higher level of respect for it's employees than FedEx. You could almost interchange the names "Taylor" and "Smith", and call it "Smithism", with some degree of accuracy. Fred clearly doesn't have any respect for those who work for him...we are only units of production.

Not to take anything away from our managers (we do have some good ones), but we also have a Union. It's a pretty important difference between our two companies.

 

[JustTired]

Taylor believed in finding the right jobs for workers, and then paying them well for the increased output. He advocated paying the person and not the job and believed that unions would be unnecessary if workers were paid their individual worth.

Paying the worker and not the job could have been the original concept behind the bonus program. I see nothing wrong with that concept (with the possible exception of safety issues). Safety aside, it rewarded those that exceeded the expectations of the set standards.

The problem is that as time went on those standards were changed. Supposedly to reflect a change in technology 5-6 years after the fact (DIAD). In my opinion, those changes in standards didn't accurately reflect that change and I think it was apparent in the performance numbers of all drivers (bonus and non-bonus). Basically it was a reversion back to a "pay the job" concept. It relieved the company of a good deal of "bonus" payment, but it was also reflected in the overallowed nationwide.

I suppose that the thought was that those drivers making bonus (having grown accustomed to that money) would work even harder to maintain that income. Unfortunately, in most cases, those drivers were already "topping out" at max effort. So the company is left with standards that do not accurately reflect the job being done. This leaves drivers with more work being dispatched than can be done....... and the company with numbers that not only look bad but are virtually meaningless in reflecting the "real world" parameters of the job.

JMO

 

[brownmonster]

Well said.

 

[westsideworma]

Taylor believed in finding the right jobs for workers, and then paying them well for the increased output. He advocated paying the person and not the job and believed that unions would be unnecessary if workers were paid their individual worth.

Paying the worker and not the job could have been the original concept behind the bonus program. I see nothing wrong with that concept (with the possible exception of safety issues). Safety aside, it rewarded those that exceeded the expectations of the set standards.

The problem is that as time went on those standards were changed. Supposedly to reflect a change in technology 5-6 years after the fact (DIAD). In my opinion, those changes in standards didn't accurately reflect that change and I think it was apparent in the performance numbers of all drivers (bonus and non-bonus). Basically it was a reversion back to a "pay the job" concept. It relieved the company of a good deal of "bonus" payment, but it was also reflected in the overallowed nationwide.

I suppose that the thought was that those drivers making bonus (having grown accustomed to that money) would work even harder to maintain that income. Unfortunately, in most cases, those drivers were already "topping out" at max effort. So the company is left with standards that do not accurately reflect the job being done. This leaves drivers with more work being dispatched than can be done....... and the company with numbers that not only look bad but are virtually meaningless in reflecting the "real world" parameters of the job.

JMO

agreed, well stated.

Theres a difference between constructive dissatisfaction and just plain old dissatisfied which seems to be the attitudes of those above you and I. Nothing is ever good enough. If you made the number, great, heres even more work for tomorrow. Or we are hitting our 1/1500 target for misloads regularly, lets ramp it up to 1/2000. Stuff like that. I hated that as an hourly and I don't like it any more now that I'm in management. It doesn't come across as motivation, it comes across as being ungrateful. Setting high goals that can be attained will result in better service (and possibly better attitudes around the workplace), setting goals that are nigh impossible (whatever the situation may be) destroys employee morale and just leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth.

 

[MrFedEx]

That really rings true. Work hard, perhaps get some recognition (but probably not), and then you get your real reward...MORE WORK. Once they know you can do it, the numbers just keep getting pushed upward. After awhile, it becomes meaningless. Excellent post.