Managers who like to manage in the classical way, refuse to give more power to their employees. They prefer to keep them in a narrow frame. But it is important to realize that employee development is the development of the organization. At the same time, they forget that the employee must feel part of the organization, not just the salary.
If we look at history, we see the increasing importance of human resources, from the industrial revolution to Taylor and modern management ideas, to the idea that man is always a social being with feelings, not a machine.
In his book in 1911, Scientific Management, Taylor argued that redesigning and managing production in a scientific way (time and motion) could lead to greater “output.” According to him
– everyone has to work scientifically which has been thought. Not whatever they want.
– not alone, with supportingly
– Valuation with additional money them who exceed the standard,
– to inform the management in advance what to do and not to act without permission,
– Punishment of those who go beyond the plan and delay production, etc.
Apparently, Taylor’s main goal was to increase output in the organization in spite of everything, and man was in the background. If we look at the records, the high level of dismissal was noticeable. This was part of the dissatisfaction at work. But I would like to point out that Taylor’s management style worked. However, if we look at the issue from the perspective of human resources, the picture was not so heartwarming.
After a gap of twenty years, in 1932, when the results of the Hawthorne study, led by Elton Mayo, were published, the Classical administration was no longer in sight. In this new trend, called the Neoclassical Method, the Classic Method puts human resources at the top of the list. In some sources, Fordist, in others, a new method called Neoclassical or Neo-human relations. Researchers who have been very supportive of this method; Kurt Lewin motion study, Douglas McGregor X-Y theory, Rensis Likertin System 1-4.
If we look at it from the perspective of Personal Empowerment, they also laid the foundation for this. As I said above, employee development also means organizational development. Also, the fact that the employee is exposed to this attention by the manager further binds him to the organization. Therefore, managers are employees; It doesn’t matter if the position is high or low, everyone should be more willing to develop. In addition, our world of business is quite competitive. In order to gain a competitive advantage, they must try to take advantage of the employee’s in-house entrepreneurship and creativity through personnel development.
The two methods I have mentioned above form the basis of today’s modern form of government. But as Tamer Kochel asked in his paradigm, “Is Taylorism really dead?”
Managers who like to manage in the classical way, refuse to give more power to their employees. They prefer to keep them in a narrow frame. But it is important to realize that employee development is the development of the organization. At the same time, they forget that the employee must feel part of the organization, not just the salary.
If we look at history, we see the increasing importance of human resources, from the industrial revolution to Taylor and modern management ideas, to the idea that man is always a social being with feelings, not a machine.
In his book in 1911, Scientific Management, Taylor argued that redesigning and managing production in a scientific way (time and motion) could lead to greater “output.” According to him:
– everyone has to work scientifically which has been thought. Not whatever they want.
– not alone, with supportingly
– Valuation with additional money them who exceed the standard,
– to inform the management in advance what to do and not to act without permission,
– Punishment of those who go beyond the plan and delay production, etc.
parently, Taylor’s main goal was to increase output in the organization in spite of everything, and man was in the background. If we look at the records, the high level of dismissal was noticeable. This was part of the dissatisfaction at work. But I would like to point out that Taylor’s management style worked. However, if we look at the issue from the perspective of human resources, the picture was not so heartwarming.
After a gap of twenty years, in 1932, when the results of the Hawthorne study, led by Elton Mayo, were published, the Classical administration was no longer in sight. In this new trend, called the Neoclassical Method, the Classic Method puts human resources at the top of the list. In some sources, Fordist, in others, a new method called Neoclassical or Neo-human relations. Researchers who have been very supportive of this method; Kurt Lewin motion study, Douglas McGregor X-Y theory, Rensis Likertin System 1-4.
If we look at it from the perspective of Personal Empowerment, they also laid the foundation for this. As I said above, employee development also means organizational development. Also, the fact that the employee is exposed to this attention by the manager further binds him to the organization. Therefore, managers are employees; It doesn’t matter if the position is high or low, everyone should be more willing to develop. In addition, our world of business is quite competitive. In order to gain a competitive advantage, they must try to take advantage of the employee’s in-house entrepreneurship and creativity through personnel development.
The two methods I have mentioned above form the basis of today’s modern form of government. But as Tamer Kochel asked in his paradigm, “Is Taylorism really dead?”
Sanan Gambarov