From ‘Taylorism’ to ‘Druckerism’

It is an undisputed fact that Frederick Taylor’s work, ‘Principles of Scientific Management’ was path breaking and that it forms the basis of most of Modern Management’s theories. What is indeed creditable is that these Principles are still relevant, at least in manufacturing and engineering type of work, even a century after they were published.

The question which needs to be asked is how relevant are his principles for knowledge work like software development. This is because knowledge work is fundamentally quite different from manufacturing and engineering type of work, in the following ways:

• It is created in the mind of a person and not on a machine. Machine and technology are just tools to reflect what the mind has conjured
• It is not repetitive in nature and needs creativity, as each piece of work is Today many are beginning to see software development as a ‘Craft’
• Output may not have any correlation with Outcome. A 100 page book may be more valuable than a 200 page book
• Doing it in an iterative way leads to a better outcome. It is quite unlikely that a blogger will write the blog which is fully satisfactory in the first draft itself.

Taylor’s Principles appear to be based on the following beliefs, whose relevance for knowledge work is highly questionable.

1. Money is an excellent motivator

While money is important for every person regardless of the type of work, it is now fairly well established that knowledge workers excel when they are Intrinsically motivated. According to Daniel Pink the 3 variables which influence Intrinsic Motivation are Autonomy, Mastery and Purpose. (reference https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation?language=en). Money needs to be a factor which is ‘taken off the table’, for the Intrinsic motivators to work. But once it is off the table, it ceases it’s importance as a motivator.

1. Efficiency is the most important outcome to aim at

Knowledge work, by definition, is not repetitive so how does one measure efficiency of work where each output is unique? While there is definitely room to enhance efficiency even in knowledge work, what efficiency and productivity standards can be set for such type of work? What is most important as an Outcome in knowledge work is Value to the intended audience.

1. Managers should ‘Think’ and Workers should ‘Do’

The implicit assumption behind this belief appears to be that work is based on physical activity, and that thinking will distract the worker from doing the physical activity in the most efficient way possible. In knowledge work, given that it happens in the mind, the Thinker and Doer needs to be the same person, i.e. someone cannot think for someone else

1. Workers need to be supervised

Supervision may  be needed when production needs to happen at maximum efficiency and when adherence to rules and working methods is critical. How can one Supervise someone who is thinking or having a discussion? Is it even necessary? It’s quite appalling to hear of organizations which track how much time an employee has been away from the computer. Is the expectation that the employee should be typing the code all the time? Sure, forecasts are important for knowledge work, and these should be provided. But is Supervision needed once the forecast is available?

1. Rules, based on scientific studies, are needed for performing the job most optimally

While rules and scientific methods for optimal working ways may help in repetitive type of work, how does one decide what is the optimal way to think creatively? For work which is iterative in nature, i.e. the state of the output cannot be exactly forecast/visualized upfront, the question to ask is whether stringent rules and methods make any sense.

So why are many organizations still using Taylorism to deal with knowledge work? One of the key factors appears to be that the curriculum taught in both Engineering and Business schools is highly skewed towards Taylorism, and not enough towards ‘Druckerism’. Another reason could be that Managers are resisting to change as they (mistakenly) fear loss of control. The third could simply be fear of the unknown.

Peter Drucker, another brilliant mind in the field of Management, was a pioneer in recognizing not only that knowledge will gain in prominence significantly, but also it needs to be managed quite differently. Rick Wartzman, in an article published in HBR, (https://hbr.org/2014/10/what-peter-drucker-knew-about-2020) has said “Sadly, judging from the way most of our institutions are run, we are still struggling to catch up with the reality Drucker foresaw”.

Drucker outlined six aspects to more effectively run an organization of knowledge workers, which are mentioned in the HBR article stated above. It is not surprising that these resonate very closely with Agile Values and Principles.

Moving from ‘Taylorism’ to ‘Druckerism’ is long overdue, both in academics and in industry, at least for knowledge work.

Keen to know your thoughts/comments.