MEN BETTER THAN "SYSTEMS."

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXXIX, Issue 10777, 27 May 1911, Page 3 (Supplement)

MEN BETTER THAN "SYSTEMS."

.A sceptical view of "scientific management" is taken by no less an authority than Engineering News (Xew ork), in. an article over a page in length., reviewing the results achieved Inefficiency experts in their new method of conducting; business. The writer cannot bring himself to believe that there is any such thing as a real "science'' of managing a manufacturing or a commercial industry. Individual experts have done wonders in p'utliiiLi particular concerns on a systematic basis. This, however, he contends, is quite a different thing from the formulation of a "science" that may he applied to all concerns and put them all similarly in order. We read :

••The art of managing the work of others is old. Just as old is the endeavor to conduct management efficiently by the application of knowledge, intelligence; keen scrutiny of operating; relations, and even the genius which often goes beyond all these. 'Scientific management' must mean something quite beyond this. It can have no other meaning than that, by studv based on observation, certain general laws have been derived, whose intelligent application is capable of yielding results outstripping those of past practise- not, be it noted, that one man or another did actually achieve certain unprecedented results, but that back of such results lies a rational formulary, a set of known principles having .logical interconnection, which enables others...to attain similar excellence of Management. More than this: Since, the:'tei m 'scientific management,' as currently used, is not limited to particulflr applications/but indeed is claimed._to have universal scope, this alleged science must consist not of principles pt accounting control, or principles of sales management, or principles of shop administration, or principles of contracting management, but broadly of principles of management per se. Who that is familiar with the complex and ever-netf" problems, both human and mechanical, which arise in managerial ; work can recognise here a field for the development of 'science' ? Of course mere accounting systems, forms for costdetermining records, schedules of routine, and the like, however helpful as; methods, are not science, nor do they even constitute management. '""If-a true science of management lias been developed—though we have no knowledge of the existence of such a science, nor do we clearly perceive its ■ possibility —is it credible that it should I have been even fragmentarily in existence for five or ten years and 110 manual, text, or treatise setting it forth should bo before the reading world? Such a science being of umversal application and therefore unhampered and uncomplicated by the individual characteristics of different occupations or fields of labor, and being furthermore free from the tedious intricacies of mathematical evolution, could ( not- lie a long or involved thing, but would be contained by a small, simple book. No such book has come to our view. Frankly, we are sceptical as to the existence of the alleged 'science.

Ability to manage, the writer goes oil to say, is personal—it is like success, founded on a natural gift and not on acquirements. It is Napoleonic. Napoleon could not teach his successors how he did it, and our successful efficiency engineers, some of whose achievements Engineering News admits are quite in this class, are no more able to impart their ability to others than he was. The writer goes on to say: "The fact is that of the multitude of human affairs probably only a very small fraction is conducted with good efficiency. In every field, from running a department-store to directing a manufacturing corporation, the widest variation of directive skill exists. Presumably, if all department-stores in a given city were managed with equal ability, ■ all would have about the same degree of success; if all engine-builders operated their works with the same degree of efficiency, all would prosper equally. And of. course the fact is that they do not. Difference of opinion may arise on-the question of why. But though some should assert that in each case of pre-eminent success (high efficiency) the reason lies in some system or method of controlling procedure there in vogue, yet we feel certain that common sense warrants us in attributing the result to the man —or men—who are in charge. The personality of that man (or the joint personality of several) is the. real forward-pushing force. His particular methods are not ultimately responsible; while they are indeed momentarily the tool by ' which lie achieves success, yet the same man if compelled to abandon that particular tool, that particular method, or if placid in another environment where that- method no longer suits, would still be successful- ... "Wo look forward hopefully toward abandonment of the sensationalists campaign for industrial improvements and a return to sane discussion. If the deception oT extravagant phrases can be removed, and common sense applied in all consideration of the subject, we doubt not that this result will be attained. Progress toward realising whatever benefits reside in the \new move ment will then be unhampered."