TAYLORISM IN EDUCATION AND BUSINESS
Topics on the Page
A SCIENTIFIC PHILOSOPHY OF LEADERSHIP-MANAGEMENT
TAYLORISM AND ANTI-TAYLORISM IN EDUCATION
What makes a good educational leader? What makes a poor educational leader? Years ago I heard a retired Supreme Court Justice state that in his 50-plus years in the U.S. judicial system, only 10-15% of the attorneys who came through his courtroom were competent.
A great many others have observed that this "10-15% job competency" applies to almost every professional vocation. What about teachers? Does the same observation prove true for them, with only 10-15 teachers out of a 100 competently excelling in their profession?
What about educational technology leaders? What
is it that makes a few of them exceptional leaders, while the others are
basically collecting a paycheck? Is it the difference in their philosophy
of leadership, leadership style, leadership traits, or
leadership behavior which makes one much more effective than
another? Does charisma have anything to do with being a
competent leader?
Peter Drucker, perhaps the most renowned speaker, teacher, and author on Leadership and Management in the last century asserts, "The one and only personality trait the effective [leaders] did have in common was something they did not have: they had little or no 'charisma' and little use either for the term or what it signifies" (Hesselbein, 1996, p. xii).
In centuries past, before common citizens were given a democratic opportunity to utilize and apply their own knowledge and understanding, authoritarian and elitists’ leadership was not only tolerated, it was sanctioned. Fortunately, there has been a major paradigm shift in leadership style over the last 10-20 years. Participatory leadership (Yukl, 1998, pp. 333-336) is rapidly becoming the most popular, by virtue of taking advantage of the greatest resource for any company—its people! This is readily observable in the phenomenal growth in a specialized business categorization across America—charismatic churches.
It should be perceived that leadership has the same characteristics and results cross-categorically in most all societies. This is to say, that the same comparable and effective leadership qualities will be found in a society’s businesses, churches, schools, organizations, clubs, etc. at any given time historically. This should be expected since the same members of a common culture comprise membership in each of these groups.
Consequently, educational leaders should be constantly alert, observant, and applying leadership forms which are effective and are being readily received by not only learners, but participants in contemporary society. By adapting and applying the same leadership philosophies, styles, traits, and methods to the classroom which are working in the public domain, teachers and administrators will find that they will play a much more effectual role in the students’ learning process.
A SCIENTIFIC PHILOSOPHY OF
LEADERSHIP-MANAGEMENT
Taylorism. Early in this century mass-production helped catapult the United States into the most productive nation in the world. Though he didn’t invent it, mass-production was perfected by the teachings of Frederick Winslow Taylor. His philosophy and style of management is best described by the following quote:
The worker’s equal division of work was to do what he was told to do by management . . . . In [Taylor’s] system the judgment of the individual workman was replaced by the laws, rules, principles, etc., of the science of the job which was developed by management . . . . The whole attitude of Taylor in this respect was described by a mechanic who worked with him . . . . Taylor would tell him that he was "not supposed to think, there are other people paid for thinking around here" (Callahan, 1962, p. 28).
Under Taylor’s method of management (termed Taylorism) the elitists (engineers, technicians, managers) were the ones empowered to lay down the law for the workers to follow verbatim, with virtually no input. The workers were to do as they were told, and were expected to "leave their heads at the factory gate" (Marshall, 1992, p. 5). Neither their bosses nor their shop stewards allowed them to think for a living.
Even though Taylorism helped to make the front-line workers the largest and richest middle class the world has ever seen for over 60 years, it was also far more vulnerable than anyone imagined. There was one thread that ran through almost all its weaknesses—its elitist character. Taylorism had built a system surrounded by a managerial, technical, and support elite (Marshall, p. 10).
It rarely occurred to anyone to ask these workers—often three-quarters or more of the whole work force—how they thought the product or the process might be improved, let alone actually to involve them in the design process. Because the elitists were "out of touch" with the plant floor, product changes could not be made quickly at the point of service delivery because innovation was a time-consuming process (Marshall, p. 11).
Summary of Taylorism
| 1. Managers & Technicians: Hired to do ALL the thinking for the Company. | ||||
| 2. Workers: Are not to think. Only do what they are told by management. | ||||
|
Problem
|
Anti-Taylorism (or DeTaylorism).
Because America held on to its Tayloristic philosophy of
leadership-management too long, they lost their elitist position as
the world’s top producing economy (Marshall, p.
43). Using the
intelligence, imagination, thinking skills, quality control, and
self-supervision of the front-line workers (termed anti-Taylorism),
Germany and Japan became the dual colossi of the new world economic order.
The ascendancy to the top for these two nations is remarkably fascinating when one considers their minimal size (both in geography and population) and their limited natural resources—especially when compared to the United States. Because these two countries anti-Taylorized, placing their faith in the worker instead of the elitists, they invested heavily in the training of the employee, and steadily increased the worker’s responsibilities regarding job production.
"Unused intelligence," Japan would say, "is of little value. It is intelligence actually applied that makes the difference" (p. 52).
Yet, despite global competition and the need for speed, flexibility and quality, the principle of Taylorism still remains in the contemporary workplace (Pruijt, 1997).
Summary of Anti-Taylorism
| 1. Realization of tremendous potential of workers | ||||
| 2. Shifting of production responsibilities from management to worker, with heavy emphasis on employee’s life-long training | ||||
|
Result
|
TAYLORISM AND ANTI-TAYLORISM IN EDUCATION
What does Taylorism and anti-Taylorism have to do with education? Much in every way. Traditionally teachers have used Tayloristic methods of instruction, viewing the student as someone to command and do as told, or face the consequences. In the conventional classroom, the teacher is empowered to lay down the law for the students to follow verbatim, with virtually no input. This must change!
If we relate teachers to Tayloristic managers, and students to workers, then a connection to the workplace becomes clear.
Directed Instruction. A central problem in education is the failure to adapt teaching to the way children think. From this perspective, many learning disabilities are in fact created by schools. Children beginning school are especially vulnerable when teachers demand they learn what they cannot understand (DeVries, 1987, p. 18).
In regards to academia, this problem is magnified because less than half of the school population learn best from traditional teacher initiated, direct-dialogue, and textbook instruction (Gallagher). Currently, trends in school instruction seem to be leaning toward more motivating, interactive, and cooperative learning activities in which the teacher is more a facilitator and manager of resources than a means of delivering information to passive receivers (Roblyer, 1997, p. 73).
In directed instruction (Taylorism), the teacher sets the goals and delivers most of the instruction. Accordingly, the teacher makes the decision on coursework, textbooks, lessons, assignments, homework, and tests. They even have the power to expel [fire] the student from their class, as well as giving them passing or failing grades.
Summary of Taylorism in the Classroom
| 1. Teachers and Administrators: Hired to do the global thinking and to set direction for the Students’ learning process. | ||||
|
2. Students: Are not to question direction. Only do what they are told by teachers. |
||||
|
Problem
|
Constructivism.
On the
flipside, the job of the teacher in the constructivist (anti-Taylorism)
model is to arrange required resources and act as a guide to students,
while the students set their own goals and teach themselves (Roblyer, p.
70). The constructivist method emphasizes students’ ability to
solve real-life, practical problems. In this model, learners construct
knowledge themselves, rather than simply receiving it from knowledgeable
teachers. They tend to focus on projects that require solutions to
problems rather on [dictated] instructional sequences that require
learning of certain content skills.
Constructivism is not a theory about teaching. It is a theory about knowledge and learning (Brooks & Brooks, 1993, p. vii). To understand constructivism, educators must focus attention on the learner [worker] (p. 22).
When teachers recognize and honor the human impulse to construct new understandings, unlimited possibilities are created for students. Becoming a teacher who helps students to search rather than follow is challenging, and rewarding (p. 102).
Summary of Anti-Taylorism in the Classroom
| 1. Realization of tremendous potential of students | ||||
| 2. Shifting of learning responsibilities from teacher to student, with heavy emphasis on student’s life-long training | ||||
|
Result
|
New Paradigm. 
A new set of
images, reflective of new practices, is needed—images that portray the
student as a thinker; a creator; and a constructor. Schools can
become settings in which students are encouraged to develop hypotheses,
to test out their own and others’ ideas, to make connections among
"content" areas, to explore issues and problems of personal
relevance (either existing or emerging), to work cooperatively with
peers and adults in the pursuit of understanding, and to form the
disposition to be life-long learners (p.
127).
As the workplace must shift from Taylorism to anti-Taylorism, the classroom must shift from being teacher-directed to student-directed (constructivism). Emerging from this transition will be a thinking, autonomous, independent, and self-directed human being. As a result, the student’s search for understanding and knowledge will continue throughout their life, and thus making for a happier and more productive camper in the workforce.