I’m not in management and I haven’t been, so all of these readings were
purely that: readings. I write medical device alerts for the ECRI
Institute, a non-profit medical device research and consultation
company.
Every morning I arrive at ECRI with the same group of
colleagues (a mixture of researchers and engineers) and dive into my
cube. My cube, on the outside, looks just like everyone else’s; my
cube, on the inside, looks just like everyone else’s as well. For
roughly 8 hours a day, I sit in my cube and type alerts based on
manufacturer and regulatory agency safety alerts. Occasionally, I leave
my cube to attend meetings.
After this week’s readings, I
recognize that our management and senior executives would fall under the
Fayol model of management, the “esprit de corps (Wren and Bedeian
2009). Harmony, unity, and open input from around our organization is
promoted: No idea, whether from an engineer or writer, is shot down.
From staffing to planning to organization, ECRI would promote itself as
following Foyer’s theories, and that it was working. I would agree and
would follow Fayol’s theories as well. However, I don’t know how
practical they are for managing someone not in a managerial role.
Writing
device alerts at ECRI is best though of as a production line and my
department is more akin to those jobs described in Taylor’s Scientific
Management theory. My colleagues, because we are salaried and perform
the same task from the same never-ending “lump of labor” (Wren and
Bedeian 2009), chose to work slowly; we “soldier” (Wren and Bedeian
2009). I know we (my colleagues) all realize that “business is a system
of human cooperation that will be successful only if all concerned work
toward a common goal” (Wren and Bedeian), but in an organization that
is diverse, full of engineers, doctors, physicists, nurses, and
scientists, I wonder how you integrate everyone and make sure that
everyone is performing the best task they can? It is Taylor’s idea of
“person-job fit” (Wren and Bedeian) that I think would make the most
sense, especially when combined with Fayol’s theories.
As an
organization grows, how best do you utilize everyone’s talents to the
best of their abilities? Or is it based on the job? Then as your
organization grows and diversifies, how does the variety then affect
employees? I see this within ECRI just based on the diversity of the
background of current employees.
Regardless of the answers to
any question, I find it intriguing that Taylor, Fayol, and Weber were
writing based on manufacturing and line-production jobs around 100 years
ago and it’s possible to relate them to modern-day offices.
References
Wren, D.A., Bedeian, A.G. (2009). The evolution of management thought. Danvers, MA: John Wiley & Sons.
By Brian
ReplyDeleteIs there a certain number of alerts that you're supposed to write each day or is it soley based on the manufacturers and regulatory agencies?
Would Taylor's idea of paying you more money if you exceeded a pre-determined number of alerts per day make you want to work harder?
Justin, it is challenging for any organization to best utilize the talents and gifts of their employees. Your organization's "cube farm" environment is physically less conducive to allowing for creativity. My wife worked for Western Union and now for PayPal, and the two office environments have a drastically different effect on creativity and collaboration. (PayPal's more open office and organic plan with lower walls is a much better working environment.)
ReplyDeleteAs Paul mentioned, would a different environment lead to greater productivity in your workplace? If you had more contact with your peers, would that cause increased knowledge transfer and motivation, or would it just be an unnecessary distraction?
ReplyDeleteWork environment is crucial to one's well-being and productivity, in my opinion. When I worked at a large insurance company, the vice president of my department decided to reconfigure our space into a Bloomberg-style "newsroom" and disallowed the use of any physical barriers between my colleagues. The idea was to foster communication among employees, but I found it very difficult to work without distractions.
ReplyDeleteHi Brian,
ReplyDeleteI believe Taylor's idea of paying more for more alerts would motivate myself and my colleagues more. But isn't that just a bonus-based system? Maybe I should have you shoot our supervisors and email.
And that's a great point too, Paul. The cube farm only isolates any office environment even though, as I mention below, we use technology to stay connected.
I'm not sure Dr. Pade. As I mentioned in Andrew's post, I wonder about the use of technology. We all have instant messenger, text messages, Facebook, gchat ... tons of distractions at our jobs. I think maybe more contact with peers and colleagues would get rid of the technological distraction that we use to try to stay connected while sitting feet from each other in any office.
Monitoring output has changed so much since Taylor's and Fayol's day, especially in the cubicle work environment. Reminds me of the quote by Ron Livingston in "Office Space" where he describes how he fritters away each day in his cubicle, and decides that he "probably does 15 minutes of actual, real work each day" (sorry, I've seen that movie too many times).
ReplyDeleteOne soldiers on in one's cubicle, and it becomes someone's responsibility to monitor deliverables, else who's to know how much time is spent doing real work, and not Skyping and IM'ing or browsing Craigslist? I imagine Taylor's bafflement at how to measure the productivity of the members of a cubicle work environment. It gets back to your question, how do you utilize everyone’s talents to the best of their abilities, particularly when they labor in relative isolation. I wonder if there have been any comparisons in the productivity of cubicle workers versus traditional desk workers free of walls?
I suppose it boils down to core values - integrity, cooperation, pride in work - and the motivations addressed by the Gilbreths.