The Psychology of Management by Lillian Moller Gilbreth

relation of these two fields of inquiries and can ultimately enroll its readers as investigators in a resultant great field of inquiry, it will have accomplished its aim. DEFINITION OF MANAGEMENT.--To discuss this subject more in detail-- First: What is "Management"? "Management," as defined by the Century Dictionary, is "the art of managing by direction or regulation." Successful management of the old type was an art based on no measurement. Scientific Management is an art based upon a science,--upon laws deducted from measurement. Management continues to be what it has always been,--the _art_ of directing activity. CHANGE IN THE ACCEPTED MEANING.--"Management," until recent years, and the emphasis placed on Scientific Management was undoubtedly associated, in the average mind, with the _managing_ part of the organization only, neglecting that vital part--the best interests of the managed, almost entirely. Since we have come to realize that management signifies the relationship between the managing and the managed in doing work, a new realization of its importance has come about.[6] INADEQUACY OF THE TERMS USED.--It is unfortunate that the English language is so poor in synonyms in this field that the same word must have two such different and conflicting meanings, for, though the new definition of management be accepted, the "Fringe" of associations that belong to the old are apt to remain.[7] The thoughts of "knack, aptitude, tact, adroitness,"--not to speak of the less desirable "Brute Force," "shrewdness, subtlety, cunning, artifice, deceit, duplicity," of the older idea of management remain in the background of the mind and make it difficult, even when one is convinced that management is a science, to think and act as if it were. It must be noticed and constantly remembered that one of the greatest difficulties to overcome in studying management and its development is the meaning of the terms used. It is most unfortunate that the new ideas have been forced to content themselves with old forms as best they may. PSYCHOLOGICAL INTEREST OF THE TERMS.--Psychology could ask no more interesting subject than a study of the mental processes that lie back of many of these terms. It is most unfortunate for the obtaining of clearness, that new terms were not invented for the new ideas. There is, however, an excellent reason for using the old terms. By their use it is emphasized that the new thought is a logical outgrowth of the old, and experience has proved that this close relationship to established ideas is a powerful argument for the new science; but such terms as "task," "foreman," "speed boss," "piece-rate" and "bonus," as used in the science of management, suffer from misunderstanding caused by old and now false associations. Furthermore, in order to compare old and new interpretations of the ideas of management, the older terms of management should have their traditional meanings only. The two sets of meanings are a source of endless confusion, unwarranted prejudice, and worse. This is well recognized by the authorities on Management. THE THREE TYPES OF MANAGEMENT.--We note this inadequacy of terms again when we discuss the various _types_ of Management. We may divide all management into three types-- (1) Traditional (2) Transitory (3) Scientific, or measured functional.[8] Traditional Management, the first, has been variously called "Military," "Driver," the "Marquis of Queensberry type," "Initiative and Incentive Management," as well as "Traditional" management. DEFINITION OF THE FIRST TYPE.--In the first type, the power of managing lies, theoretically at least, in the hands of one man, a capable "all-around" manager. The line of authority and of responsibility is clear, fixed and single. Each man comes in direct contact with but one man above him. A man may or may not manage more than one man beneath him, but, however this may be, he is managed by but one man above him. PREFERABLE NAME FOR THE FIRST TYPE.--The names "Traditional," or "Initiative and Incentive," are the preferable titles for this form of management. It is true they lack in specificness, but the other names, while aiming to be descriptive, really emphasize one feature only, and in some cases with unfortunate results. THE NAME "MILITARY" INADVISABLE.--The direct line of authority suggested the name "Military,"[9] and at the time of the adoption of that name it was probably appropriate as well as complimentary.[10] Appropriate in the respect referred to only, for the old type of management varied so widely in its manifestations that the comparison to the procedure of the Army was most inaccurate. "Military" has always been a synonym for "systematized", "orderly," "definite," while the old type of management was more often quite the opposite of the meaning of all these terms. The term "Military Management" though often used in an uncomplimentary sense would, today, if understood, be more complimentary than ever it was in the past. The introduction of various features of Scientific Management into the Army and Navy,--and such features are being incorporated steadily and constantly,--is raising the standard of management there to a high degree. This but renders the name "Military" Management for the old type more inaccurate and misleading. It is plain that the stirring associations of the word "military" make its use for the old type, by advocates of the old type, a weapon against Scientific Management that only the careful thinker can turn aside. THE NAMES "DRIVER" AND "MARQUIS OF QUEENSBERRY" UNFORTUNATE.--The name "Driver" suggests an opposition between the managers and the men, an opposition which the term "Marquis of Queensberry" emphasizes. This term "Marquis of Queensberry" has been given to that management which is thought of as a mental and physical contest, waged "according to the rules of the game." These two names are most valuable pictorially, or in furnishing oratorical material. They are constant reminders of the constant desire of the managers to get all the work that is possible out of the men, but they are scarcely descriptive in any satisfactory sense, and the visions they summon, while they are perhaps definite, are certainly, for the inexperienced in management, inaccurate. In other words, they usually lead to imagination rather than to perception. THE NAME "INITIATIVE AND INCENTIVE" AUTHORITATIVE.--The term "Initiative and Incentive" is used by Dr. Taylor, and is fully described by him.[11] The words themselves suggest, truly, that he gives the old form of management its due. He does more than this. He points out in his definition of the terms the likenesses between the old and new forms. THE NAME "TRADITIONAL" BRIEF AND DESCRIPTIVE.--The only excuses for the term "Traditional," since Dr. Taylor's term is available, are its brevity and its descriptiveness. The fact that it is indefinite is really no fault in it, as the subject it describes is equally indefinite. The "fringe"[12] of this word is especially good. It calls up ideas of information handed down from generation to generation orally, the only way of teaching under the old type of management. It recalls the idea of the inaccurate perpetuation of unthinking custom, and the "myth" element always present in tradition,--again undeniable accusations against the old type of management. The fundamental idea of the tradition, that it is _oral_, is the essence of the difference of the old type of management from science, or even system, which must be written. It is not necessary to make more definite here the content of this oldest type of management, rather being satisfied with the extent, and accepting for working use the name "Traditional" with the generally accepted definition of that name. DEFINITION OF THE SECOND TYPE OF MANAGEMENT.--The second type of management is called "Interim" or "Transitory" management. It includes all management that is consciously passing into Scientific Management and embraces all stages, from management that has incorporated one scientifically derived principle, to management that has adopted all but one such principle. PREFERABLE NAME FOR SECOND TYPE OF MANAGEMENT.--Perhaps the name "Transitory" is slightly preferable in that, though the element of temporariness is present in both words, it is more strongly emphasized in the latter. The usual habit of associating with it the ideas of "fleeting, evanescent, ephemeral, momentary, short-lived," may have an influence on hastening the completion of the installing of Scientific Management. DEFINITION OF THE THIRD TYPE OF MANAGEMENT.--The third form of management is called "Ultimate," "measured Functional," or "Scientific," management, and might also be called,--but for the objection of Dr. Taylor, the "Taylor Plan of Management." This differs from the first two types mentioned in that it is a definite plan of management synthesized from scientific analysis of the data of management. In other words, Scientific Management is that management which is a science, i.e., which operates according to known, formulated, and applied laws.[13] PREFERABLE NAME OF THE THIRD TYPE OF MANAGEMENT.--The name "Ultimate" has, especially to the person operating under the transitory stage, all the charm and inspiration of a goal. It has all the incentives to accomplishment of a clearly circumscribed task. Its very definiteness makes it seem possible of attainment. It is a great satisfaction to one who, during a lifetime of managing effort, has tried one offered improvement after another to be convinced that he has found the right road at last. The name is, perhaps, of greatest value in attracting the attention of the uninformed and, as the possibilities of the subject can fulfill the most exacting demands, the attention once secured can be held. The name "measured functional" is the most descriptive, but demands the most explanation. The principle of functionalization is one of the underlying, fundamental principles of Scientific Management. It is not as necessary to stop to define it here, as it is necessary to discuss the definition, the principle, and the underlying psychology, at length later. The name "scientific" while in some respects not as appropriate as are any of the other names, has already received the stamp of popular approval. In derivation it is beyond criticism. It also describes exactly, as has been said, the difference between the older forms of management and the new. Even its "fringe" of association is, or at least was when first used, all that could be desired; but the name is, unfortunately, occasionally used indiscriminately for any sort of system and for schemes of operation that are not based on time study. It has gradually become identified more or less closely with