These thoughts led to the development of what became known as "scientific management". His 'scientific principles' were those of systematic study, analysis and the assumption of causal relationships that could be derived and subsequently managed. e.g. the relationship between incentives and effort. He assumed that working systems were generally inefficient - largely because no-one had bothered to make them efficient - and that workers were naturally inclined to be lazy and inefficient - since this was in their own best interest. Therefore managers had to overcome this natural reluctance to put in maximum effort and offer incentives so that worker effort was in the interests of both the company and the worker.

He felt that most managers were ill-equipped to fulfil their role, since they were not trained to analyse and improve work, and seemed incapable of motivating workers. Taylor thought that managers should be able to analyse work (metho

While both have a task focus, their approaches are quite different. Fayol was particularly interested in authority and its implementation while Taylor concentrated on work organisation (e.g. efficiency). In many ways their views illustrating some of the differences between the USA and Europe. The views and attitudes towards organisations and management are not always led by American theorists. He advocated a consistent set of principles that all organisations need to run properly.

Some topics in this essay:
Steel Company, HRM Human, USA Europe, Persian Gulf, Subordination Individual, Illinois Systems, Quality Circle, MBO MBO, Taylor USA, Classical Schol, human relations, resources management, scientific management, personnel policies, style probably, human resources, customer satisfaction, human resources management,