4 ms·

I had hoped that this would go more into the failures of taylorism but from quickly skimming through, it didn't seemt to be. I recommend people read at least so

I had hoped that this would go more into the failures of taylorism but from quickly skimming through, it didn't seemt to be. I recommend people read at least some of the many critiques, starting with the ones linked in the Wikipedia page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_management#Criticism_of_rigor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_management#Critic...

jpm_sd 6y ago
"The One Best Way" is a great book on the subject. http://www.robertkanigel.com/the_one_best_way__frederick_winslow_taylor_and_the_enigma_of_efficiency_57916.htm http://www.robertkanigel.com/the_one_best_way__frederick_win...
troutwine 6y ago
I used to be a regular reader of Lapham's. Back then they'd more or less present folks' words without any comment _except_ the implicit comment of the other pieces in the magazine. Considering that https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/technology/technical-error https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/technology/technical-error is also present in the issue I'd say they've kept this structure up.
- throwanem 6y ago
  That quote of Kaczynski's seems to recur in my experience, and I suppose I understand why; out of his whole manifesto, I recall nothing else that so succinctly states his thesis. (If you haven't read it, that such an extended excerpt should be fairly called "succinct" may yield some idea.) I had a few things to say about it once before. Four years on, I think they've held up well enough to merit linking here again: https://aaron-m.com/2017/07/09/on-kaczynski https://aaron-m.com/2017/07/09/on-kaczynski In any case, as implicit criticisms of Taylorism go, this one doesn't strike me as being worth much, because for all his intellect, Kaczynski lacked the wisdom to think through all the consequences of the success toward which he aspired. I have tried to amend that error on his behalf, he being presumably unable to do so from whatever deep hole he's been thrown in. I can't speak to whether he would appreciate the likely outcome past the revolutionary moment, however fleetingly transcendent that might be - I don't think he understood that all revolutions become both permanent, and nothing like themselves. But neither do I feel any real need to gain his imprimatur. The consequences of Taylorism can be, and deserve to be, criticized on their merits, and without reference to Kaczynski. I haven't been a close reader of Lapham's, but what I know of their reputation suggests they could be expected to do better for such critique than this.
crispyambulance 6y ago
The interesting thing is article seems more humane and worker-centric than the current philosophy of shareholder supremacy. At least they're giving lip service to improving workers rather than talking about shedding them at the first opportunity. >...It is hoped that some at least of those who do not sympathize with each of these objects may be led to modify their views; that some employers, whose attitude toward their workmen has been that of trying to get the largest amount of work out of them for the smallest possible wages, may be led to see that a more liberal policy toward their men will pay them better; and that some of those workmen who begrudge a fair and even a large profit to their employers, and who feel that all of the fruits of their labor should belong to them, and that those for whom they work and the capital invested in the business are entitled to little or nothing, may be led to modify these views. This is ironically coming from the point of view of Scientific Taylorism which many cite as the prime example of vicious selfish pro-executive greed. How strange. Have we taken a step backwards with global supply-chains, corporate citizen-hood, and the ever-increasing "gig-economy" where workers are transient and expendable?
- sn41 6y ago
  I think shareholder supremacy is from Milton Friedman, who promoted the idea of the share price as the important thing to observe, leading to the use and misuse of strategies like stock buybacks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine
  - krrrh 6y ago
    A framing on this that Friedman made, which many would find more charitable is that executives of a corporation should not be engaged in social policy within a democracy. Corporations are bound by the laws and regulations established by democratically elected bodies, but they are too powerful and prone to capture to allow the c-suite to try to shape society themselves. Individual owners are free to use profits from businesses they have invested in to do whatever they want, because as citizens they are the best unit of participation in democratic society.
    - 6y ago
jrochkind1 6y ago
This is literally a piece by Taylor himself from 1911. So probably shouldn't expect it to go into the failures of Taylorism.
- igorkraw 6y ago
  One could preface it or postscript it with some commentary instead of implicitly endorsing it as a good idea.

jpm_sd 6y ago

"The One Best Way" is a great book on the subject. http://www.robertkanigel.com/the_one_best_way__frederick_winslow_taylor_and_the_enigma_of_efficiency_57916.htm http://www.robertkanigel.com/the_one_best_way__frederick_win...

troutwine 6y ago

I used to be a regular reader of Lapham's. Back then they'd more or less present folks' words without any comment _except_ the implicit comment of the other pieces in the magazine. Considering that https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/technology/technical-error https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/technology/technical-error is also present in the issue I'd say they've kept this structure up.

throwanem 6y ago
That quote of Kaczynski's seems to recur in my experience, and I suppose I understand why; out of his whole manifesto, I recall nothing else that so succinctly states his thesis. (If you haven't read it, that such an extended excerpt should be fairly called "succinct" may yield some idea.) I had a few things to say about it once before. Four years on, I think they've held up well enough to merit linking here again: https://aaron-m.com/2017/07/09/on-kaczynski https://aaron-m.com/2017/07/09/on-kaczynski In any case, as implicit criticisms of Taylorism go, this one doesn't strike me as being worth much, because for all his intellect, Kaczynski lacked the wisdom to think through all the consequences of the success toward which he aspired. I have tried to amend that error on his behalf, he being presumably unable to do so from whatever deep hole he's been thrown in. I can't speak to whether he would appreciate the likely outcome past the revolutionary moment, however fleetingly transcendent that might be - I don't think he understood that all revolutions become both permanent, and nothing like themselves. But neither do I feel any real need to gain his imprimatur. The consequences of Taylorism can be, and deserve to be, criticized on their merits, and without reference to Kaczynski. I haven't been a close reader of Lapham's, but what I know of their reputation suggests they could be expected to do better for such critique than this.

crispyambulance 6y ago

The interesting thing is article seems more humane and worker-centric than the current philosophy of shareholder supremacy. At least they're giving lip service to improving workers rather than talking about shedding them at the first opportunity. >...It is hoped that some at least of those who do not sympathize with each of these objects may be led to modify their views; that some employers, whose attitude toward their workmen has been that of trying to get the largest amount of work out of them for the smallest possible wages, may be led to see that a more liberal policy toward their men will pay them better; and that some of those workmen who begrudge a fair and even a large profit to their employers, and who feel that all of the fruits of their labor should belong to them, and that those for whom they work and the capital invested in the business are entitled to little or nothing, may be led to modify these views. This is ironically coming from the point of view of Scientific Taylorism which many cite as the prime example of vicious selfish pro-executive greed. How strange. Have we taken a step backwards with global supply-chains, corporate citizen-hood, and the ever-increasing "gig-economy" where workers are transient and expendable?

sn41 6y ago
I think shareholder supremacy is from Milton Friedman, who promoted the idea of the share price as the important thing to observe, leading to the use and misuse of strategies like stock buybacks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine
- krrrh 6y ago
  A framing on this that Friedman made, which many would find more charitable is that executives of a corporation should not be engaged in social policy within a democracy. Corporations are bound by the laws and regulations established by democratically elected bodies, but they are too powerful and prone to capture to allow the c-suite to try to shape society themselves. Individual owners are free to use profits from businesses they have invested in to do whatever they want, because as citizens they are the best unit of participation in democratic society.
  - 6y ago

jrochkind1 6y ago

This is literally a piece by Taylor himself from 1911. So probably shouldn't expect it to go into the failures of Taylorism.

igorkraw 6y ago
One could preface it or postscript it with some commentary instead of implicitly endorsing it as a good idea.