Answer

Taylor’s Theory on Performance Improvement

                Fredrick Wilson Taylor is renowned by scholars for developing scientific principles that improved work efficiency in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries. Critical to the discussion is the fact that Fredrick developed the principles after acknowledging the role of the management and workers in performance improvement. For instance, Myrick (2012) reveals that Taylor based his scientific principles on four management duties and workers ability to obey directives from the management. Analogously, Blake and Mosley (2010) argue that Taylor based his scientific management principles on time study, functional foremanship, standardization of tools, bonuses for successful performance, and careful task allocation. It is notable that regardless of the view of different authors on the scientific principles, they all point to the four principles discussed by Myrick (2012). Specifically, the principles are scientific management, scientific training, cooperation with workers, and teamwork.

                It is important to note that the theory under discussion posits that each trait of workers responsibilities must be tested and examined thoroughly to establish the best method for handling specific tasks. As evidence, Wren (2011) argues that every worker’s duties should be planned by specifying what needs to be done and how it should be done. As a result, employers should invest time and money training and hiring employees instead of allowing workers to define how to handle their duties. As evidence, Taylor believes that allowing employees to manage their responsibilities would result in employees making inefficient choices that would cost an organization time and money. As mentioned earlier, Taylor’s scientific management principles involved employee training and scientific development. This implies that the theory inscribes to the philosophy of allowing workers to perform their duties based on strict adherence to how the duties were designed by the management.

                It is also important to note that the theory advocates for teamwork. As evidence, Blake and Mosley (2010) reveal that the goal for the principle is to ascertain a clear division of labor within an organization. Critical to the discussion is the fact that Taylor further asserts that the division of labor is a duty for the management. This implies that the management should supervise teamwork by assigning all members of the team responsibilities that best suit their abilities. Evidently, implementing Taylor’s scientific principles within an organization calls for change in organizational practices. As a result, Taylor warned managers of facing resistance for trying to implement organizational change abruptly. This owes to the reality that he cautioned managers by advising them to establish how to revolutionize habits and attitudes of the management before implementing changes. Based on scientific examination of best workers, Taylor proposes using a stopwatch to eliminate slow, false, and undesired movements.

                 It is important to discuss Taylor’s opinion on employee motivation because it explains why some scholars question whether “people are greedy robots with nothing to offer but their labor”. This owes to the reality that John argues that Taylor’s conception of human motivation is limited. Specifically, the concept posits that workers can only be motivated by monetary incentives. Further, the theory asserts that employees have limited ability to make informed decisions, which explains why the management should plan for all tasks within an organization. However, it should be noted that the theory in question was developed when most workers were uneducated immigrants with little knowledge in English. As a result, Taylor believed that such workers could not supervise other works efficiently, let alone manage their own responsibilities. This explains why the scholar advocated for developing scientific methods, establishing goals for workers, systems of rewards, and training employees.

Nissan’s Approach to Performance Improvement

                Nissan’s Sunderland plant is Europe’s most productive plant in the automotive industry. This owes to the fact that the plant produces almost one in every four cars built in England. Critical to the discussion is the fact that the organization sent some of its managers to Japan for training so that they could implement the best production strategies in England. As a result, the managers came back to England with the following strategy. First, the strategy requires that an employee working on the improvement process take the lead unless none of the employees has experience on the strategy implemented by the organization. Further, the improvement process requires employees to use tools such as Pareto charts, workflow diagrams, cause and effect diagrams, and critical path analysis. In simple terms, the approach used by Nissan appreciates the use of scientific principles for performance improvement.

                It is also important to note that the approach used by the organization in question embraces collaboration and teamwork. As evidence, the approach requires that all members who are going through the training split themselves into small groups where they will be required to work together. Further, the approach requires that employees use scientific tools in the performance improvement process. It is also important to highlight that process used in the organization motivate employees differently, which in turn allows them to improve their performance. Specifically, the approach motivates employees through appreciating their abilities, providing them with an effective working environment, allowing them time for a work life balance, and using attractive remuneration packages. This ensures that members of the organization are happy and productive, because it makes them look forward to working every day. It also ensures that performance improvement in the organization is continuous.

                The SDT has come to be considered as a valuable resource by Nissan’s suppliers, and there is always a queue for its services. From the suppliers’ perspective, this is understandable. Improvement activities usually meet or exceed their targets. Productivity increases of 20 and 40% are quite common, as are similar improvements in quality and reductions in work-in process. From Nissan’s point of view, it is not the individual improvements per se which are important, but the ability of suppliers to carry on making improvements once the SDT presence is removed. For many, this is the case, and the individual improvement projects act as a catalyst to the development of continuous improvement both on and off the shop floor. Nevertheless, this does not always occur, and some suppliers do appear to find difficulty sustaining and spreading the SDT philosophy, which may affect their longer-term position as a Nissan supplier. After all, Nissan is not a charity. It helps its suppliers to improve their competitiveness in order to improve to improve its own competitiveness. Therefore, it would misleading to believe that Nissan was in anyway ‘soft’ on suppliers. It promotes co-operative working with suppliers (and encourages suppliers to work co-operatively with their own staff) because it believes it makes sound business sense. Nissan is prepared to enter into log-term partnerships with its suppliers but suppliers must reciprocate by continuously improving their performance – not an easy task. As Sir Ian Gibson, Nissan’s former Managing Director, stated: ‘Co-operative supply chain relationships are not an easy option, as many imagine, but are considerably harder to implement than the traditional buyer-seller relationships’

Compare Nissan’s approach to performance improvement with that advocated by F. W. Taylor.

                Evidently, both approaches of performance improvement result in improvement in organizational productivity. As evidence, Verity (2012) argues that Taylor’s principle of scientific management is known to increase productivity when the approach is applied. It is because for Taylor proposes using a stopwatch to eliminate slow, false, and undesired movements. Similarly, the performance improvement approach implemented at Nissan also ensures that productivity within the organization. As evidence, implementing the Kaizen principle of management always results in a 20 percent to forty percent increase in productivity (Szwejczewski and Jones, 2012). However, it is notable that the performance improvement at Nissan is continuous while using Taylor principles of scientific management does not necessarily result in continuous improvement. This indicates that even though both approaches result in an increase in productivity, Nissan’s approach to scientific management, as opposed to Taylor’s principle, results in continuous increase in productivity.

                It is important to highlight that both approaches under discussion advocate using scientific tools to increase productivity.  For instance, Taylor’s principle reveals that each trait of workers responsibilities must be tested and examined thoroughly to establish the best method for handling specific tasks. In addition, Taylor advised using a watch to record the time taken by efficient workers to complete a specific task (Skrabec, 2012). The time recoded can then be used to train other workers, which indicates that the principles uphold the need of using scientific tools to increase organizational productivity. It is also notable that Nissan’s approach to performance improvement also upholds the idea of using scientific tools to increase organizational productivity. As evidence, the approach uses tools such as Pareto charts, workflow diagrams, cause and effect diagrams, and critical path analysis, which are scientific in nature. It follows that both approaches apply scientific tools to improve performance.

                It is clear that both approaches have similarities because they both result in organizational productivity and use scientific tools for the improvement. However, the approaches have differences. For example, Taylor’s approach of scientific management reveals that all employees must work by adhering to instructions from their managers. This owes to the reality that the principle requires managers to examine and develop tasks for every employee, which must be adhered to very closely. On the contrary, Nissan’s approach to scientific management requires that employees supervise themselves and only report to their managers about their individual performance. In addition, Taylor’s approach to scientific management indicates that employees can only motivated by monetary incentives. This opposes Nissan’s approach for motivating employees because the approach based on annual global reviews. This indicates that the two performance improvement approaches under discussion have similarities as well as differences.

Benefits of Nissan’s ‘bottom-up’ Approach to Shop-Floor Performance

What are the benefits of Nissan’s ‘bottom-up’ approach to shop-floor performance improvement compared with the benefits of Taylor’s approach?

                To begin with, Nissan’s ‘bottom-up’ approach involves employees in the performance improvement process. As evidence, the Nissan Motor Corporation Sustainability Report (2014) asserts that the organization believes that power originates from within the organization. Specifically, the organization implements performance improvement strategies by involving employees in the process. In fact, Bamber, Stanton, Bartram, and Ballardie (2014) reveal that most important people that contribute to the performance improvement process are shop-floor employees who work on the process that is being improved. In comparison, Taylor’s theory of performance improvement does not involve all stakeholders in the improvement process. This owes to the reality that Giannantonio (2011) argues that the management establishes all performance improvement strategies when Taylor’s scientific principles of performance improvement are used. It follows that Nissan’s bottom up approach to performance improvement appreciates all employees as resourceful members of organizations. As a result, it makes employees motivated to pursue their daily responsibilities just because they feel that they are part of the team.

                It is also important to note that Nissan’s ‘bottom-up’ approach to performance improvement is a continuous process that does not stop at any moment. This owes to the truth that the performance improvement strategy implemented by the organization is based on Kaizen, which stands for continuous improvement. Further, the approach has individual projects, but the aim of such individual projects is to ascertain continuous improvement on and off Shop floor. In contrast, Taylor’s principle of scientific management has no room for scientific improvement. This owes to the fact that the principle advocates for training and supervision. Specifically, the theory requires that manages establish the best methodologies for performing tasks, train their employees, then constantly supervise the workers to ensure that they perform according to how they were trained. This indicates that implementing Nissan’s approach to performance improvement is better than using Taylor’s theory of scientific management because the former ensures continuous organizational improvement.

                The approach used to motivate employees in the Nissan’s approach to performance improvement and Taylor’s scientific principles are different. According to the Nissan Motor Corporation Sustainability Report (2014), the organization motivates its employees according to global annual reviews. Further, Evangelopoulos (2011) reveals that the Kaizen approach used for performance improvement at the organization motivates employees, by appreciating their abilities, providing them with an effective working environment, allowing them time for a work life balance, and using attractive remuneration packages. As a result, employees at Nissan are fully motivated to achieve their best. In contrast, Taylor’s principle of scientific management asserts that the only way to motivate workers is using financial incentives. It follows that the principle disregards important aspects of employee motivation because it exclusively uses monetary incentives to motivate employees. Thus, the benefit of Nissan’s approach towards performance improvement, unlike Taylor’s theory, involves several aspects of employee motivation.

                Even though Nisan’s approach to performance improvement and Taylor’s principle to scientific management have different benefits, they also possess similar benefits. For example, both Taylor’s scientific management principles and Nissan approach to performance improvement result in productivity after either is implemented. As evidence, Kulesza, G. M, Weaver, and Friedman (2011) argue that Taylors approach to scientific improvement was sold to organizations because it improved productivity. This owes to the reality that the principle eliminated unnecessary movement, saved time, and increased employee motivation. Analogously, Nissan’s approach to performance improvement also increased productivity within the organization. It is because the approach implemented by the organization in question reduces defects, increases employee motivation, and cuts on the cost of production, which are major factors contributing to organizational improvement. Thus, there is sufficient evidence to deduce that both Nissan’s approach to performance improvement and Taylor scientific principles result in increased productivity.

If Frederick Taylor’s perception of human beings is as ‘greedy robots’, what is Nissans?

                It is evident that Taylor perceives human beings as robots owing to the nature of his theory. This owes to the reality that the theory could be interpreted to imply that it considers workers as people who cannot make their own thoughts. In simple terms, the theory points to the fact that human beings can only complete tasks by taking instructions. Critical to the discussion is the truth that such an interpretation emerges from the theory’s implication on the role of managers and employees. As evidence, Blake, and Mosley (2010) argue that managers have a duty of training their employees and supervising them to ensure that they work based on their training. This implies that employees can only work after receiving instructions from managers, which is a characteristic of robots. Above all, the theory argues that employees are only motivated by monetary incentives, yet employees are also motivated by dreams, passion, and social lives, which is not an element of robots.

                Taylor’s theory of performance improvement considers workers as robots, but not human beings, which was evident when Taylor trained employees at a pig iron plant. This owes to the reality that Taylor trained employees at the plant by asking them to sit when they are asked to sit and work when they are asked to work. According to Taylor, the employee who was given the instruction could not identify when to rest and when to work. This is a direct comparison of human beings to robots because robots cannot think for themselves and only rely on instructions from human beings. Critical to the discussion is the fact that Nissan’s approach to performance improvement is the direct opposite of Taylor’s principles of scientific management when it comes to the subject of human characteristics. This owes to the fact than Nissan’s approach to performance improvement includes aspects that appreciate humans as living people.

                For instance, the principle incorporates aspects such as work life balance as a tool for motivating workers. As evidence, the Nissan Motor Corporation Sustainability Report (2014) reveals that the organization motivates its employees by encouraging them to spend time on their social and communal responsibilities. Specifically, the organization acknowledges that employees are human beings who have families and communities that rely on them. Thus, the organization provides its employees with a working environment that can give time to employees so that they can handle their family and communal responsibilities. In addition, the organization’s approach to performance improvement acknowledges employees as people who can make decisions for themselves. It is because the approach used allows employees to participate in the performance improvement process, by thinking for themselves. Therefore, unlike Taylor’s principles of scientific management, Nissan’s approach to performance improvement acknowledges workers as people who have family and communal responsibilities.

Implications of Nissan’s approach to Mangers and the Managed

What are the implications of the Nissan approach for both managers and the managed?

                The approach used for performance improvement by Nissan has implications for both managers and the managed. For example, the approach used by the organization reduces the workload for managers by making them mentors instead of supervisors. As evidence, the approach does not require managers to design responsibilities for every employee, train, and supervise them. Instated the approach requires employees to participate in analyzing their own duties, and develop strategies for improving their performance (Nissan Motor Corporation Sustainability Report, 2015). Apparently, the approach lightens managers’ duty because it does not require managers to check on the responsibilities of every employee. On the contrary, the approach demands that employees report to their managers about their performance for mentorship. It is also notable that the approach does not require managers to supervise their employees continuously. In simple terms, Nissan’s approach to performance improvement reduces responsibilities for managers by eliminating their supervisory and trainers’ roles as managers.

                It is important that the approach used at the organization in question benefits the managed by allowing them not only to improve, but also to show case their skills to their seniors. Specifically, the approach requires members of the organization to work in teams, which improves their interpersonal skills. Further, the approach improves employee skills by training employees on analytical and scientific tools used to establish problems that face them in their daily obligations. This owes to the reality that the performance improvement process requires employees to use analytical skills such as timing, recording using cameras, and eliminating defects. As mentioned earlier, the approach also allows employees to show case their skills to their managers, because they are required to report the outcome of their analysis to their managers. This gives them an opportunity to boast about their abilities, which in turn boosts employee’s morale.