英国作业抄袭率是多少？

lies to Microsoft’s products and production processes in equal measure. Yet rather than pursue Taylor’s ‘one best way’ and control it by means of strict hierarchy and managerial supervision, Microsoft has, historically, sought to empower employees at all levels. Instead of allowing workers strict ‘need to know’ knowledge that relates only to their discrete part of a process, Microsoft runs an intensive induction programme for new recruits, which introduces them to the overall business model, and acquaints them with colleagues and support networks. This broader knowledge equips individuals with the context to make autonomous decisions that are nevertheless aligned with the organisation’s interests. This, in turn, lays the foundations for continuous improvement based on comparison, feedback and the identification of more effective and efficient work methods. Microsoft seeks to encourage improved performance not only by financial incentives, but also by considering more progressive drivers of employee motivation, participation and satisfaction. Thus, software programmers at Microsoft work long hours, but extra discretionary effort is encouraged by free food, relaxed dress code, comfortable offices, and playing games (for further details see Birkinshaw and Cramer, 2008). So, whereas Taylorism is criticised for its de-humanising tendencies, Microsoft arguably seeks to balance and blend the drive for enhanced productivity with a complementary appeal to the broader hierarchy of needs in its workforce.

Conclusion

This paper has offered a critique of Taylorism as the first and most influential theory that shaped a spectrum of subsequent management practices that fall under the wider umbrella philosophy of scientific management. The example of Microsoft shows how the principles of scientific management inform many practices that are still in use today. As a large, established, multinational organisation, Microsoft’s management practices are, almost inevitably, complex and contradictory and the brevity of this paper does not permit a more detailed investigation of how and to what extent scientific management principles inform the varied practices of different functions and divisions within the organisation. For example, the process of iterative product development owes a debt to scientific management as does project management and evaluation. Nevertheless, this paper has offered a broad overview of how Microsoft has appropriated, adapted and implemented elements of Taylor’s early scientific management theory, such as division of labour, employee selection, training and supervision, pay and reward, scientific evaluation, and process improvement, to improve Microsoft’s productivity, quality, and economic performance today’s fast-paced competitive environment.

Bibliography

B. R., 2012. Management the Microsoft Way, The Economist, 21 August

Birkinshaw, Julian and Crainer, Stuart, 2008. Theory Y meets Generation Y, Management 2.0, 10 (December)

Caldari, Katia, 2007. Alfred Marshall’s Criticism of Scientific Management, European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 14(1) (March)

Drucker, Peter, 1981. Towards the Next Economics and Other Essays. London: Heinemann

Head, Simon, 2003. The New Ruthless Economy: Work and Power in the Digital Age. New York: Oxford University Press

Kanigel, Robert, 1997. Taylor-made. (19th-century efficiency expert Frederick Taylor), The Sciences. 37(3)

Nelson, Daniel, 1992. A Mental Revolution: Scientific Management since Taylor. Ohio: Ohio State University Press

Ralston, Shane, 2014. Doing versus Thinking: John Dewey’s Forgotten Critique of Scientific Management, Southwest Philosophy Review

Schumpeter, 2015. Digital Taylorism’, The Economist. 12 September

Shaw, Karyll, 2004. Changing the goal-setting process at Microsoft, Academy of Management Executive. 18(4)

Spender, J. C, and Kinje Hugo, 1996. Scientific Management: Frederick Winslow Taylor’s Gift to the World? Norwell: Kluwer

Stoney, Christopher, (2001) Strategic Managem