How automation imposes new measures of productivity on the workplace
In a series of blog posts I reflect on some of the ideas that hide behind modern information technology. My inspiration for starting the series is this article on Aeon about our intellectual progress throughout the ages. In the article Nick Romeo describes how ‘new catchwords hide from us the thoughts and feelings of our ancestors, even when they differed little from our own’.
I believe modern information technology hides many of these same thoughts and feelings. But catchwords such as artificial intelligence and blockchain inhibit us from perceiving them. I believe these thoughts and feelings can tell us more about modern information technology. Maybe even help to progress it. In this post I try to reveal some of the thoughts and feelings that hide behind modern day automation.
There is a plethora of new catchwords that people use for referring to modern day automation. Take for example intelligent automation, robotic process automation, cognitive automation, even artificial intelligence. Each of these catchwords can elicit a feeling of apprehension. An unease about the future of the workplace. I believe this feeling to be justified. However, not because of the prospect of a ‘jobless’ future; James Surowiecki addresses the myths that surround a jobless future in this article. There is another prospect to feel uneasy about. To explain which, I need to start with the story of Frederick Winslow Taylor. The first management consultant.
At the turn of the 20th century Frederick Winslow Taylor is under contract with one of US largest steel companies. There he is “constantly impressed with the failure of the laborers to produce more than about 1/3 of a good day’s work”.
Thus, he sets out to study how long each given piece of work the laborers should take to complete. With a stopwatch Taylor times the laborers while they are performing their task of handling pig iron. To have the laborers become more motivated, Taylor introduces bonuses and direct competition. He times the laborers again. After several of experiments Taylor concludes he was more than right; the laborers could easily quadruple their output. Taylor is thrilled.
In the years following Taylor continues his experiments at several other companies. In 1912 Taylor releases an epitome of his studies: The Principles of Scientific Management. It becomes the bestselling business book in the first half of the 20th century.
In the book Taylor ensures us that workplace productivity increases by enforced cooperation, enforced standardization of methods, and enforced adoption of the best tools and working conditions.
Taylor’s influence reaches far. He is often seen as the founding father of modern business management. Modern business courses like supply chain management can be led back to Taylor’s study of the workplace.
Yet Taylor’s work and his person are disputed. He has often been slated for the lack of rigor in his experiments. Already in 1911 the House of Representatives appointed a committee to hear testimonies from laborers that partook in Taylor’s experiments at a major US arsenal. In their testimonies the laborers complained to be bone tired after a day’s work. They felt they constantly needed to compete with one another. In 1912 Taylor was called in front of the committee. The criticism the committee leveled at him was that “scientific management had no place in it for the laborer”. The emphasis “was on the work and not on the person”. Taylor did not answer well in front of the committee: “The ordinary pig iron handler is not suited to shoveling coal”, Taylor was quoted. “He is too stupid.” And: “Scientific management has no place for a bird that can sing but won’t sing…”.
So, why should this story make us feel uneasy about modern day automation?
Well, Taylor did away with the at the time ruling idea that manufacturing work was craftwork. He introduced the notion that manufacturing work could be measured in terms of its input, output, and waste. An apparent obvious notion to us now. Equally obvious to us is the notion that knowledge-intensive work — the work of doctors, programmers, etc.— cannot be measured as easily. Rightfully so. Yet modern day automation will have us question that notion. Like Taylor introduced productivity measures to manufacturing work, so will modern day automation introduce them to knowledge-intensive work.
A simple example is that of a machine that tracks your health data and suggests ways to improve. Or one that diagnoses a disease such as malaria. The machine will fail or succeed at its task by a set of measures we determine. Maybe palpable. But we should not be tempted to evaluate a doctor by these same measures. We cannot ask if “the machine that can diagnose eight patients an hour” is more productive than “the doctor that only diagnoses four”. Such comparisons will lead to the decrement of human value in the workplace. Possibly to a certain competition between human and machine. The criticism that the committee leveled at Taylor’s scientific management in 1912, we should keep in mind for automation. The emphasis is “on the work and not on the person”.
We seem to concern ourselves more often with the idea of how machines measure up to us. See the movie Ex Machina. Otherwise the humanoid robots of Boston Dynamics might convince you. But maybe we should become concerned about the idea that we start measuring ourselves up to machines.
Our modern lives have already been ‘Taylorized’, the Taylor biographer Robert Kanigel observed. There is a clock ticking above our desks. We manage our time, waste no motion, and multitask. The advancement of automation will slowly expand the idea of what we can measure. The Economist hinted at how ‘Digital Taylorism’ will take effect in the workplace. Amazon has provided us with the contemporary example(s).
Read more about Frederick Winslow Taylor in this article by Jill Lepore in The New Yorker or this article by Matthew Stewart in The Atlantic.
