only to improve the productivity.

In the Human Relation period, groups were formed, but the Tayloristic approach had not died out. A lot of theories after Taylor's period have questioned his approach, but the Taylor theory has not yet died out. An example of this is the NUMMI manufacture. Some principles from Taylor have been retained. But to increase the productivity that Taylordidn't manage, the separation between planning and execution of work is less. Some mean this is only the next step up from Taylor's ideas and it

There is no doubt that team work is more efficient than individual work. It is true, but not in all cases. Often working in teams gives individuals a chance to avoid the responsibility. In this article I will discuss team work.

Frederick W Taylor and his Scientific Management had a negative view on teams. If the employees were allowed to form groups, Taylor believed efficiency and productivity would decrease. His reason was called soldiering; if employees were given responsibilities and allowed to work in groups, they would pursue their own interests rather than those of the organisation. To prevent this, Taylor saw it as important to separate between mental and manual work and different tasks should be separated from each other. This isolating was supposed to increase productivity.

The productivity didn't increase and researchers started to examine other factors that could play an important role in the need for increased efficiency. Different experiments were done, and they showed that giving the workers better working conditions, increased the productivity. But when the working conditions were turned back to the same standard as before the experiment, the workers' efficiency didn't decrease. In these experiments, the workers felt important and their efforts were appreciated. This led to a new theory called Human Relations Movement. This theory saw social satisfaction as important to reduce the likelihood of workplace unrest. Groups were formed, but the managers were still in total control. Although was a contrast to the Scientific Management, it didn't reduce the knowledge gap caused by the separation of mental and manual work.

As we can see, Taylor used a "one-dimensional" theory (explained in week 4), and the only important aspect/factor in the organisation was the productivity. Human Relation Movement and Mayo discovered that social aspect would affect the productivity of the workers. Even thought Mayo saw the importance of employees' social need, Human Relation Movement cannot be called a "two-dimensional" theory. This is because Human Relation Movement recognised the social need only to improve the productivity.

In the Human Relation period, groups were formed, but the Tayloristic approach had not died out. A lot of theories after Taylor's period have questioned his approach, but the Taylor theory has not yet died out. An example of this is the NUMMI manufacture. Some principles from Taylor have been retained. But to increase the productivity that Taylordidn't manage, the separation between planning and execution of work is less. Some mean this is only the next step up from Taylor's ideas and it i

ursue their own interests rather than those of the organisation. To prevent this, Taylor saw it as important to separate between mental and manual work and different tasks should be separated from each other. This isolating was supposed to increase productivity.

The productivity didn't increase and researchers started to examine other factors that could play an important role in the need for increased efficiency. Different experiments were done, and they showed that giving the workers better working conditions, increased the productivity. But when the working conditions were turned back to the same standard as before the experiment, the workers' efficiency didn't decrease. In these experiments, the workers felt important and their efforts were appreciated. This led to a new theory called Human Relations Movement. This theory saw social satisfaction as important to reduce the likelihood of workplace unrest. Groups were formed, but the managers were still in total control. Although was a contrast to the Scientific Management, it didn't reduce the knowledge gap caused by the separation of mental and manual work.

As we can see, Taylor used a "one-dimensional" theory (explained in week 4), and the only important aspect/factor in the organisation was the productivity. Human Relation Movement and Mayo discovered that social aspect would affect the productivity of the workers. Even thought Mayo saw the importance of employees' social need, Human Relation Movement cannot be called a "two-dimensional" theory. This is because Human Relation Movement recognised the social need only to improve the productivity.

In the Human Relation period, groups were formed, but the Tayloristic approach had not died out. A lot of theories after Taylor's period have questioned his approach, but the Taylor theory has not yet died out. An example of this is the NUMMI manufacture. Some principles from Taylor have been retained. But to increase the productivity that Taylordidn't manage, the separation between planning and execution of work is less. Some mean this is only the next step up from Taylor's ideas and it

e productivity. But when the working conditions were turned back to the same standard as before the experiment, the workers' efficiency didn't decrease. In these experiments, the workers felt important and their efforts were appreciated. This led to a new theory called Human Relations Movement. This theory saw social satisfaction as important to reduce the likelihood of workplace unrest. Groups were formed, but the managers were still in total control. Although was a contrast to the Scientific Management, it didn't reduce the knowledge gap caused by the separation of mental and manual work.

As we can see, Taylor used a "one-dimensional" theory (explained in week 4), and the only important aspect/factor in the organisation was the productivity. Human Relation Movement and Mayo discovered that social aspect would affect the productivity of the workers. Even thought Mayo saw the importance of employees' social need, Human Relation Movement cannot be called a "two-dimensional" theory. This is because Human Relation Movement recognised the social need only to improve the productivity.

In the Human Relation period, groups were formed, but the Tayloristic approach had not died out. A lot of theories after Taylor's period have questioned his approach, but the Taylor theory has not yet died out. An example of this is the NUMMI manufacture. Some principles from Taylor have been retained. But to increase the productivity that Taylordidn't manage, the separation between planning and execution of work is less. Some mean this is only the next step up from Taylor's ideas and it

owledge gap caused by the separation of mental and manual work.

As we can see, Taylor used a "one-dimensional" theory (explained in week 4), and the only important aspect/factor in the organisation was the productivity. Human Relation Movement and Mayo discovered that social aspect would affect the productivity of the workers. Even thought Mayo saw the importance of employees' social need, Human Relation Movement cannot be called a "two-dimensional" theory. This is because Human Relation Movement recognised the social need only to improve the productivity.

In the Human Relation period, groups were formed, but the Tayloristic approach had not died out. A lot of theories after Taylor's period have questioned his approach, but the Taylor theory has not yet died out. An example of this is the NUMMI manufacture. Some principles from Taylor have been retained. But to increase the productivity that Taylordidn't manage, the separation between planning and execution of work is less. Some mean this is only the next step up from Taylor's ideas and it

only to improve the productivity.

In the Human Relation period, groups were formed, but the Tayloristic approach had not died out. A lot of theories after Taylor's period have questioned his approach, but the Taylor theory has not yet died out. An example of this is the NUMMI manufacture. Some principles from Taylor have been retained. But to increase the productivity that Taylordidn't manage, the separation between planning and execution of work is less. Some mean this is only the next step up from Taylor's ideas and it is called Super-Taylorism.

As we have seen teams are not always the opposite of Taylorism. Further, I will compare teams with Weber's bureaucratic theory. James Barker has written an article which he calls "Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive Control in Self-Managing". He argues that the purpose of teams was to avoid bureaucracy, but instead of loosening the iron cage of rational control, it became even tighter. In this case the power of the team is even stronger than the power of the manager. He argues this with that the team is always watching you and he calls it concertive control.

I am critical to Barker's article. If giving power to a team lead to a more rational control than the control from a powerful manager, I mean something is wrong with the communication in the team. Barker says you are being constantly observed in a team and this will have a negative effect where you are controlling your own behaviour carefully. I want to take an example from my first year at university where I had the same feeling as Barker talks about. I was in a group (small team), where I wasn't allowed to speak up. The group would not listen to my opinions, because everything was going to be in their way. I soon realised that in this situation I had to keep things for myself and do what they wanted to. Luckily I was able to change group. I mean we should not blame the team as concept for this situation, but rather blame the people in it who were not able to communicate probably.

We have different kind of teamwork related to different kind of culture. In the US where the productive efficiency is the most important factor in an organisation, we find the teamwork from the example of NUMMI. In Scandinavia, on the other hand, where democracy at work and creative thinking plays a great, we find a teamwork situation which is quite different from the Super-Taylorism.

In conclusion I will say that as long as teamwork gives social satisfaction together with efficiency it will be the best way of working. To achieve such teams it is important to do a lot of practise and in the further we will hopeful not se