Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future,  Članek / Article 
Februar / February 2022, leto / year 7, številka / number 1, str. / pp. 1-20. 
 
* Korespondenčni avtor / Correspondence author 1 
Prejeto: 18. oktober 2021; revidirano: 7. november 2021; sprejeto: 7. februar 2022. /  
Received: 18th October 2021; revised: 7th November 2021; accepted: 7th February 2022. 
DOI: 10.37886/ip.2022.001 
 
 
Advantages and Disadvantages of Principles of Scientific 
Management and Lean Organisation  
 
Idriz Selimović* 
Demetra Lean Way d.o.o. Bela Cerkev 9, 8220 Šmarješke Toplice 
idrizselimovic@yahoo.com 
 
 
Abstract 
Background and Originality: In this study, I would like to present the advantages and 
disadvantages of scientific management and lean organisation. I have chosen four factors as the basis 
for my analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of scientific management and lean organisation: 
Standardisation of work, training of workers, division of labour, and cooperation between 
management and workers. From this point of view, the following research questions were 
developed: How do authors in organisational science view the principles of a lean organisation and 
the principles of scientific management? And, which of the principles is more useful/valuable for 
organisations - the principles of lean organisation or the principles of scientific management? 
Method: I used text analysis, which involves a critical analysis of different or conflicting 
perspectives on scientific management and lean organisation principles. The following databases 
were used: Google Scholar, Springer, and Taylor and Francis databases. 
Results: Based on the literature studied, I have found that scientific management was successful 
because it satisfied most of the needs of the industrial society of the time. On the other hand, 
scientific management has its limitations and slows down the innovation function in modern 
industrial society. The principles of lean organisation were supposed to eliminate the shortcomings 
of scientific management such as lack of motivation, monotonous work, considering people as 
machines and disregarding human nature. However, our research has shown that standardisation of 
work, authorisation of workers, lean management, teamwork, and other factors of lean organisation 
attract similar criticisms to scientific management. 
Society: The findings of this article may have theoretical and practical implications for those 
involved in organisational leadership. 
Limitations/ further research: I have covered only the behaviourist aspect in this article. Another 
limitation was the choice of principles by which I observed the advantages and disadvantages of 
scientific management and lean organisation. It would be interesting to extend the observation to 
other aspects and principles. 
 
Keywords: scientific management, lean organisation, standardisation, workers' training, division 
of labour. 
 
1 Introduction 
In the late twentieth century, a global environment developed that fundamentally changed the 
role of all business organisations. Financial capital gains the main role in the economy, and 
physical capital is no longer the focus - the goal of the owners of private companies and later 
public corporations is to invest in any organisation, regardless of its location, that creates added 
value - a profit. At the level of an organisation, this means that the organisation is designed to 
Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future,  Članek / Article 
Februar / February 2022, leto / year 7, številka / number 1, str. / pp. 1-20. 
2 
function successfully and create new value even in a complex and global environment that is 
changing rapidly (Nordström & Riddersträle, 2004, p. 205). Customers' individual needs and 
desires are changing rapidly, which requires a transformation of the organisation. The focus on 
production is replaced by a focus on the customer (Ambrož, 2009, p. 53).  
At the beginning of the 21st century, human society is increasingly confronted with various 
crisis states. Possible solutions are revealed in multiple forms of organisation in all fields that 
are not based on the principles of scientific management. (Ishii, 2013, p. 7314) Soon after World 
War II, it became clear that an organisation based on the principles of scientific management 
that promoted mass production was no longer appropriate. Therefore, various organisational 
concepts emerged that considered the consumer society and focused primarily on the consumer. 
In the 1960s, Toyota Motor Corporation developed an important new management system 
implemented by top managers in several manufacturing and service companies. In the early 
1970s, the lean organisation concept spread to U.S. organisations and later around the globe 
(Emiliani, 2006, pp. 167-169). Other authors developed similar organisational concepts. 
Krafcik (1988, p. 41), for example, introduced a similar concept, which he called the lean 
concept.  
The purpose of this article is to find out which authors from the field of organisational science 
think that the principles of lean organisation or the principles of scientific management are more 
useful for organisations. It is interesting that in the global scientific literature, we find authors 
such as Tang (2017, p. 119), Corbacioglu (2017, p. 81), Ribeiro, (2015, p. 77), Liker (2004, p. 
158), Bartezzaghi, (1999, pp. 245-246), Charron, Harrington,Voehl & Wiggin (2015, p. 66) 
who claim that the management methods based on the concept of scientific management are 
still strongly present in contemporary postmodern organisations. Therefore, the advantages and 
disadvantages of one or the other concept are similar. Other authors, such as Ballé (1999, p. 
198), Duguid (2015, pp. 6-7), Naruse (1991, p. 41), Jenner (1998, p. 402), and Roser (2017, p. 
234), claim that the lean organisation is an independent concept and is not based on scientific 
management.  
I want to create a reference field for future research on organisational approaches in the 
industry. I have selected only the central principles of scientific management and lean 
organisation and presented the disadvantages and advantages of these principles. Therefore, it 
is obligatory to carefully study the principles of both approaches in future research and conduct 
a detailed comparative analysis. As a basis for the analysis of the advantages and disadvantages 
of scientific management and lean organisation, I selected four principles of scientific 
management (Locke, 1982): 
 Standardisation of work 
 Training of workers 
 Division of labour 
 Cooperation between management and workers. (p. 15-17) 
Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future,  Članek / Article 
Februar / February 2022, leto / year 7, številka / number 1, str. / pp. 1-20. 
3 
2 Theoretical framework 
2.1 Theory of Scientific Management  
At the height of the Industrial Revolution, in the late 20th century, it was difficult for factory 
owners to monitor the rapidly evolving organisations of modern society. Social conflicts and 
conflicts within organisations, which erupted in violent confrontations, increased. Some 
theorists, such as Marx, Weber, and Durkheim, attempted to capture the functioning at the social 
level with the development of grand theories about society. The organisational theories and 
models that Durkheim, Toennies, Weber, Fayol, and Taylor developed started from the 
organisations themselves. F.W. Taylor, the "father of scientific management," was an engineer 
who contributed significantly to the development of organisational thinking (Locke, 1982, p. 
14). He claimed that he could systematically examine each workplace and prepare a set of 
procedures that would increase worker productivity and satisfaction (Hill & Van Buren, 2018, 
p. 266; Vijai, Somayaji, Swamy, & Aital 2017, p. 447). He advocated simplification, time study, 
systematic tests to identify more efficient work performance, and control systems to measure 
efficiency and rewards (Dalcher, 2017, pp. 2–3; Unterlechner, Meško Štok, & Markič 2009, p. 
22). At the beginning of the 20th century, the theory of scientific management was one of the 
most widely used in Western industrialised countries. It includes scientific methods and 
theoretical bases for standardising and rationalising production activities (Grachev & Rakitsky, 
2013, p. 520). 
In developing his scientific management, Taylor assumed that the problem of poor labour 
efficiency and low wages could be solved for the common good of workers and owners. He 
established four main principles of organisational efficiency as new guidelines for the work of 
managers, whom he required to assume certain responsibilities and tasks to understand 
scientific management fully: 
 A scientific study of every movement (including process, operation) of the work, 
replacing the old rule-of-thumb method 
 A systematic selection, training, education and development of each worker, 
 Honest cooperation between workers to ensure that the work is done in the best 
possible way. 
 Managers are responsible for how the job gets done, and workers are responsible for 
getting the job done. (Hodgetts & Greenwood, 1995, p. 218; Turan, 2015, p. 1103) 
Kemp (2013, p. 350) noted that scientific management was developed in modern times and 
perfected in factories until it reached its peak in the 21st century. Thus, Taylor's principles not 
only fit modern management today, but his principles are a part of it (Bartezzaghi, 1999, p. 232; 
Naruse, 1991, pp. 34-35). Although Taylor contributed much to management as a science, he 
was also heavily criticised. The main criticism was related to the fact that he put the human 
factor in the background (Dalcher, 2017, p. 7; Turan, 2015, p. 1102). 
 
Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future,  Članek / Article 
Februar / February 2022, leto / year 7, številka / number 1, str. / pp. 1-20. 
4 
2.2 Lean organisation 
The oil crisis and the high imports of Japanese cars to the West have raised the question of the 
efficiency of car production in the West and the question of the adaptability of this industry to 
the new circumstances created by the crisis. The testing of the concept of lean organisation in 
the Western automotive industry has shown that it is more efficient than the methods used by 
the automotive industry at the time (Holweg, 2007, p. 432). 
In the West, J. F. Krafcik was the first to use the term "lean" in its current context in the Sloan 
Management Review article "Triumph of Lean Production Systems." In the late 1980s, James 
Womack, founder of the Lean Enterprise Institute and author of "Lean Thinking" and "The 
Machine that Changed the World," was instrumental in further popularising and eventually 
establishing the term lean production, which later evolved into the term lean organisation. He 
was the leader of a research group that created the term "Lean Organisation" to describe the 
Toyota production concept. According to Bateman, Esain, Massey, Rich and Samuel (2006), 
the lean organisation is based on the following principles: 
 The customer determines the value of the product or service, 
 Processes function without downtime, 
 Material and information flow without distraction, 
 Production is based on customer needs, 
 Continuous improvement. (p. 432) 
Womack, Jones and Roos (1990, p. 13) and Paez et al. (2004, p. 288) stated that compared to 
mass production, a lean organisation consumes less of everything: half the human effort in 
factories, half the production space, half the investment in tools, half the engineering hours to 
develop a new product, and half the team. Liker (2004, p. 20) stated that the lean organisation 
was born out of the need for fast, flexible processes that deliver what customers want, when 
they want it, at the highest quality, and at affordable prices. According to Chauhan & Singh 
(2012, p. 59), the lean concept emphasises teamwork, continuous training and learning, 
customised production, mass customisation and batch size reduction, flowing production cells, 
rapid tool changes, shared productive maintenance, and other techniques. The lean concept 
describes a modern organisation subject to constant change at all levels. Therefore, Pearce & 
Pons (2017, p. 10) emphasise that the ultimate goal of the lean concept is a developed learning 
organisation. Paez et al. (2004, p. 288) described the main characteristics of lean manufacturing 
based on Womack's appearance before a U.S. Congressional commission in 1994. In his 
presentation, Womack identified three main characteristics of lean manufacturing that lead to 
better results. First, lean manufacturing involves a new production philosophy emphasising 
customer satisfaction and continuous improvement. Second, lean manufacturing involves new 
organisational techniques for product development, supply chain relationships, production 
operations, and enterprise-wide coordination. Third, lean manufacturing employs timely, 
concurrent development and inventory management systems. Jenner (1998, p. 397) viewed the 
lean organisation as a self-organising dynamic system, which research has shown to be the most 
Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future,  Članek / Article 
Februar / February 2022, leto / year 7, številka / number 1, str. / pp. 1-20. 
5 
straightforward, creative, and adaptive structure that has emerged in various physical and 
biological domains.  
Critics of the concept of lean organisation claim that the definition of lean organisation itself is 
vague and confusing and is used to describe very different experiences, even based on 
conflicting principles and models. A pure lean organisation is more a myth than an accurate 
representation of actual change processes. According to this view, lean production should not 
be seen as a break with the previous paradigm, but as a renewal and reinforcement of its 
characteristic features, such as rigid standardisation, excessive division of labour, the definition 
of limited roles, short work cycles and hierarchical organisation (Bartezzaghi, 1999, p. 232). 
In reviewing the literature, I found that authors attribute both advantages and disadvantages to 
scientific management and lean organisation. As such, the following research questions were 
developed: 
 How do authors in the field of organisational sciences view the principles of lean 
organisation and the principles of scientific management? and  
 Which of the principles are more useful/valuable to organisations - the principles of 
lean organisation or the principles of scientific management?  
3 Method 
An integrative review of the literature from academic databases in Taylor's lean organisation 
and scientific management was conducted to answer the research questions. I focused on the 
literature discussing the advantages and disadvantages of scientific management and lean 
organisation. I then evaluated the advantages and disadvantages of scientific management and 
lean organisation. An integrative literature review was conducted (see Figure 1) to offer a new 
perspective on an already known issue (Pautasso, 2013, p. 1; Torraco, 2016, p. 19). Google 
Scholar, Taylor & Francies, and SpringerLink were used to access relevant literature. The 
following keywords were used as a starting point for selecting literature: 
 Advantages and Disadvantages of Lean Organisation, and 
 Advantages and Disadvantages of Scientific Management. 
 
Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future,  Članek / Article 
Februar / February 2022, leto / year 7, številka / number 1, str. / pp. 1-20. 
6 
  
Figure 1. Research model 
Using the first set of keywords, I searched for articles dealing with the concept of lean 
organisation and received 24,395 hits. Using the second set of keywords, I focused on articles 
dealing with the principles of scientific management, and the search yielded 23,322 hits (see 
Table 1). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future,  Članek / Article 
Februar / February 2022, leto / year 7, številka / number 1, str. / pp. 1-20. 
7 
Table 1. Results of the literature review by keywords 
Database Keywords Number of 
results 
Selected results 
 
Taylor & Francis 
advantages and disadvantages of a 
lean organisation 
1,082 5 
advantages and disadvantages of 
scientific management 
3,941 9 
 
Google Scholar 
advantages and disadvantages of a 
lean organisation 
20,600 26 
advantages and disadvantages of 
scientific management 
17,800 21 
 
SpringerLink 
advantages and disadvantages of a 
lean organisation 
2,713 7 
advantages and disadvantages of 
scientific management 
1,581 8 
 
As there were many results (Table 1), I continued the selection based on the following 
categories: standardisation of work, training of workers, division of labour, cooperation 
between management and workers. In this way, I was able to narrow down the selection of 
literature considerably. Then I decided to include the literature in the analysis based on the 
extent to which the author agreed or disagreed with scientific management and lean 
organisation principles. As such, 76 units were included in the analysis (see Table 1, column 
Selected results). See Table 2 for a list of exclusion criteria. 
Table 2. Exclusion criteria 
Number Exclusion criterion 
 
1 
The article deals with only one of our search terms and not all terms: 
standardisation of work, training of workers, division of labour, cooperation 
between management and workers. 
 
2 
The abstract does not contain both views: scientific management and lean 
manufacturing. 
 
3 
The article does not offer a comprehensive and clear division of the categories 
considered: standardisation of work, training of workers, division of labour, 
cooperation between management and workers. 
 
In the Results section, I present my rating scale (see Table 4 and Table 5) for the importance of 
each principle, which is based on the literature we analysed and also depended on how much 
importance the authors themselves attach to each principle. Finally, in the radar chart (see 
Figure 3), I depict which principles are most important and which are less important for 
scientific management and lean organisation. I limited my search to the period 1980-2020. I 
limited the number of materials to 76 units. I was guided by Hammond's (2018, p. 8) argument 
that the author of the article must find key elements in the literature searched, based on which 
they then offer the reader new perspectives on the research problem. I used the content analysis 
Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future,  Članek / Article 
Februar / February 2022, leto / year 7, številka / number 1, str. / pp. 1-20. 
8 
method for a comparative analysis of scientific management and lean organisation principles 
(Miles & Huberman, 1994).  
The validity of the results of this paper is based on our interpretation of secondary data and 
analysis of previous research and literature. The coded data were checked by three intra-rater 
checks of the researcher's coding. First, immediately after the completion of the initial coding; 
second, two months after the initial coding; and the final intra-rater check was done before I 
started making the radar chart diagram, about three months after the initial coding of the data. 
We calculated the consistency between the three encodings – reliability. Intra-rater reliability 
was calculated using the Miles & Huberman intercoder reliability method (Miles & Huberman, 
1994, p. 64). Reliability estimates were 92,13%, 91,19% and 97,45, respectively %. 
4 Results 
As a basis for analysing the advantages and disadvantages of scientific management and lean 
organisation, the following four principles of scientific management was chosen (Locke, 1982): 
 Standardisation of work,  
 Training of workers,  
 Division of labour, 
 Cooperation between management and workers. (p. 15-17) 
The abstracts (see Table 3) present the views of various authors on the advantages and 
disadvantages of scientific management and lean organisation.  
 
Table 3. Evaluation of categories of scientific management and lean organisation 
Principles Approach Advantages Disadvantages 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Work 
standardisation 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Scientific 
management 
Locke (1982), Carney & 
Williams (1997), Rossler & 
Beruvidis, (1994) note that work 
was not standardised before the 
introduction of scientific 
management. Bluedorn (1986), 
Braverman (1998), Bartezzaghi 
(1999) & Casey (2002) find that 
standardisation of work 
eliminates all irrational ways of 
working. 
Braverman (1998) finds that the 
standardisation of work is dull 
and uncreative. Locke (1982), 
Pruijt (2000) & Adler (1992) 
believe that extreme specialisation 
leads to dullness reduces 
motivation for work and 
creativity. Koumparoulis & 
Vlachopoulioti (2012) find that 
standardised work is not 
innovative because strict rules 
constrain it. Simha & Lemak 
(2010) find that standardised 
work subordinates the worker and 
reduces his creative potential. 
Lean 
organisation 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Dennis (2015) believes that 
standardisation of work is only a 
starting point for working in the 
workplace and improves 
standardised procedures. Liker & 
Meier (2006) agree with this view 
but believe that the supervision of 
the manager is necessary for the 
first phase of this process. 
Forza (1996) finds that the 
continuous improvement of 
standardised procedures in lean 
organisations creates stressful 
situations that negatively affect 
work ability. Hasle, Limborg, 
Kallehave, Klitgaard, & Andersen 
(2012), Vallas (1999), Prechel 
(1994) emphasise that 
»to be continued« 
 
Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future,  Članek / Article 
Februar / February 2022, leto / year 7, številka / number 1, str. / pp. 1-20. 
9 
  Nicholas (2018) sees standard 
work as a starting point for 
process stabilisation. Standard 
work is further combined into 
standard combinations that allow 
the production of each product 
during the cycle (Monden, 2004). 
standardisation of work in lean 
organisation reduces work 
autonomy and strengthens 
centralised decision-making at the 
top of the organisation. 
 
 
Training of 
workers 
Scientific 
management 
Bluedorn (1986) claims that 
scientific management has 
systematically selected the best 
workers for a particular job. 
Hodgetts and Greenwood (1995) 
think that scientific management 
is the selection mechanism for 
choosing the most capable 
workers. Ambrož (2009) finds 
that the selection of a worker by a 
direct manager was an effective 
way of choosing the best worker. 
Dalcher (2017) & Casey (2002) 
find that scientific management 
does not consider the worker's 
personality characteristics. 
Dalcher (2017) believes that such 
a way of selecting workers 
triggered a dropout of 
professionals. Derksen (2014) 
believes that scientific 
management did not pay much 
attention to worker selection, as it 
focused primarily on eliminating 
poor workers. 
 
Lean 
organisation 
Honold (1997) emphasises the 
benefits of empowering 
employees in lean organisations: 
personal responsibility for 
success, work autonomy, control 
over decisions directly related to 
work, work enrichment and a 
decentralised organisational 
structure. Baird & Wang (2010) 
find that empowered employee 
performance is an important 
factor for success in an 
organisation. Koberg, Boss, 
Senjem, & Goodman (1999) link 
empowered employee 
performance with workplace 
satisfaction. 
Vidal (2007) claims that new 
responsibilities and empowered 
performance of employees cause 
stressful situations. Employees 
experience this as a burden and 
not as a challenge that does not 
contribute to job satisfaction. 
Vallas (1999) finds that modern 
organisations prioritise top 
professionals, which neglects 
other employees in the 
organisation. Knowledge is 
centralised due to this way of 
choosing (Bouville & Alis, 2014). 
Vidal (2006) find that teamwork 
and direct responsibility increase 
employee stress. 
Division of 
labor 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Scientific 
management 
Simha and Lemak (2010) find 
that according to the principles of 
scientific management, the 
worker is responsible for the 
work done by the goals of the 
organisation. Professionals and 
other support staff are responsible 
for planning and preparing work, 
thus enabling less-skilled workers 
to do their job efficiently and 
successfully. Unterlechner, 
Meško Štok & Markič (2009) 
emphasise the importance of 
taking into account the ideas, 
concepts and experiences of 
employees in the process of 
preparing work in scientific 
management. 
Adler and Borys (1996) believe 
that scientific management stifles 
creativity, encourages 
dissatisfaction, and demotivates 
employees. Braverman (1998) 
finds that the division of work 
between planning and 
implementation hinders the 
understanding of processes in an 
organisation. Ambrož (2009) 
warns that the division of labour 
in scientific management often 
indicates a slave relationship 
between the management and 
workers. 
 
Lean 
organisation 
 
 
Styhre (2001) notes that Kaizen 
strengthens trust between the 
management and employees. 
Kaizen is a method by which new 
Boje and Winsor (1993) find that 
teamwork and employee 
empowerment and participation 
are TQM and Kaizen, only a 
»continued«
 
»continued« 
 
»to be continued« 
 
Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future,  Članek / Article 
Februar / February 2022, leto / year 7, številka / number 1, str. / pp. 1-20. 
10 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ideas and views on how to work 
in production can be created. It 
encourages the creative 
functioning of the individual and 
continuous improvement and 
ensures the achievement of the 
organisation's goals at the group  
level and at the organisation level 
Ambrož (2009). Vo, Kongar & 
Suárez Barraza (2019) believe 
that Kaizen is a philosophy that 
can significantly improve. Powell 
(1995) attributes the impact on 
customer and stakeholder 
satisfaction, on the quality of 
internal communication, on 
problem-solving, on greater 
commitment and motivation of 
employees and on reducing costs 
to the Total Quality Management 
method. 
 
subtle method of employee 
supervision that is no different 
from supervision in scientific 
management. Kaizen consistently 
pursues the meticulous task 
execution based on rules set by 
the management. Coriot (1980)  
thinks that the concept of lean  
organisation envisages only a 
different, a group way of 
controlling the employees 
compared to scientific 
management, which controls the 
individual. Fallah Ebrahimi, Wei 
Chong & Hosseini Rad (2014) 
find that the employees' level of 
stress boosts with increasing level 
of involvement in decision-
making. Powell (1995) warns that 
the use of the TQM model is 
based on a large financial 
investment for education, a large 
expenditure of time, requires 
more administration and more 
formal procedures. TQM works 
effectively if employees are 
above-averagely committed to 
work and focus more on the 
process than on the results. 
Cooperation 
between the 
management 
and workers 
Scientific 
management 
Ferleger and Lavallee (2015) find 
that scientific management 
reduces the conflict that arises 
from payment relationships in an 
organisation by linking the 
payment to the effort a worker 
puts into his work. Another 
advantage of scientific 
management is the support staff 
that helps the worker to operate at 
the highest possible level 
(Tadajewski & Jones, 2012). 
Brogan (2011) also emphasise the 
importance of assistance of a 
superior manager to a worker in 
performing his tasks. Turan 
(2015) also positively assesses the 
principle of scientific 
management, which stems from 
the finding that the employer 
must link his long-term existence 
with the well-being of the 
workers. 
Duguid (2015) finds that the help 
of an operational manager means 
that people in scientific 
management system are just one 
of the resources equivalent to 
machines and equipment and 
nothing more. Braverman (1998) 
believes that sincere participation 
is questionable because the 
worker was not allowed to 
participate in planning his work 
process. Wagner-Tsukamoto 
(2008) adds that sincere 
cooperation between the 
management and the employees is 
not possible even at the 
behavioural, organisational, and 
psychological level, as the system 
operates in one-way according to 
the principles of bureaucratic 
organisation.  
 
»to be continued« 
 
Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future,  Članek / Article 
Februar / February 2022, leto / year 7, številka / number 1, str. / pp. 1-20. 
11 
Lean 
organisation 
Forrester (1995), Dibia, Nath & 
Onuh (2014) find that 
collaboration at the group level 
connects the goals of the 
organisation. Forza (1996) finds 
that leadership that operates on 
the principles of lean organisation 
involves workers in problem 
solving, which has a positive 
impact on organisation's business. 
Chason (2005) finds that a lean 
organisation does not allow 
workers to participate properly in 
decision-making because it is 
more apparent. Barker (1993), 
Smith (1996) link only group 
organisation to coordinated 
supervision, which is more subtle 
but powerful form than a 
traditional bureaucratic oversight.  
 
 
I developed a scale to rate the strengths and weaknesses of scientific management and lean 
organisation (see Table 4). The scale in Table 4 shows the value of each evaluation category to 
facilitate ranking the importance of each principle by scientific management and lean 
organisation. Based on the analysis of the texts read, ratings were given to each principle to 
then compare scientific management and lean organisation. 
 
Table 4. Evaluation scale of advantages and disadvantages of scientific management and lean organisation 
Scale  Category Category 
1  Very low advantage Very low disadvantage 
2  Low advantage Low disadvantage 
3  Medium advantage Medium disadvantage 
4  High advantage High disadvantage 
5  Very high advantage Very high disadvantage 
 
The ratings for each principle are shown in Table 5. The radar chart would look slightly 
different and would depend on the rating of another author of the literature studied. 
 
Table 5. Weights of advantages and disadvantages of scientific management and lean organisation 
Categories 
Scientific management Lean organisation 
Advantages Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages 
Work standardisation 5 3 3 4 
Training of workers 5 2 4 2 
Division of labour 4 1 3 3 
Cooperation between 
management and workers 
3 2 5 1 
 
Based on the results, a radar diagram was created (see Figure 3) showing the dimensions of the 
strengths and weaknesses of scientific management and lean organisation. In this diagram, each 
principle is ranked according to the ratings given on the basis of the literature examined. In 
scientific management, there are four principles, selected according to their importance and 
ordered as follows: standardisation, training of workers, division of labour, cooperation 
between management and workers. In a lean organisation, the four selected principles are 
continued 
 
»continued« 
 
Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future,  Članek / Article 
Februar / February 2022, leto / year 7, številka / number 1, str. / pp. 1-20. 
12 
ordered in terms of their advantages and disadvantages as follows: cooperation between 
management and workers, training of workers, division of labour, standardisation 
 
 
Figure 3. The dimensions of advantages and disadvantages of scientific management and lean organisation. 
Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future,  Članek / Article 
Februar / February 2022, leto / year 7, številka / number 1, str. / pp. 1-20. 
13 
5 Discussion and Conlusion 
 
In scientific management, there are four principles (see Figure 3), selected according to their 
importance and ordered as follows: 
1. Standardisation, training of workers  
2. Division of labour  
3. Cooperation between management and workers. 
 
In a lean organisation, the four selected principles (see Figure 3) are ordered in terms of their 
advantages and disadvantages as follows. 
1. Cooperation between management and workers  
2. Training of workers  
3. Division of labour, standardisation 
 
In the graph (Figure 3), the main advantages of scientific management are standardisation and 
worker training. This stems from the fact that at the time of the emergence of scientific 
management in the United States in the late nineteenth century, the workforce was largely made 
up of newcomers from Europe who did not speak English well (Olson, 2016, p. 10). Each had 
his own tools and used them in their own way. In lean organisations, however, excessive 
standardisation kills employee creativity (Hasle et al., 2012, p. 635; Prechel, 1994, p. 723) 
Figure 3 shows that in lean organisations, collaboration between management and employees 
is most important. This is logical because one of the foundations of a lean organisation is 
decentralising decision making and empowering employees when it comes to operational issues 
(Forza, 1996; Forrester, 1995; Dibia, Nath & Onuh, 2014). Employees are the first to notice 
deviations from the norm and know best about common breakdowns and disruptions.  
 
Based on the ranking of the individual principles in Figure 3, both scientific management and 
lean organisation have certain advantages and disadvantages. It follows that it is not possible to 
give preference to one concept or the other. To answer the research question, we cannot 
conclude from the analysed literature which of the principles most authors tend to. There are 
authors such as Ballé (1999, p. 198), Duguid (2015, pp. 6-7), Naruse (1991, p. 41), Jenner 
(1998, p. 402), and Roser (2017, p. 234) who emphasise the advantages of lean organisation 
principles and others such as Tang (2017, p. 119), Corbacioglu (2017, p. 81), Ribeiro, (2015, 
p. 77), Liker (2004, p. 158), Bartezzaghi, (1999, pp. 245-246), Charron, Harrington, Voehl, and 
Wiggin (2015, p. 66), who give priority to the principles of scientific management. 
 
Scientific management was successful when it was introduced because it met most of the needs 
of the industrial society of the time (Hodgetts & Greenwood, 1995). It greatly improved the 
efficiency of hierarchy, reduced the abuse of power, and developed a rational way of organising 
work that simplified tasks to the point where anyone could perform them (Pinchot & Pinchot, 
1993). Modern times require a new way of thinking and perfecting the old way of thinking. 
Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future,  Članek / Article 
Februar / February 2022, leto / year 7, številka / number 1, str. / pp. 1-20. 
14 
Environments are becoming more complex and, as a result, organisations are becoming flatter, 
stratified, networked, flexible, and with fuzzy boundaries. 
Standardisation of work, training of workers, division of labour, and cooperation between 
management and workers are factors present in scientific management and lean organisation. 
However, the contribution of each factor to the success of one concept or the other varies. The 
extent to which each of the above factors has influenced the success of scientific management 
and the lean organisation concept depends largely on when both concepts were developed. At 
the time of the emergence of scientific management in the late 19th century, the social situation 
was different than it is today. The vast majority of workers were illiterate and production 
workers were more familiar with work processes than managers (Tailor, 1996). Given this 
social condition, the application of standardisation of work, division of labour, training of 
workers, and cooperation between management and workers had led to a remarkable 
improvement of results in organisations (Hodgetts & Greenwood, 2017, p. 218). Throughout 
history and up to the present day, the social environment has changed and so has the influence 
of each of these factors on the organisation's success. In the present time we have a different 
social situation than when scientific management was born. We have a regulated legislation, 
which regulates the relations between employers and employees (OECD), there is practically 
no illiteracy (World Population Review), the market is very demanding and oversaturated with 
universal goods (Füller& Matzler, 2008, p. 116). As we can see, the situation at the time of the 
emergence of scientific management and lean organisation was very different, so the impact 
and importance of the factors of standardisation of work, training of workers, division of labour 
and cooperation between management and workers on the success of one or the other concept 
are different (Hodgetts & Greenwood, 2017, p. 218) . 
The four principles of scientific management, i.e. standardisation of work, training of workers, 
division of labour, cooperation between management and workers, which are also included in 
a lean organisation, have never been an obstacle or an advantage to the economic success of an 
organisation. The problem lies in the actual implementation and application of the principles of 
one concept or another in practise. For example, Taylor's principle of standardisation is no 
different from the standardisation of work in a lean organisation. Both principles, when applied 
judiciously as explained in one concept or the other, will lead to similar success. From the 
perspective of the four principles mentioned above, against which we have evaluated both 
concepts, it follows that it does not matter which concept is used for the organisation's success. 
What is important is the correct implementation of these principles in both concepts. The 
differences between the two concepts arise mainly from the historical context in which they 
both emerged. The social, political, and societal conditions at the end of the nineteenth century, 
when scientific management emerged, and those at the end of the twentieth century, when lean 
organisation began to spread, differ significantly.  
 
The contribution of the findings to the science and profession of management is the synthesis 
of the advantages and disadvantages of scientific management and lean organisation. In this 
Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future,  Članek / Article 
Februar / February 2022, leto / year 7, številka / number 1, str. / pp. 1-20. 
15 
study, I limited myself to four selected factors, and it would be interesting to extend the analysis 
to other important factors. It would be interesting to conduct a similar study in reverse, that is, 
to compare the weaknesses and strengths of scientific management and lean organisation using 
the principles of lean organisation. I am aware that the assessment of the views of the studied  
authors is subjective and that this is an important limitation of my research. An important aspect 
that influenced the research results are selected databases in which I searched for articles. 
Expanding the databases would probably give different results. I have tried to overcome the 
above limitations by using intra-rater reliability and by including as many studies from three 
databases as possible. The study could be replicated and would yield similar results if the author 
used the rating scale as shown in Table 4.  
 
References 
1. Adler, P.S. (1992). The 'Learning Bureaucracy': New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. 
Greenwich: JAI Press 
2. Adler, P. S., & Borys, B. (1996). Two Types of Bureaucracy: Enabling and Coercive. 
Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 61. doi:10.2307/2393986 
3. Ambrož, M. (2009). Viharnost organizacije. Kranj: B&B 
4. Baird, K., & Wang, H. (2010). Employee empowerment: extent of adoption and influential 
factors. Personnel Review, 39(5), 574–599. doi:10.1108/00483481011064154 
5. Ballé, M. (1999). Making bureaucracy work. Journal of Management in Medicine, 13(3), 190–
200. doi:10.1108/02689239910269671 
6. Barker, J. R. (1993). Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive Control in Self-Managing Teams. 
Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(3), 408. doi:10.2307/2393374 
7. Bartezzaghi, E. (1999). The evolution of production models: is a new paradigm emerging? 
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 19(2),229–250. 
doi:10.1108/01443579910247446 
8. Bateman, N., Esain, A., Massey, L., Rich, N., & Samuel. D. (2006). Lean Evolution:Lessons from 
the Workplace. New York: Cambridge Univesitiy Press 
9. Bluedorn, A. C. (1986). Special Book Review Section on the Classics of Management. Academy 
of Management Review, (11)2. doi:10.5465/amr.1986.4283595 
10. Boje, D. M., & Winsor, R. D. (1993). The Resurrection of Taylorism: Total Quality Management's 
Hidden Agenda. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 6(4), 57–70. 
doi:10.1108/09534819310042740 
11. Bouville, G., & Alis, D. (2014). The effects of lean organisational practices on employees' 
attitudes and workers' health: evidence from France. The International Journal of Human 
Resource Management, 25(21), 3016–3037. doi:10.1080/09585192.2014.951950 
12. Braverman, H. (1998). Labor and Monopoly Capital. New York: Monthly Review Press 
13. Brogan, J. W. (2011). Exonerating Frederick Taylor: after 100 years, mythology sometimes 
overshadows a master's teachings. Industrial Engineer, 43(11), 41-45. Pridobljeno 10. septembra 
2021, na: 
https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA274229340&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkacc
ess=abs&issn=1542894X&p=AONE&sw=w&userGroupName=anon%7Ee792f125 
Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future,  Članek / Article 
Februar / February 2022, leto / year 7, številka / number 1, str. / pp. 1-20. 
16 
14. Carney, D. P., & Williams, R. (1997). No such thing as … scientific management. Management 
Decision, 35(10), 779–784. doi:10.1108/00251749710192101 
15. Casey, C. (2002). Critical Analysis of Organisations. London: SAGE Publication. 
16. Charron R., Harrington H. J., Voehl F, & Wiggin H. (2015). The lean management systems 
handbook. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis Group. 
17. Chason, S. (2005). Human Behavior Based Exploratory Model for Successful Implementation of 
Lean Enterprise in Industry. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 18(2), 76-96. doi: 
10.1111/j.1937-8327.2005.tb00334.x 
18. Chauhan, G., & Singh, T. P. (2012). Measuring parameters of lean manufacturing realisation. 
Measuring Business Excellence, 16(3), 57–71. doi:10.1108/13683041211257411 
19. Corbacioglu S. (2017). Influence of Taylorism on Deming's Quality Management. Sarajevo 
Journal of Social Sciences Inquiry, 2 (2) 77-78. doi: 10.21533/isjss.v2i2.85 
20. Coriot, B. (1980). The Restructuring of the Assembly Line: A New Economy of Time and 
Control. Capital & Class, 4(2), 34–43. doi:10.1177/030981688001100102 
21. Dalcher, D. (2017). What has Taylor ever done for us? Scientific and humane management 
reconsidered. PM World Journal, 6(4). Pridobljeno 3. septembra 2021 na, 
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780429449741-4/taylor-ever-done-us-
scientific-humane-management-reconsidered-darren-dalcher 
22. Dennis P. (2015). The Lean production simplified. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis Group. 
23. Derksen, M. (2014). Turning Men into Machines Scientific Management, Industrial Psychology, 
and the "Human Factor." Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 50(2), 148–165. 
doi:10.1002/jhbs.21650 
24. Dibia, K. I., Nath D. H., & Onuh, S. (2014). Lean "Leadership People Process Outcome" (LPPO) 
implementation model. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 25(5), 694–711. 
doi:10.1108/jmtm-08-2011-0076 
25. Duguid, P. (2015). Making Sense of the Systems of Scientific Management. Le Libellio d' aegis, 
4(1), 5-9. 
26. Emiliani, M. L. (2006). Origins of lean management in America. Journal of Management History, 
12(2), 167–184. doi:10.1108/13552520610654069 
27. Fallah Ebrahimi, Z., Wei Chong, C., & Hosseini Rad, R. (2014). TQM practices and employees' 
role stressors. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 31(2), 166–183. 
doi:10.1108/ijqrm-04-2013-0067 
28. Ferleger, L. A. & Lavallee M. (2015) Taylor's World Revisited. Business and Economic History, 
13, 1-7. 
29. Forrester, R. (1995). Implications of lean manufacturing for human resource strategy. Work Study, 
44(3), 20–24. doi:10.1108/00438029510146944 
30. Forza, C. (1996). Work organisation in lean production and traditional plants. International 
Journal of Operations & Production Management, 16(2), 42–62. 
doi:10.1108/01443579610109839 
31. Füller, J., & Matzler, K. (2008). Customer delight and market segmentation: An application of the 
three-factor theory of customer satisfaction on life style groups. Tourism Management, 29(1), 
116–126. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2007.03.021 
32. Grachev, M., & Rakitsky, B. (2013). Historic horizons of Frederick Taylor's scientific 
management. Journal of Management History, 19(4), 512–527. doi:10.1108/jmh-05-2012-0043 
33. Hammond, M. (2018). An interesting paper but not sufficiently theoretical: What does theorise in 
social research look like? Methodological Innovations, 1-10. doi: 10.1177/2059799118787756 
Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future,  Članek / Article 
Februar / February 2022, leto / year 7, številka / number 1, str. / pp. 1-20. 
17 
34. Hasle, P., Limborg, H. J., Kallehave, T., Klitgaard, C., & Andersen, T. R. (2012). The working 
environment in small firms: Responses from owner-managers. International Small Business 
Journal, 30(6), 622–639. doi:10.1177/0266242610391323 
35. Hill, V., & Van Buren, H. (2018). Taylor Won: The Triumph of Scientific Management and Its 
Meaning for Business and Society. Corporate Social Responsibility, 265–294. doi:10.1108/s2514-
175920180000002007 
36. Hodgetts, R. M., & Greenwood, R. (1995). Frederick taylor: alive and well and ready for the 21st 
century. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1995(1), 218–222. 
doi:10.5465/ambpp.1995.1753649 
37. Honold, L. (1997). A Review of The Literature on Employee Empowerment. Empowerment in 
Organisations, 5(4), 202- 212. doi: 10.1108/14634449710195471 
38. Hodgetts, R. M., & Greenwood, R. (1995). Frederick Taylor: Alive And Well And Ready For The 
21st Century. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1995(1), 218–222. 
doi:10.5465/ambpp.1995.17536490 
39. Holweg, M. (2007). The genealogy of lean production. Journal of Operations Management 25(2) 
420–437. doi: 10.1016/j.jom.2006.04.001 
40. Ishii, K. (2013). A production research to create new value of business output. International 
Journal of Production Research, 51(23-24), 7313–7328. doi:10.1080/00207543.2013.857441 
41. Jenner, R. (1998). Dissipative enterprises, chaos, and the principles of lean organisations. Omega, 
26(3), 397–407. doi:10.1016/s0305-0483(97)00067-4 
42. Kemp, L. J. (2013) Modern to postmodern management: developments in scientific management. 
Journal of Management History, 19(3), 345-361. doi: 10.1108/JMH-02-2011-0005 
43. Koberg, C. S., Boss, R. W., Senjem, J. C., & Goodman, E. A. (1999). Antecedents and Outcomes 
of Empowerment. Group & Organization Management, 24(1), 71–91. 
doi:10.1177/1059601199241005 
44. Koumparoulis, D. N., &  Vlachopoulioti A. (2012). The Evolution Of Scientific Management. 
Academic Research International, 3(2), 420-425. Pridobljeno 1. oktobra 2021, na 
http://www.savap.org.pk/journals/ARInt./Vol.3(2)/2012(3.2-55).pdf 
45. Krafcik, J.F. (1988). The triumph of the lean production system. Sloan Management Review 30(1), 
41–52. 
46. Liker J. K. (2004). The Toyota way. 14 Management Principles from the World s Greatest. New 
york: McGraw-Hill. 
47. Liker, J. K., & Meier, D. (2006). The Toyota way fieldbook: A practical guide for implementing 
Toyota's 4Ps. New York: McGraw-Hill. 
48. Locke E. A. (1982). The Ideas of Frederick W. Taylor: An Evaluation. The Academy of 
Management Review, 7(1), 14-24. doi: 10.5465/amr.1982.4285427 
49. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, M. A. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. 
London: Sage Publication Ltd. 
50. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, M. A., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded 
Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publication Ltd. 
51. Monden, Y. (2004). The Toyota management system_linking the seven key functional areas. New 
York: Productivity Press. 
52. Naruse, T. (1991). Taylorism and Fordism in Japan. International Journal of Political Economy, 
21(3), 32-48. doi: 10.1080/08911916.1991.11643821 
53. Nicholas, J. M. (2018). Lean production for competitive advantage : a comprehensive guide to 
lean methods and management practices. Boca Ration, N.W.: Taylor & Francis Group. 
Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future,  Članek / Article 
Februar / February 2022, leto / year 7, številka / number 1, str. / pp. 1-20. 
18 
54. Olson, R. (2016). Scientism and technocracy in the twentieth century : the legacy of scientific 
management. Lanham, Maryland: The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. 
55. OECD. (2022, February, 13) Retrieved from: 
https://www.oecd.org/els/emp/oecdindicatorsofemploymentprotection.htm 
56. Paez, O., Dewees, J., Genaidy, A., Tuncel, S., Karwowski, W., & Zurada, J. (2004). The lean 
manufacturing enterprise: An emerging sociotechnological system integration. Human Factors 
and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 14(3), 285–306. doi:10.1002/hfm.10067 
57. Pautasso, M. (2013). Ten simple rules for writing a literature review. PLoS Computational 
Biology, 9(7), Article e1003149. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149 
58. Pearce, A. D. & Pons, D. J. (2018). Defining Lean Change—Framing Lean Implementation in 
Organizational Development. International Journal of Business and Management, 12(4) 10-22. 
doi: 10.5539/ijbm.v12n4p10 
59. Prechel, H. (1994). Economic Crisis and the Centralisation of Control Over the Managerial 
Process: Corporate Restructuring and Neo-Fordist Decision-Making. American Sociological 
Review, 59(5), 723. doi:10.2307/2096445 
60. Pinchot, G. & Pinchot, E. (1993). The End of Bureaucracy & the Rise of the Intelligent 
Organization. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers 
61. Powell, T. C. (1995). Total quality management as competitive advantage: A review and empirical 
study. Strategic Management Journal, 16(1), 15–37. doi:10.1002/smj.4250160105 
62. Pruijt, H. (2000). Repainting, modifying, smashing Taylorism. Journal of Organizational Change 
Management, 13(5), 439–451. doi:10.1108/09534810010377417 
63. Ribeiro A.  F. (2015). Taylorismo, fordismo e toyotismo (Taylorism, Fordism and Toyotism). 
Lutas Sociais 19(35), 65-79 
64. Riddersträle J. & in Nordström K. (2004). Karaoke Capitalism Management for Mankind. 
Edinbourgh: Pearson Education Limited. 
65. Roser, C. (2017). Faster, Better, Cheaper in the History of Manufacturing From the Stone Age to 
Lean Manufacturing and Beyond. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis Group 
66. Rossler, P., & Beruvidis, M. (1994). Management theory déjà vu? scientific and total quality 
management. EMJ - Engineering Management Journal, 6(2), 6-15. doi: 
10.1080/10429247.1994.11414780 
67. Simha, A., & Lemak, D. (2010). The value of original source readings in management education: 
The case of Frederick Winslow Taylor. Journal of Management History, 16(2), 233-252. doi: 
10.1108/17511341011030129 
68. Smith, V. (1996). Employee Involvement, Involved Employees: Participative Work Arrangements 
in a White-Collar Service Occupation. Social Problems, 43(2), 166–179. doi:10.2307/3096996 
69. Styhre, A. (2001). Kaizen, Ethics, and Care of the Operations: Management After Empowerment. 
Journal of Management Studies, 38(6), 795–810. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00259 
70. Tadajewski, M., & Jones, D. G. B. (2012). Scientific marketing management and the emergence 
of the ethical marketing concept. Journal of Marketing Management, 28(1−2), 37–61. 
doi:10.1080/0267257x.2011.619072 
71. Taylor F. W. (1967) Upravljanje pogonom (Shop management). Beograd: Izdavačko preduzeće 
Rad. 
72. Tang H. (2017). The Implications of Taylorism, Contingency Theory, Behavioral Management 
Theory and Systems Theory on Organization Management in the Globalisation Era: A 
Comparative and Critical Review. 4th International Conference on Education Training, 
Management and Humanities Science (ETMHS 2018). (str. 119-122), doi: 
10.23977/etmhs.2018.29027 
Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future,  Članek / Article 
Februar / February 2022, leto / year 7, številka / number 1, str. / pp. 1-20. 
19 
73. Torraco, R. J. (2016). Writing Integrative Literature Reviews. Human Resource Development 
Review, 15(4), 404–428. doi:10.1177/1534484316671606 
74. Turan, H. (2015). Taylor's "Scientific Management Principles": Contemporary Issues in Personnel 
Selection Period. Journal of Economics, Business and Management, 3(11), 1102-1105. 
Pridobljeno 10. oktobra 2021, na http://www.joebm.com/papers/342-M031.pdf 
75. Unterlechner, M., Meško Štok, Z., & Markič, M. (2009). Innovation, Quality and Lean Six Sigma 
in the manufacturing process (Inoviranje, kakovost in Lean Six Sigma v proizvodnem procesu). 
Koper: Fakulteta za management 
76. Vallas, S. P. (1999). Rethinking Post-Fordism: The Meaning of Workplace Flexibility. 
Sociological Theory, 17(1), 68–101. doi:10.1111/0735-2751.00065 
77. Vidal, M. (2006). Manufacturing empowerment? "Employee involvement" in the labour process 
after Fordism. Socio-Economic Review, 5(2), 197–232. doi:10.1093/ser/mwl005 
78. Vidal, M. (2007). Lean Production, Worker Empowerment, and Job Satisfaction: A Qualitative 
Analysis and Critique. Critical Sociology, 33(1-2), 247–278. doi:10.1163/156916307x168656 
79. Vijai, J. P., Somayaji, G. S. R., Swamy, R. J. R., & Aital, P. (2017). Relevance of F.W. Taylor's 
principles to modern shop-floor practices. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 24(2), 445–
466. doi:10.1108/bij-02-2015-0019 
80. Vo, B., Kongar, E., & Suárez Barraza, M. F. (2019). Kaizen event approach: a case study in the 
packaging industry. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management. 
doi:10.1108/ijppm-07-2018-0282 
81. Wagner‐Tsukamoto, S. (2008). Scientific Management revisited. Journal of Management History, 
14(4), 348–372. doi:10.1108/17511340810893108 
82. Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T., & Roos, D. (1990). The machines that changed the world. New York: 
Macmillan Publishing Company. 
83. World Population Review. (2022, February, 13). Retrieved from: 
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/literacy-rate-by-country 
 
 
 
*** 
 
Idriz Selimović received a master's degree from the Faculty of Organisation Studies in Novo mesto in the field of 
modelling organisation changes. He has been working in the economy for thirty-three years in various positions. 
He is employed in Demetra Lean way d.o.o. as a lean organisation consultant. 
 
*** 
 
 
 
Povzetek: 
Prednosti in slabosti znanstvenega menedžmenta in vitke organizacije 
 
Ozadje in izvirnost: V tej študiji bi rad predstavil prednosti in slabosti znanstvenega menedžmenta 
in vitke organizacije. Za osnovo za analizo prednosti in slabosti znanstvenega vodenja in vitke 
organizacije sem izbral štiri dejavnike: standardizacijo dela, usposabljanje delavcev, delitev dela ter 
sodelovanje med vodstvom in delavci. S tega vidika so se razvila naslednja raziskovalna vprašanja: 
Kako avtorji v organizacijski znanosti gledajo na načela vitke organizacije in načela znanstvenega 
menedžmenta? Katera od načel je bolj uporabna/dragocena za organizacije – načela vitke 
organizacije ali načela znanstvenega menedžmenta? 
Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future,  Članek / Article 
Februar / February 2022, leto / year 7, številka / number 1, str. / pp. 1-20. 
20 
Metoda: Uporabil sem analizo besedila, ki vključuje kritično analizo različnih ali nasprotujočih si 
pogledov na znanstveno upravljanje in načela vitke organizacije. Uporabljene so bile naslednje baze 
podatkov: baze podatkov Google Scholar, Springer ter Taylor in Francis.  
Rezultati: Na podlagi preučene literature smo ugotovili, da je bilo znanstveno upravljanje uspešno, 
saj je zadovoljevalo večino potreb takratne industrijske družbe. Po drugi strani ima znanstveno 
upravljanje omejitve in upočasnjuje inovativno funkcijo v sodobni industrijski družbi. Načela vitke 
organizacije naj bi zavrnila pomanjkljivosti znanstvenega menedžmenta, kot so pomanjkanje 
motivacije, monotono delo, opazovanje človeka kot stroja in neskladnost s človekovo naravo. 
Izkazalo pa se je, da so tudi standardizacija dela, avtorizacija delavcev, vitko upravljanje, timsko 
delo in drugi dejavniki vitke organizacije poželi podobne kritike kot znanstveni menedžment. 
Družba: Ugotovitve tega članka imajo lahko teoretične in praktične posledice za tiste, ki so 
vključeni v vodenje organizacij. 
Omejitve/nadaljnje raziskovanje: V članku smo obravnavali le vedenjski vidik. Druga omejitev 
so izbrana načela, s katerimi smo opazovali prednosti in slabosti znanstvenega menedžmenta in vitke 
organizacije. Zanimivo bi bilo opazovanje razširiti na druge vidike in načela. 
 
Ključne besede: znanstveno vodenje, vitka organizacija, standardizacija, izobraževanje delavcev, 
delitev dela. 
 
 
Copyright (c)  Idriz SELIMOVIĆ 
 
 
Creative Commons License 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.