Taylor (1947) further elaborated his perspective by writing: “It is true that with scientific management the workman is not allowed to use whatever implements and methods he sees fit in the daily practice of his work. Every encouragement, however, should be given him to suggest improvements, both in methods and in implements. . . . And whenever the new method is found to be markedly superior to the old, it should be adopted as the standard for the whole establishment” (p. 128). Today this basic concept is often referred to as best practices, total quality management, or continuous improvement, and it is a precursor to the Japanese model for improving organizational performance. Little has changed from management considerations raised a century or more ago.

Taylor’s work and the thoughtful labors of countless others have all served to make the workplace in most instances more efficient and cost-effective by achieving ever-greater control and predictability. The organizational ideal is to have the workplace run like a clock (Morgan, 1986; Schwartz, 1990). Fayol (1949) for example writes: “To co-ordinate is to harmonize all the activities of a concern so as to facilitate its working, and its success. In a well coordinated enterprise the following facts are to be observed—1. Each department works in harmony with the rest. . . . 2. In each department divisions and sub-divisions are precisely informed as to the share they must take in the communal task and the reciprocal aid they are to afford one another. The working schedule of the various departments and sub-divisions thereof is constantly attuned to circumstances” (pp. 103–4). He also adds: “In an undertaking, control consists in verifying whether everything occurs in conformity with the plan adopted, the instructions issued and principles established” (p. 107). Problems in achieving organizational efficiency and effectiveness to maximize performance and profitability have been and still are seen in large part as engineering and control problems.

If we skip ahead 75–100 years from Taylor’s scientific management we are confronted with much the same thinking today. Starting a decade or more ago and continuing to this day there are many rationalistic efforts to reengineer, restructure, rightsize, and quality-assure our organizations. It is often the case that a certain organization structure or the exact size of a reduction in force is delivered into the workplace by the analysis of numbers that may not be further questioned. During the last decade of the twentieth century almost everyone in the American workforce was downsized or restructured or knows others who were. It is, in fact, a pervasive commonality among those who work at all levels of organizations, so much so that one might suggest that our organizations seem to share a common culture (Allcorn et al., 1996).