In Ch 3, the authors talk about Taylorism and efficiency. An aspect of Taylorism that I recall is how a complete job can be broken down into task segments, by which each task is performed by a separate worker. This way, each worker specializes in a segment of the entire job only, and contributes their specialized task to the completed job (i.e. assembly line). I see how this approach may contribute to efficiency, as it may minimize workload on a single worker by minimizing potential stress and fatigue from juggling many tasks. In addition, it may be easier to pinpoint a specific segment of the entire job process that needs improvement, and adjustments to that particular task, or training for the specific worker, can be focused on.
My experience of Taylorism in modern day can be depicted when I call my credit card or loan company-- there is always someone different to talk to about a specific problem. There are separate departments and employees that supposedly specialize in one thing or another. But all too often, a problem I find in these bureaucratic organizational structures (particular to my credit/loan companies) is that the responsibility of customer service (or getting a customer problem solved), is often deferred to another department, then another department, and then another department… and the problem never gets solved. This way, the process of getting rid of what the company may consider as “problem customers,” is surely an efficient process. But from my end (the customer), efficiency is far from served. In this case, Taylorism and bureaucracy may deter the problem from showing up in the organization’s numbers since it never gets reported, but it doesn't help the customer. Of course this is not due to the bureaucratic process, nor Taylorism, entirely, but also training within the organization and so forth. I usually end these calls with the statement “I intend to write a letter to the president,” but of course that never happens.
2 comments:
I remember a previous job where my department was the referral center for 30% of the incoming calls and walk-ins. If the problem seemed vague/difficult/uncertain, the registrar would transfer the calls to my department (public services). Although we were training students to be better chefs, police officers, and child care providers, we were NOT university services.
It was interesting because my boss had a policy of never turning anyone away without answers. We strived to handle every situation with consideration and patience. Admittedly, this process was not efficient, but we didn't care.
I remember one situation where we could not help an individual and we told them "We're going to transfer you to the Registrar." The student replied, "But I just spoke to the registrar and then the math department!" We consoled the student, "I realize you've been transferred two times, but the registrar is the only one who can help you and you must speak clearly and firmly to them."
We worked so hard to make sure everyone got answers, when we could provide them.
I like your take on viewing efficiency from the customer's point of few. It's like some physicians' offices where appointments are set 10 or 15 minutes apart to be sure there's no lag time between patients--efficient for the physician, but not for patients when visits take longer than expected and soon they're waiting 45 minutes, one hour, two hours, to meet with the doctor. I like your idea of writing a letter to president of the company (or in the physician example, to the medical group). Why don't you write the letter?
Kristie makes an important point about efficiency--maybe it shouldn't be the ultimate goal of organizations, particularly those providing a service. And this fits well with "efficiency for whom." It may be efficient for the company to make a service call very short, but not for the customer. And in the long term, if the customer no longer will use the company's services or products, then the short call is not very efficient at all.
Post a Comment