The Essence and the Artifact

I'm working on a possible book exploring the idea that Management Science needs to switch from a Newtonian basis (disconnections, certainty, cause and effect) to quantum science (connections, uncertainty, probabilities).

As part of this I tracked down an online copy of Frederick Taylor's book The Principles of Scientific Management.

Written in 1911, it's an interesting book and quite different to what I expected.

Thin though the book is, I suspect that the number of readers is rather small, and dwarfed by those who have formed a view of Taylor without reference to the original source.

What's interesting is that Taylor foresaw how he would be misunderstood, describing his work as two parts. The essence of an idea, and example mechanisms used to illustrate how to implement the idea.

He described the essence as the part of value and cautioned that the mechanisms might just as likely cause damage as benefit in any given situation. However despite his warning the essence of his idea was trampled underfoot whilst the early mechanisms were replicated causing benefit and untold harm in equal measure, just as he had predicted. Consequently he is now hailed as brilliant by some, and seen as an idiot by others, depending on which outcome they experienced most, or have been told about most.

What is it that prevents people from accepting an idea unless it is packaged as an example, and yet once packaged, like a young child at Christmas, they discard the idea and cling tightly to the packaging?

Throughout all areas of human endeavour we see the principle lost in mist and the artifact deified and held in unwarranted esteem.

What is it that is so unappealing in thinking, and so attractive in getting something done?

There's a wonderful quotation from Steve Allen which beautifully captures this problem:-

"Impartial observers from other planets would consider ours an utterly bizarre enclave if it were populated by birds, defined as flying animals, that nevertheless rarely or never actually flew. They would also be perplexed if they encountered in our seas, lakes, rivers, and ponds, creatures defined as swimmers that never did any swimming. But they would be even more surprised to encounter a species defined as a thinking animal if, in fact, the creature very rarely indulged in actual thinking."