The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between organizational theory and its application in the design and utilization of communication technology. In particular, it is argued that the application of scientific management (SM) principles results in an implementation of technology which fails to take full advantage of the potential both of people as organization members and of the technology itself. The principles of a sociotechnical (STS) approach, on the other hand, offer an opportunity to rethink both the design and the utilization of technology in ways which enhance the potential of both individuals and technology. Finally, practical considerations regarding technological change in organizations as well as its consequences will be considered. Principles of Scientific Management The principles of scientific management, which originated with Frederick Taylor (1995) shortly after the turn of the century, continue, despite other influences, to permeate many aspects of modern organizations, from factory assembly lines to bureaucratic structures of government to the military, even to the centralized decision-making of some educational institutions. These familiar principles include the following precepts, based on the underlying belief that management should do the thinking while workers should perform the tasks: * division of labor into narrow specialization * centralized decision-making * hierarchical chain of command * formal, primarily downward, communication * standardization of procedures with little or no worker discretion * controlled and measured work output * uniform application of rules and regulations. Under scientific management, technology is normally designed to replicate human labor with greater speed and efficiency. Some of the results of this use of technology are documented by Garson (1988). Workers are systematically deskilled, monitored, and often inadequately trained, resulting in alienation, boredom, isolation, decreased motivation, aggression, and negative physical effects. These consequences were foreshadowed earlier by Gratz and Salem (1984) who identified ways in which computer technology could interfere with interpersonal relationships and the development of self by artificially limiting the boundaries of interaction. Bancroft (1992) describes current ways in which computer-assisted technology often drives organizational decision-making, with morale problems, reduced skills, and under-utilized or incompatible computer as common results. Furthermore, as long as the design of computer-assisted communication is premised on secrecy, quantifiable goals, efficiency, and predetermined choices, the capacity of the technology to stimulate and generate new ways of thinking is limited. Under scientific management, technical expertise is privileged as objective, thereby excluding the perspective of all others who may have a legitimate stake in the design and use of technology. While there are built-in parameters with any technology, the additional constraints of scientific management work to limit technology unnecessarily by using it almost exclusively to replicate human labor. For example, in addition to the more obvious repetitive tasks, little attention is paid to the development of designed to enhance creativity or elaborate choice; rather, decision support or expert systems are utilized in which humans rely on predetermined, more efficient options for decision-making. O'Connell (1988) delineates the distinctions between humans and computers in several significant areas, such as speed, accuracy, degree of structure, and the way meaning is established. While there is value in both modes, Postman (1992) argues that our culture has moved from technocracy, in which technology predominates but is still counterbalanced by traditional beliefs and customs, to technopoly, in which technology monopolizes our thinking by privileging the assumptions underlying technology and rendering traditional beliefs invisible. …
Read full abstract