It's popular in the agile community and especially in the #Noestimates community to denigrate Taylor for his Scientific Principles of Management.
I first wonder of those making claims like...
Taylor would turn in his grave if he saw how little his work ha (has) influenced the function where it matters the most: Management #Agile
... have actually read Taylor?
While the book was written in 1914, there is still much to be applied in today's world, where in many cases we've inverted the structure of the business in the minds of some who work in the business. Where those spending the money have assumed they are now accountable for how that money is spent.
While the book has a style and paradigm not recognized today, there is still much to be applied in today's world, where in many cases we've inverted the roles in business, in the minds of some who work in the business. Where those spending the money have assumed they are now in charge of how that money is spent, with little or no concern for where the money comes from, and most likely no understanding of their contribution to the balance sheet.
Here's a clip from the opening chapter of The Principles of Scientific Management, Frederick Winslow Taylor, 1914, titled "Fundamentals of Scientific Management."
The principle object of management should be to secure the maximum prosperity for the employer, coupled with the maximum prosperity for each employé.
The words "maximum prosperity" are used, in their broad sense, to mean not only large dividends for the company or owner, but the development of every branch of the business to its highest state of excellence, so that the prosperity may be permanent.
In the same way maximum prosperity for each employé means not only higher wages than are usually received by men of his class, but, of more importance still, it also means the development of each man to his state of maximum efficiency so that he may be able to do, generally speaking, the highest grade of work for which his natural abilities fit him, and it further means giving him, when possible, this class of work to do.
It would seem to be so self-evident that maximum prosperity for the employer, coupled with the maxim prosperity for the employé, ought to be the two leading objects of management, that even to state this fact should be unnecessary. And yet there is no question that, throughout the industrial world, a large part of the organization of employers, as well as employés, is for war rather than for peace, and that perhaps the majority of either side do not beleive that is it possible so to arrange their mutual relations that their interests become identical.
So it's not clear how the self-organizing aspects of Agile software development are not aligned with this 1914 description of work. And that in fact, Taylor has a smile on his face for those who have taken the opening chapter of his book and put it to work for the benefit of both the employer (since they actually pay the employee) and for the employee.
It takes all the challenge out when you read the directions.