¹ Cochran, Thomas C., “Business Organization and the Development of an Industrial Discipline,” in Williamson, Harold F. (ed.), The Growth of the American Economy (New York, 1944), p. 310.Google Scholar

² Cochran refers to “large office staffs” needed by businesses after 1850. See Cochran's “Business Organization” in Growth of the American Economy.

³ Meakin, Budgett, Model Factories and Villages (London, 1905), p. 332.Google Scholar

⁴ Henderschott, F. C. and Weakly, F. A., The Employment Department and Employee Relations (Chicago: LaSalle Extension University, 1918), p. 2.Google Scholar

⁵ Eaton, J. M. and Shirk, George A., Ten Studies in Employment Management (Detroit: Central Association of Industrial Executives, 1921), p. 1.Google Scholar Diemer, in an early text on management, refers to a specialized department for “hiring, wages and efficiency records.” See Diemer, Hugo, Factory Organization and Administration (New York, 1910), p. 242.Google Scholar

⁶ F. W. Taylor's biographer, Copley, quotes him as to the recency of the use of engineers. Taylor is said to have been able to “remember distinctly the time when an educated scientific engineer was looked upon with profound suspicion” by industrialists. See Copley's, Frank B.Frederick W. Taylor (New York, 1923), p. 100.Google Scholar In Jones' view, a “new spirit” was visible in America, after 1900, attributed in part to the movement of engineers into executive positions. These new men applied their systematic training, objectivity and scientific knowledge to industry. See Jones, Edward D., The Administration of Industrial Enterprise (New York, 1925), p. 6.Google Scholar

⁷ Taylor and others were bothered a good deal by employee “soldiering.” See Copley's Frederick W. Taylor, Chap. I, especially p. 49f., and Horace B. Drury's address to the Congress of Human Engineering reported in the Bulletin of the Taylor Society, Vol. 2 (Nov., 1916), p. 2.

⁸ Douglas, Paul H., “Plant Administration of Labor” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 27 (July, 1919), p. 544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹ A. Church, Hamilton, The Science and Practice of Management (New York: The Engineering Magazine, 1914), p. 211.Google Scholar

¹⁰ See Taylor's description of the work at a ball-bearing factory, carried on by disciples Thompson and Gantt, where some of the employed girls whose reaction time was slow “unfortunately” had to be dismissed. Taylor, Frederick W., The Principles of Scientific Management (New York, 1911), pp. 89–90.Google Scholar

¹¹ Taylor, F. W., “Shop Management,” Transactions, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Vol. 24 (June, 1903), pp. 1,399, 1,404.Google Scholar

¹² Kendall at the Plimpton Press and Feiss at Clothcraft were notable examples. See the Bulletin of the Taylor Society for 1915 and 1916. R. F. Hoxie has noted, however, in his study for the Industrial Relations Commission, that this was only occasional. See his Scientific Management and Labor (New York, 1915), p. 32.

¹³ New Encyclopedia of Social Reform (New York, 1908), p. 1,128.

¹⁴ A study carried out by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that only 141 of the 431 firms surveyed, all of whom showed some welfare work, had the work administered by a “welfare secretary.” See “Welfare Work for Employees in Industrial Establishments in the United States,” Bulletin #250 (1919), p. 119.

¹⁵ Seven brief personal histories will be found in Henderson's, Charles R.Citizens in Industry (New York, 1915), pp. 273–276.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Ibid., pp. 279–280.

¹⁷ Beeks, Gertrude, “The New Profession,” National Civic Federation Review, Vol. 1 (Feb. 1, 1905), p. 12.Google Scholar

¹⁸ See National Civic Federation, Conference on Welfare Work (New York, 1904), p. 105.Google Scholar Note also that Pearl E. Wyche (Social Security, Proximity Manufacturing Co.) remarked that she had studied for jobs at the Institute of Social Service and at settlement houses. See “In a Southern Factory,” Social Service, Vol. 9 (July, 1904), p. 6.

¹⁹ See Henderson, op. cit., pp. 297–298; National Civic Federation, Conference, op. cit., pp. 48, 75ff.

²⁰ Ibid., p. 82. See also U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Bulletin #250, pp. 122–123.

²¹ Tead, Ordway, “Personnel Administration,” Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. 12 (New York, 1934), p. 88.Google Scholar

²² Eaton and Shirk, op. cit., p. 1.

²³ Don D. Lescohier, “Working Conditions,” Vol. 3 of Commons, John R., et al., History of Labour in the United States, 1896–1932 (New York, 1935), p. 326.Google Scholar

²⁴ Bloomfield, Daniel, Labor Maintenance (New York, 1920), p. 19.Google Scholar

²⁵ Harrison, M., “Health Service – Hammermill Paper Co.,” Modem Medicine, Vol. 1 (June, 1919), p. 127.Google Scholar

²⁶ Brittin, Emma S., “Two Years of Successful Welfare Work in a Factory Employing One Thousand People,” Human Engineering, Vol. 1 (April, 1911), p. 86.Google Scholar

²⁷ Geier, Otto P., “Human Relations Department from the Standpoint of the Industrial Physician,” Industrial Management, Vol. 57 (June, 1919), p. 503.Google Scholar

²⁸ Cf. Brittin, op. cit., with Gilson, Mary B., “Work of the Employment and Service Department of the Clothcraft Shops,” U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Bulletin #227 (Oct., 1917), pp. 139–152.Google Scholar

²⁹ Harlow S. Person, “Welfare Work, Industrial,” Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. 15, p. 395. Substantially the same point is made by Tead in Vol. 12, p. 88.

³⁰ U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Bulletin #250, p. 13.

³¹ Frankel, Lee K. and Fleisher, Alexander, The Human Factor in Industry (New York 1920), p. 12.Google Scholar

³² Alford, Leon P., “The Status of Industrial Relations,” Mechanical Engineering, Vol. 41 (June, 1919), p. 515.Google Scholar

³³ Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. 12, p. 88.

³⁴ Kelly, Roy W., Hiring the Worker (New York: Engineering Magazine Co., 1918), p. 20.Google Scholar

³⁵ Alford, Mechanical Engineering, Vol. 41, p. 515.

³⁶ Kennedy, Dudley, “Functions and Scope of the Employment Department,” Industrial Management, Vol. 57 (June, 1919), p. 491.Google Scholar Kennedy had been employed by Goodrich.

³⁷ See address of Charles U. Carpenter (Labor Manager) to the National Civic Federation Industrial Conference (Dec, 1902), p. 42 ff. See also his “A Labor Department,” National Civic Federation Review, Vol. 1 (Oct. 15, 1904), p. 10.

³⁸ Jane C. Williams, “The Reduction of Labor Turnover in the Plimpton Press,” U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Bulletin #227 (Oct., 1917), p. 82.

³⁹ Bloomfield, Meyer, “The Aim and Work of the Employment Managers Associations,” Annals, American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 65 (May, 1916), p. 77.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ See comment by Bloomfield at Employment Managers' Association Conference, May 10, 1916, published in the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Bulletin #202 (1916), p. 7.

⁴¹ Willits, Joseph H., “Development of Employment Managers' Associations,” Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 5 (Sept., 1917), pp. 497–499.Google Scholar See also Bloomfield, Daniel, Problems in Personnel Management (New York, 1923), pp. 10–11Google Scholar, and “Introduction” by Royal Meeker (Commissioner of Labor Statistics) in the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Bulletin #227, pp. 5–6.

⁴² See Person, Harlow S., “University Schools of Business and the Training of Employment Executives,” U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Bulletin #196 (May, 1916), p. 38Google Scholar; and Nichols, Ernest F., “The Employment Manager,” Annals, American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 65 (May, 1916), p. 7.Google Scholar

⁴³ Douglas, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 27, pp. 548–549. Note also the comment in a three-page summary published by the Committee on Industrial Relations of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, Employment Managers, Training Under Government Auspices (March 28, 1918), which announced the first course. “The course is given at the express request and under the supervision of the Industrial Service Sections,” p. 1.

⁴⁴ Douglas, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 27, p. 549.

⁴⁵ At least one textbook, that by Tead, Ordway and Metcalf, Henry C., had appeared by that date, bearing the title Personnel Administration (New York, 1920).Google Scholar Three years earlier, an employment manager had observed that the employment department's function had got beyond the mere securing of help, and the title – “supervisor of personnel” – had come into “wide” use. Hubbell, N. S., “The Organization and Scope of the Employment Department,” U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Bulletin #227 (Oct., 1917), p. 99.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ See Lescohier, “Working Conditions,” History of Labour in the U. S., Vol. 3, p. 326; also Bloomfield's Labor Maintenance, Chap. III, a brief for the use of the term “employee's service department” and Slichter, Sumner H., “The Management of Labor,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 27 (Dec, 1919), p. 832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁷ Significantly, this has remained the filing title used by the H. W. Wilson indexing services and by many libraries.

⁴⁸ Bloomfield, Daniel (ed.), Selected Articles on Employment Management (New York: The H. W. Wilson Company, 1919), p. 1.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Bulletin #250 (1919), p. 13. See also Frankel and Fleisher, op. cit., pp. 24–27.

⁵⁰ Douglas, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 27, p. 552.

⁵¹ Clothier, Robert C., “Employment Department of the Curtis Publishing Company,” U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Bulletin #202 (Sept., 1916), p. 60.Google Scholar

⁵² Lovett, Robert F. (Bureau of Personnel Research, Carnegie Institute of Technology), “Present Tendencies in Personnel Practice,” Industrial Management, Vol. 65 (June, 1923), p. 330.Google Scholar

⁵³ Slichter, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 27, p. 819 ff.

⁵⁴ Ibid., p. 832, note. “This type of labor administrator … differs radically from the heads of most existing labor departments.” Douglas noted: “… many of the functions described in general works on employment management are a composite of the best methods used by a few progressive firms and are not in any way typical.” Slichter, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 27, p. 551. See also, Lovett, Industrial Management, Vol. 65, p. 330.

⁵⁵ U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Bulletin #227 (Oct., 1917).

⁵⁶ Clothier, R. C., “The Function of the Employment Department,” U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Bulletin #196 (May, 1916), pp. 7–10.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Henderschott and Weakly, op. cit., p. 3. The business described here is not identified and one may be uncertain of its existence. Weakly was, however, the employment manager at Montgomery Ward.

⁵⁸ Douglas has observed that German turnover study preceded that in the United States by a few years. See “Labor Turnover,” Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. 8, p. 709. As early as 1909, John R. Commons had referred to the “labor mobility.” See “Wage Earners of Pittsburgh,” Charities and the Commons, Vol. 21 (March 6, 1909), p. 1,054. The earliest computational study of turnover is generally credited to Magnus W. Alexander (1913). See his “Hiring and Firing,” Annals, American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 65 (May, 1919), pp. 128–144. Others soon followed. See Boyd Fisher, “Methods of Reducing the Labor Turnover,” Annals, pp. 144–154, which contains a brief review of the statistical studies to date. Slichter's, Sumner H. comprehensive The Turnover of Factory Labor (New York, 1919)Google Scholar was more thorough.

⁵⁹ H. H. Vreeland, president of the New York City Railroad and a figure of some consequence in the Welfare Department of the National Civic Federation. See reported speech in National Civic Federation Review, Vol. 2 (May 15, 1905), p. 12. Vreeland did, however, point out the advantage of longer service employees in terms of the effectiveness of such a working force.

⁶⁰ Dodge, John M., “Living in Harmony with Your Workmen,” Industrial Engineering, Vol. 14 (Jan., 1914), p. 8.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Douglas, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 27, p. 545.

⁶² Reilly, Philip J., “The Work of the Employment Department of the Dennison Manufacturing Company,” Annals, American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 65 (May, 1916), p. 93.Google Scholar

⁶³ Magnus W. Alexander, “The Cost of Labor Turnover,” U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Bulletin #227, p. 120; see also Clothier, U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Bulletin #196, p. 12; Lescohier, History of Labour in the U. S., Vol. 3, p. 331.

⁶⁴ Taylor, “Shop Management,” Transactions, Vol. 24, p. 1,347.

⁶⁵ See, for details, Bloomfield's, MeyerYouth, School and Vocation (Boston, 1915), p. 48Google Scholar, or Brewer's, John M.The Vocational Guidance Movement (New York, 1918), pp. 25–26.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Ibid., p. 46. In the Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, Brewer again noted the “close correlation between guidance and scientific management,” Vol. 15, p. 278.

⁶⁷ Speech reported in U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Bulletin #202 (Sept., 1916), pp. 11–12.

⁶⁸ Well over one third of Münsterberg's first volume (in English) was devoted to “The Best Possible Man” and this showed the largest number of actual experiments in industry. See Münsterberg, Hugo, Psychology and Industrial Efficiency (Boston, 1913).CrossRefGoogle Scholar Scott, a younger man, had begun perhaps as early as 1908 to work on the selection of salesmen. See Jacobson, Jacob Z., Scott of Northwestern (Chicago, 1951), p. 85Google Scholar, and Viteles, Morris S., Industrial Psychology (New York, 1934), p. 45.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ C. G. Farnum, “The Scope of Industrial Medicine and Surgery,” First Annual Meeting, American Association of Industrial Physicians and Surgeons (June 12, 1916), p. 20. See also Modern Medicine, Vol. 1 (1919) for other instances.

⁷⁰ Reprinted in full as Jarrett, Mary, “The Mental Hygiene of Industry,” Mental Hygiene, Vol. 14 (Oct., 1920), p. 870.Google Scholar

⁷¹ More accurately, there were two overlapping periods. Before the war, the importance of transfer and trying out men in different parts of the business was emphasized. The success of testing during the war tended to substitute an accent on predictable placement. But it is not possible to mark off any clear point where the latter period began and the first ended.

⁷² Link, Henry C., Employment Psychology (New York, 1919), p. 293.Google Scholar

⁷³ Cory, T. K., “Selection and Development of Employees,” U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Bulletin #202 (Sept., 1916), p. 43.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ A journalist, for example, mirrored this in the following words: “… awakening self-consciousness of labor to its own power, dignity, indispensability, which came with the war. Labour was courted as never before.” Baker, Ray Stannard, The New Industrial Unrest (Garden City, 1920), p. 67.Google Scholar See also Slichter, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 27, p. 814.

⁷⁵ Alford, Mechanical Engineering, Vol. 41, p. 515. See also Douglas, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 27, p. 546; Kennedy, Industrial Management, Vol. 57, p. 68; and Jones, op. cit., p. 7.

⁷⁶ Jones, quoted by Douglas, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 27, p. 550.

⁷⁷ See above, p. 353.

⁷⁸ Lovett, Industrial Management, Vol. 65, p. 327.

⁷⁹ Daugherty, Carroll R., Labor Problems in American Industry, 5th ed. (Boston, 1941), p. 573.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Shop Management,” Transactions, Vol. 24, p. 1,388 ff.

⁸¹ Jones, op. cit., p. 268.

⁸² John M. Williams “An Actual Account of What We Have Done to Reduce Our Labor Turnover,” U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Bulletin #227, pp. 176–177. Incidentally, a statement by Taylor in the Bulletin of the Taylor Society, Vol. 2 (Dec. 1916) makes an almost identical point. See p. 17.

⁸³ Jones, op. cit., p. 392.

⁸⁴ See survey reported by Industrial Management, Vol. 58 (Sept., 1919), p. 242.

⁸⁵ Douglas, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 27, p. 551.

⁸⁶ Jones, op. cit., p. 392.

⁸⁷ Cory, U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Bulletin #202, p. 43. See also symposium of nine managers, Industrial Management, Vol. 58 (Aug., 1919), pp. 153–159; Clothier, U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Bulletin #196, p. 110; Henderschott and Weakly, op. cit., p. 28; J. M. Williams, op. cit., pp. 179–180. The survey of 94 firms by Industrial Management disclosed that 36 managers argued that only the employment manager should have the right to discharge, and another 14 gave a qualified affirmative to this proposition. An even larger percentage indicated that transfer should be solely in the hands of the employment department. Of course, most of those polled were employment executives.

⁸⁸ The role was a judicial one. The foreman was not a subordinate of the employment manager.

⁸⁹ Gilson, U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Bulletin #227, p. 146.

⁹⁰ Hubbell, U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Bulletin #227, p. 98.

⁹¹ Alexander, U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Bulletin #227, p. 54.

⁹² H. L. Gardner, “The Employment Department; Its Functions and Scope,” U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Bulletin #202, p. 54.

⁹³ S. P. Hall's statement printed in Industrial Management, symposium, Vol. 58, p. 155.

⁹⁴ Williams, op. cit., p. 188.

⁹⁵ Alexander, “Hiring and Firing,” Annals, Vol. 65, p. 140.

⁹⁶ Labor leaders had strongly opposed the absolutism of the traditional foremen. An eloquent statement in this connection is that of Portenar, A. J., “Centralized Labor Responsibility from a Labor Union Standpoint,” Annals, American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 71 (May, 1917), p. 192.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ See, for example, the pages of Industrial Management for the years 1919, 1920, and 1921 for evidence of this friction.

⁹⁸ See, for example, contemporary accounts, namely, editorial in System, Vol. 42 (Oct., 1922), p. 433; Lovett, Industrial Management, Vol. 65, pp. 327–329; Boettiger, Louis A., Employee Welfare Work (New York, 1923), p. 260 ff.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Lovett, Industrial Management, Vol. 65, p. 331.