¹ See Litterer, Joseph A., “Systematic Management: Design for Organizational Recoupling in American Manufacturing Firms,” Business History Review, XXXVII (Winter, 1963), 369–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Jenks, Leland H., “Early Phases of the Management Movement,” Administrative Science Quarterly, V (December, 1960), 421–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For the divisions in the “management movement,” see also Aitken, Hugh G. J., Taylorism at Watertown Arsenal (Cambridge, Mass., 1960), 17–18Google Scholar, and Eilbert, Henry, “The Development of Personnel Management in the United States,” Business History Review, XXXIII (Autumn, 1959), 347.Google Scholar

² The Santa Fe Railroad hired Harrington Emerson in 1903 to systematize its repair shops, and the railroad introduced a welfare program at approximately the same time. Emerson's work, however, was confined to the shops; the welfare plans were intended only for the operating employees. See the Emerson-Taylor correspondence in the Taylor Papers, Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, N.J., 58C and the series by Colvin, Fred H., “How Bonus Works on the Santa Fe,” American Machinist, XXXVI (January-March, 1912).Google Scholar In 1913 Richard A. Feiss, an ardent follower of Taylor, hired a welfare secretary to supervise welfare and personnel programs at the Joseph & Feiss Co. in Cleveland. Shortly thereafter, Henry Kendall, another Taylor admirer and client of disciples Horace K. Hathaway and Morris L. Cooke, introduced a welfare program at the Plimpton Press. See Gilson, Mary Bamett, What's Past Is Prologue (New York, 1940Google Scholar), and Jane C. Williams, “The Reduction of Labor Turnover in the Plimpton Press,” Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bulletin [hereafter BLS Bull], 227 (October, 1917).

³ Aitken, Taylorism, 16. Taylor devoted much of his writing to defining his system of management, but without much success. In part this may have been deliberate, for Taylor always argued that it could really be learned only through experience. After Taylor's death, Carl Barth argued that aspects of Taylorism were unwritten and therefore known only to the “direct disciples.” See Haber, Samuel, Efficiency and Uplift (Chicago, 1964), 34.Google Scholar

⁴ Taylor, Frederick W., “Shop Management,” American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Transactions [hereafter ASME Trans.], XXIV (1903), 1411–12.Google Scholar

⁵ See Alford, L. P., Henry Lawrence Gantt, Leader in Industry (New York, 1934), chs. 5-8.Google Scholar

⁶ Welfare work had important antecedents in the experiments with profit sharing conducted in the 1880's and in the model communities of the post-Civil War period. See Gilman, Nicholas F., Profit Sharing Between Employer and Employee: A Study in the Evolution of the Wages System (Boston, 1889)Google Scholar; Munroe, Paul, “Profit Sharing in the United States,” American Journal of Sociology, I (May, 1896), 685–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Roland, Henry, “Six Examples of Successful Shop Management,” Engineering Magazine [hereafter Eng. Mag.], XII (October, 1896–March, 1897), 69–85, 270–285, 395–412, 831–837, 994–1000.Google Scholar The concern over wage systems and even Taylor's work can also be traced in part to these developments. See Towne, Henry, “Gain Sharing,” ASME Trans., X (1889), 600–610Google Scholar; Halsey, F. A., “The Premium System for Paying for Labor,” ASME Trans., XII (1891), 755–764.Google Scholar Also Taylor, Frederick W., “A Piece Rate System,” ASME Trans., XVI (1895), 867Google Scholar; Towne, H. R. in ASME Trans., VIII (1887), 290–92.Google Scholar

⁷ “What is Welfare Work?,” National Civic Federation Monthly Review, I (August, 1904), 5.Google Scholar

⁸ Cardullo, Forrest, “Safety and Welfare Work,” Machinery, XXII (November 1915), 197–98.Google Scholar Promoters of welfare work emphasized these benefits. See, for example, Meakin, Budgett, Model Factories and Villages: Ideal Conditions of Labour and Housing (London, 1905), 22Google Scholar; “Welfare Work for Employees in Industrial Establishments in the United States,” BLS Bull., 250 (1919), 13, 120Google Scholar; Boettiger, L., Employee Welfare Work (New York, 1923), 4.Google Scholar

⁹ Patterson, John H., “Altruism and Sympathy as Factors in Works Administration,” Eng. Mag., XX (January, 1902), 579–580.Google Scholar

¹⁰ See Becker, O. M., “The Square Deal in Works Management, I,” Eng. Mag., XXX (January, 1906), 553.Google Scholar Other employers were more careless. “It is surprising to find that few firms have definite knowledge of what the work is costing them.” See “Welfare Work,” BLS Bull, 250 (1919), 118.Google Scholar

¹¹ Taylor worked entirely within the plant; the welfare “secretaries” devoted much of their time to “outside” activities such as community housing and health work. However, as Gertrude Beeks (Secretary of the National Civic Federation's Welfare Department) wrote, factory ventilation and sanitation were “primary.” “They are literally the first letters of the alphabet of welfare work.” Beeks, Gertrude, “What is Welfare Work?,” National Civil Federation Monthly Review [hereafter NCF Mo. R.], I (August, 1904), 6.Google Scholar

¹² While Taylor's most famous jobs were with iron and steel companies, his work was largely confined to their machine shops. No definitive list of firms advised by Taylor, his followers or imitators can be compiled. For two contemporary guesses at the scope of Taylorism and other “efficiency” systems, see “The Present State of the Art of Industrial Management,” ASME Trans., XXXIV (1912), 1150Google Scholar, and Thompson, C. B., The Theory and Practice of Scientific Management (New York, 1917), 37–40.Google Scholar

¹³ The original officers of the National Civic Federation's Welfare Department included twenty-seven prominent employers, nineteen of whom employed large numbers of women or operated in isolated areas. ‘How the Welfare Dpartment was Organized,’ NCF Mo. R., I (June, 1904), 14.Google Scholar One hundred seven of the 431 establishments studied by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 1919 were textile factories or stores. “Welfare Work,” BLS Bull, 250 (1919).Google Scholar

¹⁴ C. Bertrand Thompson, one of the earliest analysts of the movement, wrote of Taylor: “While on the whole he understood very well the psychology of the workingman … he did not grasp sympathetically the aspiration towards industrial democracy, nor could he see the point of the current contention that it does not follow necessarily, from the fact that a man can do a certain thing in a certain time, that therefore he ought to do it in that time.” Thompson, Theory and Practice, 28-29.

¹⁵ For Taylor's relationship with his followers, see Kakar, Sudhir, Frederick Taylor: A Study in Personality and Innovation (Cambridge, Mass., 1970Google Scholar), particularly ch. 9, “The Emergence of the Prophet.” Taylor's breaks with both Gantt and Gilbreth, however, occurred after they began to “innovate” in this area. Gantt supposedly developed a more humane attitude toward the workers after 1908, principally because of his unpleasant experience at the Sayles Bleachery. But even the “new” Gantt was hardly different from Taylor when judged by the standards of welfare work. Gantt's position is a clear illustration of the gap between the two approaches. See Alford, Gantt, 130; Gantt, H. L., Work, Wages, and Profits (New York, 1910), 155–56.Google Scholar Gantt's “advanced” attitude toward the workmen is cited by Urwick, L. and Brech, E. F. L., The Making of Scientific Management, I (London, 1945), 77–78.Google Scholar Taylor's relationship with Gilbreth is discussed in Nadworny, Milton J., “Frederick Taylor and Frank Gilbreth: Competition in Scientific Management,” Business History Review, XXXI (Spring, 1957), 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Also see the reference to Gilbreth in Whyte, William Foote et al. , Money and Motivation (New York, 1955), 5.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Taylor, “Shop Management,” 1454. Also Taylor, “A Piece Rate System,” 880-881.

¹⁷ Quoted in Copley, Frank B., “Frederick W. Taylor, Revolutionist,” The Outlook, III (September 1, 1915), 42.Google Scholar Most engineers of the period, whatever their opinion of Taylor, probably shared his belief that welfare work was irrelevant or contemptible, or both. F. A. Halsey, originator of the “premium” system of wage payment, publicly attacked Patterson. See American Machinist, XXIV (June 20, 1901), 688–689Google Scholar; also Haber, Efficiency and Uplift, ch. 2.

¹⁸ H. L. Gantt to F. W. Taylor, January 22, 1911, Taylor Papers, 121B.

¹⁹ Eilbert, “Development of Personnel Management,” 349-350.

²⁰ See, for example, Goldmark, Josephine, Fatigue and Efficiency (New York, 1912), ch. 7.Google Scholar

²¹ Clark, Sue Ainslie and Wyatt, Edith, Making Both Ends Meet (New York, 1911), 261.Google Scholar

²² Quoted in an article from the American Carpet and Upholstery Trade (1894) in Joseph Bancroft & Sons Company Papers, Eleutherian Mills Historical Library, Greenville, Delaware, Ace. 940, Box 1, File 4a. Hereafter cited as Bancroft Papers.

²³ Bounds, Harvey, “Bancroft Mills, 1831-1961,” unpublished manuscript, Eleutherian Mills Historical Library, 43, 46.Google Scholar

²⁴ Welfare Department Letter Book, Vol. 197, Bancroft Papers, Acc. 736, No. 893.

²⁵ See Senate, U.S., Report on Condition of Women and Child Wage Earners in the United States, Vol. 16 (61 Cong., 2 Sess., 1911).Google Scholar By this time the situation in the northern mills was quite different. For example, a government study of Lowell in 1909 reported that “no welfare work, with the exception of hospital service for operatives is attempted…. The old paternalism which is characteristic of the cotton goods industry in the Southern states today was superceded … by the cash-payment relationship.” U.S. Immigration Commission, Reports, Vol. 10, Pt. 3 (61 Cong., 2 Sess., 1911), 315Google Scholar, 283. In Lawrence some company housing was maintained. Immigration Commission, Reports, Vol. 10, Pt. 4, 767.

²⁶ For Miss Briscoe's biography see Every Evening (Wilmington, Del.), October 6, 1919.Google Scholar

²⁷ Elizabeth Briscoe lecture at New York University, April 21, 1913, National Civic Federation Papers, New York Public Library, New York, Box 105.

²⁸ Welfare Department Letter Book, Vol. 197, Bancroft Papers, Acc. 736, No. 893, 148-149.

²⁹ Ibid., 50, 54, 86, 261.

³⁰ Board of Directors Minutes, Vol. II, Bancroft Papers, Acc. 736, No. 35, 326.

³¹ Tenth Special Report of the Commissioner of Labor, Labor Laws of the United States (Washington, 1904), 218–19.Google Scholar

³² Welfare Department Letter Book, Vol. 197, Bancroft Papers, Acc. 736, No. 893, 89-97.

³³ Ibid.

³⁴ Board of Directors Minutes, Vol. II, Bancroft Papers, Acc. 736, No. 893, 103, 127. Originally built for female operatives only, the structure was soon opened to men.

³⁵ Welfare Department Letter Book, Vol. 197, Bancroft Papers, Acc. 736, No. 893. 44.

³⁶ Ibid., 85.

³⁷ Tolman, William, Social Engineering (New York, 1907), 242.Google Scholar

³⁸ Operating and Advisory Committee Minutes, Bancroft Papers, Vol. I, Acc. 736, No. 79, 100.

³⁹ Ibid., 388; Welfare Department Letter Book, Vol. 197, Bancroft Papers, Acc. 736, No. 893, 215.

⁴⁰ Elizabeth Briscoe lecture at NYU, April 21, 1913, NCF Papers, Box 105.

⁴¹ Tolman, Social Engineering, 57.

⁴² Gantt to Taylor, April 12, 1908, Taylor Papers, 120B.

⁴³ See Taylor, “Shop Management,” 1410-11; Taylor, Frederick W., The Principles of Scientific Management (New York, 1911), 135.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Alford, Gantt, 114-16.

⁴⁵ See Taylor to Gantt, April 12, 1908, April 13, 1908, April 4, 1910, Taylor Papers, 120 A & B; Alford, Gantt, 115.

⁴⁶ Taylor to Gantt, April 13, 1908, Taylor Papers, 120B.

⁴⁷ Gantt to Taylor, April 12, 1908, Taylor Papers, 120B.

⁴⁸ Gantt's “innovations,” including his willingness to do what his employers desired rather than what Taylor dictated, were supposedly the major reasons for Taylor's growing distrust of his disciple. See Alford, Gantt, 128-131; also Aitken, Taylorism, 80. But after studying twenty-four firms that introduced Taylorism between 1901 and World War I, Daniel Nelson has concluded that Gantt was, in practice, no less orthodox than Barth, Hathaway, or the other close disciples. This suggests that what he said, and especially what he wrote, rather than what he did, was the real reason for his trouble.

⁴⁹ Gantt to John Bancroft, May 19, 1909, Taylor Papers, 121A.

⁵⁰ Ibid., 3-4; Clark and Wyatt, Making Both Ends Meet, 261-83.

⁵¹ Gantt to John Bancroft, May 19, 1909, Taylor Papers, 121A.

⁵² Ibid., 5.

⁵³ Gantt to Taylor, June 1, 1908; Taylor to Gantt, May 21, 1908, Taylor Papers, 120B.

⁵⁴ Taylor to Carl G. Barth, June 11, 1908, Taylor Papers, 113A; also Gantt to Taylor, August 29, 1909, Taylor Papers, 121A.

⁵⁵ Gantt to Taylor, June 29, 1909; Gantt to Taylor, August 29, 1909, Taylor Papers, 121A.

⁵⁶ Clark and Wyatt, Making Both Ends Meet, 262, 264.

⁵⁷ Gantt to Taylor, May 23, 1909, Taylor Papers, 121A.

⁵⁸ Gantt to Taylor, June 14, 1909, Taylor Papers, 121A.

⁵⁹ This and the Sayles Bleachery job were only two of many Gantt “failures” due to worker resistance. But this problem grew out of Gantt's interest in the purely labor aspects of Taylorism, particularly the incentive wage. Barth, who had fewer failures and less trouble with workmen, concentrated on reorganizing machinery and installing accounting systems. The machines seldom fought back.

⁶⁰ Gantt to Taylor, April 9, 1910, Taylor Papers, 121A.

⁶¹ Clark and Wyatt, Making Both Ends Meet, 264-65.

⁶² Operating and Advisory Committee Minutes, Vol. I, Bancroft Papers, Acc. 736, No. 79, 109.

⁶³ Report, Miller, Frankling & Stevenson, January 17, 1912, Bancroft Papers, Acc. 736, No. 171.

⁶⁴ See Operating and Advisory Committee Minutes, Vol. I, Bancroft Papers, Acc. 736, No. 79.

⁶⁵ Good examples of the changed outlook can be found in Tead, Ordway and Metcalf, H., Personnel Administration (New York, 1920), ch. 1–3Google Scholar; also see Hunt, E. E., ed., Scientific Management Since Taylor (New York, 1924Google Scholar), ch. 1. The most thorough account of the broadening of Taylorism is Haber, Efficiency and Uplift, especially ch. 4-8. Also see Nadworny, Milton J., Scientific Management and the Unions (Cambridge, Mass., 1955), ch. 7.Google Scholar