No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Changing Status of the Foreman
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 July 2012
Extract
American business, for the most part, is cognizant of the existence of a foreman's problem. In 1943–45 the rather infectious spirit of foreman organization was manifest in several severe walkouts in key defense plants. Newspaper and magazine readers and radio listeners were deluged with commentaries on the reasons for this abrupt outcropping of dissatisfaction and dissension. Tenuous security, denial of recognition, lack of communication, small pay packets, no provision for overtime pay — these were some of the principal causes for disorder as interpreted by these experts. Hearings were held by a panel appointed by the National War Labor Board, and the panel was deeply impressed by what seemed to be a “conspicuous disproportion between the number and seriousness of the individual complaints of foremen … on the one hand and by the evident interest of foremen in organization on the other.” It was obvious from these voluminous hearings that there was an awareness of the serious nature of the immediate threat of foremen's organization.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College 1948
References
1 Roethlisberger, Fritz J., “The Foreman: Master and Victim of Double Talk,” Harvard Business Review, Spring, 1945.Google Scholar
2 Taylor, Frederick W., Shop Management (New York, 1919), p. 95.Google Scholar
3 Hoxie, Robert F., Scientific Management and Labor (New York, 1915), p. 29.Google Scholar
4 American Management Association, The Development of Foremen in Management, by Dale, Ernest, Research Report No. 7 (N. Y., 1945), pp. 17–20.Google Scholar