Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T06:36:25.677Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Scientific Management, Systematic Management, and Labor, 1880–1915

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2012

Daniel Nelson
Daniel Nelson
Affiliation:
Associate Professor of History, University of Akron
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Offering a significant revision of prevailing views, Professor Nelson examines the actual implementation of scientific management in industry and finds that it bore only a superficial resemblance to the system described by Taylor and his disciples. Rather than a “partial solution of the labor problem,” the Taylor system was a comprehensive answer to the problems of factory coordination, a refinement and extension of the earlier ideas known as systematic management.

Type
Articles
Information
Business History Review , Volume 48 , Issue 4 , Winter 1974 , pp. 479 - 500
Copyright
Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Taylor, Fredrick W., “A Piece Rate System Being a Step Toward Partial Solution of the Labor Problem,” Transactions oí the American Society of Mechnical Engineers, vol. 16 (1895), 856–903.Google Scholar By “labor problem” Taylor's contemporaries usually meant overt hostility – strikes and violence. Taylor included these activities but emphasized subtler forms of resistance or noncooperation, especially restriction of output or “soldiering.”

2 Copley, Frank B., Frederick W. Taylor, Father of Scientific Management, 2 vols. (New York, 1923)Google Scholar; Kakar, Sudhir, Frederick Taylor: A Study in Personality and Innovation (Cambridge, 1970), Chs. 4–5, 10Google Scholar; Wren, Daniel A., The Evolution of Management Thought (New York, 1972)Google Scholar, Chs. 6–7; Haber, Samuel, Efficiency and Uplift (Chicago, 1964)Google Scholar, Chs. 1–2; Layton, Edwin T. Jr, The Revolt of the Engineers (Cleveland, 1972)Google Scholar, Chs. 6–7. Two important monographs, Nadworny, Milton J., Scientific Management and the Unions, 1900–32 (Cambridge, 1955)Google Scholar and Aitken, Hugh G. J., Taylorism at Watertown Arsenal (Cambridge, 1960)Google Scholar, focus on the relationship between the Taylor system and labor but indicate the complexity of scientific management.

3 The following discussion is based on Litterer, Joseph, “Systematic Management: The Search for Order and Integration,” Business History Review, XXXV (Winter, 1961), 461–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Litterer, , “Systematic Management: Design for Organizational Recoupling in American Manufacturing Firms,” Business History Review, XXXVII (Winter, 1963), 369–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Kendall, Henry P., “Types of Management: Unsystematized, Systematized and Scientific,” in Dartmouth College Conferences, Addresses and Discussions of the Conference on Scientific Management Held October 12, 13, 14, 1911 (Hanover, N.H., 1912), 112–125.Google Scholar For a broader treatment of the management movement see Jenks, Leland H., “Early Phases of the Management Movement,” Administrative Science Quarterly, V (December, 1960), 421–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Litterer, “Systematic Management,” 373.

5 Ibid., 376.

6 Joseph Litterer has noted the proliferation of articles on managerial subjects. Litterer, , “The Emergence of Systematic Management as Indicated by the Literature of Management from 1870 to 1900” (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Illinois, 1959), 64–66.Google Scholar

7 Writers on the origins of personnel management have often tried-unsuccessfully, I believe — to establish a direct tie between the management movement and personnel work. See Eilbirt, Henry, “The Development of Personnel Management in the United States,” Business History Review, XXXIII (Autumn, 1959), 345–364Google Scholar; Wood, Thomas Wilmont, “The Contributions of Frederick W. Taylor to Scientific Personnel Management” (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of North Carolina, 1941).Google Scholar Cyril Curtis Ling wisely has resisted this tendency; see The Management of Personnel Relations (Homewood, 1965).

8 For the changing character of the foreman's functions, see Patten, Thomas, The Foreman: Forgotten Man of Management (New York, 1968).Google Scholar

9 The key words here are programs or benefits. Even the most unsentimental engineers recognized the need (in Taylor's words) for “the proper personal relations.” “The employer who … is never known to dirty his hands or clothes, and who either talks to his men in a condescending or patronizing way, or else not at all, has no chance whatever of ascertaining [the employees'] real thoughts or feelings.” Taylor, , “Shop Management,” ASME Transactions, vol. 24 (1903), 1447.Google Scholar Taylor quoted this statement from “A Piece Rate System.”

10 This theme is explicit or implicit in much of the literature of systematic management. For excellent statements of it, see the editoriak of Robert Thurston Kent in Industrial Engineering and the Engineering Digest, especially “Efficiency of Labor,” IEED, VII (June, 1910), 464; “The Solution of Labor Troubles,” (October, 1910), 306–307; and “Scientific Management as Viewed from the Workman's Standpoint,” (November, 1910), 377–380. Kent was the son of William Kent, a prominent engineer and consultant, and a student of systematic management. IEED was the unofficial organ of the Taylor movement, 1910–1915.

11 Towne, Henry R., “Gain Sharing,” ASME Transactions, vol. 10 (1889), 618Google Scholar; Halsey, Frederick A., “Discussion,” ASME Transactions, vol. 41 (1919), 170Google Scholar; and Halsey, , American Machinist, XXII (March 9, 1899), 516.Google Scholar

12 For these developments, see Nelson, Daniel, “The New Factory System and the Unions: The NCR Dispute of 1901,” Labor History, XV (Spring, 1974), 163–178.Google Scholar

13 See Bernstein, Irving, The Lean Years, A History of the American Worker, 1920–33 (Boston, 1960), 175–185.Google Scholar

14 The standard account, based on the recollections of Taylor's relatives and friends is Copley, Taylor, I.

15 See the Midvale file, No. 71, the Taylor Scrapbooks, Nos. 1 and 2, Frederick W. Taylor Collection (Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, N.J.).

16 Taylor Scrapbooks Nos. 1 and 2, Taylor Collection.

17 See Carl G. Barth's introduction to the Taylor Scrapbook, 2, Taylor Collection; Taylor, “Shop Management,” 1396–1399; Taylor, , “On the Art of Cutting Metals,” ASME Transactions, vol. 28 (1906), 34–40.Google Scholar

18 See Barth's introductions to Taylor Scrapbooks, 1 & 2 and the Taylor-Sanford E. Thompson correspondence, files 124A, 124B, Taylor Collection.

19 This statement is based on the report of a Philadelphia local of the International Association of Machinists. See Monthly Journal, I.A.M., vol. 6 (November, 1894), 430–431.

20 Copley includes little information on Taylor's fortune, but there are enough fragments in the Taylor collection to confirm his judgment that it was based on patent sales and shrewd investments, particularly in the mining industry. Copley, Taylor, I, 393–395. Taylor's discoveries insured his prominence among fellow engineers and led to the presidency of the ASME in 1906–1907. See Hutton, Frederick R., A History of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers from 1880 to 1915 (New York, 1915), 115–116Google Scholar, and Layton, Revolt of the Engineers, Ch. 7.

21 Taylor-Thompson Correspondence, Files 124 and 125, Taylor Collection.

22 Barth introduction to Taylor Scrapbook, 3, Taylor Collection; Copley, Taylor, I, 364–365.

23 Barth introduction to Taylor Scrapbook, 3, Taylor Collection. For a detailed account of the Taylor accounting system in a plant where it was installed, see Arnold, Horace L., The Factory Manager and Accountant (London, 1910)Google Scholar, Ch. 3.

24 See, for example, “Recollections of Coleman DuPont,” File 14F, Taylor Collection.

25 Taylor invariably began his articles and talks with a discussion of “soldiering” or restriction of output, which he attributed to poor management. See Taylor, “A Piece Rate System,” 860–863; Taylor, “Shop Management,” 1349–1352; Taylor, , “Testimony,” Hearings Before Special Committee of the House of Representatives to investigate the Taylor and Other Systems of Shop Management, III (Washington, 1912), 8–25.Google Scholar [Pagination for Taylor's “Testimony” is from the more readily available reprint, Taylor, , Scientific Management (New York, 1947)]Google Scholar; Taylor, , The Principles of Scientific Management (New York, 1912), 13–18.Google Scholar

26 Taylor, “Shop Management,” 1391–1397.

27 For accounts of the origins of the task and bonus system, see Taylor, “Shop Management,” 1376–1378; Taylor, Principles, 39–42; Gantt, Henry Laurence, Work, Wages, and Profits (New York, 1913), 104–113Google Scholar; and Alford, L. P., Henry Laurence Gantt, Leader in Industry (New York, 1934), 87–91.Google Scholar

28 Taylor, “Testimony,” 66–77; Taylor, Principles, 80–81.

29 Yost, Edna, Frank and Lillian Gilbreth, Partners for Life (New Brunswick, 1949), 219–222.Google Scholar

30 See the Taylor-Gilbreth Correspondence, File 59A, Taylor Collection, and Gilbreth's letters to his wife in the Gilbreth Papers (Purdue University Library, West Lafayette, Ind.), 1912–1914. Nadworny, Milton J. ably describes the split between Taylor and Gilbreth in “Frederick Taylor and Frank Gilbreth: Competition in Scientific Management,” Business History Review, XXXI (Spring, 1957), 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The famous confrontation between the Gilbreths and the Taylor disciples in 1920 is reported in the Bulletin of the Taylor Society, VI (June, 1921).

31 Taylor apparently used the same outline for all his works on management, varying only the details and examples and his emphasis on the “principles” of scientific management. He began with a description of the defects of conventional management, introduced time and motion study, and then noted the other features of his system. His refinements of systematic management (cost keeping, tool room operations, improvements in belting, etc.) received less attention in each subsequent publication – that is, as Taylor became better known and attracted a wider audience. It is not clear from his papers if he used this format simply because it had been appropriate for “A Piece Rate System” or because he believed it was likely to attract greater interest. Taylor disliked writing but devoted considerable time and attention to his works. See “Recollections of Kempton P. A. Taylor,” Taylor Collection, File 14Y. For an illustration of the disparity between the theory and actual practice of scientific management, compare Taylor's writings with Thompson's, C. Bertrand detailed manual, The Taylor System of Scientific Management (New York, 1917).Google Scholar See also Hathaway's account of the introduction of scientific management at Tabor. Interstate Commerce Commission, Evidence Taken by the Interstate Commerce Commission in the Matter of Proposed Advances in Freight Rates by Carriers, Aug. to Dec., 1910, Vol. 4, 61 Cong., 3rd Sess., (Washington, 1911), 2660–2667.

32 See Bertrand Thompson, C., The Theory and Practice of Scientific Management (Cambridge, 1917), 160–161Google Scholar; Taylor to Charles H. Morse, May 20, 1907, Taylor Collection, File 6; H. K. Hathaway to Taylor, March 13, 1910, Taylor Collection, File 122A.

33 Basil Manley, Final Report, Commission on Industrial Relations, (Washington, 1916), 138.

34 There are numerous statements of this view in U.S. House of Representatives, Hearings, I and II.

35 Sumner Slicher describes union policies toward incentive wage plans in Union Policies and Industrial Management (Washington, 1941), 296–309; Nadworny, Scientific Management and the Unions, Ch. 4, traces the opposition to Taylor and his system.

36 Nadworny, Scientific Management and the Unions, 114–116.

37 Taylor's disciples are listed in column 2 of Table I. Henry Laurence Gantt, Carl G. Barth, Morris L. Cooke, and H. K. Hathaway were Taylor's closest followers. Hollis Godfrey, Royal R. Keely, C. Bertrand Thompson, and Frank B. Gilbreth formed a second, less able and less important (at least in Taylor's eyes), group. Holden Evans was a U.S. Navy constructor and Taylor's chief adherent in the Navy. Harrington Emerson, Frederick A. Parkhurst, and Richard A. Feiss were special cases; their relationships with Taylor are described in the text. Sanford E. Thompson did not install the Taylor system in industrial firms until the World War I period.

38 See C. B. Thompson, Theory, 37–41, 98; Hoxie, Robert, Scientific Management and Labor (New York, 1918), 3–4Google Scholar; Majority Report of the Sub-Committee on Administration, “The Present State of the Art of Industrial Management,” ASME Transactions, vol. 34 (1912), 1150.

39 Taylor's ideas attracted considerable attention from U.S. Army and Navy officers in charge of manufacturing plants, and some of his techniques were introduced in a number of arsenals and shipyards. But only at Mare Island, where Evans (a student of systematic management) was attracted to Taylor's refinements, and at Watertown, where Barth was employed, were thorough efforts undertaken. Evans' work was particularly notable, since he had little support within the Navy and only occasional contacts with Taylor. He was eventually driven from the Navy because of his zealousness and became a leading shipbuilder during World War I. See Evans, Holden A., One Man's Fight for a Better Navy (New York, 1940).Google Scholar The government facilities were atypical because of the workers' union affiliations and political contacts and the likelihood of overt labor disputes if problems arose.

40 These were the Lewis F. Shoemaker Company, F. B. Steams Company, Universal Winding Company, Franz Premier Company, Goldie & McCulIoch, Burgess Sulphite Company, Williamson Brothers, Westinghouse Electric, Standard Roller Bearing Company, Bausch & Lomb, Lowell Machine Works, Barcalo Company, Acme Wire Company, F. R. Patch Company, Williams & Wilkins, Sewell Clapp Company, Plymouth Cordage Company, Robins Conveying Belt, and the American Locomotive Company shops (where Gantt worked in 1902 and Emerson in 1907). There are also references to at least three other firms, the Manhattan Press, Chester Steel Castings Company, and the Erie Forge Company, in the Taylor Collection, but I have not included them in Table I because of the paucity of information about them.

41 Taylor to H. K. Hathaway, February 3, 1914, Taylor Collection, File 123A. Taylor and Emerson corresponded frequently during this period. Emerson wrote that “I would rather have your approval … than of [sic] any other man living or dead.” Emerson to Taylor, November 17, 1905, Taylor Collection, File 58C. Also Emerson, Harrington, “Discussion,” ASME Transactions, vol. 24 (1903), 1463Google Scholar, and “Discussion,” ASME Transactions, vol. 25 (1903–1904), 73. Parkhurst was close to Gilbreth and Robert Thurston Kent, though not to the other Taylor associates. His Applied Methods of Scientific Management first appeared in Kent's Industrial Engineering and the Engineering Digest in 1911. He discussed his exclusion from the Taylor circle in a conversation with Gilbreth in 1915. Frank B. Gilbreth to Lillian M. Gilbreth, September 24, 1915, Gilbreth Papers.

42 By 1910 many progressive firms had installed detailed cost accounting systems. After his retirement, Taylor increasingly deemphasized the importance of costkeeping to scientific management. In a properly managed shop it would be an incidental product of planning department activities. Copley, Taylor, I, 365–371; II, 375–377.

43 As Table I suggests, scientific management was introduced in many industries and plants employing radically different production methods. Taylor's experience was largely in machine shops, and he only recommended men whom he considered to have a high level of technical proficiency such as Barth and Hathaway for machine shop work. For Taylor's comments on the textile industry, see “A Piece Rate System,” 867.

44 Many of the firms listed in Table I — such as Remington, Pullman, Link Belt, Cheney Brothers, Plimpton Press, Ferracute Machine, Joseph & Feiss, and Yale & Towne — were well known for their advanced methods and equipment. See Gantt's “Discussion,” “Present State of the Art of Industrial Management,” 180.

45 R. R. Keely to Taylor, May 14, 1914, Taylor Collection, File 137C; Barth to J. S. Runnels, March 6, 1913, Carl G. Barth Papers (Baker Library, Harvard Business School, Boston), Drawer 2.

46 This appears to have been true for Cooke, though there is little direct evidence. Cooke devoted most of his time to non-industrial activities. The Plimpton Press and Williams & Wilkins Company were apparently his only important jobs before World War I. Gantt reported in 1914 that he typically spent a year or more on his jobs “setting [the] house in order.” U.S. Commission on Industrial Relations, Final Report, I, 956. For an able critique of Emerson's work, see Colvin, Fred H., “How Bonus Works on the Santa Fe, II,” American Machinist, XXXVI (February 1, 1912), 168.Google Scholar

47 “Scheduling Locomotive Repair Work on the Canadian Pacific Railway,” IEED, VIII (November, 1910), 380–383; Railway Age Gazette, vol. 50 (April 7, 1911), 836–837; Hollis Godfrey to Taylor, May 4, 1912, Taylor Collection, File 59B2; Evans, Holden A., Cost Keeping and Scientific Management (New York, 1911), 186–231.Google Scholar

48 Babcock, George D. and Trautschold, Reginald, The Taylor System in Franklin Management (New York, 1917), 77.Google Scholar

49 Lewis, Wilfred, “An Object Lesson in Efficiency,” IEED, IX (May, 1911), 383.Google Scholar The Barth Papers contain numerous planning department forms from the Tabor Company. “Tabor Manufacturing Company,” Drawer 2; also “Barcalo Manufacturing Company Report of Philadelphia Trip, November 25, 1912,” Taylor Collection, File 138B. The Link Belt planning department is described in “Methods of Management that Made Money,” IEED, IX (January, 1911), 23–25; and Dodge, James M., “A History of the Introduction of a System of Shop Management,” ASME Transactions, vol. 27 (1906), 720–725Google Scholar; Aitken, Taylorism, 96–100, 125–134.

50 H. M. Wilcox, “Organization and System in the Cartridge Department of the Winchester Repeating Arms Company for the Control of Mass Production,” December 1, 1917, Barth Papers, Drawer 2. Williamson notes only time study. Williamson, Harold F., Winchester, The Gun that Won the West (Washington, 1952), 232.Google Scholar

51 See Taylor, “Shop Management,” 1392–1394, 1418–1421. In The Principles of Scientific Management, Taylor, apparently influenced by Gantt's characterizations, called the “gang” and “speed” bosses and the inspectors “teachers.” See Principles, 123–124.

52 Gantt, Work, Wages, and Profits, 155, 269. For more sympathetic views of Gantt's ideas, see Alford, Gantt and Urwick, L. and Brech, E. F. L., The Making of Scientific Management, (London, 1945), I, 77–78.Google Scholar

53 The leaders included the Plimpton Press, Joseph & Feiss, Eastern Manufacturing Company, and Cheney Brothers. Henry Kendall, general manager of Plimpton Press and supporter of scientific management, was responsible for the introduction of formal personnel work there. Richard A. Feiss' role is described later. In the other cases, however, the two developments were distinct. See e.g., Thompson, Sanford E. et al., “Development of Scientific Methods of Management in a Manufacturing Plant,” ASME Transactions, vol. 39 (1917), 129.Google Scholar

54 Time study men from Tabor and Link Belt often assisted Barth and Hathaway. Sanford E. Thompson's partner, William O. Lichtner, also was employed on several jobs. See Merrick, Dwight, Time Studies as a Basis for Rate Setting (New York, 1920)Google Scholar, and Lichtner, William O., Time Study and Job Analysis (New York, 1921).Google Scholar

55 Gilbreth to Taylor, September 15, 1913, Gilbreth Papers; H. N. Stronch, “A Report on the Operation of Scientific Management at the New England Butt Company,” October 18, 1913, Gilbreth Papers.

56 See Stronch, , “Report,” Gilbreth Papers; “Micro-Motion Study,” IEED, XIII (January, 1913), 1–4Google Scholar; “A New Development in Factory Study, IEED, XIII (February, 1913), 58–61; “Discussion,” ASME Transactions, vol. 34 (1912), 1182–1187. For Gilbreth's later work, see K. H. Condit, “Management Methods and Principles of Frank B. Gilbreth, Inc., American Machinist, vol. 58 (January 4, February 22, March 22, May 3, 1923), 33–35, 293–295, 443–447, 665–667; vol. 59 (July 5, August 30, 1923), 25–27, 329–334.

59 C. B. Thompson, Theory and Practice, 79.

58 Gantt, Work, Wages, and Profits, Ch. vii.

59 Clark, Sue A. and Wyatt, Edith, Making Both Ends Meet (New York, 1911), 261.Google Scholar Also see Nelson, Darnel and Campbell, Stuart, “Taylorism Versus Welfare Work in American Industry: H. L. Gantt and the Bancrofts,” Business History Review, XLVI (Spring, 1972), 12–13.Google Scholar Keely encountered a similar problem at the Baird Machine Works. Keely to Taylor, April 9, April 22, 1914, Taylor Collection, File 137D.

60 Barth to Taylor, August 13, 1908, Taylor Collection, File 113A. For similar experiences at Amoskeag, see “Planning Office Papers,” Amoskeag Papers (Baker Library, Harvard Business School, Boston), DG-1 and at Forbes Lithograph see Barth to Taylor, July 18, 1911, Taylor Collection, File 113C.

61 See Clark and Wyatt, Making Both Ends Meet; also compare Commission on Industrial Relations, Report, I, 1016–1017 and “Discussion,” ASME Transactions, vol. 30 (1908), 1049–1050 regarding the Brighton Mills.

62 Mathewson, Stanley B., Restriction of Output Among Unorganized Workers (New York, 1931), 74–77.Google Scholar

63 See Clark and Wyatt, Making Both Ends Meet, for the statements of workers of the Sayles Bleachery and Brighton Mills.

64 Gantt to Taylor, September 23, 1911, Taylor Collection, File 121B; Amoskeag Manufacturing Company, “History 1805–1948,” (Unpub., n.d., copy at Baker Library), 4th part; Adjustments, Vol. 1, Amoskeag Papers, CA-1.

65 See Alford, Gantt, Ch. 8; Nelson, and Campbell, , “Taylorism Versus Welfare Work,” 12–15; “Canadian Pacific Shop Management,” American Machinist, 35 (December 21, 1911), 1164–1167Google Scholar; E. Robertson to J. Christian Barth, January 31, 1912, Barth Papers, Drawer 2; Taylor to Barth, March 28, 1907, March 31, 1910, Taylor Collection, File 113A; Henry R. Towne to Kempton P. A. Taylor, August 11, 1915, Taylor Collection, File 14AA; Towne to Frank B. Copley, May 2, 1921, Taylor Collection, File 14AA; Nadworny, “Frederick Taylor and Frank Gilbreth,” 23–34; C. B. Thompson to Taylor, December 28, 1914, Taylor Collection, File 52G; Taylor to Cooke, June 6, 1911, Taylor Collection, File 116B; S. E. Thompson et al., “Development of Scientific Methods, 129; Evans, Cost Keeping, 142, 234; Evans, One Man's Fight, 179–180; Taylor to Henry Kendall, February 26, 1913, Taylor Collection, File 137D; Taylor to H. K. Hathaway, December 15, 1913, Taylor Collection, File 122C; Barth to Taylor, July 18, 1908, Taylor Collection, File 113C; Kendall to Kempton P. A. Taylor, August 18, 1915, Taylor Collection, File 14P. H. H. Vaughan, Gantt's employer at the Canadian Pacific shops, was the only member of the ASME's 1912 Sub-Committee on Administration who refused to sign the famous report on “The Present State of the Art of Industrial Management,” which generally endorsed the Taylor System. “The Minority Report,” ASME Transactions, vol. 34 (1912), 1151–1152.

66 C. B. Thompson, Theory and Practice, 100–101. There were strikes at the Sayles Bleachery, Mare Island shipyard, and Watertown Arsenal. Workers at several American Locomotive Company shops struck after Gantt completed his work and Emerson had been employed to install his wage plan. See Alford, Gantt, 1908, 116; Evans, One Man's Fight, 202–204; Aitken, Taylorism, Ch. 4; and Narworny, Scientific Management and the Unions, 27–28.

67 The exact nature of the workers' complaints at the Sayles Bleachery are unclear. Alford reported that the employees wanted a wage increase in return for accepting Gantt's reforms. At Mare Island and Watertown Arsenal the strikes occurred when the experts subjected the workers to time study (Watertown) and the incentive wage (Mare Island) before they introduced other shop reforms. The work stoppages were thus not against scientific management but isolated features of it. They confirmed Taylor's frequent prediction that scientific management improperly applied would lead to labor troubles. See Aitken, Taylorism, Ch. 4 and Evans, One Man's Fight, 202–203. For evidence that scientific management improved labor-management relations, see H. K. Hathaway to Taylor, March 13, 1910, Taylor Collection, File 122A; Drury, Horace B., Scientific Management (New York, 1915), 129Google Scholar; Lewis, “Object Lesson in Efficiency,” 381; U.S. Commission on Industrial Relations, Final Report and Testimony, IV, 3176–3177.

68 See, for example, Hearings Before the Special Committee of the House of Representatives, III, 1443–1452.

69 The best source on Taylor's relations with his followers is Nadworny, Scientific Management and the Unions, Chs. 3–5.

70 H. K. Hathaway to Oberlin Smith, October 30, 1906; Smith to Hathaway, January 7, 1907, Taylor Collection, File 138G; Parkhurst, Applied Methods.

71 Fry, Charles H., “Shop Betterment Work on the Santa Fe,” The Railroad Gazette, XLI (November 30, 1906), 479–480Google Scholar; Going, Charles Buxton, “Methods of the Santa Fe, Efficiency in the Manufacture of Transportation,” II, Engineering Magazine, XXXVII (April, 1909), 9–36Google Scholar; III (May, 1909), 225–248; IV (June, 1909), 337–360.

72 Taylor wrote in December, 1911 that the Santa Fe shops “were about one-quarter way toward scientific management” — his most generous statement about Emerson since 1907. Taylor to William Crazier, December 8, 1911, Taylor Collection, File 185B.

73 Gilson, Mary Bamett, What's Past is Prologue (New York, 1940), 57.Google Scholar Taylor described the Joseph & Feiss factory as the “best plant anywhere.” Taylor to Gantt, November 23, 1914, Taylor Collection, File 121B.

74 Gilson, What's Past, 58–59, 81; Fiess, Richard A., “Personal Relationship as a Basis of Scientific Management,” Bulletin of the Taylor Society, I (November, 1915), 5–15.Google Scholar

75 Hoxie, Scientific Management and Labor.

76 Nadworny, Milton J., “The Society for the Promotion of the Science of Management,” Explorations in Entrepreneurial History, vol. 5 (May 15, 1953), 246.Google Scholar

77 Copley, Taylor, I, 206.

78 Despite the controversy over time study and its wide use after World War I, Stanley Mathewson's 1931 study suggested that it had little effect on the worker; Mathewson, Restriction of Output, Ch. 4. Also see Abruzzi, Adam, Work, Workers, and Work Measurement (New York, 1956), 18–20.Google Scholar Neither the Taylor nor the Gantt incentive wage plans were widely used in the 1920s. National Industrial Conference Board, Systems of Wage Payment (New York, 1930), 8–9.Google Scholar