Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T01:18:33.420Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Physiological Science and Scientific Management in the Progressive Era: Frederic S. Lee and the Committee on Industrial Fatigue

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 December 2011

Alan Derickson
Alan Derickson
Affiliation:
Alan Derickson is associate professor of labor studies and history at Pennsylvania State University, University Park
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article explores the first attempt by American physiologists to assist employers with the stubborn problem of tired workers. It examines the work of Frederic Lee and the Committee on Industrial Fatigue, which was set up to increase productivity in the face of the long hours deemed necessary for war readiness. Despite the biomedical investigators' strenuous efforts and their incisive critique of Taylorism, however, corporate management found few practical uses for their findings and remedial proposals. Instead, industrial physiology helped to pave the way for rival consultants from psychology.

Type
Articles
Information
Business History Review , Volume 68 , Issue 4: Experts, War and The State , Winter 1994 , pp. 483 - 514
Copyright
Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College 1994

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 O'Connell, James, “The Manhood Tribute to the Modern Machine: Influences Determining the Length of the Trade Life among Machinists,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 27 (May 1906): 29–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Montgomery, David, The Fall of the House of Labor: The Workplace, the State, and American Labor Activism, 1865–1925 (New York, 1987), 90, 128–31, 150–54, 192CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brody, David, Steelworkers in America: The Nonunion Era (1960; New York, 1969), chap. 2Google Scholar; Nelson, Daniel, Managers and Workers: Origins of the New Factory System in the United States, 1880–1920 (Madison, Wise, 1975), 27, 29Google Scholar; Kniesner, Thomas J., “The Full-Time Workweek in the United States, 1900–1970,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 30 (Oct. 1976): 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

On similar changes during early industrialization in Europe, see Sewell, William H. Jr., “Uneven Development, the Autonomy of Politics, and the Dockworkers of Nineteenth-Century Marseille,” American Historical Review 93 (June 1988): 604–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Thompson, E. P., The Making of the English Working Class (London, 1963)Google Scholar; Samuel, Raphael, “Workshop of the World: Steam Power and Hand Technology in Mid-Victorian Britain,” History Workshop 3 (Spring 1977): 6–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Goldmark, Josephine, Fatigue and Efficiency: A Study in Industry (New York, 1912)Google Scholar, quotation at 121; Haber, Samuel, Efficiency and Uplift: Scientific Management and the Progressive Era, 1890–1920 (Chicago, Ill., 1964), especially ix–x, 51–74Google Scholar; Emerson, Harrington, Efficiency as a Basis for Operation and Wages (New York, 1911)Google Scholar.

3 Goldmark, Fatigue and Efficiency, 184–91, 210–319; Rochester, Anna, “The Eight-Hour Day for Children,” Child Labor Bulletin 2 (Feb. 1914): 40–48Google Scholar; Frankfurter, Felix and Goldmark, Josephine, The Case for the Shorter Work Day (New York, n.d. [1916?])Google Scholar; Trattner, Walter I., Crusade for the Children: A History of the National Child Labor Committee and Child Labor Reform in America (Chicago, Ill., 1970), chaps. 3—5Google Scholar; Lehrer, Susan, Origins of Protective Labor Legislation for Women, 1905–1925 (Albany, N.Y., 1987)Google Scholar; Derickson, Alan, “Making Human Junk: Child Labor as a Health Issue in the Progressive Era,” American Journal of Public Health 82 (Sept. 1992): 1280–90CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Kessler-Harris, Alice, Out to Work: A History of Wage-Earning Women in the United States (New York, 1982), 180–214Google Scholar.

4 On the proliferation of welfare programs in the mid-twentieth century, see Munts, Raymond, Bargaining for Health: Labor Unions, Health Insurance, and Medical Care (Madison, Wise, 1967)Google Scholar; Derickson, Alan, “Health Security for All? Social Unionism and Universal Health Insurance, 1935–1958,” Journal of American History 80 (March 1994): 1344–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stevens, Beth, “Labor Unions, Employee Benefits, and the Privatization of the American Welfare State,” Journal of Policy History 2 (1990): 233–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dobbin, Frank R., “The Origins of Private Social Insurance: Public Policy and Fringe Benefits in America, 1920–1950,” American Journal of Sociology 97 (March 1992): 1416–50CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Lichtenstein, Nelson, “Labor in the Truman Era: Origins of the ‘Private Welfare State,’” in The Truman Presidency, ed. Lacey, Michael J. (Cambridge, England, 1989), 128–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the preceding phase of welfare capitalism, see Brandes, Stuart, American Welfare Capitalism, 1880—1940 (Chicago, Ill., 1976)Google Scholar; Brody, David, Workers in Industrial America: Essays on the Twentieth Century Struggle (New York, 1980), 48–81Google Scholar; Jacoby, Sanford M., Employing Bureaucracy: Managers, Unions, and the Transformation of Work in American Industry, 1900—1945 (New York, 1985), 49–64, 219–21, 234–35, 266–67Google Scholar.

5 Gillespie, Richard, “Industrial Fatigue and the Discipline of Physiology,” in Physiology in the American Context, 1850–1940, ed. Geison, Gerald L. (Bethesda, Md., 1987), 237–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Recent studies of fatigue in Europe certainly suggest some of the influences at work in North America. See Rabinbach, Anson, The Human Motor: Energy, Fatigue, and the Origins of Modernity (New York, 1990)Google Scholar; Mclvor, A. J., “Employers, the Government, and Industrial Fatigue in Britain, 1890–1918,” British Journal of Industrial Medicine 44 (Nov. 1987): 724–32Google Scholar; Cross, Gary, A Quest for Time: The Reduction of Work in Britain and France, 1840–1940 (Berkeley, Calif, 1989), 103–28Google Scholar.

6 Mclvor, “Employers, the Government,” 730—31; Great Britain, Ministry of Munitions, Health of Munition Workers Committee [hereafter cited as HMWC], Employment of Women, Memorandum 4, Cd. 8185 (London, 1916)Google Scholar; HMWC, Hours of Work, Memorandum 5, Cd. 8186 (London, 1916)Google Scholar; HMWC, Industrial Fatigue and Its Causes, Memorandum 7, Cd. 8213 (London, 1916)Google Scholar; HMWC, Final Report: Industrial Health and Efficiency, Cd. 9065 (London, 1918)Google Scholar.

7 HMWC, Hours of Work, 5–6, 9; HMWC, Final Report, 29–120.

8 HMWC, Industrial Fatigue and Its Causes, 3 (quotation), 3–11; HMWC, Final Report, 15–20.

9 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Hours, Fatigue and Health in British Munition Factories, Bulletin 221 (Washington, D.C., 1917)Google Scholar; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Welfare Work in British Munition Factories, Bulletin 222 (Washington, D.C., 1917)Google Scholar; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, The Employment of Women and Juveniles in Great Britain during the War, Bulletin 223 (Washington, D.C., 1917)Google Scholar; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Industrial Efficiency and Fatigue in British Munition Factories, Bulletin 230 (Washington, D.C., 1917)Google Scholar; Walter, Henriette R., Munition Workers in England and France: A Summary of Reports Issued by the British Ministry of Munitions (New York, 1917)Google Scholar; Lee, Frederic S., The Human Machine and Industrial Efficiency (New York, 1918), 4, 28, 30, 34, 45, 67–68, 71—72Google Scholar; Lee, , “Fatigue and Occupation,” in Diseases of Occupation and Vocational Hygiene, ed. Kober, George M. and Hanson, William C. (Philadelphia, Pa., 1916), 249–53Google Scholar; National Industrial Conference Board, Analysis of British Wartime Reports of Hours of Work as Related to Output and Fatigue (Boston, Mass., 1917), especially 5, 13, 32Google Scholar.

10 Kennedy, David M., Over Here. The First World War and American Society (Oxford, England, 1980), 93–143Google Scholar; Cuff, Robert D., The War Industries Board: Business-Government Relations during World War I (Baltimore, Md., 1973)Google Scholar.

11 CIF, “Stenographic Report of the Proceedings,” 24 May 1917, Frederic S. Lee Papers, box 6, Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Butler Library, Columbia University, New York; Thomas Darlington, “What Causes Fatigue?” Monthly Bulletin of the American Iron and Steel Institute, May 1913, 163; Darlington, Thomas, “Present Scope of Welfare Work in the Iron and Steel Industry,” in Year Book of the American Iron and Steel Institute, 1914, comp. James T. McCleary (New York, 1915), 239–52Google Scholar. Darlington wasted no time in warning the committee not to plan to do any research at U.S. Steel, “because they object to the unionizing of their plants.” See CIF, “Proceedings,” 24 May 1917, Lee Papers, box 6. Recent attention to the long work day as a factor in steelworkers' fatigue and, in turn, injuries and diseases may well have irritated Darlington and others in his industry. See Fitch, John A., The Steel Workers (1910; Pittsburgh, Pa., 1989), 62–63Google Scholar; U.S. Bureau of Mines, Health Conservation at Steel Mills, by Watkins, J. A., Technical Paper 102 (Washington, D.C., 1916), 10, 21–22Google Scholar; U.S. Senate, Report on Conditions of Employment in the Iron and Steel Industry in the United States, 4 vols., 62d Cong., 1st sess., Senate Doc. 110, vol. 4: Accidents and Accident Prevention (Washington, D.C., 1913), 75–85, 151–52Google Scholar.

12 CIF, “Stenographic Report of the Proceedings,” 6, 25 June 1917, Lee Papers, box 6; Lee, Frederic S., “Some Phases of Industrial Fatigue,” American Journal of Physiology 45 (1 March 1918): 535Google Scholar.

13 Lee, Frederic S., “Is the Eight-Hour Working-Day Rational?” Science 44 (24 Nov. 1916): 737CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed (quotation), 734 (quotation), 727–35; The National Cyclopedia of American Biography (New York, 1941), 29: 24–25Google Scholar; Williams, Horatio B., “Frederic Schiller Lee,” Science 91 (9 Feb. 1940): 133CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Frederic S. Lee, “Introduction,” in Goldmark, Fatigue and Efficiency, v-vi. Lee turned to industrial applications only after failing to move physiology out of the medical school and into the mainstream of pure science at Columbia. See Pauly, Philip J., “The Appearance of Academic Biology in Late Nineteenth-Century America,” Journal of the History of Biology 17 (Fall 1984): 388–89CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

14 CIF, “Minutes,” 24 May 1917; 25 June 1917, both in Lee Papers, box 6.

15 Ibid., 30 July 1917 (quotation), 25 June 1917, 26 Nov. 1917, Lee Papers, box 6; Frederic S. Lee to Frederick P. Keppel, 13 Aug. 1917, Lee Papers, box 1, folder “ke.”

16 CIF, “Proceedings,” 7 March 1918, 22 Oct. 1917; CIF, “Minutes,” 7 March 1918, Lee Papers, box 6.

17 Divisional Committee of Industrial Fatigue, “How Industrial Fatigue May Be Reduced,” Public Health Reports 33 (16 Aug. 1918): 1353Google Scholar (quotation), 1347–55; PHS, Annual Report of the Surgeon General, Fiscal Year 1917 (Washington, D.C., 1917), 37Google Scholar (quotation), 36–37. The brevity of Lee's report perhaps reflected Darlington's advice to keep his message to eight pages or less: “Business men of importance won't read anything longer than that. They are mostly men of 60 years of age or more; their eyesight is not good, and they won't bother to read anything unless it is short and well printed and on good paper.” See CIF, “Proceedings,” 7 March 1918, Lee Papers, box 6. One member of the CIF felt compelled to state that the group was “not working to shorten hours.” See Edsall, David L., “Medical-Industrial Relations of the War,” Johns Hopkins Hospital Bulletin 29 (Sept. 1918): 200Google Scholar.

18 CIF, “Proceedings,” 30 July 1917 (Lee quotation), Lee Papers, box 6; National Industrial Conference Board, Rest Periods for Industrial Workers, Research Report 13 (Boston, Mass., 1919), 2, 47–55Google Scholar. On labor policy at Ford, see Meyer, Stephen III, The Five Dollar Day: Labor Management and Social Control in the Ford Motor Company, 1908–1921 (Albany, N.Y., 1981), 95–168Google Scholar, especially 109, 120; Lewchuk, Wayne A., “Men and Monotony: Fraternalism as a Managerial Strategy at the Ford Motor Company,” Journal of Economic History 53 (Dec. 1993): 824–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 HMWC, Final Report, 14 (quotation), 14–16, 26, 122–23.

20 J. W. Schereschewsky to Surgeon General, 3 Nov. 1917 (quotation) and 24 Sept. 1917, both U.S. Public Health Service Records, RG 90, General Correspondence, 1897–1923, box 196, file 2048-M, National Archives, Washington, D.C.; CIF, “Proceedings,” 26 Nov. 1917, Lee Papers, box 6; National Industrial Conference Board, Rest Periods, 13, 42.

21 Frederic S. Lee to Surgeon General, 3 Oct. 1918, RG 90, General Correspondence, 1897–1923, box 196, file 2048-M.

22 J. W. Schereschewsky to Surgeon General, 5 Jan. 1918, PHS Records, RG 90, General Correspondence, 1897–1923, box 196, file 2048-M; Lee, Frederic S., “Industrial Efficiency: The Bearings of Physiological Science Thereon: A Review of Recent Work,” Public Health Reports 33 (11 Jan. 1918): 31Google Scholar; HMWC, Final Report, 156; P. S. Florence, “Methods for Field Study of Industrial Fatigue,” ibid. (15 March 1918): 349–53.

23 CIF, “Minutes,” 7 March 1918, Lee Papers, box 6.

24 Kniesner, “The Full-Time Workweek in the United States,” 4; Roediger, David R. and Foner, Philip S., Our Own Time: A History of American Labor and the Working Day (London, England, 1989), 177, 201–8Google Scholar; Montgomery, David, Workers' Control in America: Studies in the History of Work, Technology, and Labor Struggles (New York, 1979), 127–30Google Scholar; Hewes, Amy, Women as Munition Makers: A Study of Conditions in Bridgeport, Connecticut (New York, 1917), especially 12–13Google Scholar; Brass Workers History Project, Brass Valley: The Story of Working People's Lives and Struggles in an American Industrial Region, comp. and ed. Brecher, Jeremy, Lombardi, Jerry, and Stackhouse, Jan (Philadelphia, Pa., 1982), 73Google Scholar; Waterbury American, 23 Jan. 1918, 1.

25 “Protection of Labor Standards,” Monthly Review of the US Bureau of Labor Statistics 4 (May 1917): 660Google Scholar; Conner, Valerie J., The National War Labor Board: Stability, Social Justice, and the Voluntary State in World War I (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1983), 89–107Google Scholar; Cuff, Robert D., “The Politics of Labor Administration during World War I,” Labor History 21 (Fall 1980): 546–69, especially 560CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Maurine Weiner Greenwald, Women, War and Work: The Impact of World War I on Women Workers in the United States (1980; Ithaca, N.Y., 1990), 58–60, 73Google Scholar.

26 SFA [Scovill Foremen's Association] News, June 1915 (quotation), Aug.1915; Scovill Bulletin, April 1917; Scovill Manufacturing Company Bulletin, 1918–20, especially July 1918, 6; March 1919, 10; Bucki, Cecelia F., Metal, Minds and Machines: Waterbury at Work (Waterbury, Conn., 1980), 75–79Google Scholar; Yates, JoAnne, Control through Communication: The Rise of System in American Management (Baltimore, Md., 1989), 194—99Google Scholar. On the rise of systematic management at Scovill, see Yates, Control through Communication, 159–200, especially 168–80, 194–95.

27 PHS, Comparison of an Eight-Hour Plant and a Ten-Hour Plant, by Goldmark, Josephine and Hopkins, Mary D., Public Health Bulletin 106 (Washington, D.C., 1920), 176Google Scholar (Goldmark quotation); P. S. Florence, “Sixth Report of Investigators at Scovill's,” 28 Jan. 1918, RG 90, General Correspondence, 1897–1923, box 196, file 2048-M; Florence, “Tenth Report of Investigation at Scovill's,” 2 March 1918, ibid.

28 P.S. Florence, “Twenty-First Report of Investigation at Scoville's” [sic], 25 May 1918; Florence to John H. Goss, 7 June 1918; Florence, “Twenty-Third Report of Investigation at Scoville's” [sic], 8 June 1918—all RG 90, General Correspondence, 1897–1923, box 196, file 2048-M; PHS, Comparison, 21. Along the same lines, see Gilbreth, Frank B. and Gilbreth, Lillian M., Fatigue Study: The Elimination of Humanity's Greatest Unnecessary Waste, 2d ed. (New York, 1919), 164Google Scholar: “To acknowledge fatigue was effeminate.”

29 H[elen] D[uncan] to R. E. Platt, 20 May 1919 (quotations); M. Conlee to Platt, 7 April 1919; Duncan to B. P. Hyde, 17 Feb. 1919; M.C. C[onlee] to Hyde, 18 June 1919; untitled collection of lyrics—all in Scovill Manufacturing Company Records, Collection II, Case 33, folder “Rest Periods and Singing, 1919—20,” Special Collections Department, Baker Library, Harvard University, Boston, Mass.; Scovill Manufacturing Company Bulletin, April 1919, 13. On self-organized singing at work, see Gutman, Herbert G., Work, Culture, and Society in Industrializing America: Essays in American Working-Class and Social History (New York, 1976), 34Google Scholar; Peiss, Kathy, Cheap Amusements: Working Women and Leisure in Turn-of-the-Century New York (Philadelphia, Pa., 1986), 46–49Google Scholar; Glenn, Susan A., Daughters of the Shtetl: Life and Labor in the Immigrant Generation (Ithaca, N.Y., 1990), 135–36Google Scholar.

30 Bennett, Dianne and Graebner, William, “Safety First: Slogan and Symbol of the Industrial Safety Movement,” Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society 68 (June 1975): 243–56Google Scholar; Brody, Steelworkers, 165–70; Brandes, American Welfare Capitalism. On scientific management at Scovill, see Bucki, Metal, Minds and Machines, 75; SFA News, 1915–16, especially Dec. 1915; Scovill Bulletin, 1917, especially Feb. and April 1917.

31 Lee, Frederic S., The Harvey Lectures, 1917–1919 (Philadelphia, Pa., 1920), 230Google Scholar (quotation), 230–31; Spaeth, Reynold A., “The Prevention of Fatigue in Manufacturing Industries,” Journal of Industrial Hygiene 1 (Jan. 1920): 440Google Scholar.

32 Gilbreth and Gilbreth, Fatigue Study, 162 (quotation); National Industrial Conference Board, Rest Periods, 8 (quotation), 2, 7, 47–55Google Scholar; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Welfare Work for Employees in Industrial Establishments in the United States, Bulletin 250 (Washington, D.C. 1919), 33–35Google Scholar; Wolfe, A. B. and Olson, Helen, “War-Time Industrial Employment of Women in the United States,” Journal of Political Economy 27 (Oct. 1919): 654–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar; National Industrial Conference Board, Wartime Employment of Women in the Metal Trades, Research Report 8 (Boston, Mass., 1918), 64–67Google Scholar.

33 Taylor, Frederick W., The Principles of Scientific Management (New York, 1911), 13–24Google Scholar; Taylor, Frederick W., Scientific Management, Comprising Shop Management, The Principles of Scientific Management, Testimony before the Special House Committee (New York, 1947), 8–10, 183–85Google Scholar.

34 Taylor, , Principles of Scientific Management, 39 (quotation), 39–48, 53–64, 92, 137Google Scholar.

35 Gilbreth, Frank B., Motion Study: A Method for Increasing the Efficiency of the Workman (New York, 1911), 25 (quotation), 29, 56–58Google Scholar; Thompson, C. Bertrand, The Theory and Practice of Scientific Management (Boston, Mass., 1917), 239–40Google Scholar (quotation), 240 (quotation). Outside Taylor's circle, rival management advisors and unionists less gently questioned Taylor's sweeping scientific assertions. See A. Hamilton Church, “Has ‘Scientific Management’ Science,” American Machinist 20 July 1911, 108–12; Commons, John R., “Organized Labor's Attitude toward Industrial Efficiency,” American Economic Review 1 (Sept. 1911): 463–72Google Scholar; Nadworny, Milton J., Scientific Management and the Unions, 1900–1932 (Cambridge, Mass., 1955)Google Scholar; Aitken, Hugh G. J., Taylorism at Watertown Arsenal: Scientific Management in Action, 1908–1915 (Cambridge, Mass., 1960), 5–9, 135–85Google Scholar.

36 Goldmark, Fatigue and Efficiency, 192 (quotation), 199 (quotation), 203–4 (quotation), 206 (quotation), 191–210; Feiss, Richard A., “Scientific Management and its Relation to the Health of the Worker,” American Journal of Public Health 7 (March 1917): 262–67CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Haber, Efficiency and Uplift, 75–82; Nelson, Daniel, Frederick W. Taylor and the Rise of Scientific Management (Madison, Wise, 1980), 174–76, 179Google Scholar.

37 Hoxie, Robert F., Scientific Management and Labor (New York, 1916), 15Google Scholar (quotation), 55 (quotation), 17–18, 46, 55–56, 90; Nadworny, Scientific Management and Unions, 87–96.

38 Nelson, Taylor and the Rise of Scientific Management, 95 (quotation), 96 (quotation), 171–72; Nelson, Daniel, “Taylorism and the Workers at Bethlehem Steel, 1898–1901,” Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 101 (Oct. 1977): 487–505Google Scholar; Wrege, Charles D. and Perroni, Amedeo G., “Taylor's Pig-Tale: A Historical Analysis of Frederick W. Taylor's Pig-iron Experiments,” Academy of Management Journal 17 (March 1974): 6–27Google Scholar; Wrege, Charles D. and Greenwood, Ronald G., Frederick W. Taylor, the Father of Scientific Management: Myth and Reality (Homewood, Ill., 1991), 102–17Google Scholar; Braverman, Harry, Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century (New York, 1974), 86–90Google Scholar; Haber, Efficiency and Uplift, x.

39 Wrege and Perroni erroneously place Reynold Spaeth among those who cite Taylor's pig-iron study as “an example of the revolutionary character of his contributions to management and industrial psychology.” See “Taylor's Pig-Tale,” 7. On the other hand, Richard Gillespie's study does briefly note the scientific attack on the deficiencies of Taylorism; see “Industrial Fatigue and Physiology,” 251.

40 Lee, Harvey Lectures, 233 (quotation), 216–19, 232–33.

41 Lee, “Fatigue and Occupation,” 268 (quotation); Lee, Human Machine, 25 (quotation), 26 (quotation), 93 (quotation), 94 (quotation), 25–27, 90–95.

42 Lee, Human Machine, 94 (all quotations), 94—95. Lee's contention that scientific management neglected to install rest periods may well have been wrong. See Conference Board, Rest Periods, 28–29.

43 Spaeth, Reynold A., “The Problem of Fatigue,” Journal of Industrial Hygiene 1 (May 1919): 26 (quotation), 41 (quotation), 40–41Google Scholar.

44 Spaeth, “Prevention of Fatigue in Manufacturing,” 445 (quotation), 435, 444–47. For Spaeth's criticism of the Gilbreths' work, see ibid., 446–47.

45 Kevles, Daniel J., “Testing the Army's Intelligence: Psychologists and the Military in World War I,” Journal of American History 55 (Dec. 1968): 565–81, especially 580–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mayrhauser, Richard T. Von, “The Manager, the Medic, and the Mediator: The Clash of Professional Psychological Styles and the Wartime Origins of Group Mental Testing,” in Psychological Testing and American Society, 1890–1930, ed. Sokal, Michael M. (New Brunswick, N.J., 1987), 128–57Google Scholar; Jacoby, Employing Bureaucracy, 148—49.

46 Lee, Human Machine, 6. For an early fruitless attempt to measure fatigue in factory workers in the United States, see Addams, Jane, Twenty Years at Hull-House (1910; New York, 1961), 213Google Scholar; Addams, Jane and Hamilton, Alice, “The ‘Piece-Work’ System as a Factor in the Tuberculosis of Wage-Workers,” in Sixth International Congress on Tuberculosis, Transactions, 6 vols. (Philadelphia, Pa., 1908), 3: 139–40Google Scholar.

47 Lee, Harvey Lectures, 226 (quotations); Martin, E. G., “Strength Tests in Industry,” American Journal of Physiology 45 (1 March 1918): 538–39Google Scholar; U.S. Surgeon General, Annual Report, Fiscal Year 1918 (Washington, D.C., 1918), 39Google Scholar; Lee, Human Machine, 8–9; PHS, Comparison, 46, 209–10.

48 Ryan, A. H. and Gordon, J. H., “The Quantitative Measurement of General Fatigue,” American Journal of Physiology 45 (1 March 1918): 537–38Google Scholar; P. S. Florence and A. H. Ryan, “Weekly Report on Fatigue Investigation, … for Week Ending Jan. 25, 1919,” n.d.; P. S. Florence and A. H. Ryan, “Weekly Report on Fatigue Investigation,… for Week Ending March 22, 1919,” n.d., both in PHS Records, RG 90, General Correspondence, 1897–1923, box 195, file 2048-M; PHS, Comparison, 200–210; Spaeth, “Problem of Fatigue,” 30, 34–35; CIF “Stenographic Report of the Proceedings,” 7 March 1918, Lee Papers, box 6; Frederick S. Lee to E.G. Martin, 10 June 1922, ibid., box 2, folder “E. G. Martin.”

49 HMWC, Final Report, 16 (quotations), 18 (quotation).

50 P. S. Florence and A. H. Ryan, “Weekly Report on Fatigue Investigation,… for the Week Ending June 7, 1919,” n.d., PHS Records, RG 90, General Correspondence, 1897–1923, box 195, file 2048-M; A. H. Ryan to Josephine Goldmark, 5 Oct. 1918, ibid., box 196, file 2048-M; Ryan, A. H. and Florence, P. S., “Rythm [sic] in Industry,” Public Health Reports 34 (25 July 1919): 1621–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar; PHS, Comparison, 207–10.

51 Frederic S. Lee to J. W. Schereschewsky, 10 Nov. 1919, PHS Records, RG 90, General Correspondence, 1897–1923, box 195, file 2048-M; U.S. Surgeon General, Annual Report, Fiscal Year 1919 (Washington, D.C., 1919), 43Google Scholar.

52 CIF, “Stenographic Report of the Proceedings,” 28 June 1918, Lee Papers, box 6,; Josephine Goldmark to J. W. Schereschewsky, 1 July 1918, PHS Records, RG 90, General Correspondence, 1897–1923, box 196, file 2048-M; PHS, Comparison, especially 207–10.

53 Gompers, Samuel, “Proof of the Pudding,” American Federationist, June 1920, 541 (quotation), 541–42Google Scholar; National Industrial Conference Board, Unwarranted Conclusions Regarding the Eight-Hour and Ten-Hour Workday, Special Report 14 (New York, 1920), v (quotation), 2, 4, 17—21Google Scholar; Drinker, C. K., “Abstract: Studies in Industrial Physiology,” Journal of Industrial Hygiene 2 (Oct. 1920): 109–15Google Scholar; A. H. Ryan, “Discussion of Public Health Bulletin No. 106, Comparison of an Eight-Hour Plant and a Ten-Hour Plant,” ibid. (April 1921): 466–78. For the rejoinder, see Josephine Goldmark and Mary D. Hopkins, “Studies in Industrial Physiology: … A Reply,” ibid. (Jan. 1921): 348—51; P. Sargant Florence, “A Reply to Discussion of Public Health Bulletin No. 106, Comparison of an Eight-Hour Plant and a Ten-Hour Plant,” ibid. (April 1921): 479–85.

54 Waterbury American, 27 May 1920, 1 (quotation); 14 April 1920, 14; 15 April 1920, 1; 22 April 1920, 1, 3; 23 April 1920, 1; 27 April 1920, 1.

55 Scovill Manufacturing Company Bulletin, May 1920, 4; June 1920, 4; July 1920, 8; Waterbury American, 4 May 1920, 1, 14; 5 May 1920, 1; 20 May 1920, 1; 21 May 1920, 1, 12; 25 May 1920, 1; 10 June 1920, 1; 29 June 1920, 1; 14 July 1920, 1.

56 Southard, E. E., “The Modern Specialist in Unrest: A Place for the Psychiatrist in Industry,” Journal of Industrial Hygiene 2 (May 1920): 11–19Google Scholar; Fisk, Eugene L. and Sharp, C. T., “Health of Industrial Workers,” in Waste in Industry, ed. Committee of Elimination of Waste in Industry, Federated American Engineering Societies (New York, 1921), 364–65Google Scholar; Stiles, Percy G., “Types of Fatigue,” American Journal of Public Health 10 (Aug. 1920): 653—56CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Robinson, Edward S., “Factors Affecting Human Efficiency,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 110 (Nov. 1923): 97, 103CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Elton Mayo, “The Irrational Factor in Human Behavior: The ‘Night-Mind’ in Industry,” ibid., 117–30; Baritz, Loren, The Servants of Power: A History of the Use of Social Science in American Industry (Middletown, Conn., 1960), 42–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On prewar psychological interest in fatigue in the United States, see Munsterberg, Hugo, Psychology and Industrial Efficiency (Boston, Mass., 1913), 216–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hale, Matthew Jr., Human Science and Social Order: Hugo Munsterberg and the Origins of Applied Psychology (Philadelphia, Pa., 1980), 148–63Google Scholar.

57 Lee, Frederic S., “The New Science of Industrial Physiology,” Public Health Reports 34 (11 April 1919): 724Google Scholar (quotation), 723–28.

58 “Industrial Physiology, a New Science,” Monthly Labor Review 9 (Sept. 1919): 902 (quotation), 902–4; Bernard J. Newman to J. H. Friedel, 27 May 1920, PHS Records, RG 90, General Correspondence, 1897–1923, box 195, file 2048-M.

59 Flinn, Frederick B., “Industrial Aspects of Human Fatigue,” Journal of Personnel Research 2 (Nov. 1923): 285–93, especially 289Google Scholar; Muscio, B., “Is a Fatigue Test Possible?” British Journal of Psychology 12 (June 1921): 31–45Google Scholar; Hayhurst, Emery R., “Points in the Detection of Industrial Fatigue and Measures for Its Possible Complete Elimination,” Journal of Industrial Hygiene 2 (Nov. 1920): 256–58Google Scholar. Advances in bacteriology also fostered hopes for a panacea. The notion that a toxin caused fatigue led to a search for an antitoxin that would immunize employees at risk. See Flinn, “Industrial Aspects of Human Fatigue,” 287; Rabinbach, Human Motor, 141–45.

60 Rockefeller Foundation, “Conference on Industrial Hygiene,” 14 Nov. 1919, 25—29, 39–41, 45–7, PHS Records, General Correspondence, 1924–1935, box 97, file 0875–96; Drinker, Cecil K. and Drinker, Katherine R., “Economic Aspects of Industrial Medicine,” Journal of Industrial Hygiene 2 (Oct. 1920): 53–65Google Scholar; Sellers, Christopher, “The Public Health Service's Office of Industrial Hygiene and the Transformation of Industrial Medicine,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 65 (Spring 1991): 42–73Google ScholarPubMed; Kober, George M., “History of Industrial Hygiene and Its Effect of Public Health,” in A Half Century of Public Health, ed. Ravenel, Mazyck P. (New York, 1921), 361–411, especially 384–86, 389–93Google Scholar; Klem, Margaret C. and McKiever, Margaret F., “Fifty-Year Chronology of Occupational Health,” Journal of Occupational Medicine 8 (April 1966): 225—34CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Alejandra C. Laszlo, “Physiology of the Future: Institutional Styles at Columbia and Harvard,” in Physiology in the American Context, ed. Geison, 85.

61 Flinn, “Industrial Aspects of Human Fatigue,” 293; U.S. Surgeon General, Annual Report, Fiscal Year 1920 (Washington, D.C., 1920), 37Google Scholar; PHS, The Physiology of Fatigue: Physico-Chemical Manifestations of Fatigue in the Blood, by Hastings, Albert B. (Washington, D.C., 1921)Google Scholar. Back in England, Florence published a comprehensive study that argued for a democratization of fatigue research and its application through labor-management collaboration. See Florence, P. Sargant, Economics of Fatigue and Unrest and the Efficiency of Labour in English and American Industry (New York, 1924), 61, 117–24Google Scholar. On applied physiological work in the United States in the late 1920s and the 1930s, see Horvath, Steven M. and Horvath, Elizabeth C., The Harvard Fatigue Laboratory: Its History and Contributions (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1973)Google Scholar; Dill, D. B. et al. , “Industrial Fatigue,” Journal of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology 18 (Sept. 1936): 417–31Google Scholar.

62 Mayo, Elton, “Revery and Industrial Fatigue,” Journal of Personnel Research 3 (Dec. 1924): 273 (quotation), 273–81Google Scholar; Robinson, “Factors Affecting Human Efficiency,” 95, 98.

63 Henderson, L. J. and Mayo, Elton, “The Effects of Social Environment,” Journal of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology 18 (Sept. 1936): 401–16, especially 402Google Scholar; Mayo, Elton, The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization (New York, 1933)Google Scholar; Gillespie, Richard, Manufacturing Knowledge: A History of the Hawthorne Experiments (New York, 1991), 65–75Google Scholar.

64 Flinn, “Industrial Aspects of Human Fatigue,” 292; Shepard, George H., “Effect of Rest Periods on Production,” Personnel Journal 7 (Oct. 1928): 186–202Google Scholar; National Industrial Conference Board, Personnel Activities in American Business (New York, 1940), 7–8, 18Google Scholar; Slichter, Sumner H., Healy, James J., and Livernash, E. Robert, The Impact of Collective Bargaining on Management (Washington, D.C., 1960), 440Google Scholar; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employee Benefits in Medium and Large Firms, 1989, Bulletin 2363 (Washington, D.C., 1990), 11Google Scholar.