¹ 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 (quote, 569)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Napoli, Donald S., Architects of Adjustment: The History of the Psychological Profession in the United States (Port Washington, N.Y., 1981), ch. 1.Google Scholar

² Cuff, Robert D., “Creating Control Systems: Edwin F. Gay and the Central Bureau of Planning and Statistics, 1917–1919,” Business History Review 63 (Autumn 1989): 613CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the role of Ayres, see Breen, William J., “Foundations, Statistics, and State-Building: Leonard P. Ayres, the Russell Sage Foundation, and U.S. Government Statistics in the First World War,” Business History Review 68 (Winter 1994): 451–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Lyons, Gene M., The Uneasy Partnership: Social Science and the Federal Government in the Twentieth Century (New York, 1969), 22–31.Google Scholar

³ Lyons, Uneasy Partnership, 29–34; Gillespie, Richard, Manufacturing Knowledge: A History of the Hawthorne Experiments (New York, 1991), 31–6.Google Scholar

⁴ Lyons, Uneasy Partnership, 81.

⁵ Stouffer, Samuel A. et al., The American Soldier, 4 vols. (Princeton, N.J., 1949)Google Scholar; Lyons, Uneasy Partnership, 102–11.

⁶ Jacoby, Sanford M., Modern Manors: Welfare Capitalism since the New Deal (Princeton, N.J., 1997), 225.Google Scholar

⁷ Mayo, Elton, The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization (New York, 1933)Google Scholar; Roethlisberger, Fritz J. and Dickson, William J., Management and the Worker: An Account of a Research Program conducted by the Western Electric Company, Hawthorne Works, Chicago (Cambridge, Mass., 1939).Google Scholar

⁸ Gillespie, Manufacturing Knowledge, 32.

⁹ Gillespie, Manufacturing Knowledge, ch. 1. (quotation on p. 36). Part of the controversy surrounding the Hawthorne experiments relates to the “scientific” pretensions associated with the project. Social scientists in the early 1920s had begun to model themselves “explicitly on the successes of scientific medicine over the previous three decades” (p. 5). However, as Gillespie makes clear, the results of the experiments were tainted by various assumptions held by the researchers, and there was little initial agreement on the conclusions to be drawn. It was only Elton Mayo's success in bringing together the research site at the Western Electric plant, the academic prestige of Harvard Business School, and the financial resources of the Rockefeller Foundation and the National Research Council that “stabilized theinitially problematic interpretations of the Hawthorne experiments and facilitated the elaboration of a single, authoritative account, then ensured that the official version was widely disseminated and applied” (p. 5). For a summary statement of Gillespie's critique of the “scientific” foundations of the Hawthorne experiments, see pp. 264–71.

¹⁰ Gillespie, Manufacturing Knowledge, 3.

¹¹ Jacoby, Sanford M., Employing Bureaucracy: Managers, Unions, and the Transformation of Work in American Industry, 1900–1945 (New York, 1985), 68–9.Google Scholar Jacoby estimates that, in 1935, a majority of American companies “still adhered to the tenets of the drive system” (p. 243).

¹² Nelson, Daniel, Managers and Workers: Origins of the New Factory System in the United States, 1880–1920 (Madison, Wisc., 1975), 42–3.Google Scholar

¹³ Nelson, Daniel, Frederick W. Taylor and the Rise of Scientific Management (Madison, Wisc., 1980), 201–2.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Jacoby, Employing Bureaucracy, 260–74.

¹⁵ Ibid., 129–32 (quote p. 130), 273–4.

¹⁶ War Manpower Commission, Bureau of Training, Training Within Industry Service, The Training Within Industry Report, 1940–1945 (Washington, D.C., 1945), 4–5.Google Scholar [Hereafter TWI Final Report.] This lengthy report (330 pp.) contains anexcellent, detailed overview of the work of the TWI group. Initially created under the mantle of the National Defense Advisory Commission of the Council of National Defense, TWI was later transferred to the Office of Production Management, then to the War Production Board, then to the Federal Security Agency, and finally to the War Manpower Commission. On Hillman, see Fraser, Steven, Labor Will Rule: Sidney Hillman and the Rise of American Labor (New York, 1991).Google Scholar

¹⁷ New York Times, 26 June 1956, 29 (obit.). Dooley died in 1956 at age 78. He was a pioneer in industrial education: in 1914, he served as a charter member of the National Association of Corporation Schools, and from 1934 to 1946, he was a member of the Federal Committee on Apprenticeships. In World War I, he was called by the War Department to establish and direct the system of technical training in military camps. In the post-World War II period, he served as a consultant to the International Labor Office (ILO) in 1948, 1949, and 1950. In 1946, he established the Training-Within-Industry Foundation and served as the presidentuntil he died. The Foundation, which was incorporated in New Jersey, was designed “to keep available the supervisory training programs developed by TWI as a war agency and to adapt, improve, and broaden these programs to meet the current needs of industry and commerce.” See John Walter Dietz with Betty W. Bevens, Learn by Doing: The Story of Training Within Industry, 1940–1970 (Summit, N.J., 1970), 51.Google Scholar For a discussion of the influence of TWIin the postwar world, particularly in Japan, see Robinson, Alan G. and Schroeder, Dean M., “Training, Continuous Improvement, and Human Relations: The U.S. TWI Programs and the Japanese Management Style,” California Management Review 35 (Winter 1993): 35–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar On the National Association of Corporation Schools, see Sanford M. Jacoby, Employing Bureaucracy, 68–9.

¹⁸ See biographical sketch of Dietz in Supervision: The Magazine of Modern Industrial Relations and Operating Management, with which is combined The Foreman 3 (Jan. 1941): 5. Along with Dooley, Dietz had helped organize the National Association of Corporation Schools in 1914 and, in 1917, had served as its president. From 1917 to 1919, although still employed by Western Electric, he worked with Dooley in assisting the War Department devlop its training program. After World War II, Dietz helped form the TWI Foundation in 1946, which was designed to promulgate the TWI message in the postwar era. In 1956, on the death of Channing Dooley, Dietz became president of the foundation. In 1944, Dietz and Dooley were awarded honorary degrees of doctor of engineering in human relations at Purdue in recognition of their leadership in industrial relations. In 1945, they also shared the first award in human relations given by the Society for the Advancement of Management. See Dietz with Bevens, Learn by Doing, 100.

¹⁹ See biographical sketch of William Conover in Supervision 3 (Jan. 1941), 5. After graduating, Conover worked for six years in the Lycoming Manufacturing Company. Beginning as a laborer he rose to become assistant superintendent at Lycoming, where he also developed his interest in foreman training. Conover resigned from TWI in 1944 to join General Cable Corporation as director of manufacturing. Later he became superintendent of production for Carrier Corporation. At the time of his death in 1961 he was president of the Gray Manufacturing Co. of Hartford, Connecticut. See Dietz with Bevens, Learn by Doing, 101.

²⁰ The manual was issued as Bulletin 36, Federal Board for Vocational Education, 1919. For biographical information on Kane, see the one-page typescript in National Archives, College Park, Md. (NA2), RG 211, War Manpower Commission Records, Entry 229, Training Within Industry Records: Records of George Jaquet, 1941–45, Box 2, Folder: “Kane, M.J. 1940–1942.” After spending World War II working with TWI, in the postwar period, Kane became the director of industrial relations for the National Association of Manufacturers. In 1946, he became a trustee of the TWI Foundation and was also vice president in chargeof research. See Dietz with Bevens, Learn by Doing, 101.

²¹ Jacoby, Employing Bureaucracy, passim. Direct quotes on pp. 10–11, 281–2.

²² See Gillespie, Manufacturing Knowledge.

²³ Advisory Commission to the Council of National Defense, Training Within Industry, “Field Service Organization Conference, 8, 9, 10 Oct. 1940: Conference notes” [5 pp.], 4. NA2, RG 211, Entry 241, Box 1, Folder “Conferences—1940.”

²⁴ Purcell, Richard J., Labor Policies of the National Defense Advisory Commission and the Office of Production Management, May 1940 to April 1942 (Washington, D.C., 1946)Google Scholar [Historical Reports on War Administration: War Production Board Special Study No. 23], 118. The district advisory panels paralleled the TWI National Advisory Committee, which had been established when TWI was organized. It consisted of six national labor leaders and six senior personnel managers from major American firms.

²⁵ Conover, William, “The Defense Commission Training Program,” in Papers Presented at the Fourth Annual Stanford Industrial Relations Conference, March 24 to 28, 1941 (Palo Alto, Calif., 1941), 133.Google Scholar

²⁶ Quote is from the War Manpower Commission (WMC), Training Within Industry (TWI), “Progress Report, Sept. 1942” [typescript, 6 pp.], 1. NA2, RG 211, Entry 231, Box 4, Folder “Documents #15–20.” See also TWI Final Report, 14.

²⁷ See especially the speech of Dietz in Report of Seventh Annual Mid-West Conference on Industrial Relations, University of Chicago, Friday, November 15, 1940 (mimeo), 18–26.

²⁸ C. R. Dooley, director of TWI, The “Training Within Industry Program,” Bulletin # 1 (24 Sept. 1940) [mimeo, 3 pp.], 1–2. The “upgrading” plan grew out of “many discussions among representatives of progressive industries and labor unions” under the auspices of the TWI unit and was based on detailed examination of the methods already used in leading optical, toolmaking, and other establishments. Seepress release, 25 Sept. 25 1940, found in NA2, RG 211, Entry 241, Box 1, Folder “Conferences—1940.”.

²⁹ Purcell, Labor Policies, 122–3. The Dooley quote is from C. R. Dooley to W. S. Knudsen, 9 Jan. 1941, which is quoted in Purcell on p. 123.

³⁰ Industry, Training Within, Labor Division, Office of Production Management, “First Annual Progress Report, Sept. 1940-Sept. 1941” (Washington, D.C., 1941)Google Scholar [6 pp. typescript + 19 pp. appendices], 3, 6, 8.

³¹ Business Week (21 Sept. 1940), editorial, 52.

³² Advisory Commission of Council of National Defense, Training Within Industry Division, “Meeting of Advisory Committee, 24 Sept. 1940,” (mimeo), 4–5. NA2, RG 211, Series 241, Box 1, Folder “Conferences—1940.” A press release embodying the essentials of what was agreed upon at the meeting was then released. See New York Times, 25 Sept. 1940.

³³ For a copy of the press release, see “National Defense Advisory Commission, PR 125, September 25, 1940—Immediate Release” [mimeo, 2 pp.]. NA2, RG 211, Entry 241, Box 1, Folder “Conferences—1940.” See also New York Times, 25 Sept. 1940. The representatives of management and labor that were present at the meeting were W. G. Marshall, vice president, Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company, Pittsburgh; E. J. Robeson, personnel manager, Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company, Newport News, Va.; K. F. Ode, personnel manager, Falk Corporation, Milwaukee, Wise; R. Randall Irwin, industrial relations manager, Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, Burbank, Calif.; M. F. Burke, United Aircraft Corporation, Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Company, East Hartford, Conn.; John Green, president, Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America; Clinton Golden, regional director of the northeastern region, Steel Workers Organizing Committee; Michael Colleran, general president, Operative Plasterers' and Cement Finishers' International Association; Walter Reuther, executive board member, United Automobile Workers of America.

³⁴ Conover, William, “The Defense Commission Training Program,” Papers Presented at the Fourth Annual Stanford Industrial Relations Conference, March 24 to 28, 1941 (Division of Industrial Relations, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, California, 1941), 139.Google Scholar Some labor representatives, although willing to cooperate with TWI, wanted greater labor representation at all levels of the organization. See Proceedings of the Office of Production Management on In-Plant Training, Washington, D.C., March 17–18, 1941, U.S. Apprenticeship Training Service, Technical Bulletin No. 60A [mimeo, 83 pp.], 30–2 (speech of Robert Watt, American Federation of Labor).

³⁵ Conover, “The Defense Commission Training Program,” 127. Purcell also notes that there were some difficulties “with highly specialized and unionized artisans who did not look favorably on an increase of apprentices or the up-grading of the semi-skilled workers in their shops. The shortage of aluminum and steel forgings that embarrassed the Office of Production Management in the fall of 1941, for example, was largely due to a shortage of die-sinkers, and to their unwillingness to permit other craftsmen to make parts of dies. These difficulties were ironed out in conferences, however, and in general it remained true, as Hillman had told the Truman Committee in April [1941], that the voluntary training program was not re-stricted or obstructed by labor.” Purcell, Labor Policies, 127.

³⁶ Chase, Stuart, “Show-How: A Revolution in Management,” Readers Digest 43 (Oct. 1943), 79Google Scholar. For the statistics on new workers and supervisors, see TWI Final Report, 36.

³⁷ See entry in Who Was Who in America, vol. 4, p. 345; New York Times, 8 Aug. 1962, 31 (obit.). Born in 1896, Gardiner graduated from the University of Wisconsin in 1917. He had worked for Forstmann Woolen Company since 1927 and became vice president for personnel in 1944. He had edited a weekly bulletin on management information since 1926. At the time of his appointment to TWI, he had published Practical Foremanship (1925), Management in the Factory (1926), Practical Office Supervision (1929), Foreman's Management Library (1930), and Better Foremanship (1941). He continued to publish on the topics after the war. During the war he was also an associate member of the War Labor Board. In 1942, he was awarded the Gilbreth medal for achievement by the Society for the Advancement of Management. Gardiner was a life member of the Conference Committee of the Silver Bay Industrial Relations Conference, a president of the New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce, and a vice president of the American Management Association. A Republican and a Congregationalist, he died in 1962.

³⁸ On the role of Gardiner and the New Jersey district, see TWI Final Report, 192–3; New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce, The First Million: The Story of the Training Within Industry Service (Newark, N.J., 1944)Google Scholar, [pamphlet, 17 pp.]. Copy found in NA2, RG 211, Entry 231, Box 5, File “History of TWI—1944;” New Jersey District, TWI, “Evolution of District #5 [New Jersey] (20 June 1945)” [typescript, 8 pp.], NA2, RG 211, Entry 231, Box 2, File “District Histories (£5).”.

³⁹ TWI Final Report, 192. For detail on the content of the JIT program, see pp. 33–4. Job instruction was the first of four training courses developed by TWI during World War II. The others were: job methods, job relations, and program development.

⁴⁰ Training Within Industry, Labor Division, War Production Board, “Progress Report, Sept. 1941—Mar. 1942.” [mimeo, 7 pp.], 6. NA2, RG 211, Entry 231, Box 4, File “Documents #15–20.”.

⁴¹ Gappa had been a member of the executive board of his union branch (Local 494) and its assistant business manager. He had been a delegate to the Federal Trades Council, to the Buildings Trades Council, and to both state and national labor conventions. Interested in training issues, he had chaired the local's Apprenticeship Training Committee and served as secretary of the Management-Labor Apprenticeship Training Joint Committee for the State of Wisconsin. See C. R. Dooley to All TWI District Directors, memo re “Labor's Approval of TWI Objectives and Programs: Leonard A. Gappa's Report,” 14 Apr. 1943 [Circular Letter No. 277]. NA2, RG 211, Series 229, Box 4, Folder “Ball Bearing Industry.”.

⁴² Len Gappa to C. R. Dooley, memo: “Labor's Approval of TWI Objectives and Programs,” 12 Apr. 1943. Memo attached to C. R. Dooley to All TWI District Directors, memo re “Labor's Approval of TWI Objectives and Programs: Leonard A. Gappa's Report,” 14 Apr. 1943 [Circular Letter No. 277]. NA2, RG 211, Series 229, Box 4, Folder “Ball Bearing Industry.”.

⁴³ Chase, Stuart, “To Do It Easier and Do It Better,” Readers Digest 43 (Nov. 1943), 108.Google ScholarTWI Final Report, 223, 230–2. Gardiner first wrote to Dietz about the proposed course on 6 Oct. 1941. See Gardiner to Dietz, 6 Oct. 1941, NA2, RG 211, Entry 235, Box 3, File “History—Oct. 1941.”.

⁴⁴ TWI Final Report, 37 (quote), 223.

⁴⁵ Dooley, C. R., “Training Within Industry in the United States,” International Labour Review 54 (Sept.—Oct. 1946): 173.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Len Gappa to C. R. Dooley, memo: “Labor's Approval of TWI Objectives and Programs,” 12 Apr. 1943. Memo attached to C. R. Dooley to All TWI District Directors, memo re “Labor's Approval of TWI Objectives and Programs: Leonard A. Gappa's Report,” 14 Apr. 1943 [Circular Letter No. 277]. NA2, RG 211, Series 229, Box 4, Folder “Ball Bearing Industry.”.

⁴⁷ TWI Final Report, 37, 230, 233.

⁴⁸ Chase, “To Do It Easier,” 111.

⁴⁹ George Jaquet to William Conover, memo: “Trend of JM Institutes,” 7 Sept. 1943. NA2, RG 211, Entry 229, Box 1, File “Conover, William—1943.”.

⁵⁰ Jaquet to Conover, memo: “Lack of Job Methods Progress,” 31 July 1943. NA2, RG 211, Entry 229, Box 1, File “Conover, William—1943.” The reluctance of management to embrace the JM program during World War II has interesting parallels with management attitudes toward scientific management in the interwar years. See: Nelson, Daniel, “Scientific Management and the Workplace, 1920–1935,” in Masters to Managers: Historical and Comparative Perspectives on American Employers, ed. Jacoby, Sanford M. (New York, 1991), 74–89.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Gillespie, Manufacturing Knowledge, 235.

⁵² See “National Research Council: Meeting of Committee on Work in Industry, Washington, D.C., 25 Nov. 23 1940. Transcript of discussion” [verbatim transcript, 40 pp.]. This file also contains copies of related correspondence. NA2, RG 211, Entry 235, Box 3, File “History—Jan. 1941.”

⁵³ For copies of the letters and accompanying reports, see TWI, “The Job Relations Training Program” (1 Oct. 1943) [mimeo, 50 pp.]. NA2, RG 211, Entry 235, Box 4, File “History—1943.” The committee also urged that “key men in the direction of group effort” in industry should be exempted from the draft. On the work of the subcommittee, see Fritz Roethlisberger to Walter Dietz, 24 Apr. 1941. [The three sets of recommendations of the subcommittee are attached to this letter.] NA2, RG 211, Entry 235, Box 3, File “History—April, 1941.”

⁵⁴ Harvard Business School would subsequently become deeply involved in offering on-campus management courses to assist the war effort. See Cruikshank, Jeffrey L., A Delicate Experiment: The Harvard Business School, 1908–1945 (Boston, 1987), ch. 5.Google Scholar However, Cruikshank makes no mention of the role played by the Business School in the development of the TWI job relations program. Roethlisberger makes only very brief mention of his in volvement with TWI. See Roethlisberger, F. J., The Elusive Phenomena: An Autobiographical Account of My Work in the Field of Organizational Behaviour at the Harvard Business School (Boston, 1977), 87–9.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Walter Dietz, “The Job Relations Training Program: Report to the National Academy of Sciences” (1 Oct. 1943), 1, in TWI, “The Job Relations Training Program” (1 Oct. 1943) [mimeo, 50 pp.], NA2, RG 211, Entry 235, Box 4, File “History-1943”; [Roethlisberger], “Stages in the Development of a Studyon Problems of Supervision in Connection with the Training Within Industry Branch of the Office of Production Management” [n.d.; n.s.; 2 pp.], Baker Library, Harvard University, Roethlisberger Papers, Carton 3, File “32: Training Within Industry—Survey.” At the end of June 1941, Dietz spent two days with Roethlisberger, at Harvard, discussing details of the project. This document also makes clear that Roethlisberger was careful to keep Dean Donham, Elton Mayo, and other senior colleagues in the Graduate School of Business Administration fully informed of his activities.

⁵⁶ See Jacoby, Modern Manors, esp. 220—8. On Roethlisberger'sintellectual development, see Gillespie, Manufacturing Knowledge, 134–5.

⁵⁷ Roethlisberg to Dietz, 18 July 1941 (quote). NA2, RG 211, Entry 235, Box 3, File “History—July, 1941”; “Meeting on Development of TW1 Program on Supervision” (29 July 1941) [2 pp.]. Baker Library, Harvard University, Roethlisberger Papers, Carton 3, File “32: Training Within Industry—Survey.”

⁵⁸ Roethlisberger to Dietz, memo: “The future for the next three months” (1 Oct. 1941, and attached “Summary Reflections Underlying our Proposed Study” [ 1 p.]). NA2, RG 211, Entry 235, Box 2, File “Harvard University.” See also: Roethlisberger to Dietz, memo: “Progress,” 26 Sept. 1941 [5 pp.], 3. NA2, RG 211, Entry 235, Box 2, File “Harvard University.” See also Roethlisberger, The Elusive Phenomena, 88.

⁵⁹ Dietz to Roethlisberger, 28 Aug. 1941. NA2, RG 211, Entry 235, Box 2, File “Harvard University.”

⁶⁰ Roethlisberger to Dietz, memo: “10-hour course of instruction for foremen,” 3 Oct. 1941. NA2, RG 211, Entry 235, Box 2, File “Harvard University.” On the development of the case method at the Harvard Business School see: McNair, M. P., ed., The Case Method at the Harvard Business School: Papers by Present and Past Members of the Faculty and Staff (New York, 1954).Google Scholar

⁶¹ [John B. Fox], “Summary of Conferences October 13 and 14, 1941” [2 pp.], Baker Library, Harvard University, Roethlisberger Papers, Carton 3, File “32: Training Within Industry—Survey.” The same document, with a covering note from Fox to Dietz dated 21 Oct. 1941, is contained in NA2, RG 211, Entry 235, Box 2, “Harvard University.”

⁶² In his autobiography, Roethlisberger refers to a nervous breakdown. In 1942, he spent April to September at a farm in Vermont, “a half-way house for mentally ill persons,” and returned to Harvard fully “cured.” See Roethlisberger, The Elusive Phenomena, 89–92.

⁶³ John B. Fox to Dietz, 29 Oct. 1941; Roethlisberger to Dietz, 28 Nov. 1941. NA2, RG 211, Entry 235, Box 2, File “Harvard University.” John Bayley Fox was born in 1906 and came to the Business School in the late 1930s as a graduate student. Mayo had obtained a special grant from the Rockefeller Foundation to cover his fellowship. See Gillespie, Manufacturing Knowledge, 244. He subsequently became a member of the research staff and, in 1944, was an instructor in industrial research in the Business School. He served as assistant dean and was later director of overseas relations. See Copeland, Melvin T., And Mark an Era: The Story of the Harvard Business School (Boston, Mass., 1958), 352Google Scholar; Roethlisberger, The Elusive Phenomena, 76. See the Roethlisberger Papers, Baker Library, Harvard University, for the progress reports made by Fox.

⁶⁴ For example, at a meeting of TWI district representatives in November, there was talk of developing a course “concerned with handling people.” However, there was no consensus on the focus of such a course: suggestions ranged from a “Dale Carnegie for the foreman” to “how to handle emotions.” See [John B. Fox], “Meeting of District Representatives Washington, 11 Nov. 1941” [n.d.; n.s.; 2 pp.]. Baker Library, Harvard University, Roethlisberger Papers, Carton 3, File “29:Training Foremen—10 hour course—1941.” On Version I of JRT, see TWI Final Report, 210.

⁶⁵ [John B. Fox], “Report on Washington Trip, December 8–9, 1941,” [n.s., n.d.; 3 pp.]. Baker Library, Harvard University, Roethlisberger Papers, Carton 3, File “29: Training Foremen—10 hour course—1941.”

⁶⁶ [John B. Fox], “Report on Washington Trip, December 14–16, 1941” [n.s., n.d., 1 p.]. Baker Library, Harvard University, Roethlisberger Papers, Carton 3, File “29: Training Foremen—10 hour course—1941.” For the comments on the second version, see Fox to Frances Kirkpatrick, 20 Dec. 1941. NA2, RG 211, Entry 235, Box 2, File “Harvard University.” Copy also in Roethlisberger Papers.

⁶⁷ Fox to Dietz, 4 Feb. 1942 (quote); [John B. Fox], “Report on Washington Trip, February 9 and 10, 1942” [2 pp.], 1. Baker Library, Harvard University, Roethlisberger Papers, Carton 3, File “29: Training Foremen—10 hour course—1941.” The management at Simplex was also enthusiastic about the course. See: K.R. Bolles, Personnel Director, Simplex Wire & Cable Co., to John B. Fox, 7 Feb. 1942 [copy], NA2, RG 211, Entry 235, Box 2, File “Harvard University.”

⁶⁸ “Fritz” [Roethlisberger] to Dietz, 25 Feb. 1942. NA2, RG 211, Entry 235, Box 2, File “Harvard University.”

⁶⁹ H. Musgrave, “Some Observations on the Job Relations Training Conference held in Washington, February 26–28, 1942” (1 Mar. 1942). Attached to: [Fox], “Washington Trip, February 26–27, 1942” [4 pp.]. Baker Library, Harvard University, Roethlisberger Papers, Carton 3, File “29: Training Foremen—10 hour course—1941.”

⁷⁰ Fox to Kirkpatrick, 4 Mar. 1942. NA2, RG 211, Entry 235, Box 2, File “Harvard University.”

⁷¹ Fox to Dietz, 3 Mar. 1942. NA2, RG 211, Entry 235, Box 2, File “Harvard University.”

⁷² Fox to Kirkpatrick, 11 Mar. 1942. NA2, RG 211, Entry 235, Box 2, File “Harvard University.”

⁷³ [John B. Fox], “Chicago Trip (Training Within Industry) March 29 to April 7 [1942]” [4 pp.], 4 (quote); [John B. Fox], “Notes on Baltimore Trip, April 14 to April 18, 1942” [6 pp.], 1. Baker Library, Harvard University, Roethlisberger Papers, Carton 3, File “29: Training Foremen—10 hour course—1941.”

⁷⁴ [John B. Fox], “Chicago Trip (Training Within Industry) March 29 to April 7 [1942]” [4 pp.], 4. Baker Library, Harvard University, Roethlisberger Papers, Carton 3, File “29: Training Foremen—10 hour course—1941.” Fox added that he thought that part of that resistance was just “anti-Harvard.” He had detected in Kane's earlier attacks on the Cambridge version a resentment at something which “had been … cooked up entirely at Harvard.” See [John B. Fox], “Report on Washington Trip, December 8–9, 1941,” 1. Baker Library, Harvard University, Roethlisberger Papers, Carton 3, File “29: Training Foremen—10 hour course—1941.”

⁷⁵ [John B. Fox], “Notes on Baltimore Trip, April 14 to April 18, 1942” [6 pp.], 6. Baker Library, Harvard University, Roethlisberger Papers, Carton 3, File “29: Training Foremen—10 hour course—1941.”

⁷⁶ [John B. Fox], “Chicago Trip (Training Within Industry) March 29 to April 7 [1942]” [4 pp.], 4. Baker Library, Harvard University, Roethlisberger Papers, Carton 3, File “29: Training Foremen—10 hour course—1941.”

⁷⁷ [John B. Fox], “Notes on Washington Trip of April 22 to April 25 [1942]” [4 pp.], 1, 3. Baker Library, Harvard University, Roethlisberger Papers, Carton 3, File “29: Training Foremen—10 hour course—1941.”

⁷⁸ A fourth version of the course had been produced incorporating Conover's suggestions and had been tried out in Baltimore. The tryout had shown that the course needed substantial overhauling, but there was no agreement on how to proceed.

⁷⁹ John B. Fox, “Memorandum on Controlling Volunteer Cases Brought in by Foremen (April 27, 1942)” [4 pp.], 1. NA2, RG 211, Entry 235, Box 4, File “History—April 1942.” See also [John B. Fox], “Notes on Washington Trip of April 22 to April 25 [1942]” [4 pp.], 1, 3. Baker Library, Harvard University, Roethlisberger Papers, Carton 3, File “29: Training Foremen—10 hour course—1941.”

⁸⁰ [John B. Fox], “Notes on Washington Trip of April 22 to April 25 [1942]” [4 pp.], 1–2. Baker Library, Harvard University, Roethlisberger Papers, Carton 3, File “29: Training Foremen—10 hour course—1941.” Frances Kirkpatrick was a graduate of Ohio State University who had experience in publicity work for Procter & Gamble in Cincinnati before coming to Washington. She worked in the TWI headquarters staff throughout the war years. See Dietz with Bevens, Learn by Doing, 102–3.

⁸¹ TWI Final Report, 214.

⁸² Ibid., 215 (quote), 206.

⁸³ Walter Dietz & M. J. Kane, “Presentation of Job Relations Training” [American Management Association, Palmer House, Chicago, 12 Feb. 1943], [transcript, 29 pp.], 2, 3. NA2, RG 211, Entry 235, Box 1, File “American Management Association.”

⁸⁴ Dietz, “The Job Relations Training Program: Report to the National Academy of Sciences, October 1, 1943,” 26. A virtually identical description of the basic philosophy is also included in TWI Final Report, 218.

⁸⁵ Fox to Kirkpatrick, 24 Nov. 1942. NA2, RG 211, Entry 235, Box 2, File “Harvard University.”

⁸⁶ Dietz to Fox, 24 Apr. 1943. NA2, RG 211, Entry 235, Box 2, File “Harvard University.” This letter was solicited by Fox for a reference. See Fox to Dietz, 4 May 1943, in same file.

⁸⁷ Dietz & Kane, “Presentation of Job Relations Training,” 18 (Kane), 27–8 (Conover).

⁸⁸ Dietz, “The Job Relations Training Program: Report to the National Academy of Sciences (October 1, 1943),” 6. See also TWI Final Report, 206.

⁸⁹ Ibid., 4–5.

⁹⁰ TWI Final Report, 219–21, 127–33.

⁹¹ Ibid., esp. 60–75, 166–71.

⁹² C. R. Dooley to Arthur Jacobs, ed., Executives' Labor Letter, 10 Aug. 1945. NA2, RG 211, Entry 235, 9, File “Unions—1945.” The United Automobile Workers of America (AFL) in corporated UJR into their international plan, which was adopted in June 1945.

⁹³ “Results of First All-Labor Institute on J. R. held at Flint [Michigan] from March 20 through March 26 [1944]” [typescript, 4 pp.; n.s.] NA2, RG 211, Entry 235, Box 4, Folder “History—1944.”

⁹⁴ “Additional Job Relations History” [typescript, 1 p.]; n.s., NA2, RG 211, Entry 235, Box 4, Folder “History—1944.” See also Training Within Industry Report, 1940–1945, 220–1.

⁹⁵ C. R. Dooley to Arthur Jacobs, ed., Executives' Labor Letter, 10 Aug. 1945. NA2, RG 211, Entry 235, Box 9, File “Unions—1945.” The United Automobile Workers of America (AFL) incorporated UJR into their international plan, which was adopted in June, 1945.

⁹⁶ “History of District One, TWI” [New England District], [typescript, 17 pp.; n.s., n.d.], 13–14. Attached to: H. K. Bragle to C. R. Dooley, n.d. [mid—1945?]. The history was a response to Dooley's circular letter of 31 May 1945.

⁹⁷ Jacoby, Employing Bureaucracy, 274. For a critique of the scientific pretensions of “human relations” approach embodied in the JR program, see Jacoby, Modern Manors, 220–8.

⁹⁸ Gillespie, Manufacturing Knowledge, 235. TWI was one of a number of ways in which “the federal government helped the behavioral sciences become an acceptable instrument for administering modern bureaucracies.” Probably the most widespread application of the behavioral sciences in the postwar period was the application of selection tests in industry. Although World War I had been important, the World War II experience had more lasting influences. See Jacoby, Modern Manors, 225–7.

⁹⁹ Jacoby, Modern Manors, 225. In the late 1930s, Kodak had developed a series of training films in association with the Vocafilm Company. When initially established, TWI experimented with using those films as part of its program but decided, mainly on technical grounds, not to pursue the idea.

¹⁰⁰ See, for example, the clash between Walter Reuther, president of the UAW, and General Motors in 1947 and again in 1955. Jacoby, Modern Manors, 245–6.

¹⁰¹ The world of social science in the 1950s and 1960s was much influenced by concepts such as power elites, conformity, and hidden psychological manipulation, which were thought to characterize American society. Sociologists, in particular, popularized many of the seideas. See, for example, Riesman, David et al., The Lonely Crowd (New Haven, 1950)Google Scholar; Mills, C. Wright, The Power Elite (New York, 1956)Google Scholar; Whyte, William H., The Organization Man (New York, 1956)Google Scholar; Packard, Vance, The Hidden Persuaders (New York, 1957)Google Scholar; idem., The Status Seekers: An Exploration of Class Behavior in America and the Hidden Barriers That Affect You, Your Community, Your Future (New York, 1959).

¹⁰² For discussion, see Gillespie, Manufacturing Knowledge, 257–61. Gillespie notes that there was an element of defending disciplinary turf in some of the critiques. Economists and sociologists were the most vocal critics; social psychologists and applied anthropologists were the most vehement defenders.

¹⁰³ Baritz, Servants of Power, 116.

¹⁰⁴ Dietz & Kane, “Presentation of Job Relations Training,” 29.