We saw earlier how welfare work, as it was launched at the Ministry of Munitions under the influence of Rowntree's ideals, attempted to occupy the moral high ground, to remain independent of management and efficiency questions and to represent workers interests. We saw also how this created confusion about the role and objections from workers and their trade unions that someone paid by the employer could legitimately perform such a function without conflict of interest. It was noted too how, in some factories, welfare work came to be viewed as a branch of works management and how the professional association, amid some controversy, acknowledged the managerial nature of the work in its definition. It appears from contemporary evidence, however, that in the perceptions of many workers and their organisations, welfare work was seen as an integral part of scientific management, in particular because of the circumstances in which it was introduced at the Ministry of Munitions. Dilution was seen in the eyes of many
570
ibid, p149.
571
IPM Archives MSS 97/1EC/1, Conference Report for 1917, Modern Records Centre, University of Warwick.
572
trades unionists as associated with scientific management and thus the image of welfare suffered because of its perceived linkage to this policy, particularly as many women had been brought in as dilutees. The historians of the Ministry of Munitions summed up the problems as follows:
"The attempts of the Department to popularise provision for industrial welfare were to some extent handicapped by the fact that the propaganda for its adoption by employers began almost at the same time as energetic propaganda to induce workmen to accept the dilution of labour. 'What are the employers getting at?' was a question reported in the early stages of the welfare movement by those in touch with the trade union rank and file. Welfare measures were, it was said, an attempt to increase output, desirable indeed during the war, but leading ultimately to employers' profits".573
The links between scientific management and welfare work were further reinforced by the work of the Health of Munition Workers Committee whose early focus was on the issue of long hours, fatigue and their potential impact on output, ideas which had in turn been influenced by the work of Frank and Lillian Gilbreth.574 In Brown's view, the Committee's advocacy of welfare supervision in January 1916 made it clear that "for all the altruism of Rowntree and his like, the need for increased production was the key force behind the spread of welfare".575 The links between scientific management and welfare work also featured in Sydney Webb's wartime lectures to works managers, when he observed the following:
573
HMG (1918-1922), op cit, V. III: 168.
574
Frank B Gilbreth (1868-1924) and his wife Lilian M Gilbreth (1878-1972) were pioneers of motion study and were associated with the ‘one best way’ approach to task analysis, in addition to emphasising the importance of systematic training, the provision of the appropriate tools for the job and improved working environments. FB Gilbreth’s ideas are set out in Motion Study, published in 1911, Primer of Scientific Management, published in 1912 (both New York, Van Nostrand & Co) and Fatigue Study, published in 1916 (New York, Sturgis and Walton). In 1914, Lilian M Gilbreth published The Psychology of
Management (New York, MacMillan) which was subsequently accepted by Brown University for the award of a doctorate and was one of the earliest texts to integrate these two themes. They were both close associates and admirers of FW Taylor until a rift in 1913 when the Gilbreths came to the view that Taylor undervalued the importance of motion study. The Gilbreths visited Britain on a number of occasions between 1904 and 1924, mainly involved in guest lectures (Lilian M Gilbreth (1998), As I Remember: An Autobiography, Norcross: GA, Engineering and Management Press, p110, p118, p180, p194 (First published in 1941); CS George (1972), The History of Management Thought, Englewood Cliffs: NJ, Prentice Hall, pp99-101, p193, p195; CA Horn (1983), Essays on the Development of Modern Management, Sutton Courtney, Institute of Management Services, pp11-12) 575
"One particular form of 'scientific management' is that, in the course of the last few years a new duty has been placed on management, under the name of 'welfare work'... This is partly philanthropy and partly - we had better be candid about it - a way of increasing industrial efficiency. Those benevolent and far- sighted firms... such as Cadburys, Rowntrees, Levers, and others less in the public eye, who have in Great Britain pioneered welfare work of various kinds, have found their expenditure well repaid, not merely in their satisfaction at the benefit to their operatives, but also, even unexpectedly, in the increased productiveness of their establishment".576
Webb himself was supportive of improvements in efficiency through both scientific management and welfare work, but argued the case for trade union involvement and consultation in the process. In this respect, Webb's views were close to those of both Cadbury and Rowntree who were supportive of scientific management, as long as it took into account workers’ welfare, and recognised a legitimate role for trades unions.577 Thus, not only did many workers and their trade unions perceive welfare work to be associated with scientific management and increased efficiency, but Webb, who was closely associated with the labour movement, and some leading employers took the view that they should be so. Such a view grew in influence during the war and became closely associated with official writings on 'Reconstruction' and the related ideas of employers involved in the Industrial Reconstruction Council. In Child's view, the views of the leading employer spokesmen associated with the I.R.C. reflected a "reaction against the older laissez -faire attempt to treat labour as but another commodity [which] was now quite in keeping with the results of experiments into fatigue and monotony.578 Scientific management had discovered the human factor and the writings of the Reconstruction movement reflected a desire to integrate the management strategies of efficiency and welfare which had emerged during the war. In the view of Urwick and Brech "Scientific management remained the same in essence, but it has matured and consolidated and in the process it has undergone certain shifts of emphasis".579 In their view, this represented a change
576
Webb (1917), op cit, pp138-139.
577
Cadbury (1912), op cit, pp269-270; Briggs (1961), op cit, p145.
578
Child, J (1969), British Management Thought, London, Allen and Unwin, p49.
579
Urwick, L and Brech, EFL (1948), The Making of Scientific Management: Management in British Industry, vol 2, London, Pitman, p102.
in emphasis from the Taylorian conception of scientific management arising in particular from the work of Gilbreth and Gantt. In George's view, Gilbreth's interest "lay in the development of man to his fullest potential through effective training, work methods, improved environments and tools and a healthy psychological outlook",580 whilst Gantt, amongst various contributions to management thought, identified that training workers to become more skilled was a significant management responsibility. The new thinking was reflected in the Ministry of Reconstruction's publication Scientific Business Management which in addition to describing traditional features of scientific management, including motion study and bonus systems, contained a substantial section on 'personal intercourse' calling on managers to build sound personal relations with employees and develop their commitment.581 It was reflected too in the IRC's invitation to Miss E B Voysey to address them on the links between welfare work and scientific management in 1919. As noted earlier, she identified "a vast amount in common between the two",582 identifying in particular the importance of selecting workers and the provision of the best possible conditions. Like many leading management spokesmen, she argued that both perspectives were necessary to achieve greater efficiency "we have proved by experience that scientific management which leaves out of consideration the human element in the factory is a failure".583 Voysey had apparently been unaware that scientific management had already been developing in the direction that had hitherto been the exclusive concern of the welfare worker. Her paper was criticised from the floor on the grounds that her understanding of scientific management had been drawn from Taylor. Another member of the audience pointed out that more recent scientific management was concerned with the care of the worker and it was recommended that she should refer to The Psychology of Management by Lillian M Gilbreth584 for a more up-to-date view.
580
George, CS (1972), op cit, p101.
581
Ministry of Reconstruction (1919), Scientific Business Management, London, HMSO.
582
Voysey (1919), op cit, p5.
583
ibid, p.11.
584
Gilbreth, LM (1914), op cit. Lilian Gilbreth criticised welfare work as “charity” and argued that scientific management made a “scientific provision for welfare” (ibid, p 319) through scientifically determined rest breaks, clear work standards and instructions and systematic training (ibid, p 320).
These new developments were also identified by both electrical and mechanical engineers in their debates about their future professional training needs at the end of the war. In November 1918, the Electrical Engineers were addressed on the subject of 'The Human Factor in Industry' in which it was argued that:
"The most urgent changes are required in connection with the training of works managers.... Questions like industrial organisation and administration, fatigue, welfare, selection and training and trade unionism must be their special study".585 A similar need was identified by the Mechanical Engineers in October 1919 in an address by their president who emphasised that:
"If we are to maintain or perhaps I should say, if we are to prevent further encroachments upon our established position in the engineering world, mechanical engineers must give more attention to the administration and organisation of workshops".586
Thus, just as the potential contribution of welfare work was being more widely recognised, it was at the same time being taken over by writers on scientific management and practitioners from the ranks of engineers and works managers. As Tillett et al have concluded:
"Scientific management was thus joining forces with and in this respect, perhaps supplanting welfare work in advocating the importance of industrial betterment. Managers were now being pressed not by social workers, but by efficiency engineers, to make proper provision" for welfare facilities.587
Having apparently been deprived of their unique contribution, considerable doubt lay over the future of the infant welfare workers' movement in the post-war world. Many welfare workers lost their jobs when most of the female munitions workers left the factories and those welfare workers who remained were marginalised back to 'outside welfare', social work and recreational activities outside the
585
Urwick and Brech (1948), op cit, p127.
586
ibid, pp127-128.
587
factory588 and the membership of the Welfare Workers' Association fell to below 400 by 1922.589
Welfare work in decline: 1919-1922
Niven590 notes that welfare work went into decline in the immediate post-war period and, as evidenced in the columns of their own journal Welfare Work, first published in 1920, the welfare workers’ movement went into something of a crisis in the early 1920s from which it never fully recovered. At the heart of the debate, echoing the philosophical difficulties experienced during the First World War, was the welfare worker’s role in the management of the enterprises they served and their relationship with such fundamental issues as scientific management and efficiency.
With the ending of war-time controls, the winding up of the Ministry of Munitions and the return of male labour to their pre-war occupations, the recommendation to employ welfare supervisors was lifted and many were discharged. According to an official survey in May 1919, only around one-third of firms stated that they would be continuing to employ welfare supervisors591 and it is possible that industry's desire to employ them fell further with the onset of recession in mid- 1920. Niven's evidence suggests a marginalisation of welfare work, where it continued, to 'outside welfare' with a focus on social and recreational activities and sick visiting outside the factory. She concluded: "The welfare worker was thus not recognised as a full member of the factory staff and had to struggle to get a foothold inside the factory and to be identified with management".592 For those established within the factory, much of their work focused on recruitment and selection as well as more traditional welfare concerns, but even in this
588 Niven (1967), op cit, pp55-57. 589 Tillett et al (1970), op cit, p197. 590 Niven (1967), op cit, pp55-57. 591 HMG (1918-1922), op cit, v.V.III, p37. 592 Niven (1967), op cit, p57.
emergent area of their work, many foremen resisted any interference with their traditional role.593
In the early post-war period, the coalition government of Lloyd George broadly continued its war-time interventionist strategy between 1918 and 1922, as embodied within the ideas associated with reconstruction. However, the government remained keen to continue its war-time promotion of welfare work through strategies of persuasion rather than legal enactment. Thus, a succession of official post-war publications continued to urge the importance of welfare work in industry. For example, in 1919 , the continuation of welfare work was advocated by a report of the War Cabinet on Women in Industry and a leaflet Welfare and Welfare Supervision in Factories and Workshops, issued in 1919, urged the adoption of welfare work as "an essential part of efficient management".594 In July 1920, the Home Office called a conference "to review the present position of welfare generally and to consider by what means the movement can best be carried forward".595 The conference was attended by representatives of the state, employers, welfare workers and trade unionists, the latter continuing to be sceptical about the underlying motives of the welfare movement. A Home Office report based on the conference proceedings, Welfare Training and Welfare Work, was published later the same year. Against a background of concern, particularly on the part of trade unionists, about the inept and amateurish approach displayed by many welfare workers during the war, the main conclusions of the report focused on the need for adequate training. The further investigation of this issue was referred to the Joint Universities Council for Social Studies which produced their findings in a report, University Training for Welfare Work in Industry and Commerce, in 1921. It recommended that training for welfare work should be based upon an existing two year course for social workers, but with an emphasis on the practical application of welfare work in the
593 ibid. 594 ibid. 595 ibid, p63.
second year. These recommendations were accepted and remained the basis of training in welfare work for the next 25 years.596
After 1921, official interest in the promotion of welfare work went into decline and no further enquiries into it were published in the inter-war period. A key factor was a change in the political environment in 1922. Lloyd George's post-war coalition, which had attempted to implement reconstruction through state intervention without great success, was voted out in the general election of 1922 and was replaced by the Conservative administration of Bonar Law (succeeded on his death in 1923 by Baldwin), committed to "the minimum of interference" in the belief that "the nation's first need is, in every walk of life, to get on with its work".597 Such a political climate, which broadly persisted throughout the remainder of the inter-war years, was therefore hardly conducive to the promotion of initiatives amongst employers, such as the adoption or extension of welfare work. Moreover, as noted in chapter 3, economic recession, coupled with high levels of unemployment and a plentiful labour supply, were also unconducive to the development of welfare work.
It was noted in chapter 3 that employers increasingly turned their attention towards efficiency and rationalisation in the 1920s and also how the 'new look' approach to scientific management embraced the notion of welfare. We saw too how a debate opened up within the welfare workers' movement at the end of the war about whether it should remain independent of management and questions of efficiency or should become more closely bound up with them. Against the background of decline in welfare work, the leaders of the movement appear to have engaged in an internecine debate about this issue which, as we shall see, festered on into the mid 1930s.
596
ibid, pp64-65.
597