Frank and lillian gilbreth contribution to management pdf

Supplemental Reading Posts. Please Follow All Steps And Directions.

http://moh.sagepub.com/ Management & Organizational History

http://moh.sagepub.com/content/6/2/145 The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1744935910397035

2011 6: 145Management & Organizational History Mario Krenn

the development of management thought From scientific management to homemaking: Lillian M. Gilbreth's contributions to

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Management & Organizational HistoryAdditional services and information for

http://moh.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://moh.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://moh.sagepub.com/content/6/2/145.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- May 31, 2011Version of Record >>

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013moh.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://moh.sagepub.com/
http://moh.sagepub.com/content/6/2/145
http://www.sagepublications.com
http://moh.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
http://moh.sagepub.com/subscriptions
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
http://moh.sagepub.com/content/6/2/145.refs.html
http://moh.sagepub.com/content/6/2/145.full.pdf
http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml
http://moh.sagepub.com/
145

MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY Vol 6(2): 145–161 DOI: 10.1177/1744935910397035 © The Author(s), 2011. Reprints and permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav http://moh.sagepub.com

From scientific management to homemaking: Lillian M. Gilbreth’s contributions to the development of management thought Mario Krenn Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, USA

Abstract Lillian M. Gilbreth played an influential but quiet role in the scientific management

movement of the early 20th century. Through her work with Frank B. Gilbreth, she

brought the appreciation of the human element into scientific management and

thereby laid the groundwork for the development of contemporary managerial con-

cepts and practices, such as ergonomics, work/life balance, job enrichment, and job

placement. However, politics of gender discrimination disguised her distinctive contri-

butions to the development of the field. This paper reclaims Lillian M. Gilbreth’s posi-

tion in the history of management thought and illustrates the universal applicability of

her philosophy of management in an analysis of her work in homemaking.

Key words • efficiency craze • Frank B. Gilbreth • Frederick W. Taylor • industrial psychology • scientific homemaking • the Gilbreth system

An earlier version of this paper won the Ronald B. Shuman Best Graduate Student Paper Award of the Management History Division at the Academy of Management Meeting 2008.

Introduction

Lillian Moller Gilbreth (1878–1972) was one of the pioneering management theo- rists (Wren 2005). She has been celebrated as ‘the first lady of engineering’ (Yost 1949, 329), ‘the first lady of management’ (Greenwood et al. 1978, 2), and ‘the mother of industrial psychology’ (Perloff and Naman 1996, 107). As a husband and wife team, Lillian Moller Gilbreth and Frank Bunker Gilbreth, often simply referred to as ‘The Gilbreths’ (Mousa and Lemak 2009, 198; Spriegel and Myers 1953, 9), are renowned for their motion studies during the scientific management movement of the early 20th century. In this era, gender discrimination in the fields of engineering

M&OH

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013moh.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://moh.sagepub.com/
MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY 6(2)

146

and management disguised Lillian’s contributions to the couple’s common work in scientific management and her distinctive influence on the development of manage- ment thought. Although The Psychology of Management (Gilbreth 1914) is now recog- nized as one of the seminal contributions to the understanding of the human factor in industry (Wren 2005), it was initially published under the name L. M. Gilbreth, with no mention that she was a woman (Gilbreth 1912a, 1912b, 1913). Lillian influ- enced scientific management in subtle ways. Indirectly, through her work with her husband, she paved the way for the tools of industrial psychology to become the tools of scientific management (Graham 1998).

This paper responds to a recent call for ‘[r]eclaiming women in management and organization history’ (Phillips and Rippin 2010, 283). It focuses on Lillian Gilbreth’s work between 1904 and 1927, a period during which she quietly made lasting con- tributions to the field of management, reaching from scientific management in the industrial workplace to homemakers’ everyday management and organizing activities. The first part of the paper focuses on the period 1904– 1924 and provides a charac- terization of Lillian in terms of her doctoral experience in psychology and her practical experience in industrial engineering alongside Frank Gilbreth. The second part directs attention towards how Lillian capitalized on these experiences after her hus- band’s death in 1924 and how she managed to carve out a niche for her work in homemaking with her 1927 book The Home-Maker and Her Job (Gilbreth 1927).

Part I: Frank and Lillian Gilbreth in scientific management

This part of the paper opens with a brief biographical sketch of Frank and Lillian Gilbreth, followed by a characterization of the context of the times in which they were active participants. It then proceeds with an analysis of the three books Motion Study (Gilbreth 1911), The Psychology of Management (Gilbreth 1914), and Fatigue Study (Gilbreth and Gilbreth 1916). These contributions had a considerable impact both on the couple’s common work and on scientific management. An appreciation of these writings is essential for a comprehensive understanding of Lillian’s work, as they illus- trate her expertise in psychology, industrial engineering, and management.

The efficiency couple

Lillian Evelyn Moller was born in 1878 in Oakland, California, where the Mollers were one of the wealthiest families (Yost 1949). She excelled academically and received bachelor and master degrees in English literature from the University of California at Berkeley, where she also began doctoral work in psychology (Gilbreth 1970). Lillian thought she was not attractive enough ever to get married, so she devoted all her energy to her academic work to realize her dream of becoming a dean in a women’s college (Gilbreth 1998).

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013moh.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://moh.sagepub.com/
KRENN: FROM SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT TO HOMEMAKING

147

Her career plan abruptly changed when she married Frank Bunker Gilbreth (1868–1924) in October 1904. ‘It was Frank who suggested having a dozen children, and that both of them become efficiency experts. If his interest had been in basket weaving… she would have followed him just as readily’ (Gilbreth and Carey 1948, 205). From early on in his life, Frank devoted his energy to developing his bricklay- ing skills (Yost 1949). Even though he had passed the entrance examination at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, he accepted a position as a bricklayer (Gilbreth 1970). At the time of their marriage, Frank was running his own construc- tion company specialized in completing large city buildings in a short time. He had offices in Boston, New York, London, and Berlin (Gilbreth 1970). Frank was well known for his speed work and made headlines by setting speed records in construct- ing dams, factories, and skyscrapers (Gilbreth 1970). He was passionate about improving the work methods of bricklayers by finding the one best way to lay bricks with the least wasted motions (Bedeian 1976). Frank invented and patented anti- fatigue tools in bricklaying, such as the adjustable scaffold, the fountain trowel, and the Gilbreth Gravity Mixer (Gilbreth 1970).

The popular book Cheaper by the Dozen (Gilbreth and Carey 1948) narrates, in an entertaining way, that as efficiency experts, Frank and Lillian practised what they preached and that they developed and tested many of their concepts and ideas at home before they applied them in an industry setting. For example, they set up a family council patterned after an employer/employee board, installed process and flow charts in their bathrooms, and instituted bidding systems for household jobs for their chil- dren (Gilbreth and Carey 1948). ‘They believed that what would work in the home would work in the factory and what would work in the factory would work at home’ (Gilbreth and Carey 1948, 37).

Between 1904 and 1922, Lillian gave birth to 12 children (Gilbreth 1998). That means she was pregnant through almost half her marriage. During the first 10 years of her marriage, Lillian educated herself in the building construction trade and researched ways to standardize construction practices (Gilbreth 1998). This knowl- edge made her a valuable business partner for Frank in that she was able support him in organizing and editing his publications on high-quality speed construction, includ- ing Concrete System (Gilbreth 1908a), Field System (Gilbreth 1908b), and Bricklaying System (Gilbreth 1909).

Frank and Lillian were equal partners in their construction and contracting busi- ness. Almost every publication was a joint production (Yost 1949). An excerpt of a letter that Frank wrote to Irene Witte, a friend of Frank and Lillian who translated many of their books into German, illustrates how closely the couple worked together:

I am sending you under separate cover today Mrs. Gilbreth’s book ‘Psychology of Management’. I would suggest that if you translate any books having but one of our names on the title page, that you put both our names on the title page for the reason that it is a fact that we are working together so closely on manuscripts that it is impossible to tell which one of us writes a book, and

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013moh.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://moh.sagepub.com/
MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY 6(2)

148

therefore, I would like to see my name on ‘Psychology of Management’ and Mrs. Gilbreth’s name on ‘Motion Study’ and on ‘Bricklaying System’ (Frank B. Gilbreth to Irene M. Witte, February 25, 1920, Witte Collection).

Another section of the same letter provides evidence of gender discrimination at the time and that Frank was hesitant to acknowledge openly his wife as his business part- ner. Frank wrote, ‘We prefer to use the initials of L. M. only, instead of Lillian M., as most people cannot realize that a woman can understand the principles of manage- ment’ (Frank B. Gilbreth to Irene M. Witte, February 25, 1920, Witte Collection).

Open gender discrimination in engineering and scientific management forced Lillian into a quiet role in her partnership with Frank. From this position, she observed how Frank became an admirer of the Taylor system and of how the efficiency craze unfolded in American society.

The Taylor system

Frank and Lillian’s marriage fell into the period when Frederick Winslow Taylor (1856–1915), the father of scientific management (Wrege and Greenwood 1991), proposed the application of science to business problems. Taylor argued that defective management systems, which fostered soldiering of workers, were the greatest barrier to the achievement of maximum output and efficiency (Taylor 1903, 1911). He sug- gested that soldiering could be overcome by using time study in standard setting and planning of work and in devising inventive schemes. Taylor’s scientific study of work included breaking jobs into their component parts, testing them, and then recon- structing them as they should be performed (Wren 2005). In The Principles of Scientific Management, Taylor proposed that ‘The principal object of management should be to secure the maximum prosperity for the employer, coupled with the maximum pros- perity for each employee’ (Taylor 1911, 9). He thought that scientific management had the potential to ignite a mental revolution in the way that both employers and employees would take their eyes off the quarrel of how to divide a factory surplus until it becomes so large that it is unnecessary to fight over its division (Kanigel 1997). Under his management system, Taylor saw no necessity for unions (Wren 2005).

Frank was a great admirer of the Taylor system and met Taylor in 1907 (Gilbreth 1970; Wren 2005). They became friends, and Frank assisted Taylor in lecturing on scientific management in colleges and at conferences (Yost 1949). At that time, Lillian was occupied with managing the household, raising her children, and editing Frank’s publications (Gilbreth 1970).

The efficiency craze

The term scientific management was coined during the 1910 Eastern Rate Case hear- ings (Yost 1949, 185). Frank, Harrington Emerson and several other engineers close to Taylor testified before the Interstate Commerce Commission to determine whether

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013moh.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://moh.sagepub.com/
KRENN: FROM SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT TO HOMEMAKING

149

a raise in freight rates for a group of Eastern railroads should be granted (Gilbreth 1970; Wren 2005). During the hearings, Harrington Emerson testified that the rail- roads could save a million dollars a day by introducing scientific management into their operations (Senate Document 725, 61st Congress, 3rd session 1911). Although the hearings did not result in the implementation of scientific management with the railroads, Emerson’s argument caught on in the press and with the public, and gave rise to an unprecedented efficiency craze (Haber 1964).

The progressive era provided fertile soil for a broad acceptance of Taylor’s principles and for the development of a wide-ranging efficiency craze (Haber 1964). In the early 20th century, factories were going up rapidly, social problems were enormous, and hopes for prosperity were widespread throughout the American life (‘The starting point’ 1991). Efficiency and scientific management became popular catchwords in this era. Many self-proclaimed efficiency experts founded efficiency societies, hosted efficiency expositions, and applied Taylor’s principles to the management of homes, farms, offices, schools, and governmental organizations. ‘Efficiency seemed to provide something to everyone’s taste’ (Haber 1964, 52). The words ‘efficient’ and ‘good’ were used synonymously. Efficiency signified personal quality, energy output/input ratio of dollars, and even the relationships between people. Social harmony was often referred to efficiency (Fry 1976).

In 1911, American labor unions were powerful (Montgomery 1987) and launched a federal inquiry of the Taylor system after a strike at a military arsenal that union leaders presented as a result of unsatisfactory treatment of labor (Wren 2005). Taylor was asked to take seat in the witness chair before a congressional committee. The hear- ings found no evidence of abuses of labor that could be attributed to the Taylor system (Wren 2005). Despite this outcome, a resolution was passed to prevent the implemen- tation of time study in any military agency of the government (Wren 2005). In 1911, the Taylor system was moved into the public spotlight during the Eastern Rate Case hearings, gaining public acceptance, but at the same time, the congressional investi- gation showed management that time study could invite trouble with labor (Wren 2005; Yost 1949).

Motion study

In the midst of these turbulent times, Taylor published The Principles of Scientific Management (Taylor 1911) and Frank published Motion Study (Gilbreth 1911). Although ‘the book bore only Frank’s name, because to have listed a woman as a col- laborator would have been the kiss of death’ (Gilbreth 1970, 109), Motion Study was the first book that clearly reflected Lillian’s influence on the couple’s work and her growing expertise in psychology. Compared to Concrete System (Gilbreth 1908a), Field System (Gilbreth 1908b), and Bricklaying System (Gilbreth 1909), this book placed a strong emphasis on the human element. In Motion Study, Gilbreth argued that a truly systematic shop brings motion, tools, equipment, work surroundings, and worker characteristics into optimal alignment. The book also laid the groundwork for the

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013moh.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://moh.sagepub.com/
MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY 6(2)

150

development of ‘therblings’ (Gilbreth and Gilbreth 1924, 149), a classification system of the elements of any worker movement. Based on the therblings, Frank and Lillian conducted micromotion studies with motion picture cameras and chronocyclegraphs to identify the one best way to do work. At that time, Frank and Lillian began to believe that Taylor’s time study was not scientific because it could not record the motions by which work was done (Graham 1998). Before their micromotion study, that Frank considered ‘his most important contribution to scientific management’ (Gilbreth 1970, 118), studies of motions had been only guesswork. The stopwatch, the symbol of the Taylor system, was not an essential ingredient in motion study (Wren 2005). In fact, Frank and Lillian recognized not only that workers had physical and psychological limitations, but managers could also err in measuring time in frac- tions of seconds with handheld stopwatches (Gilbreth and Gilbreth 1920).

In 1912, Taylor recommended Frank and Lillian for a scientific management installation at the New England Butt company (Gilbreth 1970; Nadworny 1957). During this consulting work, Frank became increasingly uncomfortable with the fact that the Taylor system neglected the recording and subsequent scientific analysis of work motions (Yost 1949). Frank introduced his micromotion method in the com- pany with the consent of the general manager, but without Taylor’s approval (Gilbreth 1970). This created a rift between Frank and Taylor and their relationship grew cold (Nadworny 1957).

During the period 1910–1912, Lillian’s expertise in applied psychology grew more solidified and Frank became more and more disillusioned with the Taylor system (Nadworny 1957). First, Frank found that time was not a good indicator of real effi- ciency because it disregarded the effects of worker fatigue (Yost 1949). Second, as Frank and Lillian began to experiment with techniques for increasing worker satisfaction, such as home reading boxes or suggestion boxes, they began to believe that the Taylor system underestimated the impact of psychological variables on work (Yost 1949).

The psychology of management

Lillian’s interest was the psychological dimension of work efficiency. She continually pointed Frank’s attention to the worker’s point of view – the human element. An episode at a picnic, where the Gilbreth family is watching ants, recounted in the book Cheaper by the Dozen, illustrates Frank and Lillian’s different worldviews:

[Frank:] ‘See they all work and they don’t waste anything. ... Look at the teamwork ... That’s motion study for you.’ If Dad [Frank] saw motion study and team work in an ant hill, Mother [Lillian] saw a highly complex civilization governed by a fat old queen. ... If Dad stopped to explain the construction of a bridge, Mother would find the workman in his blue jeans, eating his lunch high on top of the span (Gilbreth and Carey 1948, 29).

More closely related to Frank and Lillian’s construction and contracting work, the book Time out for Happiness points out their complementary perspectives:

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013moh.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://moh.sagepub.com/
KRENN: FROM SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT TO HOMEMAKING

151

… while the conventional contractor would have been watching the stone and Frank would have been watching the mason’s motions, Lillie [Lillian] was watching the mason’s dedication to this job (Gilbreth 1970, 92).

While Frank focused his attention on finding the one best way to do a job, Lillian’s was constantly directed on the human element in management. In her biography of Frank, Lillian wrote that although over time, the human element gained more and more emphasis in their common work, this evolution occurred unconsciously to Frank (Gilbreth 1926).

In 1912, Lillian submitted The Psychology of Management (Gilbreth 1914) as a dis- sertation to the University of California. University officials found the dissertation acceptable but did not award her a PhD degree because she did not fulfill the resi- dency requirements. Lillian had been led to believe that the attendance require- ments at Berkeley would be waived in her case, since all the fieldwork was being done in the east of the United States (Gilbreth 1970). Frank sent the dissertation to the Industrial Engineering and the Engineering Digest, which published her work in a series of 13 articles (Gilbreth 1912a, 1912b, 1913) under the name L. M. Gilbreth, with no mention that she was a woman. Her focus on the human element in scien- tific management attracted attention among the journal readers, which spurred Frank and Lillian’s intentions to publish the book. The editorial column in the Industrial Engineering and the Engineering Digest introduced Lillian’s article series as relevant for ‘all who are interested in the subject of management, either as the active manager of a business or as the expert who is reorganizing the management system’ (Kent 1912, 391).

Lillian wrote a new dissertation and received her PhD degree from Brown University in 1915 (Gilbreth 1998). The Psychology of Management (Gilbreth 1914) was the cornerstone of Lillian’s contributions to scientific management, to industrial psy- chology, and to the development of management thought. It provided the credentials that admitted her to the hitherto all-male circle of engineering. The book Time out for Happiness (Gilbreth 1970) recounts an episode at the first conference on scientific management at Dartmouth College, which both Frank and Lillian attended. The chairman of the final session unexpectedly announced:

We have been watching the quiet work of one individual who has been working along lines apparently absolutely different from those being followed by any other worker in scientific management – and I wonder if Lillian Gilbreth would like to say a few words about her work (Gilbreth 1970, 126).

In The Psychology of Management (Gilbreth 1914), Lillian argued that scientific manage- ment is dependent on the psychology of individual differences. She provided an inter- actional definition of the psychology of management and characterized it as ‘the effect of the mind that is directing work upon that work which is directed, and the effect of this undirected work upon the mind of the worker’ (Gilbreth 1914, 343). She pointed out that the emphasis of scientific management must

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013moh.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://moh.sagepub.com/
MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY 6(2)

152

... lie on the man, not on the work; that efficiency is best secured by placing the emphasis on the man, and modifying the equipment, materials and methods to make the most of the man [and] the man’s mind is a controlling factor in his efficiency (Gilbreth 1914, 344).

In contrast to Taylor, for Lillian, the worker was not a one-dimensional hedonist not allowed to produce by his own initiative (Gilbreth 1970; Yost 1949). In her view, the psychological purpose of work was to allow workers to express their individuality, which she found to be essential for any psychologically healthy human being. As a side note, this is a perspective comparable to Maslow’s (1943) humanistic psychology. Both, Lillian and Taylor acknowledged the instrumental role that humans played in the production process, but it in contrast to Taylor, Lillian was concerned about how they actually experienced work itself. For Lillian, as well as for Taylor, economic incentives constituted important incentives for workers, but Lillian moved beyond wage incentives to eliminate any remaining resistance to efficiency. With these ideals in mind, Frank and Lillian introduced various psychological management tactics like reading boxes, suggestion boxes, employer/employee boards, weekly employee/ employer meetings, and a three-point promotion plan (Graham 1998). As a side note, these tactics became core elements of the Scanlon plan (Lesieur 1958) that grew out of the industrial human relations approach to motivation.