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.

Lillian’s philosophy that each individual’s skills and needs are unique did not stand in opposition to Frank’s belief that there was one best way to do a job. These perspec- tives were fundamentally complementary. For Lillian, there was one best way to do a job for different kinds of individuals that would minimize their fatigue and give them reasons to work efficiently (Graham 1992), a viewpoint that became explicit in Fatigue Study (Gilbreth and Gilbreth 1916).

Fatigue study

Fatigue Study (Gilbreth and Gilbreth 1916) was a synthesis of Frank and Lillian’s ideas and the beginning of an effort to apply their ideas in a more universal way. In 1916, Frank was often away for conferences so Lillian wrote most of this book, in which fatigue and skill were operationalized (Gilbreth 1998). Fatigue Study marked a turning point in Frank and Lillian’s work (Alchon 1988). The book clearly bears Lillian’s imprint, in that it placed the human element at the center of inquiry, a perspective that was more subtle in their previous writings. Lillian considered worker concerns for safety, lighting, cloth- ing, and introduced fatigue elimination devices, such as adjustable chairs and tables, heating, and ventilation. Whereas for Taylor the focus was on saving time, for Lillian saving energy, preventing injury, and maximizing satisfaction were also valuable goals that made economic sense. Fatigue Study laid the groundwork for many ‘fanciful’ (Watts 1921, 57) policies and practices that are now standard practices in ergonomics, indus- trial psychology, industrial sociology, and management, such as work/life balance, ergonomics, job enrichment, mentoring, and job placement. In Fatigue Study, Lillian

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

http://moh.sagepub.com/

KRENN: FROM SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT TO HOMEMAKING

153

distinguished between two classes of fatigue: one that resulted from work that must be done and is necessary, and one that arose from unnecessary motions and is unnecessary. The goal of the reduction of unnecessary physical and psychological fatigue was to create a more cooperative, productive, and happier workforce (Gilbreth 1970). Frank and Lillian introduced ‘betterment measures’ (Graham 1998, 74), like adjustable chairs, adaptable work benches, heating, ventilation, and proper work clothing to create hap- piness minutes for workers. Fatigue Study introduced the concept of happiness minutes:

Have you reason to believe that your workers are really happier because of the work that you have done on fatigue study? Do they look happier, and say they are happier? Then your fatigue eliminating work has been worthwhile in the highest sense of the term, no matter what the financial outcome. Naturally the savings that accrue must benefit everyone, but saving lies at the root of fatigue elimination, and, if every member of the organization, including the manager and the stockholders, is getting more ‘Happiness Minutes,’ you surely are working along the right lines (Gilbreth and Gilbreth 1916, 150).

Lillian considered management to be a social force that not only affected individuals in factories, but also had the potential to affect society as a whole by creating social happi- ness minutes (Gilbreth 1914, 1970; Gilbreth and Gilbreth 1916). This perspective was uncharacteristic for the scientific management movement, where efficiency was meas- ured with stopwatches ‘in tenths and hundredths of a minute’ (Kanigel 1997, 293).

With their philosophy of management, Frank and Lillian held a revisionist position in the scientific management movement. While Taylor underscored workers’ weak- nesses, Lillian stressed workers’ potential, recognized individual psychological and physiological needs, and saw workers’ happiness as a business asset. Compared to Taylor’s focus on time study and speed against the clock, Frank stressed the elimination of unnecessary motions and fatigue and made it ‘“aisy” for a man to work hard’ (Gilbreth 1970, 71). Taylor argued that the worker should only execute the orders given by man- agement (Taylor 1903, 1911), but Frank and Lillian installed suggestion boxes (Gilbreth 1911). For Taylor, working harder would lead to a ‘mental revolution’ (Wren 2005, 145) and, subsequently, to workers’ well-being, but Lillian believed that caring about work- ers’ well-being and accommodating their concerns would lead them to work harder (Gilbreth and Gilbreth 1916). In summary, Lillian’s philosophy of management that, ‘[s]uccessful management must consider the results of all mental states upon the health, happiness and prosperity of the worker, and the quality, quantity and cost of the output’ (Gilbreth 1914, 329) was clearly reflected in the couple’s common work.

Part II: Lillian on her own

The second part of the paper focuses on the three-year period following Frank’s death in 1924, a phase that posed many challenges for Lillian. Although Lillian had been a member of The Society of Industrial Engineers since 1921 (Wren 2005), her work as

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

http://moh.sagepub.com/

MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY 6(2)

154

a woman engineer, management theorist, and psychologist hardly found tolerance. Consequently, Lillian directed her attention on more gendered spaces and managed to carve out a niche for her work in homemaking. The subsequent sections illustrate how Lillian found her way into homemaking, how she capitalized on her expertise in engi- neering, management, and psychology, and how she influenced the field with her 1927 book The Home-Maker and Her Job (Gilbreth 1927).

Lillian’s way into scientific homemaking

After Frank’s unexpected death on June 14, 1924, clients began declining to renew the motion study contracts they had previously entertained with Gilbreth Inc. (Gilbreth 1970). Belles on Their Toes (Gilbreth and Carey 1950) recounts the difficult and uncertain situation in which Lillian found herself with her children. After initial success at an American Society of Mechanical Engineers (A.S.M.E.) sponsored man- agement conference in Prague, where she took over Frank’s lecture schedule, back home Lillian felt the rebuffs of being a woman in the male-dominated world of engi- neering (Gilbreth 1970; Wren, 2005). Lillian began to look for a way to overcome her gender as a liability, and to capitalize on her expertise in engineering, psychology, management and as a mother of a dozen children. Belles on Their Toes recounts:

Mother thought one way she might get motion study contracts was to apply time-saving methods to the kitchen. Manufacturers would listen to a woman, she believed, when the subject was home appliances. If the only way to enter a man’s field was through the kitchen door, that’s the way she’d enter (Gilbreth and Carey 1950, 106).

To support her family financially, she began to offer motion study courses at her home and gave speeches at clubs and organizations on fatigue elimination in the home (Gilbreth and Carey 1950). Although these courses and lectures did not satisfactorily cover the family’s expenses, Lillian found it ‘very encouraging’ (Gilbreth 1998, 108) that there was public interest in the application of motion study in the household. She recognized that she possessed three distinct assets that would allow her to succeed as a ‘household engineer’ (Frederick 1919, 16).

Scientific management reaches into the American middle-class home

The first part of this paper highlighted three resources that Lillian Gilbreth drew upon: (a) practical experience in industrial engineering, (b) doctoral experience in psychology, and (c) a personal biography as a mother of a 12 children. The following sections describe the broader societal context and the state of scientific homemaking when Lillian entered the field, followed by an analysis of her contribution, The Home- Maker and Her Job (Gilbreth 1927).

In the early 20th century, the American middle-class home was exposed to drastic demographic, technological, and political dynamics that changed the way housekeeping

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

http://moh.sagepub.com/

KRENN: FROM SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT TO HOMEMAKING

155

was done. Many middle-class homes were originally planned and built to accommodate full-time servants (Frederick 1913). The abundance of industrial jobs in the progres- sive era lured servants away from domestic service into factories and offices, and as a result, domestic workers became scarce (Rutherford 2003). Along with these person- nel changes, the introduction of running water, gas, and electricity into homes with new technologies like refrigerators, vacuum cleaners, washing machines, and ranges dramatically redefined the skill requirements for housework (Strasser 1982). Middle- class housewives craved advice on how to make the transition to modern housekeeping (Child 1914). They found guidance in the many experts and institutions that emerged from the efficiency craze.

As the efficiency craze swept through American society, the homemaker was charac- terized as soldiering on the job, inefficient, extravagant, and careless (‘Square deal for the husbands’ 1915). There were calls for ‘efficient households… as we have efficient business methods’ (‘Household efficiency classes’ 1916; ‘No reason for waste in house- keeping’ 1915). Efficiency experts promoted the application of business principles to the individual household, giving homemakers job titles like ‘home manager’ or ‘family purchasing agent’ (‘The woman who invented scientific housekeeping’ 1913). Colleges sensed a need for offering housekeeping classes for women based on ‘scientific princi- ples’ (‘Where they make housekeeping a learned profession’ 1910), and the image of the scientific, analytical, and responsible homemaker was institutionalized through the establishment of The American Home Economics Association in 1908.

The most popular household efficiency experts in the progressive era were Christine Frederick, Mary Pattison, Georgie B. Child, and Robert and Martha Bruere (Graham 1999). Christine Frederick was often referred to as ‘The woman who invented scien- tific housekeeping’ (1913). As the editor of the Ladies’ Home Journal at the peak of the efficiency craze in 1910, she sometimes received more than 1000 requests for more information after the journal published an article about scientific management in the household (Banta 1993). Many household efficiency experts shared a lack of personal experience in consulting, psychology, and engineering (Graham 1999). Most of them educated themselves about scientific management by reading books or visiting scien- tifically managed factories, and promised housewives that scientific management, when installed in their homes, would bring them the same savings that had accrued to the business sector (‘No reason for waste in housekeeping’ 1915).

Suggesting black-and-white directions for household tasks and relying on over- simplified time and motion studies, Frederick and the other prominent household efficiency experts did not draw from psychological theories and showed an outdated understanding of human beings (Graham 1992). The books of the household effi- ciency experts, Frederick, the Brueres, Child, and Pattison, were generally prescrip- tive in tone and often negligent concerning individual physiological and psychological differences in homemakers. In one instance, Frederick advised home- makers that the best way to clean dishes was to place the dish draining rack to the left of the sink and to hold the dishrag in the right hand and the dish in the left hand (Frederick 1913, 23). In addition, Frederick (1913) provided mathematical formulas

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

http://moh.sagepub.com/

MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY 6(2)

156

and tables for women to determine the proper heights for their sink and tables, but did not take into account individual differences in limb proportions. Child (1914) recommended homemakers to acquire the latest modern household equipment, with- out considering that too many appliances could be counterproductive when clutter- ing the workplace. Pattison (1918) suggested specific ways for the most efficient placement of equipment throughout the home, neglecting individual physiological differences. Bruere and Bruere (1913) prescribed in detail the single best methods for cooking, washing, cleaning, and serving. Frederick, Child, Pattison, and the Brueres also advised women to conduct their own time and motion studies, but remained vague on how to conduct them (Graham 1999).

Some critical voices concerning the applicability of scientific management in the unique settings of the home highlighted the differences between home and industrial organizations (Graham 1998). Homemakers worked alone, they had no equivalent to a profit motive, and there was no accepted measure of effectiveness of scientific man- agement in the home (Strasser 1982). These concerns did not receive attention during the efficiency craze. During that period, the efficiency obsession of homemakers cre- ated a demand for household efficiency experts, who sold the look and feeling of progressiveness rather than substance (Graham 1998). Expert authority was left in the hands of household engineers, such as Lillian.

The homemaker and her job

After Frank’s death, Lillian became a frequent guest speaker in home economics depart- ments at colleges, was published in newspapers and magazines, and gave radio addresses on how to reduce fatigue and increase efficiency in the home (Gilbreth 1998). Lillian’s family background, her tendency to include family anecdotes in speeches, combined with her expertise in psychology and engineering made her popular as a speaker and writer on the subject of homemaking (Gilbreth and Gilbreth 1920; Lancaster 2004).

In 1927, Lillian published The Home-Maker and Her Job (Gilbreth 1927), a book that presents a good example of the applicability of her philosophy of management in organizing contexts beyond industrial organizations. In contrast to the writings of the early household efficiency experts, this book recognized the importance of the psycho- logical, physical, and moral rewards that homemakers could draw from efficient work in the home (Graham 1998). Lillian summarized the goal and the units of measure- ment in an efficient home as ‘happiness minutes’, a concept she introduced earlier in Fatigue Study (Gilbreth and Gilbreth 1916). Household efficiency, according to Lillian, cannot be measured in monetary terms alone, but rather in terms of whether family members are happy or not.

Happiness Minutes occur when the home-maker is rested and enthusiastically pursuing her work, when she has time to pursue hobbies, part time work, or charity work, and most importantly when she can use the saved time and energy to be a better parent (Gilbreth 1927, 150).

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

http://moh.sagepub.com/

KRENN: FROM SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT TO HOMEMAKING

157

In her book, Lillian recognizes that the tools and methods of scientific management used in industrial organizations are of limited applicability in the home environment, where time and energy savings or expenditures do not translate directly into money (Gilbreth 1927). In industrial organizations, the impact of scientific management is quantifiable in terms of economic output, but the impact of scientific management on the home is more difficult to assess. The efficiency of the homemaker’s job cannot be solely measured by, for example, the quantity of cookies produced per hour or meals served per day (Gilbreth 1927). Although certain tasks like dishwashing or ironing can be broken into individual motions, timed, and standardized, Lillian points out that homemaking, as a coherent entity of tasks, needs a more comprehensive measure and goal (Gilbreth 1927). Lillian offers the efficiency measure happiness minutes as a response to the uncertainties about the applicability of scientific management in the home (Graham 1992).

As the title The Home-Maker and Her Job (Gilbreth 1927) suggests, the book focuses on how the homemaker’s unique needs and abilities can be matched with the unique and multidimensional job requirements. In contrast to the books of the Brueres, Child, Frederick, and Patterson, Lillian does not specify or prescribe which appliances are essential for an efficient home or how to carry out certain household tasks efficiently. Instead, she suggests homemakers conduct their own motion, skill, and fatigue studies and advises them to challenge old established rituals and routines of the nature ‘My grandmother did it this way so it’s good enough for me’ (Gilbreth 1927, 18).

In the opening chapters, Lillian introduces the reader to the fundamentals of engi- neering and psychology. She does not prescribe rules for the work in the home, but rather attempts to educate the homemaker, and points out possibilities of how psy- chology in combination with engineering could be applied in addressing inefficiencies in the home. This approach was novel in 1927 and differentiated her book from the mainstream writings on homemaking.

Chapter five of The Home-Maker and Her Job focuses on motion study and on the one best way to carry out a task in the home. Lillian encourages homemakers to conduct their own motion studies of jobs like dishwashing and other time-consuming and monotonous tasks in the home. She explains the key procedures for conducting motion studies and offers guidelines to bring motions, kitchen tools and equipment, work surroundings, and physiological characteristics into optimal alignment. Her goal for the homemaker is to make the best use of existing resources, without incur- ring investments in new household equipment and tools (Gilbreth 1927).

Chapter six addresses the role of skills in homemaking. Whereas in the previous chapters, the individual one best way was central, in this chapter Lillian focuses on the differences between well done and satisfactory work and work that is poorly done and does not satisfy. She writes that ‘skill study is an attempt to find and keep the best of craftsmanship’ (Gilbreth 1927, 109) and argues that because of individual differences in sources of satisfaction, different people find different tasks to be skilled work. For example, whereas the ‘active housekeeper’ is apt to enjoy sweeping, dishwashing, and dusting, the ‘quantity housekeeper’ will enjoy doing laundry, baking, and other tasks,

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

http://moh.sagepub.com/

MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY 6(2)

158

and the ‘quality housekeeper’ will enjoy a tidy room and detail work. If the homemaker understands this link between skills and satisfaction, happiness minutes can be created for each family member (Gilbreth 1927). As a side note, Herzberg’s (1959) theory of job satisfaction reminds the reader of Lillian’s arguments in this chapter.

Chapter seven concerns fatigue study and focuses on the physical and psychological limitations of the homemaker in her job. She argues that mental as well as physiolog- ical fatigue make happiness minutes impossible. Lillian argues that fatigue reduction practices and devices, such as adjustable work surfaces, which she studied and devel- oped in Fatigue Study (Gilbreth and Gilbreth 1916), can be implemented in the home. In this chapter, she emphasizes that a home environment that keeps the accumulation of unnecessary fatigue at a minimum and maximizes happiness minutes (Gilbreth 1927) will best support the productivity of homemakers in their jobs.

Although Strasser (1982) argued that probably few homemakers followed Lillian’s advice and conducted motion, skill, and fatigue studies by themselves, The Home-Maker and Her Job nonetheless challenged the mainstream homemaking lit- erature in that it portrayed the homemaker as a capable and intelligent individual. The book also stands as an example of Lillian’s philosophy of management that underlaid ‘the Gilbreth system’ (Gilbreth 1970, 92). For Lillian, successful man- agement in the home, as well as in the industrial workplace, brings into alignment the observable work behavior (motion study), the psychological and physiological limitations of the worker (fatigue study), the identification and assignment of sat- isfying work (skill study), and the cognitive determinants of work behavior (the psychology of management).

Shortly after The Home-Maker and Her Job was published, the Brooklyn Gas Company and the New York Herald-Tribune Homemaking Institute approached Lillian with requests to design model kitchens (Gilbreth 1970). She knew that these companies tried to capitalize on her biography as a mother of 12 children, which would make the kitchens and household products associated with her more intriguing to customers (Gilbreth and Carey 1950). This situation presented a dilemma for Lillian: she recognized that these collaborations would offer her the opportunity to stabilize her financial situation (Gilbreth 1998), but that designing standardized kitchens would stand in conflict with her personal and professional values and beliefs. In the end, Lillian decided to accept the offer to work with these companies (Gilbreth and Carey 1950), and through this work, Lillian left her mark on the principles in kitchen design where adaptable work surfaces, flexible counter levels, and circular workplaces are key elements in fitting the kitchen to the individual needs of its user (Clark 1983). Her most renowned inventions were the foot-pedal trash can, the elec- tric food mixer, and shelves inside refrigerator doors (Golonka 2006).

In summary, Lillian migrated to homemaking as a refugee from the male-dominated world of engineering. Into this field, she carried her ideals, theories, and methods of analysis that had previously influenced her work with Frank. Her philosophy of man- agement did not only infuse more feminine sensibility into scientific management in industrial organizations but also into the homemaker’s everyday work.

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

http://moh.sagepub.com/

KRENN: FROM SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT TO HOMEMAKING

159

Conclusion

Lillian’s contributions to understanding the human factor in management left a distinct mark on the management field. Although a female engineer, psychologist, and management theorist was hardly tolerated in the early 20th century, Lillian could leverage and introduce her ideas into scientific management through her partnership with Frank. Her tireless advocacy of the human element influenced diverse management and organizing contexts, ranging from the industrial work- place to the complex and dynamic job of the homemaker. This generalizibility of her philosophy of management deserves acknowledgement and appreciation.

Lillian was not only an exceptional management theorist but also an extraordinary mother. After Frank’s death, she kept her family together, made it possible for all of her 11 surviving children to graduate from college, and continued with her own work. According to her children, she did all that with humor, energy, and passion (Frederick Gilbreth, telephone conversation with the author). Lillian continued her work past the age of 80. She became professor of management at Purdue University and Newark College and received many honorary degrees and special commendations from profes- sional societies, including the Honorary Master of Engineering from the University of Michigan and the Hoover Medal for distinguished public service by an engineer (‘Obituary’ 1972; Trescott 1990).

Lillian’s contributions endure beyond her time. The legacy of her work can be seen whenever firms invest in ergonomically designed workplaces, when teachers explain the concept of person–job fit in class, and whenever we think about the design of working and living spaces in our home.

References

Alchon, G. 1988. ‘Lillian Gilbreth and the Science of Management, 1900–1920.’ Essays in Economic and Business History 7: 25–39.

Banta, M. 1993. Taylored Lives. Narrative Productions in the Age of Taylor, Veblen, and Ford. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Bedeian, A. G. 1976. ‘Finding “The One Best Way”. An Appreciation of Frank B. Gilbreth, the Father of Motion Study.’ The Conference Board Record 8: 37–9.

Bruere, M. B., and R. W. Bruere. 1913. Increasing Home Efficiency. New York, NY: The Macmillan Company.

Child, G. B. 1914. The Efficient Kitchen: Definite Directions for the Planning and Arranging of the Modern Labor-Saving Kitchen. New York, NY: McBridge, Nast and Company.

Clark, S. 1983. The Motion-Minded Kitchen: Step-by-Step Procedures for Designing and Building the Kitchen You Want with the Space and Money You Have. Boston, MA: Houghton.

Frederick, C. 1913. The New Housekeeping. Efficiency Studies in Home Management. New York, NY: Doubleday, Page and Co.

Frederick, C. 1919. Household Engineering. Scientific Management in the Home. Chicago, IL: American School of Home Economics.

Fry, L. 1976. ‘The Maligned F. W. Taylor: A Reply to his Many Critics.’ Academy of Management Review 1(3): 124–9.

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

http://moh.sagepub.com/

MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY 6(2)

160

Gilbreth, F. B. 1908a. Concrete System. New York, NY: The Engineering News Publishing Co. Gilbreth, F. B. 1908b. Field System. New York, NY: The Myron C. Clark Publishing Co. Gilbreth, F. B. 1909. Bricklaying System. New York, NY: The Myron C. Clark Publishing Co. Gilbreth, F. B. 1911. Motion Study: A Method for Increasing the Efficiency of the Workman. New York, NY:

Sturgis and Walton. Gilbreth, F. B. 1970. Time Out for Happiness. New York, NY: Crowell. Gilbreth, F. B., and E. G. Carey. 1948. Cheaper by the Dozen. New York, NY: Crowell Company. Gilbreth, F. B., and E. G. Carey. 1950. Belles on their Toes. New York, NY: Crowell Company. Gilbreth, F. B., and L. M. Gilbreth. 1916. Fatigue Study. The Elimination of Humanity’s Greatest Unnecessary

Waste. New York, NY: Sturgis and Walton. Gilbreth, F. B., and L. M. Gilbreth. 1920. Motion Study for the Handicapped. Easton, PA: Hive Publishing. Gilbreth, F. B., and L. M. Gilbreth. 1924. ‘Classifying the Elements of Work.’ Management and

Administration 8(2): 151–4. Gilbreth, L. M. 1912a. ‘The Psychology of Management.’ In Industrial and Engineering and the

Engineering Digest, edited by Kent W., Vol. 11, 343–349, 429–438. New York, NY: The Technical Literature Co.

Gilbreth, L. M. 1912b. ‘The Psychology of Management.’ In Industrial and Engineering and the Engineering Digest, edited by Kent W., Vol. 12, 13–7, 65–8, 116–20, 155–8, 199–204, 248–53. New York, NY: The Technical Literature Co.

Gilbreth, L. M. 1913. ‘The Psychology of Management.’ In Industrial and Engineering and the Engineering Digest, edited by Kent W., Vol. 13, 18–23, 66–70, 113–6, 161–6, 213–7. New York, NY: The Technical Literature Co.

Gilbreth, L. M. 1914. The Psychology of Management. The Function of the Mind in Determining, Teaching and Installing Methods of Least Waste. New York, NY: Sturgis and Walton.

Gilbreth, L. M. 1926. The Quest for the One Best Way: A Sketch of the Life of Frank Bunker. Easton, PA: Hive Publishing Company.

Gilbreth, L. M. 1927. The Home-Maker and her Job. New York, NY: Appleton. Gilbreth, L. M. 1998. As I Remember. Norcross, GA: Engineering and Management Press. Golonka, K. 2006. ‘Lillian Moller Gilbreth: A Female Pioneer in the Field of Engineering and Scientific

Management.’ Ergonomia IJE&HF 28(1): 6–12. Graham, L. D. 1992. Lillian Moller Gilbreth’s Extensions of Scientific Management into Women’s Work, 1924–

1935. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois. Graham, L. D. 1998. Managing on her Own: Dr Lillian Gilbreth and Women’s Work in the Interwar Era.

Norcross, GA: Engineering and Management Press. Graham, L. D. 1999. ‘Domesticating Efficiency: Lillian Gilbreth’s Scientific Management of Homemakers,

1924–1930.’ Signs 24(3): 633–75. Greenwood, R. G., R. A. Greenwood, and J. A. Severance. 1978. ‘Lillian M. Gilbreth, First Lady of

Management.’ In Academy of Management Proceedings, edited by J. C. Susbauer, 2–6. San Francisco, CA: Academy of Management.

Haber, S. 1964. Efficiency and Uplift. Scientific Management in the Progressive Era 1890–1920. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Herzberg, F., B. Mausner, and B. B. Snyderman. 1959. The Motivation to Work. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

Household Efficiency Classes are Successful. The New York Times, May 28, 1916. Kanigel, R. 1997. The One Best Way: Frederick Winslow Taylor and the Enigma of Efficiency. New York,

NY: Viking. Kent, W. 1912. ‘The Psychology of Management.’ In Industrial Engineering and the Engineering Digest,

edited by W. Kent, 391. New York, NY: The Technical Literature Co. Lancaster, J. 2004. Making Time: Lillian Moller Gilbreth: A Life beyond ‘Cheaper by the Dozen’. Boston, MA:

Northeastern University Press.

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

http://moh.sagepub.com/

KRENN: FROM SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT TO HOMEMAKING

161

Lesieur, F. G. 1958. The Scanlon Plan: A Frontier in Labor-Management Cooperation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Maslow, A. H. 1943. ‘A Theory of Human Motivation.’ Psychological Review 50: 370–96. Montgomery, D. 1987. The Fall of the House of Labor: The Workplace, the State, and American Labor Activism,

1865–1925. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mousa, F. T., and D. J. Lemak. 2009. ‘The Gilbreths’ Quality System Stands the Test of Time.’ Journal

of Management History 15(2): 198–215. Nadworny, M. J. 1957. ‘Frederick Taylor and Frank Gilbreth. Competition in Scientific Management.’

Business History Review 21(1): 23–34. No Reason for Waste in Housekeeping. The New York Times, January 17, 1915. Obituary. Dr Gilbreth, Engineer, Mother of Dozen. The New York Times, January 3, 1972. Pattison, M. 1918. The Business of Home Management. The Principles of Domestic Engineering. New York, NY:

Robert M. McBride and Co. Perloff, R., and J. L. Naman. 1996. ‘Lillian Gilbreth: Tireless Advocate for a General Psychology.’ In

Portraits of Pioneers in Psychology, edited by A. G. Kimble, C. A. Boneau, and M. Wertheimer, Vol. 2, 106–16. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Phillips, M., and A. Rippin. 2010. ‘Striving to Uncover a Lost Heritage: Reclaiming Women in Management and Organization History.’ Management and Organizational History 5(3–4): 283–95.

Rutherford, J. W. 2003. Selling Mrs Consumer: Christine Frederick and the Rise of Household Efficiency. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press.

Senate Document 725, 61st Congress, 3rd session, 3540–3551. 1911. Evidence Taken by the Interstate Commerce Commission in the Matter of Proposal Advances in Freight Rates by Carriers. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

Spriegel, W. R., and C. E. Myers. 1953. The Writings of the Gilbreths. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, Inc. Square Deal for the Husbands. The New York Times, May 6, 1915. Strasser, S. 1982. Never Done. A History of American Housework. New York, NY: Pantheon Books. Taylor, F. W. 1903. Shop Management. New York, NY: Harper and Row. Taylor, F. W. 1911. The Principles of Scientific Management. New York, NY: Harper and Row. The Starting Point. Financial World, June 25, 1991. The Woman Who Invented Scientific Housekeeping. The New York Times, July 6, 1913. Trescott, M. M. 1990. ‘Women in the Intellectual Development of Engineering: A Study in Persistence

and Systems Thought.’ In Women of Science: Righting the Record, edited by G. Kass-Simon, and P. Farnes, 157–164. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Watts, F. 1921. An Introduction to the Psychological Problems of Industry. New York, NY: The MacMillan Company.

Where They Make Housekeeping a Learned Profession. The New York Times, September 4, 1910. Witte, I. M. 1920. Correspondence. I. M. Witte Collection, Mannheim: Landesmuseum fuer Technik

und Arbeit. Wrege, C. D., and R. G. Greenwood. 1991. Frederick W. Taylor: The Father of Scientific Management: Myth

and Reality. Homewood, IL: Business One Irwin. Wren, D. A. 2005. The History of Management Thought. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. Yost, E. 1949. Frank and Lillian Gilbreth: Partners for Life. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Mario Krenn [[email protected]] is a PhD student in Management at Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, USA. An earlier draft of this manuscript won the Ronald B. Shuman Best Graduate Student Paper Award of the Management History Division at the Academy of Management Meeting 2008.

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

http://moh.sagepub.com/