Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-llmch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-11T22:07:36.099Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Productivity and Management: the Training of Foremen in Britain and Germany

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 March 2020

S.J. Prais  and
Karin Wagner
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Following the Institute's previous studies of the training and qualifications of craftsmen in Britain and Germany, this article compares foremen in the two countries. It draws attention to the greater numbers qualifying in Germany, the higher standard of qualification required there, and differences in economic incentives.

Type
Articles
Information
National Institute Economic Review , Volume 123 , February 1988 , pp. 34 - 46
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 National Institute of Economic and Social Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

(1) See S.J. Prais, ‘Vocational qualifications of the labour force in Britain and Germany’, National Institute Economic Review, no.98, November 1981; and Berufsbildungsbericht 1987, p.79.

(2) These points are discussed in more detail in previous articles in the National Institute Economic Review; see especially the article by Daly, Hitchens and Wagner in the issue of February 1985, no. 111, which drew attention to the role of the Meister in metalworking plants, and that by Hilary Steedman in the November 1987 issue, no.122, on kitchen furniture plants.

(3) This tendency has been apparent for at least two decades: the quotation is from E.R.F.W. Crossman, Manpower Aspects of Automation and Technical Change, GECD, 1966, quoted by K. Thurley and H. Wirdenius in their valuable book on Supervision: A Reappraisal, Heinemann, London, 1973, p.203.

(4) More particularly where there is a gap in competence in modern techniques between the foreman and those above him. Sociological writers tend to discern (or look for) highly significant long-term shifts in the centres of authority and power in society associated with the changing roles and functions of various numbers of the production team: from our point of view, however, the important issue is the changing mix of experience and study that is required by modern technological change. See the article by D. Rose, G. Marshall, H. Newley and C. Vogler, ‘Goodbye to supervisors?’ in Work, Employment and Society, vol.1, no.1, pp.7-24, published by the British Sociological Association, and H. Bargemann, ‘Innovationshemmnis Industriemeister?’, Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 1984, vol.13, pp.45-59. The question mark in the titles of both articles is to be noted.

(5) See A.D. Smith, D.M.W.N. Hitchens and S.W. Davies, International Industrial Production (Cambridge, 1982).

(6) Over the years much has been written in English in general terms on the training and role of the German Meister: see the report of a visiting party to Germany, Career Development in the Federal Republic of Germany (ed. R. Rusell and D. Parkes, mimeo, Further Education Staff College, Bristol, 1984); on the teaching role of the Meister, see F. Flower and R. Russell, The Industrial Tutor in the Federal Republic of Germany (mimeo, Further Education Staff College, 1982). Explicit comparisons with Britain were not however the main focus of those papers. For the present comparisons two detailed studies from the German Federal Vocational Training Institute have been found especially helpful: H. Bober, E. Mohns, D. Scholz, K.-D. Weyrich, Weiterbildung zum Industriemeister (Bundesinstitut für Berufsbildung, Berlin, 1982), and H. Bau, Berufliche Qualifikation und Erwerbstätigkeit von Meistern (do., 1982). The recent book by A. Sorge and M. Warner, Comparative Factory Organisation: An Anglo—German Comparison of Manufacturing, Management and Manpower (Gower, 1986), though based on only three plants each in Britain and Germany, provides much detailed relevant material additional to that in the earlier article by these authors and M. Maurice, ‘Societal differences in organising manufacturing units: a comparison of France, West Germany, and Great Britain’, Organization Studies, 1980, p.59. The Swiss and Austrian systems of foreman qualification are very similar to the German system; on the latter, see the (duplicated) report by E. Hackl and E. Sztankovitz, Meister in der Industrie (Ostereichisches Institut Bildung und Wirtschaft, Vienna, 1980).

(7) To keep our discussion within bounds, we have excluded those qualifying at Technician (Techniker) level; a separate comparative study would appear to be justified at that level.

(8) The qualification is now awarded to candidates in Britain on the basis of a final assessment exercise (with ‘open books’); candidates abroad take formal examinations that are similar to those of NEBSS.

(9) For example in the ISM course mentioned in note(12) below.

(10) Toolmaking: A Comparison of UK and West German Companies, NEDO Gauge and Tool Sector Working Party (London, 1981), p.vii.

(11) Within the compass of the present study it has not been possible to refer to the many other specialised courses in supervision that are given in both countries, and which undoubtedly supplement the stock of skills. The number of candidates involved often seems surprisingly small; for example, a Certificate in Clothing Organisation and Supervisory Skills for the Garment Industry was recently introduced by City and Guilds—only 16 candidates passed in 1986 (as far as we can judge, the standard of this course seems closer to the third year of German apprenticeship training, rather than German foremanship training in this field). It has also not been possible to treat the many short (usually ‘non-certificated’) courses in specialised aspects of new technology, or specialised aspects of supervision, that are available in both countries. In assessing their significance it must be remembered that in Germany they are given to those who already have acquired previous vocational qualifications, whereas in Britain they are mainly addressed to those without previous formal qualifications. A fullor study of these matters would be of interest, though it seems unlikely that it would substantially modify the central conclusions to be drawn from the present paper.

(12) Specimen courses for the similar qualification provided by the Institute of Supervisory Management were outlined in a recent study by Incomes Data Services, Supervision of Manual Workers (study no. 386, London, May 1987) and indicate a variation in length of course of 150-250 hours; the longer course described there (for British Bakeries) devotes about a third of the time to technical aspects of production.

(13) A list of courses for Industriemeister is given by Bober et al., pp.13 et seq., and indicates considerable local variation; three quarters of the courses are part-time. The new British course for Master Gauge and Tool Makers specifies 900 hours of instruction on a part-time basis over 2½ years, and this is one of the important aspects in which it follows the German model (see the syllabus booklet for course no.298, published by City and Guilds). As in Germany, this new British course includes the preparation of a ‘master project’ and practical tests. It was also intended, in line with German practice, that candidates should have completed a City and Guilds Part III course in toolmaking; but too few candidates had attained this level to enable this to be made a requirement. In view of the present low enrolment on this course, it seems too early to regard it as part of the established British system (see section 5 below).

(14) See, for example, our article in the National Institute Economic Review, no.105, August 1983.

(15) Two years' experience is adequate in commercial occupations (for example, for the higher certificates of commercial competence in woodworking industries) provided it was preceded by successful completion of an initial commercial apprenticeship in that industry; if the initial apprenticeship was in production in that industry, four years' experience is the minimum requirement.

(16) Derived from the distribution for 1979 published by Bau, op. cit., p.20. In the Handwerk sector in Lower Saxony in 1964 and 1969, Meister qualified at average ages of 28.5 and 29.6 respectively (W. Herhaus, Neues Archiv für Niedersachen, June 1971, p.148 and table 9): a more recent investigation for Koblenz gives ages of 29-30 between 1976 and 1985(T. Schulz, Entwicklungen im Handwerk, Handwerks Kammer Koblenz, June 1986, p.17). A failing tendency for the number of years between qualification at craft and at Meister levels is shown in the latter source (only 8.1 years in 1984-5). A survey published in the early 1950s of a hundred Meister showed an average age of 36 when appointed to that status; the later age then was probably due to the consequences of the war (F. Lutge and M.R. Lepsius, Die Soziale Stellung des Meisters im Industriebetrieb, Institut fur Sozialpolitik und Arbeitsrecht, Munchen, 1954, p.129).

(17) Nineteen hours in printing (Bober et al., pp.55 et seq.).

(18) The account that follows draws also on the detailed impressive 25-page revised curriculum of studies for Industriemeister in metal industries prepared by E. Mohns, D. Scholz and K.-D. Weyrich, Stoffkataloge für Industriemeisterlehrgänge—Metall (Bundesinstitut fur Berufsbildung, Berlin, 1983), and on the examinations for these courses as set in Berlin in 1985. Excerpts from the German regulations of 1977 for this occupation (dealing with the general, and not the technical, subjects) have previously been published (in English translation) by Russell and Parkes, op. cit., pp.58-61. For Britain we relied on specimen NEBSS curricula and examinations relating to construction, engineering and catering. To provide fuller illustrations of the level aimed at in Germany, some additional sample questions are given below from the woodworking Meister examinations (as set in Kassel in 1935), and the regulations for Meister printer are referred to.

(19) Similarly, someone willing to qualify as a woodworking Meister is examined in technical drawing, and required to draw details (following DIN standards), for example, of a sliding door for a cupboard of given dimensions, with specified veneered boards and finishing. The higher standard of precision in technical drawing looked for in qualified craftsmen on the Continent has similarly become evident in our more recent comparison of the training of motor mechanics in Britain and France; in France technical drawing to, say, our City and Guilds Part I standard is a requirement for qualified motor mechanics—while in pragmatic Britain it is sufficient, we were told, if a rough sketch can be drawn.

(20) See Mohns et al., Stoffkataloge, p.34. For the woodworking Meister, the relative advantages of pneumatic over hydraulic control are examined in a question asking for four examples to be given where the former is preferable. Questions on the life history of insects, and the damage that can be done by the woodborer Xyloterus Lineatus, for example, are—very properly—to be found in tests on material technology for that occupation.

(21) This example is taken from the woodworking Meister examination.

(22) Fortbildung zur Industriemeister Druck, Bundesverband Druck, Berlin, 1979, and subsequent revisions.

(23) See Bau, op. cit., pp.29-30.

(24) The examples in the following paragraphs are based on the Institute's observations of matched metalworking plants in Britain and Germany reported by A. Daly et al. (National Institute Economic Review, no.111, February 1985); and of furniture and clothing plants by Hilary Steedman and Karin Wagner (National Institute Economic Review, no.122, November 1987; and forthcoming).

(25) Similar differences were found in the small sample of engineering plants in the two countries studied by Sorge and Warner, op cit., p.77, and were confirmed in the National Institute's study of a rather larger sample of metalworking plants reported by Daly et al.

(26) The prevalence of industrial unions in Germany, rather than craft based unions as in Britain, is of course a contributory factor to this difference. For a British supervisor to pull down a doubtful batch of raw material from a stack and unpack it, before it is passed for manufacturing, may be sufficient for a shop steward to call out the members of his union and stop the plant; negotiations are slowly overcoming this type of problem, but we were told they were still a serious hindrance in 1987. The sharing of authority in large plants, and the mechanism of consultation and participation, remains a problematic issue in Britain; for our purposes here we need not go beyond noting that a supervisor who is qualified to a higher level in both technical and organisational matters (including negotiations with personnel) is an asset in securing advances in productivity.

(27) We are here talking of what is regarded as typical of firms in the two countries; there are undoubtedly exceptions (such as the production director of a North British clothing firm who, we were told, spends much time in London shops watching the sales of his product so that he can rapidly adjust his production schedules!).

(28) Described by Flower and Russell, op. cit, and by H. Dickinson and M. Erben, ‘An aspect of industrial training in the Federal Republic of Germany: sociological considerations on the role of the Meister’, Further and Higher Education, 1985, vol.9, part 2, pp.69-76.

(29) For definitions see, for example, Statistisches Jahrbuch 1986, p.465. An element of arbitrariness must, for the sake of strictness, be footnoted here as inevitable in defining a ‘foreman’ consequent on varying production conditions, especially in process industries, in very large plants and where there is shift work; the leading hand, charge-hand, shift charge-hand, or senior machine man are usually not counted amongst ‘foremen’, though most of their activities might well be similar to those exercised by a foreman in a smaller plant (the latter would, however, usually have a wider range of potential responsibilities).

(30) C. Saunders and D. Marsden, Pay Inequalities in the European Communities, Butterworth, 1981, p.163.

(31) M.P. Fogarty and E. Reid, Differentials for Managers and Skilled Manual Workers in the United Kingdom, London, Policy Studies Institute, 1980, p.92.

(32) The information for 1913-70 is derived from table 6.8, Report No. 8 of the Royal Commission on the Distribution of Income and Wealth, HMSO, 1979, p.80 (Chairman: Lord Diamond). That table had been prepared by Dr G.C. Routh on the basis of his earlier study at the National Institute, which was completed just as the most interesting developments in differentials were taking place (Occupation and Pay in Great Britain 1906-60, Cambridge, 1965, p.104). Curiously enough, the contraction in foremen's differentials did not attract the Commission's comment: their concern was more with the overall dispersion of all earnings, in respect of which they blandly noted that ‘the overall distribution had remained remarkably stable’ (Report, p.231). On the fall in works managers' pay in the 1970s, see also: G.C. Routh, ‘Ten years of the British New Earnings Survey’, Labour and Society, vol.4, no.3, July 1979, esp. pp.215-16.

(33) Some longer-term contraction in differentials in Germany may also be presumed to have taken place; the statistical information we have been able to gather is limited to 1937, when skilled and semi-skilled workers (Fach und angelernte Arbeiter taken together—separate figures are not available) earned a differential of 36 per cent over unskilled workers (Hilfsarbeiter). This compares with the postwar differentials of 18-26 per cent for 1949 shown in table 2.

(34) It is not solely when compared with Germany that Britain apparently pays low differentials for foremen: an analysis of the EC countries in 1972 suggested they all paid relatively more than Britain; the highest then was France, which paid foremen 190 per cent of the wages of an unskilled manual worker (see L. Needleman, ‘The structure of industrial earnings in seven Western European Countries’, in Controlling Industrial Economies: Essays in Honour of C. T. Saunders, ed. S.F. Frowen, Macmillan, 1983, pp.180-1). The more recent similar Eurostat inquiries for 1978/9 (Structure of Earnings 1978/79, Luxembourg 1985) yield much the same picture, with French male foremen in manufacturing having the highest differentials at 194 per cent of an unskilled worker, and with British foremen at only 130. Even British ‘higher grade’ supervisors earned only 133 per cent of unskilled workers. The classification of supervisors in these inquiries into those with ‘higher’, ‘middie’ and ‘lower’ capabilities and responsibilities seems, unhappily, not to have been applied on a uniform basis amongst the countries. (For France and Germany those with higher and middle ‘proficiency and responsibilities’ were covered, but for the UK the coverage extended to supervisors with lower proficiency and responsibilities: see the introductory notes in the various languages on the definition of occupation groups 5A and 5B.) We have therefore based our comparisons here on the national sources for each country, and matched the main occupations of interest.

(35) Provided he has worked for six years, and undertakes to be employed at least three further years following the completion of his course. On the same conditions, if he wishes to take a full-time course he may also apply for government loans (not grants) covering half his previous earnings.

(36) Theoretical economists have long drawn a distinction between training for specific skills, not very valuable outside a particular employment, which do not usually lead to higher wages and which it is thus in the employer's interest to finance, and training for general skills which are valuable in other employments, are reflected in higher wages, and are financed by the employee. In these terms, the British foreman's traditional training within his firm would seem to be more concerned with developing specific skills, while the German foreman's off-the-job training courses are more concerned to develop general skills of foremanship, transferable sufficiently widely within a trade as to command higher remuneration. The gradual move in Britain towards examined and certified courses for foremen—inspired by the requirements of a more sophisticated technology—carries with it a greater element of skill transferability, and the ultimate need for greater wage differentials reflecting their marketability.

(37) Some large firms in Britain (such as Ford) now require NEBSS courses to have been satisfactorily completed by all newly promoted foremen, much in the way that Meister certificates are often a prerequisite for promotion in German firms (the difference in standards of these courses, as explained in previous sections of this paper, must not be forgotten).

(38) The details of the earnings distribution are published in the New Earnings Survey; at the other extreme, a tenth of all foremen earned approximately a third less than the average (that is, hardly different from the average unskilled labourer).

(39) Bau, op. cit. p.9.

(40) See the discussion of the future of the Meister in a booklet produced by representatives of some of Germany's largest firms (Hoechst, VW, Siemens, Bayer): Industriemeister 2000, Deutscher Industrie und Handelstag, Bonn, 1986, esp. p.24. The growth of automation, it has often been suggested, might gradually make otiose the personnel skills of the German Meister and lead to a transfer of authority to those trained as engineering technicians or as graduate engineers: so far the adaptability of the training of the Meister seems to have been adequate.