. what started out to be a managementimprovement effort not only led in the course of one year

An investigation of who left and why revealed three
factors; among the foremen who left there was (1) high
proportion of intelligent men; (2) a high proportion of
men with relatively few years of service. although even
among men with over 10 years of service 39 per cent
were dissatisfied; and (3) very high percentage of men
who had regular contact with senior management.
Apparently this last factor was most important. in that it
revealed directly to the foremen how little a change of
attitude had actually occurred among senior management.
In summary. what started out to be a managementimprovement effort not only led in the course of one year
to a severe conflict between first-line supervisors dnd
senior management and res~lted in no change in management attitudes. but also produced a high rate of turnover among some of the very men whom the company needed to keep. What the organization and the consultant had failed to foreseen was the complex relationships among the several sub-systems of the organization-the forema group. junior management. senior management. and the managing director. Had the training course been adequately thought out in terms of its potential effects on these various sub-systems. the disastrous effects might have been avoided.

Status symbols
Status differentiation in industry is commonly achieved by the use of symbols. Although this topic has received considerable attention in the news media. it has usually been of a comic nature. With the amount of .time and money spent in establishing equity in the system. it is perhaps surprising that almost no research work has been done on measuring its effects. One firm's grading system was introduced thus: 'Considerable thought has been given to the most equitable manner in laying down guidelines for the seniority and status of the company's staff.'
This firm had. in fact, the most elaborate. system of