The Archive will be closed from Monday 16 December, re-opening on Monday 6 January 2025.
This exhibition has been created by Nick Bailey who is undertaking a PhD at the University of Leeds. His research focuses on the role that gender played in the workplace during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and it is funded by the White Rose College of the Arts and Humanities.
This exhibition tells the story of Flora Solomon who developed M&S’s first staff Welfare Programme in the 1930s, and it traces her work up to the early 1960s.
Flora was born into a wealthy Russian Jewish family in 1895, and she moved to Britain at the outbreak of the First World War.
She was introduced to M&S’s chairman Simon Marks in 1916, through mutual friends in the British Zionist movement. Their paths crossed again at a dinner party in 1931, and this led to Simon asking Flora to investigate the working conditions of the company’s female shop staff.
She recounted in her autobiography, From Baku to Baker Street, how she told Simon that M&S was expanding through ‘exploiting its workers’, and how ‘firms like M&S gave Jews a bad name’. He asked her if she had any suggestions on how to improve things, and she responded that she wanted to help.
He authorised her to interview M&S’s shop assistants and its store managers. She looked at every aspect of day-to-day life in the shops, and in her own words, ‘sniffed behind broom cupboards’. She was mentored by her friend Margaret Bonfield, a minister in the Labour government.
Flora witnessed the negative effect that conditions were having on many of M&S’s young female workers.
The M&S stores had recently been redesigned to make them more attractive to customers, but old ways of working persisted.
The stores operated under a rigid gender hierarchy, where the company’s male store managers often created, even if unintentionally, an atmosphere of fear amongst the store’s female staff, who worked long hours for low wages.
Flora found that the situation was made worse by the conditions at the ‘back of the shop’, where the staff typically had no space allocated to them to relax in on their breaks. In addition, their toilet and washing facilities were often very poor.
However, this was not unusual, and these conditions were prevalent across the British high street of the period.
Flora’s sister-in-law introduced her to the owner of one of Germany’s biggest department stores where she witnessed an enlightened approach that was very different to British retailers. She took inspiration from her visit, and this shaped her ideas on what M&S should do regarding the welfare of its staff.
Flora’s report outlined what she recommended M&S should do to create a happier and more rewarding workplace for the company’s female staff.
The result was the Welfare Programme which was launched in 1933. This catered for all aspects of the women’s wellbeing and was led by Flora as its self-appointed Welfare Superintendent.
The company magazine Sparks communicated the programme’s benefits from different perspectives. These included praise from young staff members for improved staff facilities, and the newly opened convalescent home, whilst an older employee illustrated what working for M&S used to be like.
The role of Staff Manageress was created in each store to oversee the programme’s delivery, and a new company publication, Staff Management News provided advice. Whilst readers were encouraged to share ideas through its pages, Flora’s team at head office provided strong direction. This included reading suggestions that reflected Flora’s growing interest in psychology, and a report on a lecture in occupational health.
The manageresses were told to ‘look after the physical comfort of their girls’. This ‘maternal’ approach, and a keen eye for detail proved to be fundamental aspects of the programme.
Subsidised medical care improved the health of employees at a time when access to these kinds of services was beyond the reach of many working-class women.
Services were introduced gradually, and by 1939 they included staff doctors, dentists, opticians and chiropodists. Manageresses were instructed on helping their staff make the most of this provision.
Manageresses were informed of how their approach might have a detrimental effect on their staff’s wellbeing. The head doctor provided them with advice on how to assess applicants’ health and when to turn them down, so that these applicants would not be disappointed when they failed the mandatory medical examination. He also explained how to combat a reluctance amongst staff to undergo medical treatment if a health issue had been identified.
Healthcare was focused as much on prevention as it was the cure, and this was especially true of the company’s dental service which many employees were reluctant to engage with. The Welfare Programme’s chiropody service was innovative, and it included the trial of a specially designed comfort shoe to help employees that spent a long time standing each day.
The company recognised the importance of providing good, affordable meals and refreshments to keep the staff well-nourished.
The staff canteens were subsidised and if an employee could not afford to pay, the price would be waived discretely.
Manageresses were instructed on the importance of a balanced diet, and how to persuade staff to eat more healthily. Recipes were provided to inspire the canteen staff and these included how to make a pot of tea, including advice on whether to put the milk in first…as the store staff needed to be able to ‘look forward to a really good cup of tea in the afternoon,’ and nothing was left to chance. These suggestions also included how to make the most out of any un-sold food, especially fresh fruit and vegetables.
Subsidised holidays and other leisure activities introduced opportunities for staff to relax and enjoy themselves with colleagues away from work.
Whilst the emphasis was on healthy pursuits such as team sports and camping holidays, social occasions were also seen as an important way for staff to spend time together away from the workplace.
Sparks provided a platform for the stores to publicise their events which also helped promote friendly rivalry.
Flora knew from her own experiences how important travel was, and this can be seen in the company’s promotion of staff holidays abroad. Company subsidies ensured that the trip to France was within the budgets of younger staff members at a time when foreign travel was typically unaffordable for working-class women.
As M&S focused more on high-quality clothing for women, it was important that the staff’s appearance reflected this shift.
New staff uniforms were smarter and more attractive than the drab dresses they had worn previously. However, appearance went beyond clothing, and the manageresses were advised on how they could make sure their staff presented themselves as attractively as possible to customers.
This advice was intrusive by today’s standards. Staff were told that it could be ‘difficult to be either beautiful or really happy if you are not feeling fit and healthy’. The staff doctor provided tips which included regularly changing their underwear and having ‘at least one hot bath every week.’
Following a visit to New York a supervisor came back with ideas on how the M&S staff could emulate the ‘high standards of appearance’ she saw amongst the city’s store staff. Group discussions were encouraged that covered the importance of staff checking their appearance as they left their home, and how best to walk to work to encourage a better posture.
The Welfare Programme played an important role in encouraging women to apply to work at M&S.
The company understood the value of media coverage in increasing the public’s understanding of the programme. This applied especially to the mothers of those young girls who might be considering a job in retail. The sector underwent rapid expansion in the 1930s, and competition for staff was intense. It was felt that the programme could play an important role in helping M&S attract the best school leavers.
The local newspaper in Cambridge reported on an event that the local branch had held for the mothers of young employees to explain the benefits of the Welfare Programme, and this coverage publicised it to mothers across the city. Soon after this, a female employee gave a talk on BBC radio where she described her full and independent lifestyle. She referenced how the subsidised prices at the staff canteen allowed her to save money, and how these savings combined with her M&S salary meant that she could afford to buy the things that she wanted in life.
Quantifying the impact of the Welfare Programme was an important consideration for Head Office.
The subsidies associated with the programme were considerable, and consequently understanding their contribution to the ‘bottom line’ was key. However, this quantification presented M&S with a number of challenges which they attempted to overcome through focusing on a variety of personnel related indicators. The most important of these was staff turnover.
The first issue of Staff Management News demonstrated the impact that the programme had had in reducing staff turnover from 69% to 26%. This statistic was taken from a confidential report compiled for the M&S directors; sharing it with the manageresses was a progressive way of ensuring their commitment to delivering the programme in their stores. The provision of dental care was important to the company, and the results of this provision were detailed in a report compiled by M&S’s head dentist. A later report highlighted the cost of the programme and concluded that it was one of the main reasons why store workers remained with the company.
The Welfare Department maintained its focus despite wartime restrictions.
The country faced significant challenges on the home front, and M&S provided support to minimise these difficulties for its staff. This was especially important at a time when the wages on offer in wartime industries were higher than those available in the retail sector, and M&S needed to provide incentives for employees to remain with the company.
Advice was given to the manageresses on how to cope with emotional distress amongst the staff, as well as helping them with practical issues. Suggestions were also made around how staff could give themselves a change of environment by temporarily transferring between branches.
The canteens were provided with recipe ideas to help them cope with food rationing, so that they could continue to focus on providing nutritious meals for the staff. In the final year of the war the canteens provided 15,000 meals per day for store staff.
Flora recognised how disruptive the effect of mobilisation on store staff could be, and she sent a questionnaire to them so that they could share their experiences and their concerns for returning to the M&S fold.
An increased emphasis was placed on welfare as the company rebuilt in the post-war period.
The new National Health Service was introduced in July 1948, and staff were advised on how it would impact on the Welfare Programme, whilst familiar themes were reintroduced.
A guide on how the Welfare Programme complemented the new service was provided, and the prospect of extra holiday incentivised staff to be healthy.
Manageresses were encouraged to consider how literature could complement their summer holiday and were also kept abreast of the latest thinking on the importance of occupational psychology. The emphasis on personal hygiene returned as the women were provided with tips on how they could help their staff ‘keep dainty and fresh in hot weather.’
Recipes helped canteen staff deal with ongoing food rationing, and they were reminded of the role that they could play in the M&S Christmas effort.
Commenting on the programme’s 20th anniversary, Flora congratulated the manageresses on how they had proved to the company that they were indispensable, despite facing opposition from male colleagues. The programme was firmly established as an integral part of M&S personnel policy which was made clear in the manuals that were issued to senior staff.
Whilst the Welfare Programme advanced the status of female store staff, gender inequality remained in M&S.
Company policies could disadvantage women relative to their male colleagues, and prejudicial attitudes persisted.
There was a significant wages gap between female and male staff in supervisory roles, despite the importance of the role of Floor Supervisors in dealing with customers. However, this disparity was commonplace in the UK before the introduction of employment equality legislation.
Women were not entitled to the same retirement benefits due to the M&S pension scheme not being open to them. Retired female staff had to apply to the company’s Benevolent Fund for a financial support, whereas men automatically qualified for a pension.
Inequality could also be seen in less obvious ways such as the decision of the male manager of the Plymouth branch to send staff to a local ‘finishing school.’ This would have been based on certain gendered assumptions by the manager… the reaction of the women on being taught elocution and how to improve their personal hygiene was not recorded!
Sharing the stories of those who had worked for the company over a long period showcased the benefits of a career at M&S.
These stories were featured in staff magazines which ensured that as many employees saw them as possible.
The interview with Miss Lawrence of Chatham is notable for its progressive approach. She was a store manager, a role typically only open to men. However, the description of her 25 years of service as being like a silver wedding anniversary, seems less enlightened by today’s standards.
Later coverage was more egalitarian and evolved from rather stern portraits to more celebratory photographs which captured the mood of events. Staff would be presented with gifts as a mark of the company’s appreciation, and these would be paid for by head office.
As the company built new stores the welfare facilities were modernised.
This reflected the continued importance of the Welfare Programme and helped reinforce M&S’s reputation as a good employer who cared about their staff.
The new staff facilities were shown to staff in a special issue of the company magazine St Michael News. This placed the improved facilities within the context of M&S’s expansion programme of the early 1960s.
Commemorative editions were published for the public to coincide with the opening of new stores such as the one in Manchester. Alongside showcasing the new store, the intention was that the city’s shoppers would be left in no doubt as to the importance of the Welfare Programme. The facilities in the modern store were contrasted with what had been available to staff at the turn of the century, and the canteen provision and in-store hairdresser were highlighted. This care and attention to detail gave a ‘real meaning to the phrase a ‘family business.’’
Cinema advertising also played a part in publicising staff welfare. The contrast of a staff canteen with the food hall was an innovative way of reinforcing the high standards of M&S food.
Keeping the company’s investors informed of the Welfare Programme played an important role in communicating M&S’s core values.
The company’s annual general meeting with its shareholders provided Simon Marks with the opportunity to explain how the programme was developing, and this was often done with reference to its impact on the company’s performance. He claimed in 1937, that by investing in the programme M&S were ‘rewarded with an efficient staff giving loyal and enthusiastic collaboration…they respond to the calls of an expanding business.’ Highlights from his speeches were shared in M&S’s staff magazines, which provided another way for the company to underline its commitment to its employees.
Reports of the speeches typically led with the amount of money that had been spent in the previous year. The headline in 1957 which announced the level of welfare spend per head, was cleverly positioned alongside the reminiscences of a retired employee.
Speaking in 1962 and paying tribute to long-serving members of staff, Simon told the shareholders that, ‘I am sure that no company could be better served by its staff than we are.’
Flora left M&S in 1956, but her influence continued to be felt after her exit.
She returned as a consultant to M&S in 1962 and reviewed the Welfare Programme. Flora concluded it remained influential in reducing staff turnover, but that it could be modernised in certain areas. Her recommendations included: pre-employment medical examinations were intrusive and should be stopped, the subsidy in the staff canteens could be reduced, and a personnel research group should be formed to lead future strategy.
The Welfare Programme was celebrated in a special edition of St Michael News. Flora’s role in the programme was downplayed, and the description of how Simon had appointed her was very different to her account. Her autobiography indicated that she had left the company in unhappy circumstances and this coverage may have reflected that. Wherever the truth of the story lies, it is certain that without Flora’s vision the programme would not have developed in the way that it did.
The Welfare Programme reflected her passions, it introduced the store staff to experiences and ideas that they may not otherwise have encountered, and it laid the foundations of M&S’s reputation as being an employer that cares for its staff.
