R EGARDING social theory and its application to the study of the attitudes of soldiers, Stouffer states: "The truth is that, except for providing broad and none too explicit ways of looking at problems, most of the theories of social psychology and sociology were not in very good shape for practical application."' Similar statements, but couched in disparaging terms, were made earlier by Roethlisberger about the applicability of social theory to the study of industrial relations. In fact, Roethlisberger held up to ridicule the theorists whom he and his associate met in their "journey through the field of social science."2 Several years ago Blumer pointed out the need for adequate theory in a rapidly developing industrial sociology.3 Other writers have recognized this need and have offered theoretical suggestions pertinent to certain areas of industrial relations.4 Conversations with sociologists reveal that many of them regard industrial sociology as largely a development in practically-oriented research with little relation to the major body of sociological theory. Three years ago the writer found himself agreeing with a statement to this effect. However, careful study of the matter since that time suggests that Roethlisberger's observations and his own were incorrect.5 Examination of the facts connected with the recent developments in industrial sociology seems to justify the following conclusions: (1) that researchers from the fields of physiology, psychology, economics, and business management made observations in industry not explicable in terms of their disciplines and turned to sociology for a relevant body of theory; (2) that sociological theory has been remarkably wellsuited to research and to interpretation of major developments in industrial relations in the United States within the past two decades; (3) that the theory which is applicable at the plant level is the analysis of action and that the relevant concepts are those in common use in general sociology; (4) that many industrial relations researchers, especially the Harvard Business School group, have been unaware of the extent of their dependence upon sociological theory. The work that can properly be termed industrial sociology falls more or less neatly into three categories: (1) industry and society; (2) industry and the community; (3) relationships within industry. During the nineteenth and early part of the twentieth centuries, there were numbers of observations and studies relating to industry and the community and industry and society. Marx, Le Play, Durkheim, Weber, and Veblen are names which come to mind in this connection. During this period there was little or no study of relationships within industry. But the 1930's brought a dramatic change in the situation. The change was due to observations and experiments which established the inadequacy of existing conceptions of industrial worker, of industrial manager, and of the worker-manager relationship. The movement has led to an accelerated development of industrial sociology. It has viewed the worker-management relationship as a system of interactions and this has resulted in: (1) a re* Read before the seventeenth annual meeting of the Southern Sociological Society, Atlanta, Georgia, March 26, 1954. 1 S. A. Stouffer, "Studying the Attitudes of Soldiers," Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 95, No. 5, p. 337. 2 See "Concerning People Who Theorize About Cooperative Phenomena," in F. J. Roethlisberger, Management and Morale (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1942), pp. 160-174. Elton Mayo makes similar statements; for example, see his The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilization (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1945), p. 20. 3 Herbert Blumer, "Sociological Theory in Industrial Relations," American Sociological Review, 12 (June 1947), pp. 271-278. 4 See, for example, W. E. Moore, Industrialization and Labor (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1951); W. A. Koivisto, "Value, Theory, and Fact in Industrial Sociology," The American Journal of_Sociology, LVIII (May 1953), 564-572; Robert C. Stone, "Conflicting Approaches to the Study of Worker-Manager Relations," Social Forces, 31 (December 1952), pp. 117-124. 5 For sixteen years prior to this, the writer had divided his time about equally between sociology and industrial relations but without a systematic effort to relate the two.