"Aw, what do I care!" says the man who is working under a poor leader. "I'd do anything for him!" explains the happy man who has a good chief. A poor leader may even so antagonize his men that each will actually try to do the least that he can and still hold his job; while a good leader may take the same men through the same tasks and so handle them as to inspire a spirit which will make every man try to do his very best. Manpower is thus seen to be a direct function of leadership. And the difference between the results from good leadership and from poor is often astonishing. The wonder is that we have so long neglected this psychological factor for increasing accomplishment. It is probably because we thoughtlessly accepted the idea that leaders have to be "born," and did not stop to realize that this kind of leadership is in reality an art which may be readily acquired by anyone who has enough native character.

Recent experience has taught us that this art may be acquired—so we need no longer sit with folded hands in admiration of the "born leader." What is instinctive in him may be analyzed, reduced to principles, and made applicable to ourselves. It was done for the army, and by study many an inexperienced man made himself a successful leader of troops in the late war. It may be quite as easily done in any other field of activity.

A knowledge of this art is of practical value in every phase of human endeavor—in bringing up children, in school, college and hospital, in the office and in the field, and most particularly in industry where men are grouped for the purposes of material production. Applied to any large business organization, let every leader from the big chief to the lowest sub-foreman practice the same principles of leadership, and there will soon permeate the whole machine a spirit of loyalty, teamwork and esprit which will drive it with a marvelous degree of efficiency.

It appears that industry is quite awake to this fact to-day. Industrial literature abounds with considerations of the humanity of labor. Employers have come to realize that the purchase of labor is a contract for future delivery, and that what they get from it will depend not so much on the bare delivery of the labor they have purchased, as on the continuing spirit in which it is daily and hourly delivered. The employer knows that he wants the loyal, enthusiastic, co-operative service of his employees, and that he cannot get it for money alone. He therefore adopts such organization and policy in his business as will make possible the loyal co-operation of all, and then attempts to have his men so handled as to get this result.

The latter consideration is vital, for the best of policies may be ruined by the meanness or incompetence of subordinate executives. The morale officer of one of our largest corporations has recently stated that he has no trouble with the employers or with the men, but that he has all kinds of trouble with the superintendents and foremen, who seem unable to understand how to handle the men. Knowledge of leadership is essential not alone for the chief, but even more for his subordinates who are in direct contact with his men.

It is easy to say that leaders must so handle their men as to inspire loyalty and enthusiastic service—but most of them will have to be taught how to do this. That was the failure in army training. The manuals all prescribed that the officer must so handle his men as to build up discipline and a high morale, but nowhere were there any instructions as to how to do it. The art was handed along by tradition, often incorrectly. War brought the need for quickly training hundreds of thousands of leaders, and it was found necessary both here and in foreign armies to reduce this art of handling men to written principles which the young aspirants could study and learn to apply. This was found very efficient in the army. It may well be equally efficient in civil life. The ghastly wastes from poor leadership and consequent inefficient work, the heartburnings and discontent and lack of high purpose which are so common in every field to-day, certainly call for some attention if we are to meet successfully the tests which the next few years have in store. We have got to quit looking for cure-alls and get down to work; and work efficiently and happily, knowing again the homely joy of doing things well and the satisfaction of accomplishment.

Our leaders must be "good leaders." This does not mean only employers and their subordinates, or only labor leaders. It means every man in the nation who is responsible for the control and work of others. These men are all leaders in our sense, each one responsible for the effects of his leadership on the members of his group, be it large or small. Let these men sense their responsibility, realize that the quality of their leadership has far reaching effects upon character as well as upon immediate accomplishment, and they may easily by personal example and thoughtful conduct of office arouse a tide of loyal service which will sweep discontent and palliatives into oblivion and fairly flood the country with sanity, prosperity and happy living.

As a first step toward this, no matter what his business or profession, each leader should realize that in controlling the work of his men he is handling human tools—sentient human beings, like himself. Here is a craftsmanship worthy of study. One may not hope successfully to handle these tools, hit or miss, without special thought or training. Yet many have never thought of this, or considered what it means to them personally as leaders. If they would do this alone, they would find themselves self-prompted to such conduct of office as would give far better results. When a man is charged with directing the efforts of certain individuals to a given end, these individuals become instruments in his hand for the accomplishment of this purpose. They are his tools. He will find them sensitive, difficult instruments, capable of splendid accomplishment if skillfully handled, but blunt and ineffective in unskilled hands. Every leader should realize and continually think of this fact: My principal tools are human beings and I must think how to handle them as such.

If a man has won promotion to leadership, no matter in what field of activity—in sport, shop, office or the field—he may no longer win success by skill in using the tools he has been using. It is now his job to direct others in using them. These others, these human beings such as he was, are now to be his tools. And as he won his promotion by training his body, brain and nerves to use his original tools to best advantage, so now he will succeed as leader by learning to use skillfully these new human ones.

As a first step toward learning these tools, the leader should get at least a crude conception of what this human being really is, and how he is controlled in his daily walk. Let us therefore for a moment consider man the animal. We find him in his beginnings running naked and alone with the beasts in the primeval forest—without knowledge of community life, even of family life, and not knowing the use of human speech. But for his "will to improve" he was apparently no more highly endowed by nature than some of his fellow species. Yet that will to improve has in the processes of time enabled him to develop within himself his present marvelous organization of nerve centers and co-ordinated control, and through the power of his self-invented language to store his brain cells with the wisdom of the ages. Thus enabled to analyze and to reason, he has progressed step by step until he has reached his present mastery of the forces of nature. To-day he may fly in the air higher than the eagle, may work at will beneath the ocean, may sit at ease and listen to the natural voice of a friend through thousands of miles of distance, or may analyze the composition of the heavenly bodies and predict with accuracy their every movement. And what the race has thus accomplished in development through the ages, each man is privileged to accomplish in his lifetime. For he is born into the world with brain cells empty and with less nerve control than a kitten, but endowed with hereditary capacity and that wonderful will to improve, which enable him to talk and to read in early childhood, and to develop his faculties in time to a degree limited only by the determined purpose of his ambition.

Such is man in the outward manifestations of his prowess. Meantime he is a creature almost pathetically responsive to his inherent instincts and in his daily walk largely controlled by habit. It was the beneficent intention of Nature to leave man's mind free for the contemplation of higher things, free to form visions of better things and to reason out the means for attaining them. She therefore relieved his mind of the trivial cares of deciding just what to do in the thousands of cases for action in his daily life, and designed him to do all these normal things in response to impulses from natural instincts, or in unconscious obedience to the direction of habits which he commences to form in infancy and continues to form throughout his development.

So we find man a creature of almost unlimited capacity, but pathetically sensitive to his environment and treatment because so helplessly responsive to instincts and habits. And this capable yet sensitive animal, man, is to be an instrument in the hands of another, a man like himself, except that he has qualified to be the leader. How reasonable that this leader should have to give serious thought to this situation and seek to understand nature's powerful influences in guiding the actions of both himself and his men. What folly for him to expect to be able to handle them blindly, hit or miss, without consideration of man's peculiarities and the fundamental things that control him.

Perhaps the most important of these fundamentals for the leader to realize is the deep-seated desire of every individual to maintain his self-respect and to have his right to self-respect recognized by those about him. The biggest step man ever took in the attainment of civilization was that of the ancient fathers when they discarded the worship of Sun and Fire, and conceived a God endowed with human attributes. They thus gave man the right to claim that he was "made in the image of God." On that man founded his philosophy of life and has more and more demanded and fought for and sometimes won a recognition of his claim to self-respect. Made in the image of God; he resented being lashed as a slave in the galleys or driven as one in the chain gangs; he felt the indignity of being a serf; and he came to realize the inconsistency of being arbitrarily governed. He has thus slowly fought his way upward toward his ideal, and has won his right to self-respect in government and in community living, to the profit of both.

Out of this evolution came democracy; and the second fundamental for the leader is to appreciate that in handling men to-day he is no longer handling serfs or hirelings. His men are citizens of democracy—made or in the making. Many leaders have not realized this, or thought out what it should mean in determining their methods of control. In reality it is the only foundation for any intelligent modern system of discipline. Democracy requires of each citizen that he be a self-respecting, self-thinking, responsible individual, capable of making decisions and acting on them in his civil capacity. These qualities of citizenship are demanded for participation in community affairs and are publicly appealed to for political purposes. They are of the atmosphere in which each man lives as a member of the community. It is only reasonable that the self-same individuals who operate under the principles of democracy in all their general affairs should do better work under democratic rather than autocratic control. The rights of individuality and of self-direction have been hardly won and are dearly held. They do much toward making the democratic citizen the able man he is to-day, and are in reality a splendid basis for his control.

The highest type of army discipline is developed on a thorough recognition of these very qualities in the men. It is practiced by all who have appreciated the meanings of the modern social and political development of the individual, and learned how to benefit by its advantages for getting efficiency. There still exist, however, many unthinking officers who get their ideas of discipline from the traditional rules formerly evolved for the control of serfs and mercenaries. But their day is rapidly passing, as the modern principle is more and more widely accepted that the man in ranks is an intelligent, self-respecting individual, that he may be interested equally with the leader in the success of the cause, and that in large measure he is capable of adding to its success out of his own individual effort and intelligence.

The following definition of democracy by Professor Carver presents clearly the two elements which must be given consideration: "Two things and two things only are essential to real democracy. The first is an open road to talent, that is to say that every man shall have an opportunity to rise to positions of power and responsibility in proportion to his ability regardless of birth, privilege, caste or other social barriers. The son of the peasant may become the ruler in government or the employer in business by sheer force of his own merit, if he happens to possess merit. The second essential of pure democracy is that they who are in positions of power and responsibility shall be made sensitive to the needs, the desires and the interests of those over whom they exercise power and responsibility." Such democracy may well be recognized in his dealings if one wants success with his men. The road to advancement must lie wide open to ability and ambition, without a suspicion of favoritism and with encouragement for any individual who may aspire to follow it. Likewise the way for the honest expression of individual opinion and feeling must be open from the ranks to the leader without prejudice and with consideration. This recognizes their rights and develops their powers as individuals interested in a common cause. Such conception of rights in dealing with men is practical, is truly democratic and is highly efficient. It has worked to best advantage in army discipline, it is working successfully in many business organizations, and it is a sure foundation for efficient management in any group working for any purpose. When the interior administration of states' prisons is successfully run on the basis of democratic principles, it would seem possible to apply them to the control of almost any other group of men.

The governing idea is therefore for the leader to build up the self-respect of his men and their sense of individual responsibility, and thus to control their actions. He does not want them to be dogs; he must never treat them like dogs. He wants them to show intelligence; he must show confidence that they have intelligence. He wants them able to make decisions and to act on them for the common good; he therefore tells them what is to be done and why, not how to do it, and thus develops their resourcefulness and initiative. He wants their co-operation in loyal teamwork; he therefore asks their ideas as to methods, encourages their suggestions, and assumes that they are intelligently interested in the common success and able to bring something of value toward winning it. In short he considers them to be active partners with himself in the working out of a common purpose, and treats them as such.

The only possible excuse—not reason, but excuse—for the old-fashioned "roughneck" foreman with his discipline inspired by fear is the existence of his gang of ignorant immigrant laborers, uninterested in civilization and decent living, apparently willing to live like dogs and to be treated as such. Even these could be better handled by better methods. Furthermore the nation has learned that such citizens do not pay and intends by education and restriction of immigration to free herself of them. This will mean more intelligence among laborers, and that the foreman of the future will have to be able to boss not a group of ignorant foreigners but a group of thinking citizens, many of whom will be properly striving to win the job of being the boss themselves. This will mean that to hold his job he has got to be a good foreman, know his work, and above all know how to handle men decently. Being a foreman is going to be a real job, for which real men will fit themselves in order to make good.

A third fundamental consideration is to appreciate how modern conditions have made the possession of personal character an essential to successful leadership. The development of the individual, self-conscious that he is a reasoning being with the rights and responsibilities of self-determination, has put into the discard the divine right of kings and the infallibility of sphinx-like utterances from those in authority. The man who rules to-day does it through personal contacts with his subordinates. He must therefore really have the personal character. It is of course inherent in us to endow the holder of an office with those attributes of dignity and personal character which should go with it. But personal contacts are going to pierce this hereditary veil, and will soon expose the man for what he really is. And he cannot make good unless we find him possessed of character—find him a man who always keeps his word, who lives up to the principles of the square deal, and who appreciates that he is dealing with humans and is accordingly considerate. Such qualities preclude his showing injustice, deceit, indifference, or brutality. They thus eliminate fear and suspicion from the minds of those about him and give free play to their better instincts, which makes for getting their best efforts either as followers or as co-workers. It is clear then that it is vitally important to give careful thought in the selection of leaders to their personal characters; and that this possession of character must come to be the sine qua non for candidates for office, political, civil, or industrial. For all this applies quite as forcibly to the leaders of labor as to any other. Here as elsewhere only those can win in the end whose character and purpose are pure; who believe in the square deal; who are unselfishly honest in the administration of office; who consider the human rights of their followers and give them opportunity to grow and develop through the free exercise of their constructive instincts. Democratic leadership is constructive. It builds individual character in its followers, and stands secure on that foundation.

A fourth fundamental is to appreciate the big part played in man's control by his own personal instincts and habits. "Man is a reasoning creature. God's image." Yes; but he is also the willing slave of instinctive impulses and personal habits. He uses his reason to determine the course he will pursue, not to regulate the multitudinous details of his actions in carrying it on. As planned by nature, these minor actions are directed by natural impulses and personal habits. Impulses and habits—they rule almost our every act. It is remarkable when we stop to think of it and realize how few things we do actually as the result of thinking. Thus in a well-ordered life a man may get up in the morning, bathe, shave, dress, and go to breakfast without having to make a conscious decision. Instead of having to decide which shoe to put on first, he even laces and ties his shoes without thinking, and thus may occupy his mind with thoughts of the day's work. Habit guides him without thought through all these necessary steps which he must take daily.

The interesting fact to the leader is not alone that these habits control so absolutely, but that any habit may be easily and unconsciously formed by repetition of the act or thought, and that a habit once formed is overcome only by conscious effort and even by determined action of the will. The leader uses this for controlling his men. By insisting on certain things always being done in certain ways, he establishes in them habits of daily conduct which make his routine administration of duties free from constant care of details. A wise leader finds the reason for many of the difficulties and seeming derelictions of his men in the fact that they were the acts of previously formed habits not yet eliminated. For this reason also he prefers to train green men rather than old ones. He knows he can readily inculcate in them the habits he wants them to have, and without the great difficulty of eradicating the previously formed habits which he does not like.

Equally common with habits in their control of the actions of man, and equally important as a consideration for the leader, are the impulses to action that come from natural instincts. Of course it is true that man's will and determination are stronger than his instincts, and that if they are set to any given purpose they can force every instinctive impulse from his field of consciousness and hold his actions to the predetermined course. But such control of man's actions is fatiguing to the man, and does not give the results that come when his mind is happily at ease and free to entertain the impulses from the constructive instincts with which nature has bountifully endowed him for the good of the race. Thus necessity may make a man determine to do his work in spite of brutal treatment and injured self-respect, and he will carry through the day's work well enough to hold his position, but not much better. Good work, anything like the maximum of a man's accomplishment, cannot be produced in that spirit. Such work comes only with the free play of man's better instincts. It should be clear then that the leader who controls through appeal to these instincts will get better results than he who rules by force or the compulsion of circumstance. A good leader must therefore give thought to these things, until he comes to feel instinctively how men react to the ordinary things of life. They are matters of frequent reference in discussing the principles of leadership.

Among these instincts, those of the greatest interest to the leader are naturally the instincts of leadership—the instinct to lead others and the instinct to follow others when we think they know the answer better than we. The manifestations of both these instincts are very common in our daily life, which shows their availability and value to the leader as agents for controlling men. He should therefore understand why they exist and how to appeal to them. Why is it that mankind is always wanting to proselyte, and preach, and teach, and step to the front with suggestions? And why is it that one so readily follows another who presents any proposition which seems reasonable? These instincts were implanted in man to make him play his part in the world's progress. The whole scheme of the universe, physical and spiritual, is one of development and progress—of making everything engage in a constant effort to rise to a higher plane. Man was intended to be the foremost instrument of this purpose to advance civilization. His instincts were given him to ensure progress, to help the race win along, to lead others where he felt he knew best what was to be done, to follow where he felt that another knew better than he. To want to lead is therefore a natural instinct and a good one; and any man may take honest pride in striving to qualify as a good leader.

It is an important point that the instinct to follow is likewise an instinct for progress, and therefore that the would-be leader must make his men feel that he best knows the way, that his leadership will bring the best results. This is a fundamental thought in an understanding of leadership; and it explains why knowledge of his job is essential to a leader, and why bluster and arrogance seem so ridiculous. It is clear then that a man is appointed leader because it is believed that he can get the best results; and his men will measure his ability as such by the good work accomplished under his guidance. Inefficiency, lost time and energy, indecision and stupidity, undermine his hold on the men; while the opposites inspire them to enthusiastic following.

Another thought of importance in this connection is the significance of the word "leader." It means that this man is the foremost of the group, of his companions. A leader is not a lord or dictator; he is one with his men—the leading one—knowing their pulse and their passions, leading because of superior preparation, experience and ability, not driving through brute force. He should keep his kinship with these fellows whom he leads, not allow himself to feel that he has become a human being of a different class to lord it over them. Great leaders like Lincoln are careful to retain, and to appear to retain, the simpler attributes of their fellows, to continue the close touch and sympathy that spell an understanding of human nature.

Nothing so surely ruins the success of the newly appointed leader as a suggestion of pomp and vainglory in his demeanor. A case of swollen ego has wrecked many careers. It is quickly noted by the men as an evidence of smallness of soul and limited experience. Modesty, quiet dignity, even humility, are characteristics of greatness of character and broad experience. It is dangerous for the leader to admit his self-importance even to himself. Magnifying his own importance is likely to make him take credit to himself that should have gone to his men, make him consider his own welfare when he should consider theirs, and end by betraying him as unfit for the leadership.

The last of these fundamental considerations of man, and by far the most important to the personal success of any leader, is an appreciation of what his own personality means for success or failure in the effect it has upon his fellows. In some way it should be possible to make each man realize the truth of this, and thus give it due consideration. The leader responds to the fact that he must learn how to use his human-being tools, yet often ignores the equally important fact that he has to use these tools through the instrumentality of his own personality. His ability and success will largely depend on how this personality of his impresses others, on how it affects these sentient tools. His purpose and character, his personal bearing and manner, the tones of his voice, his habits and way of looking at things—all the manifestations of his personality are more or less important influences in determining his ability to handle others. Yet the average of leaders not only accepts himself complacently as he is, but actually ignores the advantages of even finding out what he is, let alone trying to improve himself.

The progress of the race depends upon the development of the individual—albeit in co-operation with his fellows. In consideration of this fact nature apparently designed man to accept complacently his own personality and thus be content to use and develop it without being discouraged because he was not as some other man. It is certainly true that we rarely find a man who would exchange his personality for that of another. But nature never intended this complacency to go to the point of ignoring all possibility of improvement, and even of failing to use understandingly the personality one does have. The great trouble with mankind is that they generally see themselves only as they are reflected in the near-by mirror. They rarely get the perspective of themselves as they really exist in the life around them; and so they miss the benefit of measuring their egos by comparison with the realities of life. It would help us all "to see ourselves as others see us." We could then learn each how to use his personality advantageously from seeing how it affected others, and we would then lose some of our arrogance from seeing what unimportant individuals we really are after all. It is good for the soul of any man to visit some height like the tower of the Woolworth building and thence view humanity on the earth below him, hurrying to and fro on its self-important business. These humans then appear of about the size and importance of ants, and the spectator is lead to realize the unimportance of any one individual man in comparison with the world about him, and to wonder just how big he himself really appears to the distant Eye of Omnipotence. He may thus develop a wholesome humility which may lead him to fit himself to play his part more reasonably.

Giving thought to oneself and to the meanings of those things that affect the relations and control of men is essential to acquiring leadership. It is what we ourselves believe and feel and live—what comes out of our own inner consciousness—that will make it possible for us to appear before others as their leader. Even the inspired Leader withdrew into the wilderness for long inner communion before He essayed the responsibilities of leadership. We should hardly expect to lead even in our small way without some preparation. And this preparation will not be in learning rules to guide us, but in attaining such an understanding of the principles and realities as will make us do the right thing naturally. For above all a leader must be genuine,—his own true self, not an imitation of some other, be that other ever so successful.

There remains for consideration the special case of handling men in those industrial situations where labor unions exist. Though it be true that an application of the principles of leadership will give better results even in the presence of "labor troubles," how infinitely better the results if there exist mutual understanding, confidence and co-operation. There is, however, no thought here of telling any management how to run its business. It is recognized that each business concern has its own problem to solve in accordance with its own peculiar conditions. The questions of welfare, labor turnover, supervision of personnel, self-expression, sharing of profits or savings, etc., have been analyzed and discussed in fullest detail. It is beyond our scope to add anything in these fields. But even where management has adopted the broadest policy looking to the loyal co-operation of its employees, its successful operation will still depend on how the men are handled by those directly in contact with them. We are concerned with that one phase; and for its better understanding in those special cases where labor unions are involved, let us briefly consider the origin and purposes of these unions. When fundamental motives are clear, it becomes possible to understand their manifestations and guide them for the greater good of all concerned. An understanding of the psychology of labor unions is therefore vastly important to employer, to subordinate bosses, and to labor leaders themselves. We may not attempt to cover this subject, but only to suggest certain fundamental thoughts which should be helpful.

In the evolution of the race, the processes of time ultimately taught primeval man to leave the isolation of his cave and form a community with his fellows for better protection against the beasts that threatened his existence and for mutual assistance in carrying on the slow developments of civilization. Thus the interdependence of man and the advantages of co-operation were first demonstrated, and organization had its beginnings.

The processes of modern industry, through its introduction of machinery and the consequent development of its vast modern enterprises, took the tools of his trade from the personal hands of the laborer into company ownership, stripped him of all but his bare power to work, and cut him off from the former close personal relationship with his employer. So the laboring man found himself again an isolated individual, this time in the competitive markets of labor, where he fought alone for his existence against the cold impersonal organizations which bought his services in the cheapest market and discarded them at will. And as once long ago he found his salvation and opportunity for development through combination with his fellows, so now he again learned that his future could be secured only through combined effort. Thus came organized labor to protect with force if necessary the human rights of its members and to assure their equal opportunity for development in the progress of the race.

We thus see that this organization of labor with its potential power to fight was but a natural logical step in the evolution of modern industry—as natural and as necessary as were the organizations and combinations of capital. Both are the products of evolution. And as is generally true, the application of the laws of evolution to individual cases often caused hardship and distress and even loss of life, but without changing their inexorable course in the purpose of progress.

It was the accepted philosophy of the time that labor was a commodity to be taken to any market at the will of the laborer and sold to the highest bidder, who was likewise free to buy labor at the lowest figure and to employ it only at his pleasure. The rapid increase in the size of enterprises having eliminated the personal relationship between the employer and his men without finding anything to replace it, it was natural that labor became little more than a chattel and that all consideration of the human equation was forgotten in the excitement and keen competition of managing these enterprises of such novel magnitude and unknown potentialities. Meantime public opinion failed to appreciate that the welfare and social development of these laborers was a matter of vital concern to the community, and that the rights and responsibilities of the management of these big concerns were equally matters of grave importance to community welfare. In short, public opinion had to be taught that the community is a party to industry, and must be concerned with how industry conducts its affairs.

It was therefore a naturally accepted condition that labor should be treated as any other soulless commodity. And it is fair to assume that it would have long continued to be but for the valiant spirit of the laborer demanding recognition of his rights as equally a son of God and a self-respecting, responsible member of the democratic community. These rights are now recognized. Splendid minds have given their best efforts toward evolving the means and methods for the conduct of big business on bases which admit full recognition of these rights, with opportunity for the fuller development of the laborer through the free play of his nobler instincts. Many progressive firms have found a way for adopting a policy embodying these ideas—others are seeking a practical solution of this problem as it is presented to them by the peculiar conditions of their particular business. Many are so organized that union leaders themselves find that everything is being done which they could ask. Public opinion has largely accepted the thesis of labor, and feels that its laboring citizenry must be given opportunity to develop. It is futile then for either capital or labor to fight against either of these organizations, and unreasonable to consider either of them the product of man's viciousness or ignorance. It were far better that both parties accept the inevitable fact of their existence and learn to develop their vast possibilities for increasing efficiency. There is no just cause for recriminations—unless for the slowness of human intelligence to grasp the true conditions.

So it appears that the fight of the unions is almost won, and this phase of evolution nearing completion. But it is evident that even so unions must persist. They are demanded by strong human instincts and make for fuller development and better service. Organization and co-operation, more and more comprehensive, are pronounced characteristics of modern development. Therefore the present unions may well be continued with the purpose of social betterments and of increasing the efficiency of labor, meantime designed to continue the fight only where employers fail to find the way themselves to give labor its opportunity to work and grow to advantage. Where well organized, each union may certainly render great service to its members, to industry, and to the State, by interesting itself in the development and welfare of all men engaged in its line of work, and by keeping available for immediate reference complete industrial and social data of all this personnel. Such statistical work requires time and expense, but it gives the unions the benefit of feeling that they are rendering a valuable service to the community as well as to themselves.

A union of the future, certainly a natural and efficient one, will be the union within each separate enterprise of the two elements essential to its success—management and laborers. And this union will find its greatest usefulness in close liaison with the third party to industrial effort—the community. For the efficient conduct of the community's business of providing law and order, schools, sanitation, transportation, banking, shopping, etc., is as essential to the life of industry as is industry's production and proper management to the life of the community.

Many such unions exist already, a most notable example being the Loyal Legion of Loggers and Lumbermen. Most notable because of its great size, the variety of interests and human types involved, and the vast area covered in its operations. Originally organized for the patriotic purposes of getting out spruce for the war, it soon became a practical co-operative union of employers and employees. Their combined intelligence and effort met the war needs in a tremendously increased production, and have since met the strains of reconstruction without a break. It thus made the unique record of stabilizing labor conditions while doing rush war production instead of upsetting them as was done in many other enterprises. All this resulted from the fact that representatives of both employers and laborers were required to sit around a common council table and there discuss and settle all questions of the conduct of the work. In doing this, both parties learned that they really spoke the same language and that success and good feeling were the natural result of working together. They therefore continued the organization on a permanent basis, with the added element of keeping in touch with local community affairs.

These co-operative unit unions should be of great psychological benefit and become strong political influences, particularly in affairs of local government. The topics of informal discussion among the men and of talks from their leaders may be no longer matters of antagonism toward their employer but rather those of common industrial and community interest. And as industry is sure some day to realize how dependent it is on the integrity, wisdom and statesmanship of the public officials chosen by the people to make and administer the laws, so it will surely come to take an active part in selecting these public officials and in determining the policies they are to further. Well for industry then if it be organized and accustomed to the co-operative functioning of capital and labor. No political appeal can then be made to class distinctions, and industry can then bring into the political field the same strong co-operative purpose for the common good that it is accustomed to exercise in its management of business.

In these unions employee and employer come to find that both are laborers in the common cause, each according to his skill and training doing his own part in the industrial machine and receiving respect and credit in accordance with how well he does it. Both come to appreciate the true meanings of democracy, that opportunity lies equally open to all on their merits, and that men are classed in accordance with their fitness for positions. Here they come to realize that demagogic appeals to class are unreasonable and often of questionable motive, as the fact is brought home to them that employers are mostly but graduates from the ranks of labor—or more accurately, are but leaders of the class.

The word "class" with its European meaning is quite out of place in discussing American conditions. Classifications we have, based on accomplishment, etc., but there are no insurmountable barriers between them. All doors stand wide open for any individual if he but have the will to attain the necessary qualifications. And there are back doors which stand equally wide open, from which the unfit are being daily ejected to find their true level according to their individual worth. Such are the laws of democracy and of progress, and all schemes to thwart them must sooner or later end in failure.

As agents of good citizenship these unions could well be a power for good to the community by becoming schools in Americanization and in the practice of democratic government. Good citizenship is as vital a consideration for the industrial state as it is for the political—in fact their interests are so closely interwoven that they must stand or fall together. We know now that cheap labor does not make cheap production, and often does make cheap political government. It is in reality both expensive and dangerous to the community, and we should do without it. And as it is our pride to establish before the political world the worth of our political institutions; so should we solve our industrial problems and show to the industrial world the advantages of democracy operating practically in industry. Let us show that the spirit and aroused skill and ingenuity of our loyally co-operating labor will reduce the costs of production while largely increasing its output, to the advantage of mankind and the credit of our nation founded on individual freedom.