^*A revision of material originally under title of Human Factor in Works Management by James Hartness, published by McGraw-Hill Publishing Co., New York.

The navigator in preparing for a voyage carefully examines each of his instruments. He must know the present error of his chronometer and its rate of change, and its general reliability as indicated by its past record. He must also know errors in his compasses for each point, and he should have the fullest information regarding the degree of reliability of every other means on which his success depends; and, last but not least, he must accurately determine his starting-point or point of departure.

In taking up the subject before us we will do well to follow his example.

In doing so, our task will be to examine two principal elements: one, the means on which we depend for interpreting the information that is available; and the other, the source and character of the information.

The means may be considered analogous to the navigator's instruments, and is no less a thing than the brain or mental machinery; and the information is simply the world about us as seen in the existing things, such as machinery, methods, popular notions, textbooks, etc., all of which may be classed as environments, and may be considered as analogous to the charts and other publications of our worthy example.

Like the mariner, we must determine the degree of reliability of all these sources of information and our means for interpreting observed facts.

When we have ascertained this we will know what allowance to make from the "observed" to get the actual facts. With this knowledge we will be able to accurately determine both our starting-point and best course.

The importance of considering our own minds will be seen when we realize that every new fact taken in must in a measure conform to the previous ideas. If some of these old ideas are erroneous, the mind must be more or less ready to discard them. It is very difficult to dislodge deep-seated convictions. Contradictory ideas are not assimilated. Only one of them is actually accepted. Even when to the objective reasoning they seem false, they frequently continue to control our actions.

Since we are loaded with the popular ideas which we have absorbed from our environment, it will be well for us to begin by critically examining our environment and the process by which ideas have been taken in. This may enable us to put out some of the erroneous views, and perhaps more firmly fix the true ideas; thereby preparing the mind for a more ready acceptance of what otherwise would be barred out as contradictory.

We shall not go deeply into the psychology of the subject, as it will not be necessary to go contrary to or beyond the well-known facts.

We shall not try to locate the man or refer to him as the ego or inner man. We shall simply say that we know that we can use our brains to think on any subject, and we can use our senses to collect information regarding any chosen subject.

Our senses and mental faculties can be directed to consider one element in a business, and for the moment be unmindful of the many other elements. In other words, we can to a certain extent manage our mental processes. Just as a horse can be managed, so may we manage our brains. A driver may carefully control the expenditure of energy and the course traveled, or he may throw the reins over the dash and allow the horse to go his own gait and route. In the same way we may manage or mismanage our brains.

A faster pace will not be advocated, for the present gait is overstrenuous. We hope, however, to point out a way by which good results may be obtained with, moderate effort.

If, in the past, the brain has been found wanting, we should not lose confidence in its reliability until we have seen how it has been managed.

Under some conditions its interpretations are absolutely correct; in fact, under all conditions that would be called fair in testing other kinds of mechanism.

Unfortunately, these conditions have not always existed. Opinions regarding important matters have been formed when accurate mentation has been impossible.

If the use of the machine induces either an adverse mental attitude or physical condition of the worker, it will sooner or later be adverse to the economic success of the machine.

We have indicated some of the problems and have suggested the well-known method of mental control for this purpose. A keen observer of men and machinery may not require as much of the so- called practical experience; another may need many years of actual work.

The practical experience in the various departments of machine construction, its sale and its use, is undoubtedly almost absolutely necessary for the average man in this work.

Its value is primarily to give an opportunity to see things in actual operation. The shop affords an opportunity to see how a machine stands up to its work, where it is weak, and a thousand and one points that can best be seen in actual operation. But there is still another phase that is comprehended more readily by the practical experience, and this applies to the various departments of business as well as to the works. It is the knowledge of the men and their mental make-up and attitude.

A keen observer soon realizes that successful life in the machinery world will not come easily to any one who lacks a good understanding of others in the field.

The assimilating capacity of the industrial world is the real gauge of the progress which should be indulged in. This capacity to take in new ideas and to work by new methods is not the same in all beings, and it is not the same in all organizations. There are ways by which it may be measurably increased. New views are more readily digestible if presented by enthusiastic advocates, as this stimulates an interest. Any attempt to forcibly inject new ideas only results in indigestion.

The assimilating capacity of an industrial organization can be greatly increased by any scheme that awakens an interest. The controlling policies should include advance in efficiency and generally in the quality of work turned out, but this advance should not involve a break in the output. It mould be based on a knowledge of the whole business. In other words, it should not only pay in the long run, but if possible it should pay from the moment it goes into effect.

We have said that all changes should be of the digestible kind, and the feeding process should not be a stuffing process; that the ingestion should not exceed the digestion. We have also briefly mentioned the importance of keeping the digestion tuned up to the best speed by having the organization in a condition to most readily take in changes.

That we must make some allowance for inertia of thought and habit in all mortals goes without saying, but the exact amount to be allowed is very difficult to estimate.

Successful management depends on the degree with which a man can estimate the receptivity of other beings with whom he deals. This knowledge of receptivity should include the thought and action of men all the way from the unskilled worker to the directors, and also that of all men in other organizations in any way affected by his organization.

Just as food is more digestible if agreeable to the palate, so this receptivity or assimilating power may be increased by presenting new ideas and methods in agreeable form. A full realization of the effect of this inertia of thought and habit makes the great efficiency of specialization more comprehensible.

It is this human side that is the key, and if we do not act in full accord with it we will probably be working against a great handicap.

The inertia works two ways. It hurts a progressive man just as much to be tied to a work that requires no brainwork as it hurts a sleepy member to be disturbed by progressive talk.

The major policies of management that should be known to the inventor are those which have been adopted to make the business pay. Not necessarily to pay in dollars and cents today, but to pay in every sense, and in the long run, in dollars and in other things.

It cannot pay in dollars if the other things are missing. By other things are meant good organization built on best conditions of mind and body for each of the beings included in the organization. On such things the stability of the organization depends.

No matter how much the manager of a business may wish to run it for other things exclusively, or for dollars exclusively, he will find that one is not attained without the other. He is forced to run a business for the dollar if he wishes to make an ideal organization for each member of the human family included in it. And vice versa, he must work toward best conditions for all the workers if he wishes to protect the capital invested by making a stable and fairly long-lived organization.

This statement is inserted here to clear away doubts as to the real value or necessity of "making a business pay," and to make it clear that no thought is to be tolerated of any scheme of management adverse to the real interest of the workers.

The men selected for each of the various positions should be men who are fitted to fill these very positions. This does not mean mere physical and mental fitness; it means each position should be filled by one who wants it, one who knows he is "better off" in it than in any other place he can find. Dissatisfied men are burdens. It is better to have each position filled by a man who is barely competent to fill it than to have it filled by a man who should have a much better position.

Of course, this is the ideal, and all moves should be made in this direction whenever it is possible. As a rule, it is easier to find men on this basis than to find men who are bigger than the office. This scheme leads to more promotions in the organization and has a stimulating effect on all concerned.

The management's chief business should be to take man as he is found on earth and place each one where he will accomplish the best results for both the organization and himself.

Barring the disgruntled, the uncongenial and the habitually inattentive, almost all men may be and should be profitably employed, the prime requisite being reasonably close attention to business. The thoughts must not habitually wander away from the work.

Intrigue disappears when the management quits looking for it, and assures everybody, by the general method of conducting the business, that there will be no chance to oust this or that man. That each man will be retained in his place if he will but give reasonable application to the general interest of the organization and the particular work of his office.

The management does not "manage" if it perpetually changes its men. It should bolster up the man who lacks self-confidence; it should puncture false ambitions, and it should use men as they are found in the organization. It should not be inclined to "go back on" a man who has blundered or who has been found lacking in understanding.

It should not be over-ready to embrace a stranger just because his faults are not known.

The financial hazard of a business enterprise is greatly minimized by using men as they are found, and properly placing them at work or in offices for which they are qualified.

We can neither regulate the complexity of our environment nor the number of problems which we must settle within a given time. But we can improve the conditions very much by avoiding overconcentration on unimportant details. The brain's best time and energy should be reserved for our own immediate problems; it should not be hampered by details of others.

The various officers of an industrial organization should know the ins and outs of the thinking machine on which they depend for guidance. With such knowledge each brain will give the greatest results, and without such knowledge the best brain may be untrustworthy.

One of the important characteristics of the mind is its tendency to lose sight of everything except the subject in mind. One danger is dodged by jumping into another which we have not seen. Both dangers were plainly in sight to any one who had not concentrated on one of them.

In the regular every-day business life, we seem to have ample time to consider each problem. But in reality our great length of time is offset by a great number of elements to consider, and a more profound effect of long continued teaching or molding of our environment.

For years engineers have concentrated energies on the steam-engine of the reciprocating type. The master-minds have made important improvements in the design, and many have given up their entire existence to the science of analyzing the effects of each variation in conditions of working the steam.

Our textbooks, our teaching, our observation all concentrated our attention on this type.

For some reason Gustav deLaval, followed by C.A. Parsons and Nikola Tesla, broke away from this spell, and we have the steam turbine engine. These individuals are endowed with master-minds, but the task of producing the turbines was probably no greater than the task of others in improving the reciprocating type.

In one case a great step has been taken. In the other, we have an example of men of undoubted ability laboring hard for entire lifetimes with relatively small gain.

This example applies to more than the inventors' world. It has many parallels in the cold business management of a manufactory and in any one of its departments. Business management requires the same kind of reasoning and getting away from the spell of environment. But this phase we shall consider later under another head.

The point to be brought out here is the effect of the spell of environment in magnifying the importance of existing views and methods, and the deceptive part this trusty brain plays in binding us to unnecessarily hard work.

The mind should not be allowed to wander, for wander it will if it is not rationally directed. It should be furnished with some interest, either in the form of study that is taken up out of working hours, and which can be permitted to occupy the mind while work of the habit kind is being done, or, if it is not a study, there should be some wholesome interest or pleasure.

Music to some furnishes this need. Music heard in the home or elsewhere will sometimes occupy the mind during working hours when the work is of a monotonous character. In some instances music has been provided during a certain part of the day, just for this need of workers who are employed in an occupation that in itself furnishes no mental nourishment.

But these extreme cases do not represent the vast majority. They apply only to the needs of the mind of those engaged in a work in which they can awaken no interest. Nearly all kinds of work offer a chance for the average man to get interested directly in the work itself. Such an interest soon bears fruit in the results as well as in the comfort of the worker, and it is this phase on which we must depend for making specialization comfortable and profitable to the worker. It is this phase that is wholly overlooked by those mentioned above who have seen or felt the joy of work that comes to one who rambles into a new field. We fail to see that the same kind of mental pleasure may be obtained while working along the natural and efficient lines of habit, and that in one case we have had pleasure at great expense of wasted energy, and in the other case we may have made a true progress for ourselves and others by moving along the rational way.

The important duty of weighing up these various views devolves on the management, and its action should be in accordance with the complete and corrected view. It must consider the subject from a top viewpoint, and must then act.

The manager keeps in mind that the machines must be built, purchased, and used by human beings, so he carefully studies their peculiarities. He knows that change of thought or habit requires time.

In looking over the history of one of the companies engaged in machine building, we find that the cost of the labor has been lowered to about one-fifth of the original. In view of this and the fact that a very slight change in model sometimes involves a temporary increase in the cost of labor three-fold or more, we see good reason for reluctance in making changes, even though we know that two or three years later the labor cost may drop as low as that previous to the change in model.

The inventor, the promoter, the salesman, and the oversanguine manager do not always foresee such things.

The manager sees the enthusiasm with which the selling organization hails the new model. He realizes that they know the faults of the previous type, and he also knows that no one knows the faults of the new, but he lets it go. Some enthusiasm must be had, even if it be dearly purchased. He knows there will be many a troublesome delay due to the newness, even if the whole scheme proves very much better than the previous type.

This manager knows that his business success rests on the facility with which the machines are satisfactorily built, the readiness of the buyers, and, last but not least, the facility with which the product is used. The facility with which the product will be used, to his mind, is almost beyond overestimation.

The division of work into separate operations makes it possible to divide the subject into relatively small sub-problems. This division of the subject itself brings it within the capacity of the lesser brains and makes it very much easier for a brain of greater power. In other words, the subdivision of work makes places in which all mental equipments may be used.

It is of no benefit to any one to keep the problems difficult by making each man think out a process for accomplishing each one of a great variety of operations, when the work may be so divided that it is only necessary for him to think of just one little part of the whole. And we should not befog the issue by saying that this is degrading.

Some of the greatest scientists that the world has known have concentrated attention to the smallest conceivable part of this world, pieces so small that the microscope alone revealed them to the eye. There is a chance for the thinker in most any of these places that have grown out of this process of finest subdivision of work. The hardship comes only when the mind cannot get interested in the work. In many cases this is undoubtedly due to a misfit, but in most cases it seems to be due to a false notion that there is nothing there of interest.

The subdivision of work must go on. If hindered in any one plant, industry or nation more than in others, the result will be a loss to that one, and on the other hand, the one that carries it to the most efficient point will become the most powerful.

This subdivision develops greatest dexterity and skill, as well as the keenest comprehension of the ways and means of attaining a given end. And this dexterity of operation is more easily carried on than is the fumbling uncertainty of the work of the more primitive type.

The manual worker's energies are so absorbed in the physical tasks that he is annoyed by any suggestion to change his method. If he were given the position at a desk he would probably be interested in the progressive schemes for betterment of methods of work or management of business.

Bearing this state of affairs in mind, it behooves the progressive man to approach the problem of applying his theories in a very careful manner. He must realize that the men in various parts of the work are under stress of every day's requirements that makes it very difficult to intelligently take up any new scheme of procedure. Many an ideal doctrine is a beautiful thing in theory but of little value if its introduction requires an immense but unavailable energy to put it into practise.

He must realize that it is the doing of work that counts and that the men who are doing things must not be annoyed. All plans for betterment must conform to the assimilating power of the men and must not cut off their food in time of change. In other words, the new plans should be so matched on to the old methods that the change to the new will not interrupt the production.

We have seen that the most efficient way to use man's energies is to allow him to follow habit lines of thought and action, and that the highest efficiency is reached when these habits are habits of concentration of attention and are restricted to the smallest variety of work.

Progressive energy is so valuable that it needs no praise at this time. We have had its value stated so often that it is actually over-rated in the average mind. Not that it has been over-valued, but that the reiteration has obscured the importance of other qualities. There should be a greater appreciation of the value of energies that are wholly employed in accomplishing results by old means and methods.

Progressive energy, when it is kept within certain bounds, is a prime asset of an industrial organization. It is like a wholesome amount of labor to man; it may be drawn upon without loss, and its use actually strengthens its source. But when it is not wisely kept in control it only annoys and interferes with real progress and real accomplishment of results.

The only way to get work done is to let the worker move along habit lines. The only way to progress efficiently is to make the new ways and means lead off gradually from those in use.

The progressive man who actually directs work along such lines is the most valuable to the world. The one who ignores the "moment of inertia" is a disturber, whether he is a director or a "hewer of wood and carrier of water".

The man who is doing the real work in the world is not the so- called progressive. He is one who points out newer or better methods which may be easily established by a gradual exchange of old habits for new ones.

In considering ways and means for efficient management of industrial organizations, it is not necessary to commence at the beginning of each plant. The method of dealing with the problems of existing plants is also applicable to new organizations, for a new organization is only new in a limited sense. It uses men of experience. It uses existing machines and implements. It follows existing methods of conducting business and in the general management of its affairs.

Even the so-called new method which may be the center around which the so-called new business is built contains very little that is new. The newest things in the ordinary industrial world contain many old and well-known elements. The very use of a so-called new method or machine as a center around which to build an organization is in itself so old that it is a confirmed habit with us to be lured on to investing in such things by the statement that some new process or means is to be employed.

A really new thing that calls for wholly new ways and new means for manufacture is almost inconceivable. The nearer we approach to newness in the industrial world the thinner becomes the ice on which we are moving. Therefore, let us know that when we advise following habit lines in all moves in management of an existing organization we imply that the same course should be taken in establishing a new company or organization.

In both cases we should employ existing ways and means, experienced men and well-tried implements. Both old and new should be conducted along the usual line in conformity with the state of the art, the habits of the workers, and other conditions indigenous to the locality. Any scheme of going contrary to the existing customs and usage must be entered into with full knowledge of the great need of patience, force and courage to offset the barrier of inertia.

This tendency to dissipate energies by wandering into other fields is not confined to the worker; it is a most common tendency of business men. A manager of an industrial establishment has to continually combat his tendency to divert the energies of the organization along new lines. He knows from past experience how dearly bought is each new method that is introduced into his organization. He knows for example that it would make all of his men tardy at the plant in the morning if at the hour of arising he has issued a request for each man to dress by carefully thinking out each move. He knows that the day's work would never be well done if he asked each one to think before acting.

Even conversation comes under the law of habit. It must follow the line that has been carefully thought out.

We all know that when a man talks on subjects with which he is not familiar his words carry little weight.

The so-called spontaneous utterances that seem so full of life and are apparently the product of flashed thought are either the welling up of some subconscious ideas quickly reconstructed to fit the situation or they are a haphazard jumble either meaningless or conveying an unintended impression. They are generally in the humorous line and frequently make an impression that was not anticipated by the utterer.

The really useful talk and work is the result of wholesome habit of thought and action.

The amount of capital tied up in raw material supplies, stock in process and finished product should not be greater than that which is necessary to get the greatest output per dollar of investment.

In the machinery-building world there is no such thing as a steady long-lived demand for any machine. Hence the proposition to build a locomotive or printing-press by methods employed in watch or sewing-machine manufacture is entirely ill-timed at least.

For this reason the stock in process must not necessarily be considered insufficient if it appears to be on the hand-to-mouth plan. The dividing line between excessive and insufficient stock must be drawn in each individual case.

Raw material should be purchased in reasonable quantities with due regard to the price which varies with quantities but there should always be a regard for the amount of capital used for this purpose. Any excess represents just that much extra capital unnecessarily risked in the business.

There should be a constant supply of material throughout the entire work. The stock in process should flow through the plant in a rapid but thin stream. The quantity should be no greater than absolutely necessary to insure a steady supply for all of the workers, including the assembling and selling workers.

An excessive stock of this or that piece, or of all pieces, means that much capital idle, and it also tends to slackness of management. Frequently it is the outcome of carelessness.

A slip-shod management that disregards this point will use no care in purchase of material or in putting in the shop orders. All that is needed is to just hurry forward the stock that "happens" to be "out", and at the same time allow the accumulation of the unneeded stock to go on unchecked.

Immense storerooms for keeping finished stock are shown with pride, unmindful of the fact that every dollar's worth of unnecessary stock on the shelves in the stockroom, every dollar's worth of unnecessary work in the plant, represents idle money and faulty management.

If this money is to be retained in the business, the system should be changed so that the money will be put where it will bring the best return.

The excessive stock in process is sometimes an outcome of blind progressiveness—the blindness that fails to see that there is as much money tied up in stock in process and in finished product as there is in the entire machinery equipment.

An adaptable equipment facilitates keeping down the amount tied up in stock in process. The modern plant should take advantage of these modern methods and machines which tend toward profitable use of capital. Such machines are highly developed and true to the controlling ideal of adaptability and largest output per dollar of investment.

The practice of disregarding the profit, when considering changes in machine equipment, is the natural outgrowth of the separation of the mechanical and the business departments.

The changes in the equipment are usually determined by the mechanical department, and this is done with particular regard for the quality of work and the cost per piece. The relation between the profit and the net labor cost is not considered.

The cost of the product of the average machinery-building plant may be divided into three nearly equal parts: the material, the labor, and the burden; or, in four equal parts, if a reasonable interest charge is made for the use of the capital invested.

The material is the iron, steel and other material that enters into the construction of the machine, and it is taken in the condition in which it usually comes to the machine shop.

The burden includes all expenses and salaries necessary for the maintenance of the business.

About one-half the amount paid for labor goes to the men who run the machine tools, and the other half is paid to workmen who do the other work, such as handwork, assembling, transporting, etc. Therefore, the cost of machining is either one-sixth or one-eighth of the total cost.

On top of the net cost of the product there should be a profit. If it is not there, the sooner something happens the better. If it is there, then it is proportioned to the volume of the output. Therefore, both the size of the output and the labor cost should be kept in mind.

The size of the profit per unit of output is not generally known to the mechanical departments. But even if it is not known, there is no reason for their being uninformed as to the importance of large output for cost of the plant.

One of the most satisfactory policies of management is that which tends toward getting the best return or profit per dollar of investment.

We shall not refer to the quality of the product, the design, or any other elements which affect the good name and standing of the business, for it goes without saying that no business can be maintained where these are disregarded. The point to be brought out here is that, These thing being equal, the best scheme of management for profit is one that puts the capital where it will do the most good.

The above statement is one with which all will agree, but strangely enough there has been a tendency to tie up capital in ways that actually throttle the output of the entire business.

Furthermore, this is frequently done by increasing the portion of the investment that is irrevocably tied to the existing product, thus not only reducing the earning power of each dollar invested, but also increasing the hazard by tying the capital to the present product, which soon may be unsuited to the market demand.

One of the most common errors in this respect is the one that regards the reduction of the labor cost as the paramount consideration.

Reduction in labor cost has been the war-cry. The pay-roll has been talked about so much that it has seemed to become the whole thing. A man who declares that the labor cost per piece is not the most important element is at once branded as an advocate of old- fashioned methods.

It is needless to give assurance that there is no intention to disregard the labor cost. The net cost per piece is a very important element, but it should neither eclipse the question of profit per dollar invested, nor the risk of the capital tied up.

What is the gain if the means for reduction of the net labor cost reduces the profit more than the saving in labor? If doing so results in an actual loss of profit, why is it done?

We can readily see that the overhopeful managers may disregard the risk of the money invested, but we cannot see why the relative importance, or rather unimportance, of the labor cost should be so disregarded.

The machine tools in a plant usually determine its character. This character is not one that can be quickly changed, but every addition to the equipment does change it for better or worse. Usually the installation of a new machine is hailed as a progressive move, just because the new machine works better than the old, but its effect may be very bad. It may be changing the character of the plant adversely to the interests of all concerned. Therefore, the controlling spirit should see to it that each move is made on a basis that is economically sound.

It is in these changes that the scheme of management has a chance to make a great difference in the earning power of the entire business.

If too large a proportion of the total available capital is tied up in the machine equipment, the business is handicapped. There is a right amount which bears a certain relation to the total required to carry on the enterprise.

With a given amount of capital for machine equipment, the output of the plant will be seriously throttled if the net cost of labor per piece machined is allowed to become the controlling element.

The inventor, the officers, and mayhap the foreman, taken all together, do not and cannot make a successful machine or business without this supplemental work or ideas that come from actual work of all workers.

This new kind of knowledge should not take away a man's courage; on the contrary, it should give him a true sense of value of existing, "going" things. With this knowledge he can confidently and earnestly push a machine that is the product of a good organization. He will know the great value of much experience and practise of each of the many men in the organization. He will neither kill the business by half-hearted indorsement, nor increase the hazard of investment by urging this or that modification. Nor will he advocate this or that machine being added to a line that is already too great.

The invention, the general organization, the proper direction of the business, are essential to success. But without that organization which is only obtained by actual, thoughtful experience of the men who do things, all the knowledge and industry of the leaders are utterly useless.

This knowledge produces a new kind of confidence that has greater faith in the existing and running things than in the claims for something that has not had the development of practice. It is the confidence that knows that the right fundamental ideas and the policy of "sticking to one thing" will accomplish the best results.

This is not a doctrine of optimism that holds there is no inferior machine. The "best" implies the existence of the inferior. In nearly all lines there are many grades from the best to the worst, but the loss of faith in the relative value of a machine is most commonly due to a lack of full knowledge of the other types, and it is this kind of loss of courage, confidence, or whatever it may be, that this chapter is intended to offset.

What has been said regarding the optimist, the pessimist, and the vacillating man, from the designing and manufacturing point of view of a machine business, applies with equal force to the business organization.

The business is pushed forward by men who have confidence in the project and in the product. If these men lose their faith in their own business, they not only lose their usefulness as pushers and managers, but they become drags on the industry, and remain so until restored to normality. The hazard of investment is greatly increased by such conditions.

Instances without number have been observed in which men who have been successful have become unsuccessful through loss of confidence due to acquiring the "dangerous half-knowledge."

The man who has acquired the dangerous half-knowledge should take a post graduate course in some institution where men are treated by all the most powerful agencies known to science. There may be no institutions of this kind in existence, but the great need will doubtless bring the establishment of many.

The men who have lost faith in their own machinery should be told that no company can survive the effects of weak-kneed advocates. Any company is better for a certain amount of aggressive competition. Any company can stand more or less opposition from its friends the enemy, but no company can continue to exist under the blighting effects of the men who have lost this confidence in them or their product.

The post graduate course for restoration of the near-wise man should include educational means of all kinds. The means should be especially adapted to the need of each student or patient.

There might be a phonograph in each room, which should work all night and all day. This machine should repeat over and over a few short sentences like the following:

"The only perfect machine is the one you do not know."

"Study the machines offered by your competitors, just to get the same degree of knowledge of the 'other' machines—not for the purpose of slandering or even mentioning—but just to restore your confidence in the relative value of your own machine."

"Don't try to get back your belief that your own machine is perfect—that has gone forever—only look at the other machines and learn that your own is the best."

This kind of confidence will not be exuberant, but it will have marked efficiency in the cold gray world in which you are to again try your strength.

We find that in keeping with the trend toward specialization, the machine shop is now manned and directed by specialists, whose close application to the technical science of their respective specialties has in a degree obscured other elements with which their interests should be co-ordinated. Among these we generally find the so-called human element. This feature of specialization, which is the natural result of concentration and undivided attention to the work in hand, has entailed a string of consequences that has lessened the spirit of fellowship and co- operation.

The workman in the old machine shop was known as a machinist, an apprentice or a helper. The machinist trade required skill at bench, vise and forge, and in the operation of the lathe and planer. It also required a general knowledge and resourcefulness which enabled the machinist to make good with the meager facilities. The large specialized shop of today was not known.

Today the machine shop is filled with a variety of machines which have grown out of the original types. Each shop's equipment is selected to serve the needs of that shop, and since each shop has a special purpose, its equipment seldom includes the full range of machine-shop machinery.

Today the work flows through the machine shop in lots of large numbers of pieces of a kind, and each machine, as well as each worker, is kept at one kind of work and usually at one simple operation.

The worker in the machine shop of today is no longer known as a machinist, because that term does not cover the present range of positions. Even the term "all-round machinist" is no longer satisfactory.

Specialization has made so many divisions in the work that it has resulted in developing men for special branches, so that today we have relatively few men who can skillfully operate for instance the engine lathe and planer. Even if there are those who ever had that ability, most of them have lost it through disuse.

The workers are now designated by many names indicating their special work.

The all-embracing term machine shop is divided into departments for drafting, designing, accounting, production, flow of work control, cost accounting and many other divisions. Each calls for executives and workers having special titles.

The subdivision of work has resulted in each executive and worker acquiring a high degree of ability and skill for work of his kind, and it keeps each one doing the highest class of work for which he is qualified so that his time is not wasted in the simpler operations which can be performed by men of lesser ability.

We can readily see the economic gain that accrues when the worker becomes more efficient; first, though the greater skill acquired as a result of fewer operations to perform, and second, through the use of the highly developed special machines, for then he is able to produce a greater value for a given expenditure of effort. We can also see the gain that results from specialization by the executives, for each one's attention is concentrated to the management of a smaller range of work; but the average mortal has not yet reached the point of accepting the fact that to some extent there should be a division between mental and physical tasks. It is needless to say that no one in these days would suggest even a possibility of a general division of the work along the line between the abilities of the brain and hand and in these days of construction and operation of intricate mechanisms like electric and telephone instruments and machinery, aeroplane, automobiles, railroad machinery, machine shop machinery, army and navy machinery, from the smallest instrument and small arms to the big machines like the battleship. The need of the man in whom is combined the ability of brain and hand transcends any possibility of our meeting the demand. But specialization does require both kinds of division. The one that divides along the line between mental and physical tasks provides great opportunities for those men who have special ability at either the mental or physical tasks. It is undoubtedly true that the greatest achievements have been attained by those who have been unable to combine the great mental and physical ability. Such men by nature and preference are most fitted and most comfortable in the positions in which there is a greater proportion of use for either the brains or fingers.

Every student of this subject early recognizes that the man at the physical task should not be unnecessarily distracted by the vexing problems of planning and directing the work. In some way this does not seem to fit a democracy, but rather seems to lead toward autocracy. However, let us keep in mind that specialization is essential, not only at each physical task, but at the tasks at which there may be expended a combination of the mental and physical, and also at those tasks that are wholly mental, and that a division should be made to get the best results from the whole organization. While it may seem autocratic to leave to one group the determination of the methods of work, and to another the task of doing the work, the fact remains that this is an element of specialization. That which seems so objectionable to a man with an alert mind, is not so objectionable when he realizes that many men of the highest type are happiest when given a chance to work out tasks unembarrassed by problems of procedure. While this has been one of the great tragedies of industrial life, when square pegs have been put in round holes, it is one of the most important questions that an engineer has to consider.

The human view will make us all labor towards the complete elimination of degrading tasks, by changing machinery and processes so as to fit the various types of men available. Through it all, we must see to it, that our scheme of work is true to the fundamental law of specialization, and that we recognize that there must be some division between the physical and mental tasks, and that this does not necessarily lead away from democracy. In fact, we must recognize there are two extremes. At one extreme we find the ideal of a highly specialized organization in which the greatest value in quality of work and quantity of output is possible through a complete co-ordination of the work of all types of men, each at his own kind of work, in which each can excel; and the other extreme in which we find a general disorganization which returns us to the primitive condition in which man's energies were most inefficiently used. Such a state is the natural result of anarchy, and it is a state that would leave this or any other country an easy prey to a country in which specialization existed.

One means team work of great wealth-producing capacity, and the other a state in which the struggle for mere existence would be severe.

The salvation of the world will be worked out if there is at least one well disposed nation that stands firmly for specialized industrial organizations. This will result in both industrial and military supremacy—for it is now well known that military supremacy cannot exist without the highest types of machinery building shops.

Such a nation could dominate all others and could ultimately check the disorganizing activities of the well-intentioned but shortsighted reformers.

The higher form fits our highest civilization and national security, and the other is a direct step toward chaos.

Nevertheless there is almost a stampede of sentiment against specialization and its product—the large industrial organization. This stampede has taken many of our otherwise well informed people, and now we are seeing its extreme effect in the iconoclastic fever that is raging in Russia and elsewhere.

We know that the individual, the industry or the nation that specializes will produce the greatest results with a given expenditure of energy, and we know that all this plan of specialization requires a co-ordination of the work of all.

There should be brought about through specialization the highest degree of ability on the part of the executive officers, as well as the highest skill of the workers, and each man should have the satisfaction of knowing that no one on the face of the globe can excel him at his specialty, and furthermore that his energies are expended in the best way to produce value.

Many men have already realized this ideal. Many industrial organizations have also attained it in a very high degree, and while there was a trend of some of the nations toward specialization before the war, there was developed in America a spirit of antagonism toward the large units that had grown up as a result of this specialization. Not that specialization was objectionable, but that industrial supremacy of an organization was thought to be a distinct menace.

Since it is in these specialized industries that the individual should find his best opportunity to produce the greatest wealth for a given expenditure of effort, such organizations should be maintained and all others should be gradually changed over so as to make the most economical use of the man power of the nation.

We have found by experience that industrial organizations are successful if they specialize. We have handed down to us the saying that "The Jack of all trades is master of none". Our brains accept these statements, we recognize them as facts, but owing to one of the irrational traits of the human being, it is one thing to believe and another to practice. It is one thing to superficially know that it is important for us to specialize as individuals, and it is quite another matter to bring ourselves to act in conformity with this fundamental law.

The great economic gain or advantage possessed by the Ford Company, and many of the other companies in this country, is not due to the fact that they have selected a wonderful model that is superior to others in every way, but it is based on the fact that specialization makes it possible for the various officers and workers to become the foremost men in their respective offices. Specialization of an industry becomes effective only when each man continues at a given job or work. Shifting men about the plant is harmful, excepting in so far as it may be good to promote men from position to position to fit the development of the men and the industry. The plant can be wrecked by changing men from position to position without changing the product. It can also be, wrecked by changing the form of its product in fact any change, whether it is a change of the product or a change of the men, which interferes with the continuity of operation of a man along habit lines is an economic loss to that organization.

We have stated that each man should specialize in order to produce the greatest value for a given expenditure of energy—that specialization of the industries is necessary.

That each man has some special knowledge that fits his environment.

That the skilled worker has a special knowledge for his duties.

We have pointed out the need of a closer relationship between the specialists. That they are all interdependent and must cooperate.

In setting forth the importance of the worker we must remember the equal importance of every other member of a well-balanced industry.

Lay directors and even lay chief officers are not necessarily a menace or even burdens, if they have a fair conception of human nature and the importance of each element in an organization, and the full necessity of coordination of all.

They should know, however, that every man should be paid first in cash and second in honor, appreciation, esteem, good will inspiration, commendation for his good work and good qualities, careful consideration of his troubles and a genuine knowledge that his interests are being justly considered.