the information thus gained in the laboratory certain laws have been discovered. So when a machine is to be manufactured, designing engineers, who understand these laws, make plans of the machine. But, it may be objected, these designing engineers have to be paid much higher wages than mechanics. Of course; but the cost of employing these highly trained men is more than offset by the saving that is consequent upon having the designs properly made. So every machineshop devotes valuable space and a good deal of money to what is not directly productive work. In that part of manufacture, therefore, which determines what shall be made, management is now almost universally scientific.

This, however, is the lesser part of management. The greater part of the management of a shop has to do, not with the "what," but with the "how." Under scientific management, the designing-room, which now plans the "what," is expanded into a Planning Department which plans not only the "what" but also the "how." In a big contracting business or in the financial management of a university the planning department would be different in form but not different in principle, so far as the "how" is concerned. Most concerns are managed according to the methods of Humpty Dumpty. In most machine-shops, after the designs are drawn and the duplicates are sent out to the shop, the methods of work are left to the initiative and ingenuity of the workmen. The reason for this is simple: there is no one in the shop who knows better than the workman how the work should be done.

Before, then, a machine-shop can put its brains completely in its head, where they belong, it must collect its brains. It now has brains for the determination of what shall be made; it must now develop brains for the determination of how it shall be made. And the methods in this case are the same as in the other the methods of the scientific laboratory. In other words, if management is to be really scientific, it must adopt other than traditional ways of securing knowledge about methods of work. At present a man is a mechanic by virtue of having picked up his knowledge from another mechanic who

has picked up his knowledge in turn from still another mechanic. So with the bricklayer, the typesetter, the weaver, the shoveler. In each case the man with a trade has acquired by word of mouth and by watching others at work the accumulated experience of the workmen of that trade. So long as this is the only knowledge that exists in a shop, a planning department for methods of work is useless. No foreman, no superintendent, can pick up more knowledge about the trades he is supervising than can all the workmen under him; and unless he knows more than his subordinates he cannot direct them how to work. And yet to-day there are machine-shops in which not only the designs for the machines to be made are minutely drawn, but the plans for the way in which those machines shall be made are drawn and written down with even greater minuteness. How has this been brought about?

Two simple instances may make this clear. For hundreds of years the art of bricklaying has been practically stationary. Men to-day lay bricks in much the same fashion as they did when the Assyrian Empire flourished. A few years ago Mr. Frank B. Gilbreth, a contractor, who had become interested in the experiments which Mr. F W. Taylor had conducted in the art of cutting metals, decided to make some experiments in bricklaying. He analyzed the motions of the bricklayer by. going through them himself with the aid of his wife. The first thing he discovered was that every time a bricklayer stooped down to pick up a brick he lifted about a hundred and ten pounds. The upper part of a man's body weighs somewhat more than a hundred pounds; and in order to pick up a five-pound brick he had to lift the weight of his body too. Not much of the wasted effort was saved if he picked up two bricks. He at once concluded that immense effort would be saved if the bricklayer did not have to stoop at all. The next thing he discovered was that the bricklayer used up time and effort in turning the brick around in his hand until he got it in the correct position (for a brick has a top and a bottom), and he concluded that the brick should be delivered to the bricklayer right side up.

Then he discovered that the

bricklayer used up time and effort in tapping the brick to see whether it was sound. He concluded that only sound brick should be delivered to the bricklayer. So by analysis he discovered that in bricklaying there were two distinct sets of motions on the one hand useful and useless, and on the other agreeable and disagreeable. By study of the subject he so eliminated the useless and the disagreeable motions as to reduce the total number from eighteen to five. As a consequence, in spite of the incidental cost involved in making some change in apparatus (a moving scaffold, for example, on which bricks could be delivered at the right height), in employing some extra helpers for sorting the brick, and the like, he increased the output from something like a thousand brick a day per man to about twenty-seven hundred. This increase in output enabled him to promise every workman who followed his directions a great increase in pay. On the other hand, the workmen, so far from being "speeded up," were actually enabled to do their work with less fatigue.

Another example is still more striking. No work seems more simple, more unlikely to be subject to scientific study, than the art of carrying pig iron. This, however, has been subjected to the most careful scientific study. Men at Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, were loading pig iron on cars at the rate of about twelve tons a day. Certain pig-handlers were given extra wages for doing this work under special direction. An attempt was made to ascertain the relation between the amount of horse-power which each man exerted and the fatigue he incurred. Long-continued experiment furnished a vast amount of information, but, apparently, no law. Finally, Mr. F. W. Taylor, who was conducting the experiments, handed the data over to an associate who was apt at mathematical problems. Very soon he reported that he had discovered the law that fatigue varied in proportion to a certain relation between the amount of load and the periods of rest. For example, a man carrying a ninety-two-pound pig had, in order to avoid fatigue, to be at rest fifty-eight per cent of the time. The discovery of this law involved a great amount of data, including certain physiological

facts concerning the poisonous effects of waste tissue upon the blood, and difficult mathematical formulæ, including the plotting of curves. As a result, the pighandlers were directed exactly how to lift and carry their loads and when to rest, and the amount of pig iron handled by each man every day increased from twelve and a half tons to forty-seven. Of course the men received a great advance in wages.

Now, neither the bricklayer nor the pighandler, even with the greatest amount of ingenuity, could have made such improvement in methods. The bricklayer could not, because he had no authority to say how the bricks should be delivered to him, even if by chance he had discovered that such a method of delivery would have been better; and the pig-handler could not, because such scientific study as was necessary for the discovery was altogether beyond his mental resources, as it would be beyond mine or those of most of my readers.

Similarly, scientific experiments have laid bare a world of knowledge regarding the art of cutting metals. I cannot here relate the story, which Mr. Taylor has told me, of his interesting study of this subject that has been continued for a period of twenty-six years at a cost of two hundred thousand dollars-a study which has resulted in the construction of a simple slide rule by which any workman can set a lathe to the best advantage. No mechanic, however skilled, could possibly attain by experience any such knowledge.

Similar study has been applied to scores of industries, and has resulted in the discovery of methods of work that enormously increase production. Indeed, the result has proved as revolutionary in increasing output as the introduction of machinery was.

When the management of a concern has such knowledge, scientifically acquired, at its command, it is in a position to transfer its brains to its head-that is, to create a planning department.

Yet one may plan and plan and still get nothing done. Men are not automatons. They will not, of themselves, follow plans that are offered to them. Indeed, they naturally resent any suggestion that some one else knows more than they do about their own business. It is evident,

who show proficiency in their tasks are by that very fact started on the road to promotion. The machinist who is especially skillful at the lathe is soon chosen to be one of the bosses; for under scientific management the boss is not chosen because he is a driver, but because he is so adept that he can become a teacher of others. In one machine-shop I noticed a young man, scarcely more than a boy, at work at a desk in the planning department. "What is he doing?" I inquired. "He is selecting the tools to be used by the mechanics," was the answer. "What, that boy!" "Yes." "But I should think he ought to have expert knowledge of the tools and experience in the use of them." "He has. That is why he is in the planning department. He started in as an apprentice; he showed aptitude; he quickly became a regular mechanic; and in his work he showed such skill that he was put at work on his present job." Scientific management thus necessarily involves the scientific selection of the workman.

This instance of the boy in the planning department illustrates another feature of scientific management. I mean what is called functional foremanship. It is necessary that the boss should know more than the workman, and the foreman should know more than the boss. But no one man can have a specialist's knowledge in all departments of work. Consequently the work of the bosses is apportioned according to functions. One boss has charge of the preparation of the workthe collection of the tools and the material. He may be called the gang boss. Another has charge of the setting of the machines, so that they will work most. efficiently. He may be called the speed boss. Another has charge of the order in which the work is done. He is called the route boss. Another has charge of the instruction cards, another of the motions that the workers should use to do their work most quickly and easily, another of the discipline. Each has his own function.

This arrangement of functional foremanship is not new; it has long been applied to the coaching of football teams. In every large university there are coaches (foremen) for the end rushers,

coaches for the quarter-back, coaches for the center, and so on for each positionand even coaches for punting and drop kicking. Each of these coaches is selected because he knows more than any one else available concerning some particular feature of the game. Functional foremanship is new only in industry. We are much more scientific in our sports than in our serious work. Motion study had been long a commonplace in golf before it was applied to bricklaying; and functional foremanship has long been the rule in the coaching of football and baseball teams.

Every worker has therefore at his service a specialist who knows more about certain elements of the task than the worker does himself-a coach, or, if you will, a teacher. This specialist or coach or teacher not only has special knowledgewhich, instead of being guesswork or hearsay or tradition, is, in fact, the product of scientific investigation but also is concerned to put this knowledge to the worker's use, for he succeeds only in proportion as his subordinates succeed. In consequence, the worker, so far from regarding the boss as a taskmaster to evade and outwit, looks to the boss as an aid. In consequence, likewise, the officers higher in authority are relieved from detail by the functional foremen, and are free to give their thought to the decision of special questions-such as those raised by emergencies. For example, a certain weaver at a loom finds that he is unable to do the work in accordance with his instructions. He at once calls upon the boss for an explanation. The boss comes, watches the operation, and sees that the weaver is making two unnecessary motions in each operation; does the work at the loom-as the professional golfer swings the club to show the duffer the proper form-and thus eliminates the trouble. Or, again, after watching the operation, the boss discovers that the worker is following instructions, but that the material is not what was intended for that particular piece of work. He immediately calls the attention of the proper authority to the fact. The planning department at once sends word to the vice-president that the concern from which the material was ordered has made

a mistake, and asks for a decision as to whether the work shall be continued with the necessary revision as to standards of work, or whether the work on that particular product shall be discontinued until the proper material is received. Here is an emergency. The fact that the management is based on scientific principles allows that emergency to be promptly recognized and promptly met. one in the organization is acting in accord with every one else. The high-priced man is doing high-priced work; the lowpriced man is doing low-priced work; and the low-priced man has every fair chance to become, through achievement, a high-priced man.

Thus every

I cannot expect within the limits of such an article as this even to indicate all that is involved in scientific management. I hope, however, that I have made it clear that scientific management is not the adoption of certain devices such as the bonus for special piece-work; that it is not mere systematization; but that it is the acceptance of certain fundamental principles. It requires a new attitude toward organized action, particularly in industry. It is a form of co-operation practically applied.

In

For that very reason it is at first opposed both by managers and by wage-earners. The opposition from wageearners is due to the fact that industry is now on a war basis, labor unions are war organizations, and anything that tends to individualize labor is regarded by wageearners as a weakening of their side. this the wage-earners are entirely right as long as the war basis is maintained. So long as wage-earners feel that the managers are representatives of rival claimants to a common fund, so long they will regard the individualization of the laborer as a device to cheat them out of their share. They must first be convinced that the war basis has been abandoned. this they will act slowly. The opposition from managers is due likewise to this deep-seated acceptance of the war basis as permanent. It is also due to the fact that under scientific management the responsibility of the manager is greatly increased, and men are instinctively disinclined to accept greater responsibility. Scientific management, therefore, spreads slowly.

In

It is retarded, moreover, by certain misconceptions. Some men, whose attention is held by some device in use under scientific management, and recognizing it as familiar, jump to the conclusion that they have it already in their business, when, as a matter of fact, they do not even understand, much less accept, its principles. Others, ignoring the fact that science is no respecter of industries, complacently declare that it will not work in their particular business. Others, recognizing the patent evils of ordinary piecework, object to it as 'speeding up workers, overlooking the fact that one of its prime objects is to relieve the worker of the strain and fatigue that arise from the attempt to secure speed by merely redoubling effort. Others object that it is mere theory, oblivious of the fact that it is in operation in a wide variety of industries. Others suspect it as a panacea," while perfectly willing to recognize in another sphere, that of medicine and surgery, science to be the mortal enemy of all " panaceas." Others criticise it as a narrowing process, failing to realize that a man is narrowed not by his field of labor but by drudgery in any field. Others oppose it on the ground that it kills initiative in men, forgetting that the application of science is everywhere a provocative of the true spirit of initiative.

Some of the advocates of scientific management have, in their enthusiasm, made the mistake that is often made on behalf of science-the mistake of imagining that science can tell all secrets. No science has revealed the secret of Beethoven's music, or Shakespeare's dramas, or the Cathedral at Rheims. No science can produce beautiful pictures, or instill into the minds of undergraduates the love of letters. No excess of zeal, however, on the part of any advocate should distract the minds of thinking people from the fact that, wherever men work together under direction, scientific management can increase their product, reduce needless effort, and make at least an approximation to a fair division of the fruits of their toil. In most cases it has multiplied the output by two or three, has supplanted a deficit with a good net income, and, in many instances, at the same time has