Analyzing Character, Arthur Newcomb [popular romance novels .txt] 📗

until he has submitted proof, we must question his ability and training as an observer of physical characteristics as indicative of character and aptitudes.

Again, take the test of those who have "the characteristics that ought to make them executives." We should like to know what these physical characteristics were. We should also like to know what other physical characteristics these men had. Perhaps there were some which interfered seriously with their becoming successful as executives.

Still further, it would be illuminating to know whether the men so examined had ever been properly trained for executive work; whether they had had opportunities to become executives or whether some or all of them may not have been misfits in whatever they were doing. Obviously, a sound, scientific conclusion cannot be reached until all of the variables in the problem have been adequately studied and brought under control. There is no evidence in the paragraph that we have quoted that Dean Schneider had done this.

But, after all, we shall proceed very little, if any, with our inquiry as to the reliability of Dean Schneider's conclusions if we content ourselves merely with criticizing his methods of research and reason. Even if we could prove beyond a doubt that the methods used were unscientific and the reasoning unsound, we could go no further toward establishing the contrary of Dean Schneider's conclusion than he has in establishing the unreliability of determining mental aptitudes and character by an observation of physical characteristics. The main question is not, "Is Dean Schneider right or wrong?" but rather, "Is an employment department, conducted along the lines laid down in the preceding chapter, a profitable investment, and, especially, is it possible to determine the right job for any individual by observing his physical characteristics?"

BUT IT IS BEING DONE

Fortunately, this question is no longer academic. There is no need for the bringing up of arguments, the stating of theories, the quoting of authorities, or any such controversial methods. Employment departments have been established in a number of commercial and industrial organizations, some very large—some small—and are being conducted, with some variations, according to the plan outlined in the preceding chapter. The science of character analysis by the observational method is the basis of their work. In addition, this science is the basis of employment work in several hundred other employment departments, large and small, where the Blackford plan has not been adopted in its entirety. The plan referred to was formulated in 1912. The fact that this method has been in actual commercial use under widely varying conditions and in the hands of many different individuals, for more than three years, is, on the face of it, a reasonably fair presumption of its reliability. At any rate, it is fully as convincing as Dean Schneider's purely negative "proof."

The question remains as to whether the commercial applications of this method are successful; whether the results obtained are reliable; whether the inefficiencies and losses, to which we have referred in previous chapters, are appreciably remedied by its use.

SOME PRACTICAL RESULTS

In one of the first organizations where the Blackford Employment Plan was installed there were employed about 2,500 men and women. At the time of the adoption of this plan the various foremen and superintendents in the plant were hiring about 6,600 new employees each year in order to maintain their regular working force of 2,500. Within six months new employees were being taken on at the rate of only 4,080 a year—and this notwithstanding the fact that many changes were necessitated by sweeping reorganization and adoption of new methods of manufacture in the industry.

Excellent results were obtained in reassignment of executives as the result of a careful analysis of those holding positions when the department was installed. One executive instantly recognized as being clever, designing, and essentially dishonest was replaced by another of a reliable, efficient type. Under the new executive, the department more than doubled its output, at the same time cutting the payroll of the department down to 43 per cent of its former size. Still another executive, holding a position of highest trust and responsibility, was reported upon adversely after analysis by the employment department. An investigation made as the result of this report revealed serious irregularities covering a long period of months. Another man properly qualified for the position was selected by the department, and immediately began to effect noticeable savings, as well as greatly increasing the value of the department's work in the institution. Still another executive selected by this department increased the output of one of the shops by 120 per cent, with a very slight increase in the payroll. In another organization, careful records showed that among employees selected according to this plan, 90 per cent were efficient, satisfactory, and permanent; 8 per cent fairly satisfactory but not permanent; and 2 per cent unsatisfactory and discharged.

AN UNUSUAL HARMONY OF JUDGMENT

But these results, while desirable, are not wholly convincing. It is easy enough to explain them on the ground that any man or woman of common sense, keen observation and good judgment, devoting all his or her intelligence and time to employment problems, might have gained the same results without using a method for determining aptitudes and character from an observation of physical characteristics.

More specific and more convincing evidence may be found in a series of incidents which occurred in connection with an employment department established in a textile factory, employing twelve hundred men, located in New England. The supervisor of this department is a young man who has been a student and practitioner of this method in employment work since August, 1912. Previously to taking up this work, he had taken an engineer's degree and had some experience as an executive, in a large factory.

In January, 1915, the supervisor analyzed carefully twenty executives then at work in the plant, carefully wrote out the analyses and submitted them to the management with recommendations for transfers and readjustments of rather a sweeping nature. The management, wishing to make an experiment, agreed to make the changes, provided we were also to analyze the executives in question, submit our analyses in writing, and show agreement as to the character and aptitudes of the men. We accordingly proceeded to the factory, and there, without consultation with the supervisor or his report, proceeded to analyze the twenty executives independently. It would not be fair to the executives in question to publish all of these analyses in full, but a comparison of the essential points in a few of them will be instructive:

Supervisor says of No. 1: "Sociable, scheming, secretive; poor judge of men; lacking seriously in executive ability; decidedly a 'one-man-job' man; does not plan ahead; clannish, narrow-minded; very low intelligence for a foreman. Any organization he builds will be close-mouthed, unreliable, and selfish in structure. Because of the technical knowledge of the business which he has gained, and which can be gained only by long experience, he should do good work in experimental lines. Any change made, however, should separate him completely from the regular productive organization."

Dr. Blackford reports on No. 1: "He is, however, an undesirable man to be in charge of others. He is far more destructive than constructive, more disorganizing than organizing. He is ultra-conservative, non-progressive, and is not disposed to take on any new methods unless he himself can get the credit for their installation. In disposition he is stubborn and obstinate. He is also reserved and suspicious. Being of the selfish type, he will look after his own interests first in all things. No. 1 lacks straightforwardness and frankness of disposition, so he will be tricky, slippery, and do things in an underhanded way. He has very great dislike of detail and will have a tendency to procrastinate if given an opportunity, I believe he has passed the age limit of mental growth."

Supervisor thus summarizes No. 2: "A well-intentioned, honest and reliable man, lacking absolutely in executive ability. Should have a job as inspector or like, where he would have no one to look after but himself."

Dr. Blackford says of No. 2: "No. 2 is a simple-hearted man of very ordinary ability. He is not systematic or orderly; is very susceptible to criticism; exceedingly emotional, apprehensive, and watchful. No doubt men will like him because he is easy with them. However, he will not be a particularly good executive, because he cannot maintain discipline."

Supervisor thus analyzes No. 3: "Very clannish, lacking absolutely in intelligence, executive ability, frankness; in fact, every attribute that is necessary for a good foreman. Is wholly unfitted for an executive job of any kind. Under very strict supervision, would make a fair workman."

Dr. Blackford reports on No. 3: "He is easily influenced; too undependable and too lax in discipline to make a good executive. He has a keen sense of right and wrong, but will take on the color of his surroundings. If led by an undesirable man, he will be a poor asset, and only a fair one even under good influence."

Supervisor, on No. 4: "An active, honest and frank man; a good boss for a small gang of men. Limited somewhat by lack of education and medium planning ability."

Dr. Blackford, on No. 4: "An energetic, active man of only fair intelligence and capability. He is sympathetic and generous to those he likes, but his strongest quality is a desire to rule. He will enjoy enforcing laws, rules and regulations, and will do this with a degree of energy and watchfulness which probably results in good work on part of those under him. He is a fair executive. Under right influence, might further develop."

Supervisor reports on No. 5: "A capable man, secretive and somewhat clannish; is susceptible, however, to other influences and can be developed. A little quick-tempered in handling help; expects too much at the outset. This man must be removed from the influence of No. 1 or he will make no progress."

Dr. Blackford, on No. 5: "A capable man, secretive in his work; careful, conservative, and conservatively progressive. He is intelligent and industrious. He is also ambitious, and has good artistic sense. He is the type of man that takes pride in doing good work. He will prefer his work to be perfect and finished rather than faulty. In disposition he is usually mild, but has a very destructive temper when aroused; so he is probably a little hot-headed with his workers. He is reserved and secretive, but under encouragement will unfold whatever information he has concerning the work. Perhaps his most negative point is a lack of courage in his convictions, but with encouragement and proper support, he ought to develop into a good executive."

Supervisor says, briefly, of No. 6: "A very loyal, honest and painstaking employee; very sincere and absolutely reliable; lacking somewhat in executive ability to handle a large gang. Very desirable."

Dr. Blackford says, more at length, of No. 6: "Industrious, energetic, watchful, careful, dependable, and conscientious in her work. She is sympathetic, but exacting with her workers. She has fair intelligence, is teachable, and will give considerable thought to improving her work. She is also a good critic and a good judge of values. If not given too large a department or too great responsibility, she ought to be very valuable in an executive position."

Supervisor, on No. 7: "An active, reliable man; a good gang-boss or leader; very susceptible to further training."

Dr. Blackford, on No. 7: "Highest grade and finest-textured of any of the foremen yet considered. He is also intelligent, honest, industrious; has high principles; is careful in his work, and will take very great pride in it. He is naturally artistic and ought to turn out very beautiful work. He is clean morally and physically, thorough, and will always prefer a fine quality of goods and workmanship to coarse quality. He is distinctly a quality man. With training and opportunity he ought to develop into a fine