The Psychology of Management, L. M. Gilbreth [always you kirsty moseley txt] 📗

 3. Gillette and Dana, Cost Keeping and Management, p. 5.

 4. F.B. Gilbreth, Motion Study, p. 98.

 5. F.W. Taylor, Principles of Scientific Management, p. 144.

 6. F.W. Taylor, Shop Management, para. 16, Am. Soc. M.E., Paper No. 1003.

 7. William James, Psychology, Vol. I, p. 258.

 8. F.B. Gilbreth, Cost Reducing System, Chap. 1.

 9. Morris Llewellyn Cooke, Bulletin No. 5 of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, p. 17.

10. F.W. Taylor, Shop Management, para. 234, Am. Soc. M.E., Paper No. 1003.

11. F.W. Taylor, Principles of Scientific Management, pp. 33-38.

12. The idea called to mind by the use of a given word. — Ed.

13. Henry R. Towne, Introduction to Shop Management. (Harper & Bros.)

14. F.W. Taylor, Principles of Scientific Management, p. 123. (Harper & Bros.)

15. Doubleday, Page & Co.

16. F.W. Taylor, Principles of Scientific Management, p. 137. (Harper & Bros.)

Definition of Individuality. — "An individual is a single thing, a being that is, or is regarded as, a unit. An individual is opposed to a crowd. Individual action is opposed to associate action. Individual interests are opposed to common or community interests." These definitions give us some idea of the extent of individuality. Individuality is a particular or distinctive characteristic of an individual; "that quality or aggregate of qualities which distinguishes one person or thing from another, idiosyncrasy." This indicates the content.

For our purpose, we may define the study of individuality as a consideration of the individual as a unit with special characteristics. That it is a unit signifies that it is one of many and that it has likeness to the many. That it has special characteristics shows that it is one of many, but different from the many. This consideration of individuality emphasizes both the common element and the diverging characteristics.

Individuality as Treated in This Chapter. — The recognition of individuality is the subject of this chapter. The utilization of this individuality in its deviation from class, is the subject of the chapter that follows, Functionalization.

Individuality as Considered by Psychology. — Psychology has not always emphasized the importance of the individual as a unit for study. Prof. Ladd's definition of psychology, quoted and endorsed by Prof. James, is "the description and explanation of states of consciousness, as such." 1 "By states of consciousness," says James, "are meant such things as sensation, desires, emotions, cognitions, reasonings, decisions, volitions, and the like." This puts the emphasis on such divisions of consciousness as, "attention," "interest," and "will."

With the day of experimental psychology has come the importance of the individual self as a subject of study, 2 and psychology has come to be defined, as Calkins defines it, as a "science of the self as conscious." 3

We hear much in the talk of today of the "psychology of the crowd," the "psychology of the mob," and the "psychology of the type," etc., but the mind that is being measured, and from whose measurements the laws are being deduced and formulated is, at the present the individual mind. 4

The psychology which interested itself particularly in studying such divisions of mental activity as attention, will, habit, etc., emphasizes more particularly the likenesses of minds. It is necessary to understand thoroughly all of these likenesses before one can be sure what the differences, or idiosyncrasies, are, and how important they are, because, while the likenesses furnish the background, it is the differences that are most often actually utilized by management. These must be determined in order to compute and set the proper individual task for the given man from standard data of the standard, or first-class man.

In any study of the individual, the following facts must be noted: —

1. The importance of the study of the individual, and the comparatively small amount of work that has as yet been done in that field.

2. The difficulty of the study, and the necessity for great care, not only in the study itself, but in deducing laws from it.

3. The necessity of considering any one individual trait as modified by all the other traits of the individual.

4. The importance of the individual as distinct from the type.

Many students are so interested in studying types and deducing laws which apply to types in general, that they lose sight of the fact that the individual is the basis of the study, — that individuality is that for which they must seek and for which they must constantly account. As Sully says, we must not emphasize "typical developments in a new individual," at the expense of "typical development in a new individual." 5 It is the fact that the development occurs in an individual, and not that the development is typical, that we should emphasize.

Individuality Seldom Recognized Under Traditional Management. — Under Traditional Management there was little or no systematized method for the recognition of individuality or individual fitness. 6 The worker usually was, in the mind of the manager, one of a crowd, his only distinguishing mark being the amount of work which he was capable of performing.

Selecting Workers Under Traditional Management. — In selecting men to do work, there was little or no attempt to study the individuals who applied for work. The matter of selection was more of a process of "guess work" than of exact measurement, and the highest form of test was considered to be that of having the man actually tried out by being given a chance at the work itself. There was not only a great waste of time on the work, because men unfitted to it could not turn it out so successfully, but there also was a waste of the worker, and many times a positive injury to the worker, by his being put at work which he was unfitted either to perform, to work at continuously, or both.

In the most progressive type of Traditional Management there was usually a feeling, however, that if the labor market offered even temporarily a greater supply than the work in hand demanded, it was wise to choose those men to do the work who were best fitted for it, or who were willing to work for less wages. It is surprising to find in the traditional type, even up to the present day, how often men were selected for their strength and physique, rather than for any special capabilities fitting them for working in, or at, the particular line of work to be done.

Output Seldom Separated Under Traditional Management. — Under Traditional Management especially on day work the output of the men was not usually separated, nor was the output recorded separately, as can be done even with the work of gangs.

Few Individual Tasks Under Traditional Management. — Seldom, if ever, was an individual task set for a worker on day work, or piece work, and even if one were set, it was not scientifically determined. The men were simply set to work alone or in gangs, as the work demanded, and if the foreman was overworked or lazy, allowed to take practically their own time to do the work. If, on the other hand, the foreman was a "good driver," the men might be pushed to their utmost limit of their individual undirected speed, regardless of their welfare.

Little Individual Teaching Under Traditional Management. — Not having a clear idea either of the present fitness and the future possibilities of the worker, or the requirements of the work, no intelligent attempt could be made at efficient individual teaching. What teaching was done was in the form of directions for all, concerning the work in general, the directions being given by an overworked foreman, the holding of whose position often depended more upon whether his employer made money than upon the way his men were taught, or worked.

Seldom an Individual Reward Under Traditional Management. — As a typical example of disregard of individuality, the worker in the household may be cited, and especially the "general housework girl." Selected with no knowledge of her capabilities, and with little or no scientific or even systematized knowledge of the work that she is expected to do, there is little or no thought of a prescribed and definite task, no teaching specially adapted to the individual needs of the taught, and no reward in proportion to efficiency.

Cause of These Lacks Under Traditional Management. — The fault lies not in any desire of the managers to do poor or wasteful work, or to treat their workers unfairly, — but in a lack of knowledge and of accurate methods for obtaining, conserving and transmitting knowledge. Under Traditional Management no one individual knows precisely what is to be done. Such management seldom knows how work could best be done; — never knows how much work each individual can do. 7 Understanding neither work nor workers, it can not adjust the one to the other so as to obtain least waste. Having no conception of the importance of accurate measurement, it has no thought of the individual as a unit.

Individuality Recognized Under Transitory Management. — Recognition of individuality is one of the principles first apparent under Transitory Management.

This is apt to demonstrate itself first of all in causing the outputs of the workers to "show up" separately, rewarding these separated outputs, and rewarding each worker for his individual output.

Benefits of This Recognition. — The benefits of introducing these features first are that the worker, (1) seeing his individual output, is stimulated to measure it, and (2) receiving compensation in accordance with his output, is satisfied; and (3) observing that records are necessary to determine the amount of output and pay, is glad to have accurate measurement and the other features of Scientific Management introduced.

Individuality a Fundamental Principle of Scientific Management. — Under Scientific Management the individual is the unit to be measured. Functionalization is based upon utilizing the particular powers and special abilities of each man. Measurement is of the individual man and his work. Analysis and synthesis build up methods by which the individual can best do his work. Standards are of the work of an individual, a standard man, and the task is always for an individual, being that percentage of the standard man's task that the particular individual can do. Records are of individuals, and are made in order to show and reward individual effort. Specific individuals are taught those things that they, individually, require. Incentives are individual both in the cases of rewards and punishments, and, finally, it is the welfare of the individual worker that is considered, without the sacrifice of any for the good of the whole.

Individuality Considered in Selecting Workers. — Under Scientific Management individuality is considered in selecting workers as it could not be under either of the other two forms of management. This for several reasons:

1. The work is more specialized, hence requires more carefully selected men.

2. With standardized methods comes a knowledge to the managers of the qualifications of the "standard men" who can best do the work and continuously thrive.

3. Motion study, in its investigation of the worker, supplies a list of variations in workers that can be utilized in selecting men.8

Variables of the Worker. — This list now includes at least 50 or 60 variables, and shows the possible elements which may demand consideration. When it is remembered that the individual selected may need a large or small proportion of most of the variables in order to do his particular work most successfully, and that every single one of these variables, as related to the others, may, in some way affect his output and his welfare in doing his assigned work, the importance