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."