All Knowledge Becomes the Knowledge of All. — Two outcomes may be confidently expected in the future, as they are already becoming apparent where-ever Scientific Management is being introduced:
1. The worker will become more and more willing
to impart his knowledge to others. When the worker realizes that passing on his trade secrets will not cause him to lose his position or, by raising up a crowd of competitors, lower his wages, but will, on the contrary, increase his wages and chances of promotion, he is ready and willing to have his excellent methods standardized.
Desire to keep one's own secret, or one's own method a secret is a very natural one. It stimulates interest, it stimulates pride. It is only when, as in Scientific Management, the possessor of such a secret may receive just compensation, recognition and honor for his skill, and receive a position where he can become an appreciated teacher of others that he is, or should be, willing to give up this secret. Scientific Management, however, provides this opportunity for him to teach, provides that he receives credit for what he has done, and receive that publicity and fame which is his due, and which will give him the same stimulus to work which the knowledge that he had a secret skill gave him in the past.
One method of securing this publicity is by naming the device or method after its inventor. This has been found to be successful not only in satisfying the inventor, but in stimulating others to invent.
Measurement of Individual Efficiency Will Be Endorsed by All. — 2. The worker will, ultimately, realize that it is for the good of all, as well as for himself, that individual efficiency be measured and rewarded.
It has been advanced as an argument against measurement that it discriminates against the "weaker brother," who should have a right to obtain the same
pay as the stronger, for the reason that he has equal needs for this pay to maintain life and for the support of his family.
Putting aside at the moment the emotional side of this argument, which is undoubtedly a strong side and a side worthy of consideration, with much truth in it, and looking solely at the logical side, — it cannot do the "weaker" brother any good in the long run, and it does the world much harm, to have his work overestimated. The day is coming, when the world will demand that the quantity of the day's work shall be measured as accurately where one sells labor, as where one sells sugar or flour. Then, pretending that one's output is greater than it really is will be classed with "divers weights and divers measures," with their false standards. The day will come when the public will insist that the "weaker brother's" output be measured to determine just how weak he is, and whether it is weakness, unfitness for that particular job, or laziness that is the cause of his output being low. When he reaches a certain degree of weakness, he will be assisted with a definite measured quantity of assistance. Thus the "weaker brother" may be readily distinguished from the lazy, strong brother, and the brother who is working at the wrong job. Measurement should certainly be insisted on, in order to determine whether these strong brothers are doing their full share, or whether they are causing the weaker brothers to over-exert themselves.
No one who has investigated the subject properly can doubt that it will be better for the world in general