The war has enriched our democracy in the awakened individuality of millions of citizens and in the hundreds of thousands of young men whom it has returned to civil life experienced in the responsibilities and possibilities of group leadership. Both these are to be potent influences in the future, and may be made a great national asset if properly directed. The measure of a nation, in peace as now in war, is found in the soul and purpose of all its people. The world has been taught that machines and the cold products of science cannot win in war. They test almost to breaking the endurance of man, but in the end superior manpower emerges the victor. It is the fiber of the bodies and nerves and souls of its manhood which meets the final test and proves the issue. Preparation for war, preparation to meet any test of our nation's claim to worthiness, demands that we give thought to the quality of that fiber. If we are to assure our nation's future success in any endeavor, we must guard her manpower now. To this end everyone who is charged with the control of others should appreciate his responsibility and his opportunity. He may easily so handle his men as not only to increase their efficiency in the work at hand, but so as to ensure that they leave their daily tasks in a frame of mind which will make them happier and better citizens—stronger in character, higher in purpose, more loyal upholders of our democratic institutions. In that thought I have written this book, addressed to all who are responsible for the work of others.
I am indebted for particular ideas to an article in the Infantry Journal of April, 1918, by Professor William E. Hocking, of Harvard University; to a lecture by Admiral Sims, U. S. Navy, published in the same journal in February, 1918; to the series of lectures given by Bishop Brent at Harvard University and published under the title "Leadership"; and to "Industry and Humanity" by W. L. Mackenzie King.
Lincoln C. Andrews.
New York,
June 15, 1920.
[CHAPTER I]
Using Human Tools
"Aw, what do I care!" says the man who is working under a poor leader. "I'd do anything for him!" explains the happy man who has a good chief. A poor leader may even so antagonize his men that each will actually try to do the least that he can and still hold his job; while a good leader may take the same men through the same tasks and so handle them as to inspire a spirit which will make every man try to do his very best. Manpower is thus seen to be a direct function of leadership. And the difference between the results from good leadership and from poor is often astonishing. The wonder is that we have so long neglected this psychological factor for increasing accomplishment. It is probably because we thoughtlessly accepted the idea that leaders have to be "born," and did not stop to realize that this kind of leadership is in reality an art which may be readily acquired by anyone who has enough native character.
Recent experience has taught us that this art may be acquired—so we need no longer sit with folded hands in admiration of the "born leader." What is instinctive in him may be analyzed, reduced to principles, and made applicable to ourselves. It was done for the army, and by study many an inexperienced man made himself a successful leader of troops in the late war. It may be quite as easily done in any other field of activity.
A knowledge of this art is of practical value in every phase of human endeavor—in bringing up children, in school, college and hospital, in the office and in the field, and most particularly in industry where men are grouped for the purposes of material production. Applied to any large business organization, let every leader from the big chief to the lowest sub-foreman practice the same principles of leadership, and there will soon permeate the whole machine a spirit of loyalty, teamwork and esprit which will drive it with a marvelous degree of efficiency.