Individuals themselves are seldom aware of their own capacities; even less generally of their own limitations. Occasionally, by accident, a man or a woman finds at the right time the opportunity to do precisely the things he or she is best fitted to do. Often the individual’s strong personal instincts or inclinations lead him or her to seek opportunity to do certain kinds of work without any clear understanding why that sort of work appeals while other kinds do not. Few human beings analyze their inclinations closely. Yet it may be and frequently is the case that the work one most strongly desires to undertake is not that in which he or she is best fitted to succeed. The inclination may be counterbalanced by inhibitions of which neither the possessor nor his or her employer becomes aware until repeated failure has demonstrated the lack of adaptability, sometimes after it is, or seems to be, too late to take up another occupation. Then the worker usually drifts into the ranks of “casuals,” constantly moving from job to job, chronically “out of work”; the ready dupe of agitators and the prophets of social unrest and revolution; disheartened, anti-social, and perennially unhappy; the most expensive sort of an employee in any position, no matter how small the wage—yet a human being, and, as such, entitled to liberty and the pursuit of happiness!
That is an extreme picture. Yet if such tragedies occur (as every reader knows from his own observation and experience they do occur too often) among those who have voluntarily chosen their own lines of work, how much more frequently must they occur among those whose daily occupations have been determined for them, not through any voluntary choice or intelligent guidance but solely through the accident of having been “thrown into” certain jobs when they were young?
That is the way in which the vast majority of individuals have their careers shaped for them. The world of business and industry and of the professions is full of blacksmiths who ought to be carpenters, indifferent lawyers who would have made good dentists, teachers who are failures because they should have been trained as stenographers, good cooks who have been spoiled to make mediocre shop attendants, and so on through the list of possible occupations. Within every business organization, moreover, there are grades and degrees of requirements and responsibilities into which some employees may fit perfectly, others less perfectly and others not at all, though all be drawn from the same group or from those performing the same general class of service. Here, as in the matter of original employment, the general custom of dealing with the human element in industry is the wasteful “hire-and-fire” system, analogous to the purchasing of machinery or equipment without first ascertaining whether it will do the work, and scrapping it when it fails.
We found out long ago that we couldn’t afford to do that sort of thing with machinery. We are just beginning to find out that it is even more expensive to do it with the human element in industry.
It would perhaps be going too far to claim that the whole problem of the “labour turnover” arises from the effort to fit square pegs into round holes, but it is certain that a very large share of all human troubles, industrial unrest, discontent, inefficiency and unhappiness is traceable to the lack of proper adjustment between the man and the job, and this in turn is due in large part to the failure to determine in advance the fitness of the particular individual for the particular task.
What is needed, obviously, is a measure of human capacities, just as we have means of measuring every phase of the machine’s capacities.
Just as we measure a machine by the most precise gauges and tests available, why not measure the human individual by the most precise means we are able to apply?
The word “measure” in the preceding paragraph does not mean, either in the case of the machine or of the man, the gross dimensions of length, breadth, and thickness; these are equally immaterial, in most cases, whether the subject of measurement be a man or a machine. One measures a machine to determine its capacity for certain work, and is little concerned about its characteristics that have no bearing upon those qualities that fit it for those particular duties. So the measurements of a human being whose capacity for certain duties is to be determined must be of those qualities which enable him or her to perform according to a certain pre-determined requirement.
These qualities, in man, woman, or child, can be measured; not with the precision with which an engineer measures the parts of a machine that must fit within a thousandth of an inch, but with sufficient accuracy to determine quickly, inexpensively, and simply whether a given individual has the capacity to learn and perform any given task or class of work.
To explain how these tests can be made, how science can be and is being substituted for guesswork in the selection of human beings for jobs and of jobs for human beings, just as science has displaced guesswork in the selection of material commodities, is the purpose of this book.