The difference between a good job and a bad one is nothing--unless the
man with a good one is a good man.
A certain office in Chicago had this fact demonstrated. There
were two men on the pay-roll who had an equal opportunity for a
new place, a place much in advance of that held by either. One
of the men had a good job, the place of assistant to the head of
a department. The other was only a clerk. The first man got $30
a week, the second was paid only $18. When the time came for the
head to look around and select the man for the new position his
eyes fell on the two under consideration, and he began to sum up
their merits.
“My idea of a man for this new place,” he said, “is one who
has proved by his steadiness, industry, and economy that he
is ambitious, that he wants to and means to do well, and who,
generally speaking, has shown that he’s a strong character. Now,
while Johnson, at $30 a week, is obviously first choice for
the place, I won’t give it to him until I’ve compared him with
Nagle, who’s only getting $18. I’m going to look them over first
and find out who really is the bigger man of the two.”
A week later the office was surprized and shocked to see Nagle,
the clerk, get the coveted place.
“Why in the world did you do it?” a friend asked the boss.
The answer was short and to the point. “I looked ’em up, and
found that Nagle was a better man than Johnson, in spite of
the fact that the latter had the bigger job. Johnson has been
getting $30 a week for two years. He’s single, but he hasn’t got
a cent of savings in the bank. Nagle has been getting $18 for
the same length of time. But Nagle has been taking care of his
money, and now he has $300 to his credit in his savings account.
Johnson goes out and blows in his money and doesn’t give a
single thought to the future. Nagle plants a few dollars every
week. Do you suppose there can be any question as to the ability
of these two men?”
And when you think it over this is about as good a test of worth
as any that could be made.--Chicago _Tribune_.
(3517)