Note: Images of the original pages are available through
Internet Archive/American Libraries. See
https://archive.org/details/manpower00andrrich
Transcriber's note:
Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).
MANPOWER
+------------------------------------------+
| _BY THE SAME AUTHOR_ |
|------------------------------------------|
| |
| MILITARY MANPOWER |
| |
| Psychology as Applied to the |
| Training of Men and the Increase |
| of their Effectiveness. |
| |
|------------------------------------------|
| E. P. DUTTON & COMPANY |
+------------------------------------------+
MANPOWER
by
LINCOLN C. ANDREWS
Author of
"_Military Manpower_," "_Basic Course for Cavalry_," _etc._
[Illustration]
New York
E. P. Dutton & Company
681 Fifth Avenue
Copyright, 1920
By E. P. Dutton & Company
All Rights Reserved
Printed in the United States of America
In appreciation of the splendid work of the civilians who qualified as
military leaders during the war, I dedicate this book to the officers
and non-commissioned officers of civil life. Charged with directing
the work of others, they are responsible for both accomplishment and
spirit, and their ability to inspire loyalty and cheerful service
therefore means quite as much for the nation's welfare now as
leadership ever meant in war.
CONTENTS
PAGE
Foreword ix
CHAPTER
I. Using Human Tools 1
II. Psychological Elements of Organization 34
III. The Principles of Leadership 53
FOREWORD
Some years ago, for the instruction of National Guard officers,
I undertook the then unique task of analyzing the psychology of
military training and leadership, and of putting into written form
the principles of the art of handling men. The necessity for quickly
training great numbers of inexperienced men as leaders in war proved my
chapters on Leadership and Training to be both practical and helpful
to thousands of civilians fitting themselves for positions of command.
Many of these, business and professional men, have suggested that I
rewrite these chapters, adapting my ideas and methods to use in civil
life. We believe that the fundamental principles for handling men
are universal in application, and that it will be of service to the
community to put these principles into form for study by those whose
responsibility it is to direct the work of others.
The term "leadership" in this restricted sense has been applied
to the art of handling men. It has for its purpose the object of
arousing and directing that latent force which exists in every man
and doubles his accomplishment under the impulsion of loyalty, pride
and interest when they are aroused by a skillful leader. Practical
leadership is an art, not an exact science. No two leaders succeed in
exactly the same way. One may not hope to acquire this art by learning
specific rules to guide his conduct. A good leader of men is one whose
impulses are right; and these impulses come from a genuine acceptance
of principles, from one's own belief, feelings and experiences. It
is a question therefore of personal understanding and sincerity of
purpose to play the game fairly; of having a sympathetic understanding
of the human animal and of what the laws of life make him do under
certain circumstances; and finally of having an appreciation of one's
own personality and how it affects others. It becomes a live, vital
matter, to which one's own personal experiences bring the most valuable
contributions. Its infinite variety of elements lends an unending
interest to one's daily tasks, while success in dealing with its
practical problems brings constant gratification, especially in seeing
the development of stronger character and increased efficiency in one's
subordinates.
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.
MANPOWER
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.
It appears that industry is quite awake to this fact to-day. Industrial
literature abounds with considerations of the humanity of labor.
Employers have come to realize that the purchase of labor is a contract
for future delivery, and that what they get from it will depend not
so much on the bare delivery of the labor they have purchased, as on
the continuing spirit in which it is daily and hourly delivered. The
employer knows that he wants the loyal, enthusiastic, co-operative
service of his employees, and that he cannot get it for money alone. He
therefore adopts such organization and policy in his business as will
make possible the loyal co-operation of all, and then attempts to have
his men so handled as to get this result.
The latter consideration is vital, for the best of policies may be
ruined by the meanness or incompetence of subordinate executives. The
morale officer of one of our largest corporations has recently stated
that he has no trouble with the employers or with the men, but that he
has all kinds of trouble with the superintendents and foremen, who seem
unable to understand how to handle the men. Knowledge of leadership is
essential not alone for the chief, but even more for his subordinates
who are in direct contact with his men.
It is easy to say that leaders must so handle their men as to inspire
loyalty and enthusiastic service--but most of them will have to be
taught _how_ to do this. That was the failure in army training. The
manuals all prescribed that the officer must so handle his men as to
build up discipline and a high morale, but nowhere were there any
instructions as to how to do it. The art was handed along by tradition,
often incorrectly. War brought the need for quickly training hundreds
of thousands of leaders, and it was found necessary both here and in
foreign armies to reduce this art of handling men to written principles
which the young aspirants could study and learn to apply. This was
found very efficient in the army. It may well be equally efficient in
civil life. The ghastly wastes from poor leadership and consequent
inefficient work, the heartburnings and discontent and lack of high
purpose which are so common in every field to-day, certainly call for
some attention if we are to meet successfully the tests which the next
few years have in store. We have got to quit looking for cure-alls and
get down to work; and work efficiently and happily, knowing again the
homely joy of doing things well and the satisfaction of accomplishment.
Our leaders must be "good leaders." This does not mean only employers
and their subordinates, or only labor leaders. It means every man in
the nation who is responsible for the control and work of others. These
men are all leaders in our sense, each one responsible for the effects
of his leadership on the members of his group, be it large or small.
Let these men sense their responsibility, realize that the quality of
their leadership has far reaching effects upon character as well as
upon immediate accomplishment, and they may easily by personal example
and thoughtful conduct of office arouse a tide of loyal service which
will sweep discontent and palliatives into oblivion and fairly flood
the country with sanity, prosperity and happy living.
As a first step toward this, no matter what his business or profession,
each leader should realize that in controlling the work of his men he
is _handling human tools_--sentient human beings, like himself. Here
is a craftsmanship worthy of study. One may not hope successfully to
handle these tools, hit or miss, without special thought or training.
Yet many have never thought of this, or considered what it means to
them personally as leaders. If they would do this alone, they would
find themselves self-prompted to such conduct of office as would give
far better results. When a man is charged with directing the efforts
of certain individuals to a given end, these individuals become
instruments in his hand for the accomplishment of this purpose. They
are his tools. He will find them sensitive, difficult instruments,
capable of splendid accomplishment if skillfully handled, but blunt
and ineffective in unskilled hands. Every leader should realize and
continually think of this fact: _My principal tools are human beings
and I must think how to handle them as such._
If a man has won promotion to leadership, no matter in what field of
activity--in sport, shop, office or the field--he may no longer win
success by skill in using the tools he has been using. It is now his
job to direct others in using them. These others, these human beings
such as he was, are now to be _his tools_. And as he won his promotion
by training his body, brain and nerves to use his original tools to
best advantage, so now he will succeed as leader by learning to use
skillfully these new human ones.
As a first step toward learning these tools, the leader should get at
least a crude conception of what this human being really is, and how he
is controlled in his daily walk. Let us therefore for a moment consider
man the animal. We find him in his beginnings running naked and alone
with the beasts in the primeval forest--without knowledge of community
life, even of family life, and not knowing the use of human speech. But
for his "will to improve" he was apparently no more highly endowed by
nature than some of his fellow species. Yet that will to improve has in
the processes of time enabled him to develop within himself his present
marvelous organization of nerve centers and co-ordinated control, and
through the power of his self-invented language to store his brain
cells with the wisdom of the ages. Thus enabled to analyze and to
reason, he has progressed step by step until he has reached his present
mastery of the forces of nature. To-day he may fly in the air higher
than the eagle, may work at will beneath the ocean, may sit at ease
and listen to the natural voice of a friend through thousands of miles
of distance, or may analyze the composition of the heavenly bodies and
predict with accuracy their every movement. And what the race has thus
accomplished in development through the ages, each man is privileged to
accomplish in his lifetime. For he is born into the world with brain
cells empty and with less nerve control than a kitten, but endowed
with hereditary capacity and that wonderful will to improve, which
enable him to talk and to read in early childhood, and to develop his
faculties in time to a degree limited only by the determined purpose of
his ambition.
Such is man in the outward manifestations of his prowess. Meantime
he is a creature almost pathetically responsive to his inherent
instincts and in his daily walk largely controlled by habit. It was
the beneficent intention of Nature to leave man's mind free for the
contemplation of higher things, free to form visions of better things
and to reason out the means for attaining them. She therefore relieved
his mind of the trivial cares of deciding just what to do in the
thousands of cases for action in his daily life, and designed him
to do all these normal things in response to impulses from natural
instincts, or in unconscious obedience to the direction of habits which
he commences to form in infancy and continues to form throughout his
development.
So we find man a creature of almost unlimited capacity, but
pathetically sensitive to his environment and treatment because so
helplessly responsive to instincts and habits. And this capable yet
sensitive animal, man, is to be an instrument in the hands of another,
a man like himself, except that he has qualified to be the leader.
How reasonable that this leader should have to give serious thought
to this situation and seek to understand nature's powerful influences
in guiding the actions of both himself and his men. What folly for
him to expect to be able to handle them blindly, hit or miss, without
consideration of man's peculiarities and the fundamental things that
control him.
Perhaps the most important of these fundamentals for the leader to
realize is the deep-seated desire of every individual to maintain
his self-respect and to have his right to self-respect recognized by
those about him. The biggest step man ever took in the attainment
of civilization was that of the ancient fathers when they discarded
the worship of Sun and Fire, and conceived a God endowed with human
attributes. They thus gave man the right to claim that he was "made in
the image of God." On that man founded his philosophy of life and has
more and more demanded and fought for and sometimes won a recognition
of his claim to self-respect. Made in the image of God; he resented
being lashed as a slave in the galleys or driven as one in the chain
gangs; he felt the indignity of being a serf; and he came to realize
the inconsistency of being arbitrarily governed. He has thus slowly
fought his way upward toward his ideal, and has won his right to
self-respect in government and in community living, to the profit of
both.
Out of this evolution came democracy; and the second fundamental for
the leader is to appreciate that in handling men to-day he is no longer
handling serfs or hirelings. His men are citizens of democracy--made
or in the making. Many leaders have not realized this, or thought
out what it should mean in determining their methods of control.
In reality it is the only foundation for any intelligent modern
system of discipline. Democracy requires of each citizen that he be
a self-respecting, self-thinking, responsible individual, capable
of making decisions and acting on them in his civil capacity. These
qualities of citizenship are demanded for participation in community
affairs and are publicly appealed to for political purposes. They are
of the atmosphere in which each man lives as a member of the community.
It is only reasonable that the self-same individuals who operate under
the principles of democracy in all their general affairs should do
better work under democratic rather than autocratic control. The rights
of individuality and of self-direction have been hardly won and are
dearly held. They do much toward making the democratic citizen the able
man he is to-day, and are in reality a splendid basis for his control.
The highest type of army discipline is developed on a thorough
recognition of these very qualities in the men. It is practiced
by all who have appreciated the meanings of the modern social and
political development of the individual, and learned how to benefit
by its advantages for getting efficiency. There still exist, however,
many unthinking officers who get their ideas of discipline from
the traditional rules formerly evolved for the control of serfs
and mercenaries. But their day is rapidly passing, as the modern
principle is more and more widely accepted that the man in ranks is
an intelligent, self-respecting individual, that he may be interested
equally with the leader in the success of the cause, and that in
large measure he is capable of adding to its success out of his own
individual effort and intelligence.
The following definition of democracy by Professor Carver presents
clearly the two elements which must be given consideration: "Two
things and two things only are essential to real democracy. The first
is an open road to talent, that is to say that every man shall have
an opportunity to rise to positions of power and responsibility in
proportion to his ability regardless of birth, privilege, caste or
other social barriers. The son of the peasant may become the ruler
in government or the employer in business by sheer force of his own
merit, if he happens to possess merit. The second essential of pure
democracy is that they who are in positions of power and responsibility
shall be made sensitive to the needs, the desires and the interests
of those over whom they exercise power and responsibility." Such
democracy may well be recognized in his dealings if one wants success
with his men. The road to advancement must lie wide open to ability
and ambition, without a suspicion of favoritism and with encouragement
for any individual who may aspire to follow it. Likewise the way for
the honest expression of individual opinion and feeling must be open
from the ranks to the leader without prejudice and with consideration.
This recognizes their rights and develops their powers as individuals
interested in a common cause. Such conception of rights in dealing with
men is practical, is truly democratic and is highly efficient. It has
worked to best advantage in army discipline, it is working successfully
in many business organizations, and it is a sure foundation for
efficient management in any group working for any purpose. When the
interior administration of states' prisons is successfully run on the
basis of democratic principles, it would seem possible to apply them to
the control of almost any other group of men.
The governing idea is therefore for the leader to build up the
self-respect of his men and their sense of individual responsibility,
and thus to control their actions. He does not want them to be dogs; he
must never treat them like dogs. He wants them to show intelligence;
he must show confidence that they have intelligence. He wants them
able to make decisions and to act on them for the common good; he
therefore tells them what is to be done and why, not _how_ to do it,
and thus develops their resourcefulness and initiative. He wants
their co-operation in loyal teamwork; he therefore asks their ideas
as to methods, encourages their suggestions, and assumes that they
are intelligently interested in the common success and able to bring
something of value toward winning it. In short he considers them to be
_active partners_ with himself in the working out of a common purpose,
and treats them as such.
The only possible excuse--not reason, but excuse--for the old-fashioned
"roughneck" foreman with his discipline inspired by fear is the
existence of his gang of ignorant immigrant laborers, uninterested
in civilization and decent living, apparently willing to live like
dogs and to be treated as such. Even these could be better handled by
better methods. Furthermore the nation has learned that such citizens
do not pay and intends by education and restriction of immigration to
free herself of them. This will mean more intelligence among laborers,
and that the foreman of the future will have to be able to boss not a
group of ignorant foreigners but a group of thinking citizens, many
of whom will be properly striving to win the job of being the boss
themselves. This will mean that to hold his job he has got to be a good
foreman, know his work, and above all know how to handle men decently.
Being a foreman is going to be a real job, for which real men will fit
themselves in order to make good.
A third fundamental consideration is to appreciate how modern
conditions have made the possession of personal character an essential
to successful leadership. The development of the individual,
self-conscious that he is a reasoning being with the rights and
responsibilities of self-determination, has put into the discard the
divine right of kings and the infallibility of sphinx-like utterances
from those in authority. The man who rules to-day does it through
personal contacts with his subordinates. He must therefore really
have the personal character. It is of course inherent in us to endow
the holder of an office with those attributes of dignity and personal
character which should go with it. But personal contacts are going to
pierce this hereditary veil, and will soon expose the man for what he
really is. And he cannot make good unless we find him possessed of
_character_--find him a man who always keeps his word, who lives up
to the principles of the square deal, and who appreciates that he is
dealing with humans and is accordingly considerate. Such qualities
preclude his showing injustice, deceit, indifference, or brutality.
They thus eliminate fear and suspicion from the minds of those about
him and give free play to their better instincts, which makes for
getting their best efforts either as followers or as co-workers. It
is clear then that it is vitally important to give careful thought
in the selection of leaders to their personal characters; and that
this possession of character must come to be the _sine qua non_ for
candidates for office, political, civil, or industrial. For all this
applies quite as forcibly to the leaders of labor as to any other. Here
as elsewhere only those can win in the end whose character and purpose
are pure; who believe in the square deal; who are unselfishly honest in
the administration of office; who consider the human rights of their
followers and give them opportunity to grow and develop through the
free exercise of their constructive instincts. Democratic leadership
is constructive. It builds individual character in its followers, and
stands secure on that foundation.
A fourth fundamental is to appreciate the big part played in man's
control by his own personal instincts and habits. "Man is a reasoning
creature. God's image." Yes; but he is also the willing slave of
instinctive impulses and personal habits. He uses his reason to
determine the course he will pursue, not to regulate the multitudinous
details of his actions in carrying it on. As planned by nature, these
minor actions are directed by natural impulses and personal habits.
Impulses and habits--they rule almost our every act. It is remarkable
when we stop to think of it and realize how few things we do actually
as the result of thinking. Thus in a well-ordered life a man may get up
in the morning, bathe, shave, dress, and go to breakfast without having
to make a conscious decision. Instead of having to decide which shoe to
put on first, he even laces and ties his shoes without thinking, and
thus may occupy his mind with thoughts of the day's work. Habit guides
him without thought through all these necessary steps which he must
take daily.
The interesting fact to the leader is not alone that these habits
control so absolutely, but that any habit may be easily and
unconsciously formed by repetition of the act or thought, and that a
habit once formed is overcome only by conscious effort and even by
determined action of the will. The leader uses this for controlling
his men. By insisting on certain things always being done in certain
ways, he establishes in them habits of daily conduct which make his
routine administration of duties free from constant care of details.
A wise leader finds the reason for many of the difficulties and
seeming derelictions of his men in the fact that they were the acts
of previously formed habits not yet eliminated. For this reason also
he prefers to train green men rather than old ones. He knows he can
readily inculcate in them the habits he wants them to have, and without
the great difficulty of eradicating the previously formed habits which
he does not like.
Equally common with habits in their control of the actions of man, and
equally important as a consideration for the leader, are the impulses
to action that come from natural instincts. Of course it is true that
man's will and determination are stronger than his instincts, and that
if they are set to any given purpose they can force every instinctive
impulse from his field of consciousness and hold his actions to the
predetermined course. But such control of man's actions is fatiguing
to the man, and does not give the results that come when his mind
is happily at ease and free to entertain the impulses from the
constructive instincts with which nature has bountifully endowed him
for the good of the race. Thus necessity may make a man determine to
do his work in spite of brutal treatment and injured self-respect, and
he will carry through the day's work well enough to hold his position,
but not much better. Good work, anything like the maximum of a man's
accomplishment, cannot be produced in that spirit. Such work comes
only with the free play of man's better instincts. It should be clear
then that the leader who controls through appeal to these instincts
will get better results than he who rules by force or the compulsion
of circumstance. A good leader must therefore give thought to these
things, until he comes to feel instinctively how men react to the
ordinary things of life. They are matters of frequent reference in
discussing the principles of leadership.
Among these instincts, those of the greatest interest to the leader are
naturally the instincts of leadership--the instinct to lead others and
the instinct to follow others when we think they know the answer better
than we. The manifestations of both these instincts are very common in
our daily life, which shows their availability and value to the leader
as agents for controlling men. He should therefore understand why they
exist and how to appeal to them. Why is it that mankind is always
wanting to proselyte, and preach, and teach, and step to the front with
suggestions? And why is it that one so readily follows another who
presents any proposition which seems reasonable? These instincts were
implanted in man to make him play his part in the world's progress.
The whole scheme of the universe, physical and spiritual, is one of
development and progress--of making everything engage in a constant
effort to rise to a higher plane. Man was intended to be the foremost
instrument of this purpose to advance civilization. His instincts were
given him to ensure progress, to help the race win along, to lead
others where he felt he knew best what was to be done, to follow where
he felt that another knew better than he. To want to lead is therefore
a natural instinct and a good one; and any man may take honest pride in
striving to qualify as a good leader.
It is an important point that the instinct to follow is likewise an
instinct for progress, and therefore that the would-be leader must make
his men feel that he best knows the way, that his leadership will bring
the best results. This is a fundamental thought in an understanding of
leadership; and it explains why knowledge of his job is essential to a
leader, and why bluster and arrogance seem so ridiculous. It is clear
then that a man is appointed leader because it is believed that he can
get the best results; and his men will measure his ability as such by
the good work accomplished under his guidance. Inefficiency, lost time
and energy, indecision and stupidity, undermine his hold on the men;
while the opposites inspire them to enthusiastic following.
Another thought of importance in this connection is the significance
of the word "leader." It means that this man is the _foremost_ of the
group, of his companions. A leader is not a lord or dictator; he is one
with his men--the leading one--knowing their pulse and their passions,
leading because of superior preparation, experience and ability, not
driving through brute force. He should keep his kinship with these
fellows whom he leads, not allow himself to feel that he has become a
human being of a different class to lord it over them. Great leaders
like Lincoln are careful to retain, and to appear to retain, the
simpler attributes of their fellows, to continue the close touch and
sympathy that spell an understanding of human nature.
Nothing so surely ruins the success of the newly appointed leader as a
suggestion of pomp and vainglory in his demeanor. A case of swollen
ego has wrecked many careers. It is quickly noted by the men as an
evidence of smallness of soul and limited experience. Modesty, quiet
dignity, even humility, are characteristics of greatness of character
and broad experience. It is dangerous for the leader to admit his
self-importance even to himself. Magnifying his own importance is
likely to make him take credit to himself that should have gone to his
men, make him consider his own welfare when he should consider theirs,
and end by betraying him as unfit for the leadership.
The last of these fundamental considerations of man, and by far
the most important to the personal success of any leader, is an
appreciation of what his _own personality_ means for success or
failure in the effect it has upon his fellows. In some way it should
be possible to make each man realize the truth of this, and thus
give it due consideration. The leader responds to the fact that he
must learn how to use his human-being tools, yet often ignores the
equally important fact that he has to use these tools through the
instrumentality of his own personality. His ability and success will
largely depend on how this personality of his impresses others, on
how it affects these sentient tools. His purpose and character, his
personal bearing and manner, the tones of his voice, his habits and
way of looking at things--all the manifestations of his personality
are more or less important influences in determining his ability to
handle others. Yet the average of leaders not only accepts himself
complacently as he is, but actually ignores the advantages of even
finding out what he is, let alone trying to improve himself.
The progress of the race depends upon the development of the
individual--albeit in co-operation with his fellows. In consideration
of this fact nature apparently designed man to accept complacently
his own personality and thus be content to use and develop it without
being discouraged because he was not as some other man. It is certainly
true that we rarely find a man who would exchange his personality for
that of another. But nature never intended this complacency to go to
the point of ignoring all possibility of improvement, and even of
failing to use understandingly the personality one does have. The great
trouble with mankind is that they generally see themselves only as they
are reflected in the near-by mirror. They rarely get the perspective
of themselves as they really exist in the life around them; and so
they miss the benefit of measuring their egos by comparison with the
realities of life. It would help us all "to see ourselves as others see
us." We could then learn each how to use his personality advantageously
from seeing how it affected others, and we would then lose some of our
arrogance from seeing what unimportant individuals we really are after
all. It is good for the soul of any man to visit some height like the
tower of the Woolworth building and thence view humanity on the earth
below him, hurrying to and fro on its self-important business. These
humans then appear of about the size and importance of ants, and the
spectator is lead to realize the unimportance of any one individual man
in comparison with the world about him, and to wonder just how big he
himself really appears to the distant Eye of Omnipotence. He may thus
develop a wholesome humility which may lead him to fit himself to play
his part more reasonably.
Giving thought to oneself and to the meanings of those things that
affect the relations and control of men is essential to acquiring
leadership. It is what we ourselves believe and feel and live--what
comes out of our own inner consciousness--that will make it possible
for us to appear before others as their leader. Even the inspired
Leader withdrew into the wilderness for long inner communion before
He essayed the responsibilities of leadership. We should hardly
expect to lead even in our small way without some preparation. And
this preparation will not be in learning rules to guide us, but in
attaining such an understanding of the principles and realities as will
make us do the right thing naturally. For above all a leader must be
genuine,--his own true self, not an imitation of some other, be that
other ever so successful.
There remains for consideration the special case of handling men in
those industrial situations where labor unions exist. Though it
be true that an application of the principles of leadership will
give better results even in the presence of "labor troubles," how
infinitely better the results if there exist mutual understanding,
confidence and co-operation. There is, however, no thought here of
telling any management how to run its business. It is recognized that
each business concern has its own problem to solve in accordance
with its own peculiar conditions. The questions of welfare, labor
turnover, supervision of personnel, self-expression, sharing of
profits or savings, etc., have been analyzed and discussed in fullest
detail. It is beyond our scope to add anything in these fields. But
even where management has adopted the broadest policy looking to the
loyal co-operation of its employees, its successful operation will
still depend on how the men are handled by those directly in contact
with them. We are concerned with that one phase; and for its better
understanding in those special cases where labor unions are involved,
let us briefly consider the origin and purposes of these unions. When
fundamental motives are clear, it becomes possible to understand their
manifestations and guide them for the greater good of all concerned.
An understanding of the psychology of labor unions is therefore vastly
important to employer, to subordinate bosses, and to labor leaders
themselves. We may not attempt to cover this subject, but only to
suggest certain fundamental thoughts which should be helpful.
In the evolution of the race, the processes of time ultimately
taught primeval man to leave the isolation of his cave and form a
community with his fellows for better protection against the beasts
that threatened his existence and for mutual assistance in carrying
on the slow developments of civilization. Thus the interdependence of
man and the advantages of co-operation were first demonstrated, and
organization had its beginnings.
The processes of modern industry, through its introduction of machinery
and the consequent development of its vast modern enterprises, took the
tools of his trade from the personal hands of the laborer into company
ownership, stripped him of all but his bare power to work, and cut him
off from the former close personal relationship with his employer.
So the laboring man found himself again an isolated individual, this
time in the competitive markets of labor, where he fought alone for
his existence against the cold impersonal organizations which bought
his services in the cheapest market and discarded them at will. And as
once long ago he found his salvation and opportunity for development
through combination with his fellows, so now he again learned that
his future could be secured only through combined effort. Thus came
organized labor to protect with force if necessary the human rights of
its members and to assure their equal opportunity for development in
the progress of the race.
We thus see that this organization of labor with its potential power
to fight was but a natural logical step in the evolution of modern
industry--as natural and as necessary as were the organizations and
combinations of capital. Both are the products of evolution. And as is
generally true, the application of the laws of evolution to individual
cases often caused hardship and distress and even loss of life, but
without changing their inexorable course in the purpose of progress.
It was the accepted philosophy of the time that labor was a commodity
to be taken to any market at the will of the laborer and sold to the
highest bidder, who was likewise free to buy labor at the lowest figure
and to employ it only at his pleasure. The rapid increase in the size
of enterprises having eliminated the personal relationship between
the employer and his men without finding anything to replace it, it
was natural that labor became little more than a chattel and that all
consideration of the human equation was forgotten in the excitement
and keen competition of managing these enterprises of such novel
magnitude and unknown potentialities. Meantime public opinion failed to
appreciate that the welfare and social development of these laborers
was a matter of vital concern to the community, and that the rights and
responsibilities of the management of these big concerns were equally
matters of grave importance to community welfare. In short, public
opinion had to be taught that the community is a party to industry, and
must be concerned with how industry conducts its affairs.
It was therefore a naturally accepted condition that labor should be
treated as any other soulless commodity. And it is fair to assume that
it would have long continued to be but for the valiant spirit of the
laborer demanding recognition of his rights as equally a son of God
and a self-respecting, responsible member of the democratic community.
These rights are now recognized. Splendid minds have given their best
efforts toward evolving the means and methods for the conduct of big
business on bases which admit full recognition of these rights, with
opportunity for the fuller development of the laborer through the free
play of his nobler instincts. Many progressive firms have found a way
for adopting a policy embodying these ideas--others are seeking a
practical solution of this problem as it is presented to them by the
peculiar conditions of their particular business. Many are so organized
that union leaders themselves find that everything is being done which
they could ask. Public opinion has largely accepted the thesis of
labor, and feels that its laboring citizenry must be given opportunity
to develop. It is futile then for either capital or labor to fight
against either of these organizations, and unreasonable to consider
either of them the product of man's viciousness or ignorance. It were
far better that both parties accept the inevitable fact of their
existence and learn to develop their vast possibilities for increasing
efficiency. There is no just cause for recriminations--unless for the
slowness of human intelligence to grasp the true conditions.
So it appears that the fight of the unions is almost won, and this
phase of evolution nearing completion. But it is evident that even
so unions must persist. They are demanded by strong human instincts
and make for fuller development and better service. Organization
and co-operation, more and more comprehensive, are pronounced
characteristics of modern development. Therefore the present unions
may well be continued with the purpose of social betterments and of
increasing the efficiency of labor, meantime designed to continue
the fight only where employers fail to find the way themselves to
give labor its opportunity to work and grow to advantage. Where well
organized, each union may certainly render great service to its
members, to industry, and to the State, by interesting itself in the
development and welfare of all men engaged in its line of work, and
by keeping available for immediate reference complete industrial and
social data of all this personnel. Such statistical work requires
time and expense, but it gives the unions the benefit of feeling that
they are rendering a valuable service to the community as well as to
themselves.
A union of the future, certainly a natural and efficient one, will
be the union within each separate enterprise of the two elements
essential to its success--management and laborers. And this union will
find its greatest usefulness in close liaison with the third party to
industrial effort--the community. For the efficient conduct of the
community's business of providing law and order, schools, sanitation,
transportation, banking, shopping, etc., is as essential to the life of
industry as is industry's production and proper management to the life
of the community.
Many such unions exist already, a most notable example being the
Loyal Legion of Loggers and Lumbermen. Most notable because of its
great size, the variety of interests and human types involved, and
the vast area covered in its operations. Originally organized for the
patriotic purposes of getting out spruce for the war, it soon became
a practical co-operative union of employers and employees. Their
combined intelligence and effort met the war needs in a tremendously
increased production, and have since met the strains of reconstruction
without a break. It thus made the unique record of stabilizing labor
conditions while doing rush war production instead of upsetting them
as was done in many other enterprises. All this resulted from the fact
that representatives of both employers and laborers were required to
sit around a common council table and there discuss and settle all
questions of the conduct of the work. In doing this, both parties
learned that they really spoke the same language and that success
and good feeling were the natural result of working together. They
therefore continued the organization on a permanent basis, with the
added element of keeping in touch with local community affairs.
These co-operative unit unions should be of great psychological benefit
and become strong political influences, particularly in affairs of
local government. The topics of informal discussion among the men and
of talks from their leaders may be no longer matters of antagonism
toward their employer but rather those of common industrial and
community interest. And as industry is sure some day to realize how
dependent it is on the integrity, wisdom and statesmanship of the
public officials chosen by the people to make and administer the laws,
so it will surely come to take an active part in selecting these public
officials and in determining the policies they are to further. Well for
industry then if it be organized and accustomed to the co-operative
functioning of capital and labor. No political appeal can then be made
to class distinctions, and industry can then bring into the political
field the same strong co-operative purpose for the common good that it
is accustomed to exercise in its management of business.
In these unions employee and employer come to find that both are
laborers in the common cause, each according to his skill and training
doing his own part in the industrial machine and receiving respect and
credit in accordance with how well he does it. Both come to appreciate
the true meanings of democracy, that opportunity lies equally open to
all on their merits, and that men are classed in accordance with their
fitness for positions. Here they come to realize that demagogic appeals
to class are unreasonable and often of questionable motive, as the
fact is brought home to them that employers are mostly but graduates
from the ranks of labor--or more accurately, are but leaders of the
class.
The word "class" with its European meaning is quite out of place in
discussing American conditions. Classifications we have, based on
accomplishment, etc., but there are no insurmountable barriers between
them. All doors stand wide open for any individual if he but have the
will to attain the necessary qualifications. And there are back doors
which stand equally wide open, from which the unfit are being daily
ejected to find their true level according to their individual worth.
Such are the laws of democracy and of progress, and all schemes to
thwart them must sooner or later end in failure.
As agents of good citizenship these unions could well be a power for
good to the community by becoming schools in Americanization and in
the practice of democratic government. Good citizenship is as vital a
consideration for the industrial state as it is for the political--in
fact their interests are so closely interwoven that they must stand
or fall together. We know now that cheap labor does not make cheap
production, and often does make cheap political government. It is in
reality both expensive and dangerous to the community, and we should
do without it. And as it is our pride to establish before the political
world the worth of our political institutions; so should we solve our
industrial problems and show to the industrial world the advantages
of democracy operating practically in industry. Let us show that the
spirit and aroused skill and ingenuity of our loyally co-operating
labor will reduce the costs of production while largely increasing
its output, to the advantage of mankind and the credit of our nation
founded on individual freedom.