262 TEE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY 



spot in the world for trying out new ideas of organization and manage- 

 ment. 



The men who first took advantage of these conditions were, for the 

 most part, self-made men. We often refer to them as captains of indus- 

 try. The majority of them were individuals of motor temperament, 

 endowed with exceptional talents, who fought their way upward and 

 gained eminence, through a rough-and-ready struggle for the survival 

 of the fittest. 



These men .seized leadership by right of ability, but, technically 

 speaking, they secured it as the perquisite or privilege arising from the 

 ownership of great fortunes. They lived in a day when men generally 

 managed their own capital. In most cases they were the first to 

 build up institutions of great size in the lines of industry with which 

 they were connected. These circumstances involve the point that had 

 not these men built up fortunes they could not, individually, have be- 

 come administrators. The price of their economic power was to make 

 everything bend to the getting of money. In other words, they had to 

 create the kingdoms over which they later ruled. 



Their policies were, therefore, like those of most conquerors, simple, 

 often crude and sometimes morally abominable. They were often drive- 

 masters, and not infrequently they resorted to the intellectually con- 

 temptible methods of unfair trade. Yet we do not withhold admiration 

 for the splendid independence and energy which they exhibited. They 

 generally possessed a thorough knowledge of details, due to the small 

 beginnings from which they had started. They had the ease and speed 

 of decision due to long experience and gradually imposed responsibility. 

 The names of the leaders of this generation of giants will long remain 

 household words in America. 



If we pause to consider broadly this introductory period of adminis- 

 tration, we can see that it was marked by strenuous rather than finely 

 calculated action, and by physical rather than intellectual tests. Most 

 important of all, it was characterized by a confusion or conflict between 

 the principles of the true art of administration and the requirements of 

 the process of amassing a fortune. We are so accustomed to measure 

 mastership in industry by the increase of the wealth of the individual, 

 that it is difficult to perceive that there can be any such thing as an 

 independent art, with principles and ideals of its own. If we turn to 

 politics we are able to see that a man's record for efficiency as a mayor 

 of a city does not depend upon his getting rich in office. Neither do 

 we measure the skill of our military leaders by their strategy in gather- 

 ing private booty, nor the capacity of our statesmen by their ability to 

 insure tranquillity and prosperity to themselves, rather than their coun- 

 try. In all of these cases we have the conception of the requirements 

 of an art or polity. The standards of judgment are entirely distinct 

 from the state of the private fortune of the administrator. It is this 



