20 TWENTY-FIRST REPORT. 



reliant individuals. For the rank and file, industry has been putting a pre- 

 mium upon docility and the absence of thinking or contriving. Why ask our 

 public schools to train the great mass of workers, if the latter are to become 

 semi-automatic human machines? In fact, such training aids in increasing 

 imrest and discontent. The remedy, however, is not retrogression in regard 

 to education. The remedy for many of the social and industrial ills of today 

 is to be found in gieater individualization in the work-shop, in greater stimu- 

 lation of the spirit of initiative and self-reliance, and in a growing interest in 

 the quality of output, among the great drab mass of wage workers. How can 

 this remedy be applied ? 



The problem is: Can routine, sub-divided industry be made interesting? 

 Can the "creative impulse" be given play? Can the "adventure of business" 

 be opened up to the wage workers? Or, must plans for betterment be directed 

 solely or, at least in a large measure, toward securing the short working day 

 and such utilization of leisure time as will make for physical, mental and 

 moral uplift? Tlae second alternative is one worthy of promotion; but our 

 present concern is with the former. In fact, if more potent incentives were 

 disclosed in industry, if workers became more interested in their work, if one's 

 work expressed in some degree his individuality, and if the workers were 

 given a share in tlie responsibility of management, the recreation problem 

 would be less difficult of solution. The remainder of this paper is to be 

 devoted to a brief consideration of the first alternative. 



Keeping in mind the considerations which have been presented, let us 

 briefiy analyze some of the recent plans for industrial betterment. 



1. The much-heralded and much-lauded scientific management has accom- 

 plished imiwrtant results ; but has fallen far short of maximum possibilities. 

 Efficiency engineers almost without exception have failed adequately to take 

 into account the human side of the industrial equation. In their neatly pre- 

 pared programs, the employees are as pawns to be moved at will on the indus- 

 trial chessboard. The workers are practically shorn of all responsibility. 

 But the road to efficiency in industry and to interest in work and output does 

 not lead toward bureaucratic control. The most vital weakness in scientific 

 management of the typical sort is that it does not lead the workers to take 

 an interest in increasing the output of the shop. I am not arguing that all 

 work can be transformed into pleasurable activity. Quite likely work will 

 remain work, and play continue to be play. But I do not contend that in some 

 measure it is possible to reduce the drudgery which so often accompanies 

 work in modern industry, and that it is possible to make certain kinds of 

 routine work interesting. Further, it is contended that this may 1)0 accom- 

 plished in part l)y giving the worker some voice in the planning and admin- 

 istration of industry, by providing a vent for his instinct of contrivance, and 

 by njakipg him feel that his work is worth-while. 



