140 NATURE 
[OcrosEr 19, 1916 
a ee ee 
Industrial Organisation, 
The organisation that has grown up with the de- 
velopment of our industries includes two very impor. 
tant but unequally developed sets of organisation. 
The industrial army of labour force of this country 
includes all those who either organise industry or take 
any part, however important or however humble, in 
its working. From the captain of industry, or entre- 
preneur, as our brave Allies call him, down to the 
humblest weekly wage-earner, we have a labour force 
which ought to be looked upon as one and indivisible. 
In connection with this force we now have two sets of 
organisations the interests of which some people con- 
sider to be antagonistic. I would emphasise the fact 
that these two are really one force, their main in- 
terests are identical, and they can best serve these 
interests by striving to minimise differences and by 
doing all that is possible to work in harmony. 
Though theoretically one, the labour force has 
internally developed two sets of organisations. 
Manual labour has its trade unions; the organisers 
of industry have their associations; British trade 
unions have a fairly long history behind them, and 
may be said to be in advance of any similar unions 
the world over. But the fact that of recent years 
there has been a tendency for small unofficial sections 
of given unions to kick over the traces and disregard 
the policy and agreements of their leaders shows that 
perfection of organisation has by no means been 
attained. 
Employers’ associations are of more recent forma- 
tion, nor have they so far attained to anything like 
the same completeness. Both organisations, especially 
the employers’, are in need of further development. 
It is scarcely for the economist to show how this can 
be effected. He can point to imperfections and make 
suggestions—only those conversant with practical 
working facts can formulate a practical policy. The 
most patent defects of these associations are due to 
the very virtues of their members. The individual 
British business man is unexcelled by the business 
man of any other country. In times of rapid transi- 
tion and crisis he has again and again shown his 
leadership. He knows his business thoroughly, and 
as a working unit he has taken a very high place. 
But one of the most marked developments of modern 
trade is a growing interdependence of industries. 
Hand in hand with this we have become familiar with 
another phenomenon, the amalgamation of businesses 
of various dimensions into one great company or cor- 
poration. This phenomenon is common to both com- 
mercial and manufacturing interests. It is as marked 
among banks as among steel and iron companies. 
The comparatively small manufacturer or business 
inan is siving place to bigger and inclusive organisa- 
tions. These two and somewhat parallel developments 
are making a new demand on the individual. He and 
his predecessors exemplified individualism; the new 
stage upon which we have entered demands a modifi- 
cation of the old policy. Business, lile everything 
else, is subject to evolution, and evolution on healthy 
lines can only be obtained by grasping fundamental 
facts and applying experience im accordance with 
economic laws. There need be nothings revolutionary 
about the required changes in our business organisa- 
tion. We merely have to: note what has already 
occurred, mark healthy tendencies, and clear away 
or prevent obstructions to natural growth. Our past 
history amply justifies us in pursuing this policy with- 
out uncertainty as to the result. Our entire indus- 
trial history is one of the best examples of steady. and 
on the whole well-ordered, evolution. We have shown 
our ability to.adant ourselves to the needs of the 
NO. 2451, VOL. 98] 
moment. As a race we are healthily conservative 
without being reactionary. ‘hat is to say, we know 
how to preserve what is good in the old and amal- 
gamate it with the new. 4n other words, our organ- 
isation enjoys that useful quality of elasticity wnich 
enables us to keep abreast of the fimes. 
Bearing this in mind, where are the defects ot our 
business man, and to what does he need to give 
attention in order to come into line with the most 
recent requirements ? ; 
As I have just said, our business man’s qualities 
emphasise his defects. For generations our business 
men have worked as units, and individualism has 
become almost second nature. The call now is that 
the individual shall sink a part of his personality and 
become, so far as one side of his activities is con- 
cerned, a member of an association. We have had 
employers’ alliances, federations, and associations. 
Some have failed, some have managed to keep afloat, 
others have had a certain amount of success. None 
have hitherto quite attained to what is required. To 
the onlooker it would appear that when our employers 
meet as an association there is a lack of sympathy 
among the members, and if this should persist it 
would be fatal. Each individual knows his own busi- 
ness; he does not know, and perhaps it would be true 
to say he does not care to know, his neighbour’s 
concerns. At any rate, as a result there is a lack of 
cohesion, there is a lack, too, of that co-operation 
which is required if the association is to be really 
successful and accomplish the objects for which it has 
been formed. This working in co-operation, the large 
organisations of capital, and the working together 
in associations, are comparatively new things to our 
business community. Time and experience will put 
things right; at present we have not accustomed our- 
selves to a newly developing condition of affairs. Our 
business men, then, need to focus their attention on 
these early ailments of the movement and get them 
removed as soon as possible. 
A second group of defects arises indirectly but 
almost inevitably from that which has just been con- 
sidered. 
failed and come to an end. And in certain cases the 
cause has been unmistakable, for there has been a 
lamentable want of loyalty, and even in some cases 
it must be said honesty, to the agreements entered 
into by the association. 
Only to mention one group as an instance of this 
—the New Trades Combination Movement, which 
caused quite a considerable stir during the late ’nine- 
ties of last century, especially in the Midlands, among 
the metal trades. Articles appeared in the journals, 
and a book* was written explaining the movement 
and great hopes were entertained that a new era had 
opened out before both Capital and Labour. But all 
ended in a failure. There was for a time a kind of 
Syndicalism—a syndicated industry enabling employers 
to increase their profits, and the workpeople to earn 
abnormally high wages. So long as competition could 
be kept out of the market, things went swimmingly 
and a specious prosperity developed. But the con- 
sumer was being exploited—the increased prices 
charged for such goods as metal bedsteads gave 
would-be. competitors and unscrupulous members of 
the alliance their chance. The cheap wooden bed- 
stead, however, made its appearance on one hand. 
and on the other there were such things as secret 
discounts and commissions, and this svecial alliance 
ended in failure. The history of that short. but indus- 
trially instructive, movement has yet to be written. 
1 “The New Trades Combination Movement.” E. J. Smith (Rivingtons, 
1899). 
Some alliances, rings, and associations have 
