the payroll. In another
organization, careful records showed that among employees selected
according to this plan, 90 per cent were efficient, satisfactory, and
permanent; 8 per cent fairly satisfactory but not permanent; and 2 per
cent unsatisfactory and discharged.

AN UNUSUAL HARMONY OF JUDGMENT

But these results, while desirable, are not wholly convincing. It is easy
enough to explain them on the ground that any man or woman of common
sense, keen observation and good judgment, devoting all his or her
intelligence and time to employment problems, might have gained the same
results without using a method for determining aptitudes and character
from an observation of physical characteristics.

More specific and more convincing evidence may be found in a series of
incidents which occurred in connection with an employment department
established in a textile factory, employing twelve hundred men, located in
New England. The supervisor of this department is a young man who has been
a student and practitioner of this method in employment work since August,
1912. Previously to taking up this work, he had taken an engineer's degree
and had some experience as an executive, in a large factory.

In January, 1915, the supervisor analyzed carefully twenty executives then
at work in the plant, carefully wrote out the analyses and submitted them
to the management with recommendations for transfers and readjustments of
rather a sweeping nature. The management, wishing to make an experiment,
agreed to make the changes, provided we were also to analyze the
executives in question, submit our analyses in writing, and show agreement
as to the character and aptitudes of the men. We accordingly proceeded to
the factory, and there, without consultation with the supervisor or his
report, proceeded to analyze the twenty executives independently. It would
not be fair to the executives in question to publish all of these analyses
in full, but a comparison of the essential points in a few of them will be
instructive:

Supervisor says of No. 1: "Sociable, scheming, secretive; poor judge of
men; lacking seriously in executive ability; decidedly a 'one-man-job'
man; does not plan ahead; clannish, narrow-minded; very low intelligence
for a foreman. Any organization he builds will be close-mouthed,
unreliable, and selfish in structure. Because of the technical knowledge
of the business which he has gained, and which can be gained only by long
e