Shop Management | Page 2

the forty per cent formerly lost by each man.
The second fact that has struck the writer as most noteworthy is that
there is no apparent relation in many, if not most cases, between good
shop management and the success or failure of the company, many
unsuccessful companies having good shop management while the
reverse is true of many which pay large dividends.
We, however, who are primarily interested in the shop, are apt to forget
that success, instead of hinging upon shop management, depends in

many cases mainly upon other elements, namely,--the location of the
company, its financial strength and ability, the efficiency of its business
and sales departments, its engineering ability, the superiority of its
plant and equipment, or the protection afforded either by patents,
combination, location or other partial monopoly.
And even in those cases in which the efficiency of shop management
might play an important part it must be remembered that for success no
company need be better organized than its competitors.
The most severe trial to which any system can be subjected is that of a
business which is in keen competition over a large territory, and in
which the labor cost of production forms a large element of the expense,
and it is in such establishments that one would naturally expect to find
the best type of management.
Yet it is an interesting fact that in several of the largest and most
important classes of industries in this country shop practice is still
twenty to thirty years behind what might be called modern management.
Not only is no attempt made by them to do tonnage or piece work, but
the oldest of old-fashioned day work is still in vogue under which one
overworked foreman manages the men. The workmen in these shops
are still herded in classes, all of those in a class being paid the same
wages, regardless of their respective efficiency.
In these industries, however, although they are keenly competitive, the
poor type of shop management does not interfere with dividends, since
they are in this respect all equally bad.
It would appear, therefore, that as an index to the quality of shop
management the earning of dividends is but a poor guide.
Any one who has the opportunity and takes the time to study the
subject will see that neither good nor bad management is confined to
any one system or type. He will find a few instances of good
management containing all of the elements necessary for permanent
prosperity for both employers and men under ordinary day work, the
task system, piece work, contract work, the premium plan, the bonus
system and the differential rate; and he will find a very much larger
number of instances of bad management under these systems
containing as they do the elements which lead to discord and ultimate
loss and trouble for both sides.
If neither the prosperity of the company nor any particular type or

system furnishes an index to proper management, what then is the
touchstone which indicates good or bad management?
The art of management has been defined, "as knowing exactly what
you want men to do, and then seeing that they do it in the best and
cheapest way.'" No concise definition can fully describe an art, but the
relations between employers and men form without question the most
important part of this art. In considering the subject, therefore, until this
part of the problem has been fully discussed, the other phases of the art
may be left in the background.
The progress of many types of management is punctuated by a series of
disputes, disagreements and compromises between employers and men,
and each side spends more than a considerable portion of its time
thinking and talking over the injustice which it receives at the hands of
the other. All such types are out of the question, and need not be
considered.
It is safe to say that no system or scheme of management should be
considered which does not in the long run give satisfaction to both
employer and employee, which does not make it apparent that their best
interests are mutual, and which does not bring about such thorough and
hearty cooperation that they can pull together instead of apart. It cannot
be said that this condition has as yet been at all generally recognized as
the necessary foundation for good management. On the contrary, it is
still quite generally regarded as a fact by both sides that in many of the
most vital matters the best interests of employers are necessarily
opposed to those of the men. In fact, the two elements which we will all
agree are most wanted on the one hand by the men and on the other
hand by the employers are generally looked upon