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 experience, he should do good work in experimental lines.  Any change made, however, should separate him completely from the regular productive organization.”

Dr. Blackford reports on No. 1:  “He is, however, an undesirable man to be in charge of others.  He is far more destructive than constructive, more disorganizing than organizing.  He is ultra-conservative, non-progressive, and is not disposed to take on any new methods unless he himself can get the credit for their installation.  In disposition he is stubborn and obstinate.  He is also reserved and suspicious.  Being of the selfish type, he will look after his own interests first in all things.  No. 1 lacks straightforwardness and frankness of disposition, so he will be tricky, slippery, and do things in an underhanded way.  He has very great dislike of detail and will have a tendency to procrastinate if given an opportunity, I believe he has passed the age limit of mental growth.”

Supervisor thus summarizes No. 2:  “A well-intentioned, honest and reliable man, lacking absolutely in executive ability.  Should have a job as inspector or like, where he would have no one to look after but himself.”

Dr. Blackford says of No. 2:  “No. 2 is a simple-hearted man of very ordinary ability.  He is not systematic or orderly; is very susceptible to criticism; exceedingly emotional, apprehensive, and watchful.  No doubt men will like him because he is easy with them.  However, he will not be a particularly good executive, because he cannot maintain discipline.”

Supervisor thus analyzes No. 3:  “Very clannish, lacking absolutely in intelligence, executive ability, frankness; in fact, every attribute that is necessary for a good foreman.  Is wholly unfitted for an executive job of any kind.  Under very strict supervision, would make a fair workman.”