SELECTING WORKERS UNDER TRADITIONAL MANAGEMENT.—­In selecting men to do work, there was little or no attempt to study the individuals who applied for work.  The matter of selection was more of a process of “guess work” than of exact measurement, and the highest form of test was considered to be that of having the man actually tried out by being given a chance at the work itself.  There was not only a great waste of time on the work, because men unfitted to it could not turn it out so successfully, but there also was a waste of the worker, and many times a positive injury to the worker, by his being put at work which he was unfitted either to perform, to work at continuously, or both.

In the most progressive type of Traditional Management there was usually a feeling, however, that if the labor market offered even temporarily a greater supply than the work in hand demanded, it was wise to choose those men to do the work who were best fitted for it, or who were willing to work for less wages.  It is surprising to find in the traditional type, even up to the present day, how often men were selected for their strength and physique, rather than for any special capabilities fitting them for working in, or at, the particular line of work to be done.

OUTPUT SELDOM SEPARATED UNDER TRADITIONAL MANAGEMENT.—­Under Traditional Management especially on day work the output of the men was not usually separated, nor was the output recorded separately, as can be done even with the work of gangs.

FEW INDIVIDUAL TASKS UNDER TRADITIONAL MANAGEMENT.—­Seldom, if ever, was an individual task set for a worker on day work, or piece work, and even if one were set, it was not scientifically determined.  The men were simply set to work alone or in gangs, as the work demanded, and if the foreman was overworked or lazy, allowed to take practically their own time to do the work.  If, on the other hand, the foreman was a “good driver,” the men might be pushed to their utmost limit of their individual undirected speed, regardless of their welfare.

LITTLE INDIVIDUAL TEACHING UNDER TRADITIONAL MANAGEMENT.—­Not having a clear idea either of the present fitness and the future possibilities of the worker, or the requirements of the work, no intelligent attempt could be made at efficient individual teaching.  What teaching was done was in the form of directions for all, concerning the work in general, the directions being given by an overworked foreman, the holding of whose position often depended more upon whether his employer made money than upon the way his men were taught, or worked.

SELDOM AN INDIVIDUAL REWARD UNDER TRADITIONAL MANAGEMENT.—­As a typical example of disregard of individuality, the worker in the household may be cited, and especially the “general housework girl.”  Selected with no knowledge of her capabilities, and with little or no scientific or even systematized knowledge of the work that she is expected to do, there is little or no thought of a prescribed and definite task, no teaching specially adapted to the individual needs of the taught, and no reward in proportion to efficiency.