A most perfect illustration of a common form of Traditional Management is the old story of the foreman, who, in making his rounds of the various parts of the work, comes to the deep hole being excavated for a foundation pier and says hurriedly—­“How many of yez is there in the hole?” “Seven.”  “The half of yez come up.”

The theoretical defects of the old type of management often seen before the advent of the trained engineer on the work include:—­

     1. lack of planning ahead.
     2. an overworked foreman.
     3. no functionalizing of the work.
     4. no standards of individual efficiency.
     5. unmeasured individual outputs.
     6. no standard methods.
     7. no attempt at teaching.
     8. inaccurate directions.
     9. lack of athletic contests.
    10. no high pay for extra efficiency.
    11. poor investigation of workers’ special capabilities.

In spite of the fact that under unfunctionalized management the foreman has far more to do than he can expect to do well, the average foreman thinks that he belongs to a class above his position.  This is partly because the position is so unstandardized that it arouses a sense of unrest, and partly because he has to spend much of his time at low priced functions.

Under the feeling of enmity, or at least, of opposition, which often exists, openly or secretly, between the average Traditional Management and men, the foreman must ally himself with one side or the other.  If he joins with the men, he must countenance the soldiering, which they find necessary in order to maintain their rates of wages.  Thus the output of the shop will seldom increase and his chance for appreciation and promotion by the management will probably be slight and slow.  His position as boss, combined with that of ally of the men, is awkward.

If he allies himself to the management, he must usually become a driver of the men, if he wishes to increase output.  This condition will never be agreeable to him unless he has an oversupply of brute instincts.

THE WORKERS NOT BEST UTILIZED.—­Under the best types of Traditional Management we do find more or less spasmodic attempts at the functionalization of the worker.  When there was any particular kind of work to be done, the worker who seemed to the manager to be the best fitted, was set at that kind of work.  For example—­if there was a particularly heavy piece of work he might say—­“Let A do it because he is strong.”  If there was a particularly fine piece of work to be done he might say—­“Let B do it because he is specially skilled.”  If there was a piece of work to be done which required originality, he might say—­“Let C do it for the reason that he is inventive and resourceful;” but, in most cases, when the particular job on hand was finished, the worker selected to do it returned to other classes of work, and such special fitness or capability as he had, was seldom systematically utilized,