Frederick W. Taylor was a mechanical engineer whose writings on efficiency
and scientific management were widely read. The founder of "systems
engineering," the selection below is scanned from a book published in 1911
that collected some of his essays. This book was translated into several
languages; Taylor's ideas had an influence across the globe.

The following document is scanned from the original, and has been checked,
although errors may still remain. The source is Frederick W. Taylor, The
Principles of Scientific Management (New York: Harper Bros., 1911): 5-29

INTRODUCTION

PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT, in his address to the Governors at the White House,
prophetically remarked that "The conservation of our national resources is
only preliminary to the larger question of national efficiency."

The whole country at once recognized the importance of conserving our
material resources and a large movement has been started which will be
effective in accomplishing this object. As yet, however, we have but vaguely
appreciated the importance of "the larger question of increasing our
national efficiency."

We can see our forests vanishing, our water-powers going to waste, our soil
being carried by floods into the sea; and the end of our coal and our iron
is in sight. But our larger wastes of human effort, which go on every day
through such of our acts as are blundering, ill-directed, or inefficient,
and which Mr. Roosevelt refers to as a lack of" national efficiency," are
less visible) less tangible, and are but vaguely appreciated.

We can see and feel the waste of material things. Awkward, inefficient, or
ill-directed movements of men, however, leave nothing visible or tangible
behind them. Their appreciation calls for an act of memory, an effort of the
imagination. And for this reason, even though our daily loss from this
source is greater than from our waste of material things, the one has
stirred us deeply, while the other has moved us but little.

As yet there has been no public agitation for "greater national efficiency,"
no meetings have been called to consider how this is to be brought about.
And still there are signs that the need for greater efficiency is widely
felt.

The search for better, for more competent men, from the presidents of our
great companies down to our household servants, was never more vigorous than it is now. And more than ever before is the demand for competent men in
excess of the supply.

What we are all looking for, however, is the ready made, competent man; the
man whom some one else has trained. It is only when we fully realize that
our duty, as well as our opportunity, lies in systematically cooperating to
train and to make this competent man, instead of in hunting for a man whom
some one else has trained, that we shall be on the road to national
efficiency.

In the past the prevailing idea has been well expressed in the saying that
"Captains of industry are born, not made"; and the theory has been that if
one could get the right man, methods could be safely left to him. In the
future it will be, appreciated that our leaders must be trained right as
well as born right, and that no great man can (with the old system of
personal management) hope to compete with a number of ordinary men who have been properly organized so as efficiently to cooperate.

In the past the man has been first; in the future the system must be first.
This in no sense, however, implies that great men are not needed. On the
contrary, the first object of any good system must be that of developing
first-class men; and under systematic management the best man rises to the
top more certainly and more rapidly than ever before.

This paper has been written:

First. To point out, through a series of simple illustrations, the great
loss which the whole country is suffering through inefficiency in almost all
of our daily acts.

Second. To try to convince the reader that the remedy for this inefficiency
lies in systematic management, rather than in searching for some unusual or
extraordinary man.

Third. To prove that the best management is a true science, resting upon
clearly defined laws, rules, and principles, as a foundation. And further to
show that the fundamental principles of scientific management are applicable
to all kinds of human activities, from our simplest individual acts to the
work of our great corporations, which call for the most elaborate
cooperation. And, briefly, through a series of illustrations, to convince
the reader that whenever these principles are correctly applied, results
must follow which are truly astounding.

This paper was originally prepared for presentation to The American Society
of Mechanical Engineers. The illustrations chosen are such as, it is
believed, will especially appeal to engineers and to managers of industrial
and manufacturing establishments, and also quite as much to all of the men
who are working in these establishments. It is hoped, however, that it will
be clear to other readers that the same principles can be applied with equal
force to all social activities: to the management of our homes; the
management of our farms; the management of the business of our tradesmen,
large and small; of our churches, our philanthropic institutions, our
universities, and our governmental departments.

The Principles of Scientific Management

CHAPTER I

FUNDAMENTALS OF SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT

THE principal object of management should be to secure the maximum
prosperity for the employer, coupled with the maximum prosperity for each
employee.

The words "maximum prosperity" are used, in their broad sense, to mean not
only large dividends for the company or owner, but the development of every
branch of the business to its highest state of excellence, so that the
prosperity may be permanent.

In the same way maximum prosperity for each employ, means not only higher
wages than are usually received by men of his class, but, of more importance
still, it also means the development of each man to his state of maximum
efficiency, so that he may be able to do; generally speaking, the highest
grade of work for which his natural abilities fit him, and it further means
giving him, when possible, this class of work to do.

It would seem to be so self-evident that maximum prosperity for the
employer, coupled with maximum prosperity for the employee, ought to be the
two leading objects of management, that even to state this fact should be
unnecessary. And yet there is no question that, throughout the industrial
world, a large part of the organization of employers, as well as employees,
is for war rather than for peace, and that perhaps the majority on either
side do not believe that it is possible so to arrange their mutual relations
that their interests become identical.

The majority of these men believe that the fundamental interests of
employees and employers are necessarily antagonistic. Scientific management on the contrary, has for its very foundation the firm conviction that the
true interests of the two are one and the same; that prosperity for the
employer cannot exist through a long term of years unless it is accompanied
by prosperity for the employee and vice versa; and that it is possible to
give the workman what he most wants-high wages-and the employer what he
wants-a low labor cost-for his manufactures.

It is hoped that some at least of those who do not sympathize with each of
these objects may be led to modify their views; that some employers, whose
attitude toward their workmen has been that of trying to get the largest
amount of work out of them for the smallest possible wages, may be led to
see that a more liberal policy toward their men will pay them better; and
that some of those workmen who begrudge a fair and even a large profit to
their employers, and who feel that all of the fruits of their labor should
belong to them, and that those for whom they work and the capital invested
in the business are entitled to little or nothing, may be led to modify
these views.

No one can be found who will deny that in the case of any single individual
the greatest prosperity can exist only when that individual has reached his
highest state of efficiency; that is, when he is turning out his largest
daily output.

The truth of this fact is also perfectly clear in the case of two men
working together. To illustrate: if you and your workman have become so
skillful that you and he together are making two pairs of shoes in a day,
while your competitor and his workman are making only one pair, it is clear
that after selling your two pairs of shoes you can pay your workman much
higher wages than your competitor who produces only one pair of shoes is
able to pay his man, and that there will still be enough money left over for
you to have a larger profit than your competitor.

In the case of a more complicated manufacturing establishment, it should
also be perfectly clear that the greatest permanent prosperity for the
workman, coupled with the greatest prosperity for the employer, can be
brought about only when the work of the establishment is done with the
smallest combined expenditure of human effort, plus nature's resources, plus
the cost for the use of capital in the shape of machines, buildings, etc.
Or, to state the same thing in a different way: that the greatest prosperity
can exist only as the result of the greatest possible productivity of the
men and machines of the establishment-that is, when each man and each
machine are turning out the largest possible output; because unless your men
and your machines are daily turning out more work than others around you, it
is clear that competition will prevent your paying higher wages to your
workmen than are paid to those of your competitor. And what is true as to
the possibility of paying high wages in the case of two companies competing
close beside one another is also true as to whole districts of the country
and even as to nations which are in competition. In a word, that maximum
prosperity can exist only as the result of maximum productivity. Later in
this paper illustrations will be given of several companies which are
earning large dividends and at the same time paying from 30 per cent. to 100
per cent. higher wages to their men than are paid to similar men immediately
around them, and with whose employers they are in competition. These
illustrations will cover different types of work, from the most elementary
to the most complicated.

If the above reasoning is correct, it follows that the most important object
of both the workmen and the management should be the training and
development of each individual in the establishment, so that he can do (at
his fastest pace and with the maximum of efficiency) the highest class of
work for which his natural abilities fit him.

These principles appear to be so self-evident that many men may think it
almost childish to state them. Let us, however, turn to the facts, as they
actually exist in this country and in England. The English and American
peoples are the greatest sportsmen in the world. Whenever an American
workman plays baseball, or an English workman plays cricket, it is safe to
say that he strains every nerve to secure victory for his side. He does his
very best to make the largest possible number of runs.The universal
sentiment is so strong that any man who fails to give out all there is in
him in sport is branded as a"quitter," and treated with contempt by those
who are around him.

When the same workman returns to work on the following day, instead of using every effort to turn out the largest possible amount of work, in a majority of the cases this man deliberately plans to do as little as he safely can-to turn out far less work than he is well able to do-in many instances to do not more than one-third to one-half of a proper day's work. And in fact if
he were to do his best to turn out his largest possible day's work, he would
be abused by his fellow-workers for so doing,even more than if he had proved
himself a "quitter" in sport. Underworking, that is, deliberately working
slowly so as to avoid doing a full day's work, "soldiering," as it is called
in this country, "hanging it out," as it is called in England, "ca canae,"
as it is called in Scotland, is almost universal in industrial establishments, and prevails also to a large extent in the building trades; and the writer asserts without fear of contradiction that this constitutes the greatest evil with which the working-people of both England and America
are now afflicted.

It will be shown later in this paper that doing away with slow working and
"soldiering" in all its forms and so arranging the relations between
employer and employ,that each workman will work to his very best advantage
and at his best speed, accompanied by the intimate cooperation with the
management and the help (which the workman should receive) from the
management, would result on the average in nearly doubling the output of
each man and each machine. What other reforms, among those which are being discussed by these two nations, could do as much toward promoting
prosperity, toward the diminution of poverty, and the alleviation of
suffering?America and England have been recently agitated over such subjects as the tariff, the control of the large corporations on the one hand, and of hereditary power on the other hand, and over various more or less socialistic proposals for taxation, etc. On these subjects both peoples have been profoundly stirred, and yet hardly a voice has been raised to call
attention to this vastly greater and more important subject of "soldiering,"
which directly and powerfully affects the wages, the prosperity, and the
life of almost every working-man, and also quite as much the prosperity of
every industrial establishment in the nation.

The elimination of "soldiering" and of the several causes of slow working
would so lower the cost of production that both our home and foreign markets
would be greatly enlarged, and we could compete on more than even terms with our rivals. It would remove one of the fundamental causes for dull times,
for lack of employment,and for poverty, and therefore would have a more
permanent and far-reaching effect upon these misfortunes than any of the
curative remedies that are now being used to soften their consequences. It
would insure higher wages and make shorter working hours and better working and home conditions possible.

Why is it, then, in the face of the self-evident fact that maximum
prosperity can exist only as the result of the determined effort of each
workman to turn out each day his largest possible day's work, that the great
majority of our men are deliberately doing just the opposite, and that even
when the men have the best of intentions their work is in most cases far
from efficient?

There are three causes for this condition, which may be briefly summarized
as:

First. The fallacy, which has from time immemorial been almost universal
among workmen, that a material increase in the output of each man or each
machine in the trade would result in the end in throwing a large number of
men out of work.

Second. The defective systems of management which are in common use, and
which make it necessary for each workman to soldier, or work slowly,in order
that he may protect his own best interests.

Third. The inefficient rule-of-thumb methods, which are still almost
universal in all trades, and in practicing which our workmen waste a large
part of their effort.

This paper will attempt to show the enormous gains which would result from
the substitution by our workmen of scientific for rule-of-thumb methods.

To explain a little more fully these three causes:

First. The great majority of workmen still believe that if they were to work
at their best speed they would be doing a great injustice to the whole trade
by throwing a lot of men out of work, and yet the history of the development
of each trade shows that each improvement, whether it be the invention of a
new machine or the introduction of a better method, which results in
increasing the productive capacity of the men in the trade and cheapening
the costs, instead of throwing men out of work make in the end work for more
men.

The cheapening of any article in common use almost immediately results in a
largely increased demand for that article. Take the case of shoes, for
instance. The introduction of machinery for doing every element of the work
which was formerly done by hand has resulted in making shoes at a fraction
of their former labor cost, and in selling them so cheap that now almost
every man,woman, and child in the working-classes buys one or two pairs of
shoes per year, and wears shoes all the time,whereas formerly each workman
bought perhaps one pair of shoes every five years, and went barefoot most of
the time, wearing shoes only as a luxury or as a matter of the sternest
necessity. In spite of the enormously increased output of shoes per workman,
which has come with shoe machinery, the demand for shoes has so increased
that there are relatively more men working in the shoe industry now than
ever before.

The workmen in almost every trade have before the man object lesson of this
kind, and yet, because they are ignorant of the history of their own trade
even, they still firmly believe, as their fathers did before them, that it
is against their best interests for each man to turn out each day as much
work as possible.

Under this fallacious idea a large proportion of the workmen of both
countries each day deliberately work slowly so as to curtail the output.
Almost every labor union has made, or is contemplating making, rules which
have for their object curtailing the output of their members, and those men
who have the greatest influence with the working-people, the labor leaders
as well as many people with philanthropic feelings who are helping them, are
daily spreading this fallacy and at the same time telling them that they are
overworked.

A great deal has been and is being constantly said about "sweat-shop" work
and conditions. The writer has great sympathy with those who are overworked. but on the whole a greater sympathy for those who are under paid. For every individual,however, who is overworked, there are a hundred who intentionally underwork-greatly underwork -every day of their lives, and who for this reason deliberately aid in establishing those conditions which in the end inevitably result in low wages. And yet hardly a single voice is being raised in an endeavor to correct this evil.

As engineers and managers, we are more intimately acquainted with these
facts than any other class in the community, and are therefore best fitted
to lead in a movement to combat this fallacious idea by educating not only
the workmen but the whole of the country as to the true facts. And yet we
are practically doing nothing in this direction, and are leaving this field
entirely in the hands of the labor agitators (many of whom are misinformed
and misguided), and of sentimentalists who are ignorant as to actual working
conditions.

Second. As to the second cause for soldiering- the relations which exist
between employers and employ,sunder almost all of the systems of management which are in common use-it is impossible in a few words to make it clear to one not familiar with this problem why it is that the ignorance of employers as to the proper time in which work of various kinds should be done makes it for the interest of the workman to "soldier."

The writer therefore quotes herewith from a paper read before The American
Society of Mechanical Engineers,in June, 1903, entitled "Shop Management,"
which it is hoped will explain fully this cause for soldiering:

"This loafing or soldiering proceeds from two causes. First, from the
natural instinct and tendency of men to take it easy, which may be called
natural soldiering. Second, from more intricate second thought and reasoning
caused by their relations with other men,which may be called systematic
soldiering."

There is no question that the tendency of the average man (in all walks of
life) is toward working at a slow,easy gait, and that it is only after a
good deal of thought and observation on his part or as a result of
example,conscience, or external pressure that he takes a more rapid pace.

"There are, of course, men of unusual energy, vitality,and ambition who
naturally choose the fastest gait, whose up their own standards, and who
work hard, even though it may be against their best interests. But these few
uncommon men only serve by forming a contrast to emphasize the tendency of the average.

"This common tendency to 'take it easy' is greatly increased by bringing a
number of men together on similar work and at a uniform standard rate of pay
by the day.

"Under this plan the better men gradually but surely slow down their gait to
that of the poorest and least efficient. When a naturally energetic man
works for a few days beside a lazy one, the logic of the situation is
unanswerable.'Why should I work hard when that lazy fellow gets the same pay that I do and does only half as much work?'

"A careful time study of men working under these conditions will disclose
facts which are ludicrous as well as pitiable.

"To illustrate: The writer has timed a naturally energetic workman who,
while going and coming from work, would walk at a speed of from three to
four miles per hour, and not infrequently trot home after a day's work. On
arriving at his work he would immediately slowdown to a speed of about one
mile an hour. When, for example, wheeling a loaded wheelbarrow, he would go
at a good fast pace even up hill in order to be as short a time as possible
under load, and immediately on the return walk slow down to a mile an hour,
improving every opportunity for delay short of actually sitting down. In
order to be sure not to do more than his lazy neighbor, would actually tire
himself in his effort to go slow.

"These men were working under a foreman of good reputation and highly
thought of by his employer, who, when his attention was called to this state
of things, answered: 'Well, I can keep them from sitting down, butthe devil
can't make them get a move on while they are at work.' "The natural laziness
of men is serious, but by far thegreatest evil from which both workmen and
employers are suffering is the systematic soldiering which is almost
universal under all of the ordinary schemes of management and which results
from a careful study on the part of the workmen of what will promote their
best interests.

"The writer was much interested recently in hearing one small but
experienced golf caddy boy of twelve explaining to a green caddy, who had
shown special energy and interest, the necessity of going slow and lagging
behind his man when he came up to the ball,showing him that since they were paid by the hour, the faster they went the less money they got, and finally telling him that if he went too fast the other boys would give him a
licking.

"This represents a type of systematic soldiering which is not, however, very
serious, since it is done with the knowledge of the employer, who can quite
easily break it up if he wishes.

"The greater part of the systematic soldiering, however,is done by the men
with the deliberate object of keeping their employers ignorant of how fast
work can be done.

"So universal is soldiering for this purpose that hardly a competent workman
can be found in a large establishment, whether he works by the day or on
piecework, contract work, or under any of the ordinary systems, who does not
devote a considerable part of his time to studying just how slow he can work
and still convince his employer that he is going at a good pace.

"The causes for this are, briefly, that practically all employers determine
upon a maximum sum which they feel it is right for each of their classes of
employees to earn per day, whether their men work by the day or piece.

"Each workman soon finds out about what this figure is for his particular
case, and he also realizes that when his employer is convinced that a man is
capable of doing more work than he has done, he will find sooner or later
some way of compelling him to do it with little or no increase of pay.

"Employers derive their knowledge of how much of a given class of work can
be done in a day from either their own experience, which has frequently
grown hazy with age, from casual and unsystematic observation of their men,
or at best from records which are kept, showing the quickest time in which
each job has been done. In many cases the employer will feel almost certain
that a given job can be done faster than it has been, but he rarely cares to
take the drastic measures necessary to force men to do it in the quickest
time, unless he has an actual record proving conclusively how fast the work
can be done.

"It evidently becomes for each man's interest, then, to see that no job is
done faster than it has been in the past.The younger and less experienced
men are taught this by their elders, and all possible persuasion and social
pressure is brought to bear upon the greedy and selfish men to keep them
from making new records which result in temporarily increasing their wages, while all those who come after them are made to work harder for the same old pay.

"Under the best day work of the ordinary type,when accurate records are kept
of the amount of work done by each man and of his efficiency, and then each
man's wages are raised as he improves, and those who fail to rise to a
certain standard are discharged and afresh supply of carefully selected men
are given work in their places, both the natural loafing and systematic
soldiering can be largely broken up. This can only be done, however, when
the men are thoroughly convinced that there is no intention of establishing
piece work even in the remote future, and it is next to impossible to make
men believe this when the work is of such a nature that they believe piece
work to be practicable. In most cases their fear of making a record which
will be used as a basis for piece work will cause them to soldier as much as
they dare.

"It is, however, under piece work that the art of systematic soldiering is
thoroughly developed; after a workman has had the price per piece of the
work he is doing lowered two or three times as a result of his having worked
harder and increased his output, he is likely entirely to lose sight of his
employer's side of the case and become imbued with a grim determination to
have no more cuts if soldiering can prevent it. Unfortunately for the
character of the workman, soldiering involves a deliberate attempt to
mislead and deceive his employer,and thus upright and straightforward
workmen are compelled to become more or less hypocritical. The employer is
soon looked upon as an antagonist, if not ~an enemy and the mutual
confidence which should exist between a leader and his men, the enthusiasm,
the feeling that they are all working for the same end and will share in the
results is entirely lacking.

"The feeling of antagonism under the ordinary piece-work system becomes in
many cases so marked on the part of the men that any proposition made by
their employers, however reasonable, is looked upon with suspicion, and
soldiering becomes such a fixed habit that men will frequently take pains to
restrict the product of machines which they X are running when even a large
increase in output would involve no more work on their part."

Third. As to the third cause for slow work,considerable space will later in
this paper be devoted to illustrating the great gain, both to employers and
employs, which results from the substitution of scientific for rule-of-thumb
methods in even the smallest details of the work of every trade. The
enormous saving of time and therefore increase in the output which it is
possible to effect through eliminating unnecessary motions and substituting
fast for slow and inefficient motions for the men working in any of our
trades can be fully realized only after one has personally seen the
improvement which results from a thorough motion and time study, made by a
competent man.

To explain briefly: owing to the fact that the workmen in all of our trades
have been taught the details of their work by observation of those
immediately around them,there are many different ways in common use for
doing the same thing, perhaps forty, fifty,or a hundred ways of doing each
act in each trade, and for the same reason there is a great variety in the
implements used for each class of work. Now, among the various methods and
implements used in each element of each trade there is always one method and
one implement which is quicker and better than any of the rest.Aid this one
best method and best implement can only be discovered or developed through a scientific study and analysis of all of the methods and implements in
use,together with accurate, minute, motion and time study.This involves the
gradual substitution of science for rule of thumb throughout the mechanic
arts.

This paper will show that the underlying philosophy of all of the old
systems of management in common use makes it imperative that each workman shall be left with the final responsibility for doing his job practically as he thinks best, with comparatively little help and advice from the management. And it will also show that because of this isolation of workmen, it is in most cases impossible for the men working under these systems to do their work in accordance with the rules and laws of a science or art, even where one exists.

The writer asserts as a general principle (and he proposes to give
illustrations tending to prove the fact later in this paper) that in almost
all of the mechanic arts the science which underlies each act of each
workman is so great and amounts to so much that the workman who is best
suited to actually doing the work is incapable of fully understanding this
science,without the guidance and help of those who are working with him or
over him, either through lack of education or through insufficient mental
capacity. In order that the work may be done in accordance with scientific
laws, it is necessary that there shall be a far more equal division of the
responsibility between the management and the workmen than exists under any of the ordinary types of management. Those in the management whose duty it is to develop this science should also guide and help the workman in working under it, and should assume a much larger share of the responsibility for results than under usual conditions is assumed by the management.

The body of this paper will make it clear that, to work according to
scientific laws, the management must takeover and perform much of the work
which is now left to the men; almost every act of the workman should be
preceded by one or more preparatory acts of the management which enable him to do his work better and quicker than he otherwise could. And each man
should daily be taught by and receive the most friendly help from those who
are over him, instead of being, at the one extreme, driven or coerced by his
bosses, and at the other left to his own unaided devices.

This close, intimate, personal cooperation between the management and the
men is of the essence of modern scientific or task management.

It will be shown by a series of practical illustrations that, through this
friendly cooperation, namely, through sharing equally in every day's burden,
all of the great obstacles (above described) to obtaining the maximum output
for each man and each machine in the establishment are swept away. The 30
per cent. to 100 percent. increase in wages which the workmen are able to
earn beyond what they receive under the old type of management, coupled with the daily intimate shoulder to shoulder contact with the management,
entirely removes all cause for soldiering. And in a few years, under this
system, the workmen have before them the object lesson of seeing that a
great increase in the output per man-results in giving employment to more
men, instead of throwing men out of work, thus completely eradicating the
fallacy that a larger output for each man will throw other men out of work.

It is the writer's judgment, then, that while much can be done and should be
done by writing and talking toward educating not only workmen, but all
classes in the community, as to the importance of obtaining the maximum
output of each man and each machine, it is only through the adoption of
modern scientific management that this great problem can be finally solved.
Probably most of the readers of this paper will say that all of this is mere
theory. On the contrary, the theory, or philosophy, of scientific management
is just beginning to be understood,whereas the management itself has been a
gradual evolution, extending over a period of nearly thirty years. And
during this time the employees of one company after another, including a
large range and diversity of industries, have gradually changed from the
ordinary to the scientific type of management. At least 50,000 workmen in
the United States are now employed under this system; and they are receiving
from 30 per cent.to 100 per cent. higher wages daily than are paid to men of
similar caliber with whom they are surrounded, while the companies employing them are more prosperous than ever before. In these companies the output, per man and per machine, has on an average been doubled. During all these years there has never been a single strike among the men working under this system. In place of the suspicious watchfulness and the more or less open warfare which characterizes the ordinary types of management, there is
universally friendly cooperation between the management and the men.

Several papers have been written, describing the expedients which have been
adopted and the details which have been developed under scientific
management and the steps to be taken in changing from the ordinary to the
scientific type. But unfortunately most of the readers of these papers have
mistaken the mechanism for the true essence. Scientific management
fundamentally consists of certain broad general principles, a certain
philosophy,which can be applied in many ways, and a description of what any
one man or men may believe to be the best mechanism for applying these
general principles should in no way be confused with the principles
themselves.

It is not here claimed that any single panacea exists for all of the
troubles of the working-people or of employers. As long as some people are
born lazy or inefficient, and others are born greedy and brutal, as long as
vice and crime are with us, just so long will a certain amount of poverty,
misery, and unhappiness be with us also. No system of management, no single
expedient within the control of any man or any set of men can insure
continuous prosperity to either workmen or employers.Prosperity depends upon so many factors entirely beyond the control of any one set of men, any
state, or even anyone country, that certain periods will inevitably come
when both sides must suffer, more or less. It is claimed,however, that under
scientific management the intermediate periods will be far more prosperous,
far happier, and more free from discord and dissension. And also, that the
periods will be fewer, shorter and the suffering less. And this will be
particularly true in any one town, any one section of the country, or any
one state which first substitutes the principles of scientific management
for the rule of thumb.

That these principles are certain to come into general use practically
throughout the civilized world, sooner or later, the writer is profoundly
convinced, and the sooner they come the better for all the people.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Return to the Democracy & Work syllabus