improve the management, the condition, and the conduct of the business. Good ideas of experienced men are smothered by objections, the results "damned by faint praise," or "tinkered" until their identity and usefulness is entirely lost and their author discouraged in making others in the future.

Another equally reprehensible and quite as disastrous propensity is for "the old man" to make periodical raids through the establishment, grumbling and criticising right and left "without just cause or provocation," after the manner of the proverbial "bull in the china shop," and with equally unpleasant results to the employees and to the business.

While we are ready to admit with a somewhat prominent writer that there is a good deal of "frenzied finance" abroad in the land, we have not far to go to find equally prominent instances of frenzied mechanics, in which there is much more noise than good sense, good judgment, or knowledge of human nature, as represented by the large majority of employees in machine shops and manufacturing establishments generally.

The best and most successful managers are the leaders and not the drivers of men. The quiet and methodical manager naturally creates an atmosphere of loyalty and discipline among his subordinates, who obey his orders with alacrity and good faith. Hence, good results flow naturally from their united efforts, while the nervous, belligerent manager with the "billy-goat" propensity of “butting in" on any and all occasions, not only keeps "rattled" himself, and so in no condition of mind to properly decide important questions, but is an important factor in producing a state of incompetency, disorder, and consequent failure.

Let us now proceed to consider the management of a model machine shop or manufacturing plant in a general way, leaving the scheme of the different departments in detail for later consideration.

Probably no one will take exception to the proposition that we shall have reached the perfect system of management when we shall have devised methods by which we may produce the greatest amount of good work with the smallest number of employees and the least amount of friction and irritation among them.

How this is to be accomplished is worthy of the most patient investigation, for the question of the management of machine shops and manufacturing plants is one of many phases. There are several general propositions in this connection that should be briefly stated. Among them are the following:

First. Any reasonable system is better than no system at all. There are shops to-day running, or trying to run, in which there is really no system worthy of the name, and things are allowed to drift along from day to day "by guess and good luck," just as they did forty years ago, and if we inquire why this or that thing is done so and so, we get the stereotyped reply, "That's

the way we've always done it." One of these days these shops will "wake up and find themselves dead," as the Irishman said, or they will adopt some kind of a system that will be of modern brand.

Second. The adoption of a part of a system, or a system for one part of the works and not for the remainder, "just as a trial to see how it will work," is practically no better than no system at all."

Third. The endeavor to adopt a system composed of parts of various systems, grafted upon, added to, dovetailed together, and patched until they lose all their identity, like Joseph's coat of many colors, is but to invite a dismal failure. Many a good plan has been killed and its author humiliated by adopting it piecemeal.

Fourth. To be successful the system must be complete and comprehensive, clearly defining every regulation as to the progress of the work, the method of accounting for time and materials, records of pay and efficiency of employees, and the duties and limitations of authority of every person concerned, from the manager down to the errand boy, so that the fewest cases may arise that have not been provided for in the system, and that there may be as much certainty and distinctness as in the regulations of the United States Army. Then we shall realize the highest efficiency and the least amount of friction.

Fifth. The system must be carried out in every particular as it is planned, unless there are very serious reasons for a change. Of course, even the Constitution of the United States can be amended, but only for weighty reasons, and "while it stands, it goes." Shop regulations should be on the same basis, and all employees will soon come to respect them, and to realize that they operate just as much for their welfare and protection as for the benefit of the owners of the plant; that so long as they are obeyed in a spirit of faithful service the employee is always right; and that when they are disobeyed through carelessness, a desire to shirk duty, or even from the "smart Aleck" notion that some employees get into their heads, there is a good prospect for trouble to the offending parties.

Sixth. The man who is to manage the administration of the system must be strong, able, honest, fearless, and positive. He must be strong in carrying out the system that has been adopted; otherwise his weakness will be soon discovered by his subordinates and the "backbone" of the system will be broken. He must be able, both by education and experience, to understand and appreciate all the details of the business. Of course, he must be honest in all his dealings with his subordinates as well as with the owners. He must be fearless, giving his orders where and when and to whom they are necessary and take the responsibility for their effect when faithfully obeyed. Hesitation, vacillation, or indecision will very materially injure his authority. To give an order and, when it has been obeyed faithfully and failed of the

object sought, to blame those who executed it, is to cause his men to lose faith, not only in his ability but in his sincerity. And there is only one thing more damaging to the administration in the minds of the employees than this, and that is to show a lack of faith in their ability and honesty. This will always prove discouraging and cause the men to lose interest in the successful progress of the shop.

Such being the general conditions under which we must organize, we may proceed with the further consideration of the system by which our plant is to be managed. We must first know what we are to plan for. It is assumed that the plant and all its accessories have been designed and equipped for manufacturing only. Therefore, with the exception of the shipping facilities, the entire establishment is devoted to turning out and shipping what it is directed to make. To accomplish the results we seek, we must go about the matter with a definite and comprehensive plan. It will not do simply to decide some of the main features and leave the others to be determined as we go along. If we do so we shall probably be surprised to find that some of the minor matters will loom up as important features when we least expect trouble.

We will consider the scheme of organization. In deciding what plan is best we should look to efficiency as the first requisite. This will include the question of making the most of the services of each man in a responsible position; it will include the consideration of a plan that shall have the least friction between the different officials in the routine work of the shop. It will seek a proper division of responsibility, so that if anything goes wrong we may at once determine what man was responsible for the lack of attention to duty. It should be a plan that will produce a maximum of result with a minimum of effort. Every man must know exactly what his duties are, what are the limits of his authority, as well as from whom he takes and to whom he may give orders.

It will be understood, of course, that the entire management of the plant is under the charge of the superintendent and that all orders from the general office go to him direct, and that there is no interference with any other official of the shops by the general manager or any one in the general office. This sort of interference "over the head" of the superintendent will break up discipline of any shop, and it should never be indulged in by the authorities in the office or permitted by the superintendent. It should be the same with all officials in the shop. No official or employee should accept any unless coming to him in the regular way through the next higher authority.

the

order

We think it has never been seriously questioned, that the organization of the United States Army, with its division of responsibilities, the provisions for accounting for all property handled, and for ascertaining the final results, as

well as for keeping a definite record of the individual efficiency of both officers and men, is a well-nigh perfect system. Its practical utility is not thoroughly appreciated by the manufacturers of to-day, who are prone to look upon anything labeled "military" as savoring of arbitrary and summary methods that in the shop would be disagreeable to both employer and employee. That this is too apt to be the popular impression is evident from the remarks of a recent writer on this subject, who says:

"Under the military type of organization the foreman is held responsible for the successful running of the entire shop. He must lay out the work for the whole shop, see that each piece of work goes in the proper order to the right machine, and that the man at the machine knows just what is to be done and how he is to do it. He must see that the work is not slighted, and that it is done fast, and all the while he must look ahead a month or so either to provide more men to do the work or more work for the men to do. He must constantly discipline the men and readjust their wages, beside fixing piece work prices and supervising the timekeeping."

This is hardly a fair conception of what military rules mean, as it is surely anything but military. No military officer has any such variety of duties to perform. As well might it be contended that the colonel of a regiment takes command of the police guard or drills the awkward squad, or that a captain teaches the recruits the manual of arms. On the contrary, the colonel commands a regiment, but he gives orders to his majors who command battalions and give orders to the captains of companies. They in turn give orders to the non-commissioned officers who instruct the enlisted men. Each officer has his clearly defined duties, authority, and limitations. It is true that the organization and management of many of the larger and more successful manufacturing companies in this country to-day are using systems very closely modeled after the military methods, and in many cases, as investigation will show, following the army methods much more closely than is realized by many men.

Let us consider for a moment the analogy which may exist between a regiment of infantry and a large machine shop plant, with its force of officials and employees. The general manager may be likened to the general in command, and the machine shop or manufacturing plant to a part of an army, say a regiment of infantry on active service. The colonel in command will be represented by the superintendent or works manager. The colonel must have a staff, each of the officers composing it being at the head of one of the staff departments. So here we must have a staff, and it will consist of the office force, and include the chief clerk, purchasing clerk, time clerk, cost clerk, and the stenographer, all reporting directly to the superintendent.

A regiment is divided into two or three battalions commanded by majors.