may glance at that other American movement, the well-known systematic
effort toward scientific management which has often been interpreted
in an expansive literature.[6] Enthusiastic followers have declared it
to be the greatest advance in industry since the introduction of the
mill system and of machinery. Opponents have hastily denounced it as a
mistake, and have insisted that it proved a failure in the factories
in which it has been introduced. A sober examination of the facts soon
demonstrates that the truth lies in the middle. Those followers of
Frederick W. Taylor who have made almost a religion out of his ideas
have certainly often exaggerated the practical applicability of the
new theories, and their actual reforms in the mills have not seldom
shown that the system is still too topheavy; that is, there are too
many higher employees necessary in order to keep the works running on
principles of scientific management. On the other hand, the opposition
which comes from certain quarters,--for instance, from some
trade-unions,--may be disregarded, as it is not directed against the
claim that the efficiency can be heightened, but only against some
social features of the scheme, such as the resulting temporary
reduction of the number of workmen. But nobody can deny that this
revolutionary movement has introduced most valuable suggestions which
the industrial world cannot afford to ignore, and that as soon as
exaggerations are avoided and experience has created a broader
foundation, the principles of the new theory will prove of lasting
value. We shall have to discuss, at a later point, various special
features of the system, especially the highly interesting motion
study. Here we have to deal only with those tendencies of the movement
and with those interests which point toward our present problem, the
mental analysis of the individual employees in order to avoid misfits.

The approach to this problem, indeed, seems unavoidable for the