Book - '^^f j GoipghtN" COFYRIGHT DEPOSITS THE PEOPLE'S GOVERNMENT THE PEOPLE'S GOVERNMENT BY DR. J. M. RICE EDITOR OF THE FORUM 1897-1907 Author of '*The Public School System of the United States," "The Rational Spelling Book," "Scientific Management in Education," etc. THE JOHN C. WINSTON COMPANY PHILADELPHIA 1915 i^_ Copyright, 1915, by J. M. RICE VAfL-BALLOU COMPANY eiNGHAMTON AND NEW YORK ©CI.A416415 NOV 18 1915 CONTENTS PAGE I. The Idea i II. The Economic and Moral Significance OF Unnecessary Waste 9 III. Some Needed Readjustments in Our Conceptions of Terms 46 IV. Practicality and Efficiency .... 77 V. Rational versus Irrational Leadership 95 VI. Rational Leadership and Reciprocal Su- pervision 120 VII. The Efficiency Court and the Bosses: A Practical Working Proposition . . 136 THE PEOPLE'S GOVERNMENT CHAPTER I THE IDEA While it was my original intention to place before the reader within the limits of a small volume a clear and convincing explanation of a very elementary idea, I found after repeated at- tempts that such a task was. beyond me, so that I was gradually led to see that I should be obliged to make a sacrifice in one of two directions. OThat is, I found that it would be necessary for me either to abandon the notion of making the vol- ume brief or the idea as clear as I had wished. I finally decided in favor of brevity; and if I am mistaken as to clearness, I shall, of course, be much gratified. As for the idea Itself, this may be expressed in a phrase of five words, although it presumes no less than to indicate how a democratic government could be founded on a basis of truth and justice I THE people's government not only with the people as we find them to-day, but also in the main with our system as it is organ- ized to-day. In regard to the fundamentals no change would be required except that of supplying what might be termed a missing link, a factor in- tended to serve the purpose of compelling the crooked to steer a straight course. As I see it, our ship of state is in need of a rudder. This is not intended to imply that I am the first to recognize the need of such a thing as a steering gear; but it does intend to imply that the ap- paratus as originally devised for that purpose has failed to do what was expected of it. The matter to which I refer is that of maintaining a proper system of checks and balances through the divi- sion into three departments of government. Of course I am aware that one who expresses an opin- ion of this nature is liable to be termed a heretic. However, as I am going to plead in my d'efense that I am not an advocate of boss-rule, which I regard as a direct result of a flaw in our system, my heresy is at least based on a worthy motive. In respect to the flaw% this does not lie in the three-fold division, which I should not think of disturbing if I could, but in an error in the form of the separation. As things have heretofore been, the chief executives have been regarded as 2 THE IDEA the legitimate heads of the executive departments, while their functions have been for the most part performed on the legislative side. That is, the term chief executive has been to my mind mislead- ing, because the official who occupies that position, whether the President, a governor, or a mayor, has considerably more power in legislative than he has in executive matters. Thus, although on the executive side he has in large measure the power to appoint the individual department heads, the latter officials are nevertheless so placed that they are not under any immediate obligation to give his views precedence over their own. Morally, he may be in control, but offi- cially he has no power to interfere with them un- less he finds they are doing wrong. In legisla- tive affairs, on the other hand, his powers are not confined to moral suasion, for here they are not only actual, but enormous ; the veto power of the President, for example, being equivalent to no less than one-fourth of the total number of Con- gressional votes on the negative side. As a re- sult he is practically in control of the legislative and at the same time morally In control of the executive department, and therefore plays a role which appears to me to be contrary to the spirit of popular government. 3 THE people's government For example, if for the sake of argument we as- sume the total membership of Congress to be 451, there would be required under a majority rule 226 affirmative votes to carry a measure, while under the two-thirds rule resulting from the veto it would require 301 to carry it; thus changing the figures from 226 as against 225 to 301 as against 150. This means that a negative vote of 151 against an affirmative vote of 300 would be a negative vic- tory; for the President would have the power to add to the 151 his own quota of 150, making the count 301 against 300. Or, looking at the mat- ter In a different way, he has a vote for every negative one, which Is equivalent to the power of doubling the total number of negative votes. As for the one-fourth above mentioned, this Is based on the Idea of a total of 601, the President's 150 being Included. As the President Is not entitled to cast a single affirmative vote, he naturally has no direct power to force Congress to pass measures that he de- sires to put through. But Indirectly he has the power to shape measures to his liking by means of the club of 150 negative votes which he may hold over the heads of the members of Congress who refuse to fall in line. Whether or not the Presi- dent should have such power Is a question upon 4 THE IDEA which opinions may legitimately differ. It only appears ridiculous to me that under these circum- stances we should be still harboring the notion that the legislative and executive departments were independent of each other. As a remedy I suggest that the so-called chief executives shall be looked upon rather as the chief legislators, while the heads of the individual de- partments shall be regarded as the chief executives. This division would be logical because it would stand for a complete separation of the two eco- nomic factors, namely, the appropriation of money, on the one hand, and its expenditure, on the other. In such manner the executive would exercise a genuine check upon the legislative de- partment, because it matters not how lavishly the funds were appropriated by the legislative bodies, the department heads could see that they were ex- pended without waste. The people as a rule are not so much concerned in the sums appropriated as they are in the idea that a dollar spent shall bring a dollar's worth in return. For example, they do not as a rule object to the appropriation of suffi- cient money for street cleaning purposes to enable the streets to be cleaned. But they do object to the expenditure of enough money to keep them clean and finding them dirty. 5 THE people's government Now if the chief executive should be trans- ferred to the legislative side, where in view of the veto power it would seem that he properly be- longed, it is evident that a void would be created on the executive side for the reason that there would then be lacking an entity to whom the indi- vidual department heads would be immediately subordinate. Therefore a factor would have to step in to take his place, and this would be the missing link. But the latter as I have it in mind would not merely replace the person of the chief executive as he has been heretofore known to us, because this would be simply substituting one boss for another. The fact is that this new entity would have to be capable of doing efficiently what an ordinary person can only do perfunctorily how- ever wise he may be, because It Is not logically conceivable that any single individual should know more of the details pertaining to each Issue arising in departmental management than all the depart- ment heads combined, and especially if he had never had a single day's experience along the lines followed by any department, as so frequently hap- pens under our system of government. And if we act upon the principle that he does, we simply place ourselves in the ridiculous position of em- ploying fools to teach the wise. Consequently, if 6 THE IDEA we desire to be logical, we must put in the place of the chief executive an entity that Is capable of per- forming the service that Is required of him with dignity and grace. Personally, I know of but a single element that Is qualified to occupy such a position. This Is justice. Thus, my viewpoint Is that all Issues arising In departmental management shall be decided on their merits, an ideal which cannot be reached unless the facts are weighed In the balance and the decisions rendered accord- ingly. And, as this Is the function of justice, my theory of government resolves itself Into the Idea expressed in the five words that if we want an hon- est and efliclent administration we must conduct departments on judiciary principles. From what I have stated It naturally follows that, in my opinion at least, the checks and bal- ances as originally Intended would come much nearer to our ideal If the heads of the Individual departments should act as checks upon the legisla- tive department, and the judiciary rather than the legislative bodies should act as the check upon the Individual department heads. This would serve to take the Individual departments out of the hands of the politicians; for while the latter would still have the power to appropriate the funds at their disposal to suit their pleasure, they would no 7 THE people's government longer have the same kind of power to control their expenditure. They would still have the power to declare what shall be done, but the way of doing things would be decided by the depart- ment heads under the control of the judiciary. But the judiciary as I have it in mind from this point of view would differ from the ordinary ju- diciary both in its makeup and its duties. As for its makeup this would be such as to render It im- possible for it to fall a prey to the politicians, while Its philosophy would stand for a new branch of jurisprudence, namely, the jurisprudence of effi- ciency, which, under its direction, would be In due course developed. In such cases as theft, graft, bribery, and so on, the duties of the present ju- diciary need not be extended, because they suffi- ciently cover the ground. But there is one ele- ment that they do not cover, namely, that of waste ; and the Idea that I have In mind is the establish- ment of a judiciary with a view to the prevention of unnecessary waste. CHAPTER II THE ECONOMIC AND MORAL SIGNIFICANCE OF UNNECESSARY WASTE As I see it, all unnecessary waste In the public service would be eliminated if each issue arising in departmental management should be decided on its merits. And the thought that I here regard as new is that all such issues should be so decided. At this point I shall expect the reader to be sur- prised not at the expression of the idea, which he will probably look upon as axiomatic, but at the notion that any one in the present era should have the hardihood to present it as new. But yet, my dear reader, I doubt whether any one since the be- ginning of time has before this made the sugges- tion with the notion that it should be applied in practice. The truth is that while it may be looked upon at first as an axiom it is not so in fact, be- cause in the nature of things opposites cannot be axioms, and the governments have always been conducted on the basis of a principle that appears 9 THE people's government to be equally logical, while it is at least in part an opposite. Thus the principle that has always been recog- nized has been that of placing an individual at the head of a department, giving him the power to de- cide each issue as he thinks best, and then holding him responsible for the results. As it stands this proposition appears to be fully as logical as that each issue should be decided on its merits. But aside from the fact that it is intrinsically absurd, for reasons that I shall explain, it is antithetical to the view that all issues shall be decided on their merits, because it would be unjust to demand that a department head should decide an issue on its merits and be held responsible for the results if he could obtain better ones by deciding it contrary to its merits. That is, while in some instances truth and justice are clearly more profitable than untruth and injustice, this is not so of all; and one who is held responsible for the results alone must be permitted to be untruthful and unjust in those instances in which these will lead to the more profitable results. If the reader should object to the idea that a department chief should be per- mitted to be truthful or untruthful at his discre- tion, then he will have to favor the abolition of his privilege to be untruthful; and, if so, he will be lO UNNECESSARY WASTE automatically driven to favor the proposition that each issue shall be decided on its merits, for there is no other alternative. Therefore, if we should come to an agreement to the effect that hereafter each Issue must be de- cided on its merits, then consistency to our scheme of justice would demand that the department head be relieved of the responsibility for the results. Apparently this would demand a sacrifice on our part which we should not make without careful deliberation. But actually this is not the case by reason of the absurdity involved in the original proposition. And the absurdity lies in this, namely, that one who manages the affairs of an- other is not, never has been, and in the nature of things can never be made, responsible for the re- sults, when the results are considered from the standpoint of waste. While the proprietor may give a manager the power to waste by authorizing him to decide the various issues as they arise, he himself will retain the responsibility for the waste, because it Is he, and not the manager, who will be obliged to pay the bills. The best he can do Is to lock the stable door after the horse has been stolen by discharging the manager who has been wasting his funds. Therefore the wiser course to pursue, if one is desirous of preventing waste, II THE people's government IS that of refraining from conferring upon the manager the power to waste by demanding that each issue be decided on its merits. At this place, however, we must be cautious in order to avoid falling into a trap. Thus, as the proposition reads, it would appear to stand for the idea that from a purely business point of view the wisest course to pursue would always be that of appointing as manager the one who was the most capable and desirous of reducing waste. But this does not necessarily follow ; and it Is in fact true only when the conditions are such that the elimi- nation of waste is the controlling element in the attainment of success. For if it should be true as a general proposition, it would naturally have to follow that the most successful financial results were obtained by those persons whose affairs were conducted with the least waste, and vice versa. But this theory is upset by the fact that when we look about us we do not find any such thing. In- deed, what we do find in business is the absence of any direct relation between financial success and waste; a concern that wastes practically nothing often having great difficulty in making both ends meet, while one that wastes inordinately may be- come enormously wealthy. This is so for the rea- son that in business many factors are called into 12 UNNECESSARY WASTE play of which the problem of waste Is but one. Therefore, when other factors are favorable, the effect of the waste on the general result, even if it should amount to very substantial sums, may be practically negligible. From what has been mentioned It naturally fol- lows that In the conduct of a business the losses sustained through waste may be offset by profits obtained through enterprise or shrewdness, so that a manager who is very enterprising or shrewd may achieve better financial results even if recklessly wasteful than a manager who reduces the waste to a minimum, but is lacking in the elements that make for a success. As for the trap, this lies in the fact that while it might be supposed that the same thing would apply to government, such a notion would be delusive, because government Is not business. That we have come to look upon the management of a public department In the light of a business Is evident from the fact that we have become accustomed to declare that It should be conducted strictly on business principles. The truth is, however, that a public department is not a business in the ordinary sense of the word, be- cause the term implies the idea of something to sell at a profit In order to obtain funds with which to buy, while the public departments, with a few ex- 13 THE PEOPLE S GOVERNMENT ceptions, buy only, and call upon the people to pay the bills. And this is the reason why it requires no general or special education or intelligence or training to be qualified to occupy the head position in any department of the public service in the land. We have here not a condition under which the losses sustained through wasteful management may become more than counterbalanced by enter- prise or shrewdness on the side of profits, as there is but one side to the ledger. Consequently the controlling factor in the difference between effi- ciency and inefficiency in the management of a pub- lic department centers in the conception of waste. Nor do the conditions differ in those excep- tional instances in which the departments have something to sell, whether postage stamps, water, or gas, because the circumstances are siii generis in that the receipts are not dependent upon the business talents of the manager, but are auto- matically regulated by the expenditures just as water seeks its own level. It is only that under good management the prices or the taxes or both go down, while under mismanagement they do the reverse. Or the difference may manifest itself in a difference in the quality of the commodity or of the service at the same expenditure. If the foregoing analysis should be warranted 14 UNNECESSARY WASTE by the facts, then it would naturally follow that while from a strictly business point of view it may be wise in the conduct of a business to give the head of a department the power to use his discre- tion in deciding the various issues as they arise in buying and selling as well as in the supervision of the employees, it would not be wise to follow that policy in the conduct of a public department, be- cause the conditions here are so entirely different. The essential difference, as has been indicated, is that while in business the income is obtained as a result of earnings produced by the manager, so that the value of his services may be gauged by the balance sheet, in a public department it is obtained by the manager without having been earned by himself, so that the value of his services cannot be gauged by the balance sheet. In fact, a public de- partment simply receives its income in the form of a trust fund, and under a pledge that it will be expended without any unnecessary waste. The logic of what I am here driving at is this, briefly, that while It may be wise to give consider- able leeway in the method of expending funds to one who Is obliged to earn more than he spends, it Is no less wise to restrict the mode of expendi- ture In the case of one who has the authority to spend money that does not belong to him and 15 THE PEOPLE S GOVERNMENT that he has taken no part in earning, and espe- cially when he is under no obligation whatever to make good what he wastes. To pursue the same policy under these conditions as in business is to invite looting. That looting does not necessarily follow is evi- dent from the fact that there are many countries in which the public affairs are honestly adminis- tered, although heretofore this method has been universally pursued because no other has been known. But where honesty is maintained in spite of it, it is only because factors are brought into play that serve to prevent dishonesty. However, as these include appointments on a basis of merit and a code of honor among politicians, it is clear that they do not obtain with us. Nor can they ever obtain in a democracy unless its spirit is cast to the winds, as it Is contrary to its spirit to de- mand that merit be considered a condition of eligi- bility for positions at the top. Indeed, unless all citizens In good moral standing, irrespective of education or intelligence, are looked upon as eligi- ble for such positions, we cannot speak of a democ- racy. But this Is a condition that must be recog- nized In a practical way if efficient service may be expected In spite of It. Its recognition from a practical point of view will lie In acting upon the i6 UNNECESSARY WASTE assumption that the bosses are Ignorant, and con- sequently in guarding against waste by resorting to a system of management under which they will not be endowed with the authority to waste. The philosophy of this is that the chief must be placed under the obligation to do right because it is right, while the results must be permitted to take care of themselves. I have mentioned that from a strictly business point of view it may be wise in the conduct of a business to give the head of a department the power to buy and sell and to supervise his sub- ordinates as he chooses, and then gauge the value of his services by the results. But when I declare that a public official must do right because it is right regardless of the results, I am opening the way to the discussion of quite another side of the story, namely, the ethical phase of unnecessary waste. Yet when our proposition as to discre- tionary power Is carried to its logical conclusion, we find that while it may be sound from the stand- point of profits, it will not bear scrutiny in the light of ethics, as It is merely an endorsement of the doctrine that the end justifies the means. That is, if we adopt the plan of giving the busi- ness manager discretionary power and judging the value of his services on the basis of the balance 17 THE people's government sheet alone, we cannot be consistent in pursuing that policy unless we refrain from asking him questions as to his methods of dealing with those from whom he buys or to whom he sells, or as to his actions towards his competitors, or as to the demands he makes upon his subordinates. So long as the profits are satisfactory, such items as truth and justice become practically negligible fac- tors, as they are not weighed in the balance. Whether in conducting a business honesty or dishonesty is the best policy is a question that can- not be answered dogmatically in favor of either side, because these are general terms which re- quire an explanation. That they cannot be used In an absolute sense is evident from the fact that no one can be absolutely honest, because to be so would necessitate human perfection; nor can any one be absolutely dishonest, because the policeman would come in to stop the game. Then, again, we are confronted by the difficulty of drawing a line between honesty and dishonesty as a policy. In the case of an individual act this difficulty does not arise to the same extent, because there are so many instances in which an act is either obviously honest or dishonest. But a policy applies to gen- eral conduct; and as the best individual occasion- ally does something unworthy, while the worst oc- i8 UNNECESSARY WASTE caslonally does something worthy, the question of honesty or dishonesty as a policy is clearly one of proportions and must be studied as such. Thus human conduct is characterized by a mix- ture of honesty and dishonesty in varying propor- tions; and it seems to me that, all other things being equal, the best policy from the standpoint of profits In conducting a business is that which repre- sents the greatest amount of dishonesty within the law that the traffic will bear. As to the exact amount that it will bear, an analysis, if it could be made, would probably show very great variations In different lines and under different conditions. But of one thing we may be assured without going to the trouble of making an analysis, namely, that the maximum will be reached in one particular field, which Is that of the corporations, and, more- over, that In the case of the more powerful of these the traffic will bear all the dishonesty that the law will allow. And that this Is not a mere hypothesis is proved not only by the fact that the enormous wealth accumulated by some of our cor- porations has been the direct result of their un- ethical methods, but also by the fact that It has been found necessary to restrict the field of legal dishonesty In the form of anti-trust legislation. As the corporation has no soul, we naturally can- 19 THE people's government not depend upon its conscience to respect the rights or desires of others, so that the law must step in to serve as a check. And if we are desirous of studying what the doctrine of the balance sheet without regard for ethics means when carried to its logical conclusion, it is to the corporations that we m.ust go in order to obtain our data. That the theory of the policy of honesty as above expressed will not be universally accepted as sound is evident from the fact that successful indi- viduals are in the habit of claiming that they had acquired their wealth honestly, while unsuccessful ones are equally in the habit of claiming that wealth cannot be acquired without resorting to methods to which their moral principles will not permit them to stoop. Therefore, from a strictly scientific viewpoint the proposition must be classed as debatable. But if we look upon it from the standpoint of religion, the members of society who are sufficiently orthodox to believe In the Bible literally will be forced by coi^sistency to accept it as true, because it tells us not only that when the Millennium arrives the last will be first and the first last, but also that " It Is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter Into the kingdom of God." As I am not sufficiently orthodox to believe that 20 UNNECESSARY WASTE the world was created in six days, or sufficiently atheistic to deny the existence of God, I am en- titled to take a compromise view, which is that if one is unusually talented or lucky he may succeed in acquiring wealth or rank honestly, but that under equal conditions the chances are, as a rule, considerably in favor of the liar. And this stand- point is justified by the fact that the liar has two methods at his disposal where the truthful indi- vidual has but one. In brief, while the truthful man who has a definite goal in view will go no farther toward reaching it than the truth will take him — that is, he will turn back if it will not take him the whole way in preference to gaining his point by dishonest means — the untruthful one who is worldly wise in the spirit of Machiavelli will travel as far with truth as this will carry him; and, if this will not take him the whole way, he will resort to trickery to complete the task when it is not contrary to policy to do so. But when we give to a manager the power to reach his goal as best he can, it is this that is in store for us. The truth of what I have just stated was first called to rny attention in a forcible manner by an incident that was related to me some years ago by the proprietor of a well-known journal. The facts in the case were these, namely, that a change 21 THE PEOPLE S GOVERNMENT In business managers was followed by a great shrinkage In the profits of the advertising depart- ment, although the management of the latter did not change hands. Then on looking into the mat- ter it was found that the shrinkage had been due simply to the fact that the advertising manager had succeeded in working up a large business on a false statement as to circulation to which the previ- ous business manager had subscribed, but to which the new one had refused to subscribe. On learn- ing the fact the proprietor had the good grace to stand by the truth, with the understanding that the advertising manager should thereafter make a plea for business on the basis of the cleanliness of the publication, of which there was no doubt. How- ever, although cleanliness is next to godliness, the plea failed to work, and the advertising depart- ment lost nearly all its clientele. From the preceding It would appear that busi- ness acumen and ethics were antagonistic, although the question may perhaps be regarded as a de- batable one. But the point of interest to us is that even if It should be true of the management of a business, it would nevertheless be untrue of the management of a public department, which is not a business in the ordinary sense, because it does not work for profits. And the truth in regard to 22 UNNECESSARY WASTE the latter Is that so far from business acumen and ethics being antagonistic, they actually meet here on a common platform with a degree of exactitude that is not exceeded by the law of gravitation. Consequently, we have here before us a condition under which self-interest and ethics become united by an inseparable bond, and therefore one under which we may safely proceed on the basis of doing right because it is right without any fear that such a policy will result in financial sacrifices. In the public departments, then, we have a field in which those acts which are the most ethical are also the best from an economic point of view. That this may not be apparent at the first glance is evident from the fact that it is not the most honorable, but the most unscrupulous, among the officials who fare the best from a material standpoint, because the honorable do not receive a share of the plun- der. This, however, is all a mere delusion based on the notion that the government belongs to the pohticians, while in truth it belongs to the people. If we look at the question from the standpoint of the officials, then business shrewdness and ethics are again found to be antagonistic, because those who enter politics for business purposes cannot gain their ends by the adoption of ethical means. If, however, we view It from the standpoint of the 23 THE PEOPLE S GOVERNMENT people, then It will be found to be true that busi- ness shrewdness and ethics are united, because the majority of them can have no object In giving the preference to dishonest rather than to honest of- ficials, although this Is not true of all. But In a democracy the majority Is supposed to rule. The real difficulty that we have to contend with in this matter is not the antagonism between shrewdness and ethics as In ordinary business, but antagonism of a different sort, namely, that be- tween the Interests of the people, on the one hand, and those of the public servants, on the other, which logically are diametrically opposed in that whatever is good business for the people Is poor business for the politicians, and vice versa, the inversion here being In fact complete. In order to be able to appreciate this it will be simply neces- sary to bear in mind that while It is In the nature of things that the master should make the best bargain when he buys cheap, It is equally natural that the servant should make the best bargain when he buys dear. And the reason is obviously that when the latter buys cheap there Is nothing in it for him, and that when he buys dear the differ- ence between the lowest market price and the actual purchasing price goes to his personal credit in whole or In part, which he may collect in cash or 24 UNNECESSARY WASTE Utilize for the purchase of favors from the seller. Thus, salary aside, what Is profit to the politician is waste to the people. The evident discrepancy here between theory and practice. In that the public official cannot do just as he chooses, is not due to a flaw in the theory, as this can only be looked upon as an axiom. It may, however, be explained on the basis of another antagonism, namely, that between natural and social forces. For, if nature should have its own way then a public servant could loot to his heart's content by paying the lowest market price for what he purchased and charging the people as much as he desired. But nature is pre- vented from having its own way because the law and public opinion step in as counteracting forces, with the result that the public servants can only loot to the extent that the traffic will bear, the ex- tent being regulated not only by the conditions, but also by the form in which It manifests itself. The forms themselves are very numerous. Includ- ing not only theft and tangible graft, but also in- tangible graft, or the purchase of personal favors with the people's money, and voluntary waste, which is the result of a refusal to take advantage of the most economical methods for no reason other than that of the pleasure of exercising 25 THE people's government power. In truth, the plunder that takes place in our public service manifests itself for the most part in Intangible graft and voluntary waste, against which we have not yet learned just how to protect ourselves, the difficulties being due to the fact that the untruth and Injustice involved in them do not fall within the category of crime. And it Is these alone that will constitute the factors of our particular problem, because theft and tangible graft are already covered by existing laws. The only remedy In their case lies in adopt- ing the system of deciding each Issue on Its merits, which, as has been explained, will require a change that can only be effected under our conditions as the result of a leap from boss rule to judicial rule. In this connection It will be essential for the sake of clearness to call attention to the fact that while Intangible graft and voluntary waste are not to be endorsed under any conditions from an ethical point of view, the same thing cannot be said when they are judged from a business standpoint. This Is so because there Is one condition under which the dishonesty of a servant may result In a gain Instead of a loss to the master, namely, when It manifests Itself on both sides of the ledger. Thus, a dishonest person In the employ of another may not only cheat the latter, but may also cheat 26 UNNECESSARY WASTE for him ; and dishonesty will prove to be profitable if the amount of cheating on the credit side ex- ceeds that on the debit side. It is this that con- stitutes the philosophy of judging the efficiency of a manager by the balance sheet alone, and inciden- tally the materialistic standpoint of the end justi- fying the means. That even the government when taken as a whole is not free from this entanglement is evi- dent from the fact that so many great economic and social developments since the beginning of time have taken place as a result of a disregard of the Golden Rule in its dealings with alien peoples. But this again is a matter apart from our subject, which is not concerned with foreign affairs, but looks only to honest management of affairs at home. However, the doctrine of the balance sheet could not be applied to government even from the standpoint of foreign affairs without leading us into a reductio ad ahsurdum. And the reason Is that the diplomatic service and the public service are in different hands, with the result that whatever injustice may be displayed by the diplo- mats Is intended to militate for the interests of the master, while that displayed by the members of the public service can only have the effect of mili- tating against his Interests. If a member of the 27 THE people's government diplomatic service should at the same time hold a position in the public service, as, for example, that of chief of a municipal department, then his suc- cess in concluding a profitable treaty with a for- eign nation might serve as an excuse for overlook- ing a wasteful contract that he had made for the disposal of garbage. But with matters arranged as they are in government, the doctrine could only hold by arguing that because A had succeeded in his negotiations for a profitable treaty, B was en- titled to make a poor contract for the disposal of the garbage, which is obviously absurd. There- fore, it applies to those instances only in which an individual who is a factor in earning is at the same time empowered to control the expenditures, in which case waste due to weakness on the side of expenditures could be overlooked by the master from a business standpoint if it should be more than counterbalanced by strength on the other side. As, for the reasons stated, this contingency can- not arise in government, it is evident that in the conduct of public affairs voluntary waste is never justifiable from any point of view. But why should it be looked upon as unjustifiable in business from an ethical standpoint in those instances in which it would be good policy to permit an able manager to waste if he desired to be humored by 28 UNNECESSARY WASTE being given his own way? The explanation Is that in doing so he sins not only against the mas- ter, who forgives him in consideration of value received, but also against his subordinates, who, in order to keep their jobs, are obliged to become his accomplices in cheating the master, which is the characteristic feature of the system of boss rule. Of course, if a manager should openly declare that he was wasting because it afforded him amuse- ment to waste, and that his subordinates were as- sisting him in the sport because he insisted upon their humoring him, no harm would be done as the situation would be understood. But the diffi- culty is that the thing does not work in any such manner, as the boss never confesses that he wastes. On the contrary, he always takes the stand that he is doing the best thing that can possibly be done, and that those of his subordinates who object to his decisions are either fools or knaves. There- fore, by reason of the wheels within wheels, things become so inverted under the direction of a waste- ful manager that the truthful subordinate is pun- ished for telling the truth, while the liar is re- warded for his lies. That a business concern should put up with a situation of that nature is not at all illogical, because the earning capacity of the manager may be such as to make it advisable to 29 THE people's government give him his own way by refusing to support the honest subordinates. But that the people should take any such stand in the conduct of their public departments cannot be explained except upon the theory that the correct method has not as yet been discovered. Even if the people should not feel disposed to accept my method without further ado, it must at least be said in their favor that they do not volun- tarily lend their support to untruth and injustice in the management of those departments which properly belong to the public service. And I shall not criticise them too severely if, in spite of the appearance of this work, they will still continue to harbor the notion that salvation is to be sought not in the abolition of one man power, but in the philosopher's dream of finding a perfectly ethical man for the head of every department in the land. Indeed, my sense of equity is fortunately such that I shall continue as heretofore to wish them success in their search, although it is only a question of time when they will come to recognize that this ideal can never be reached under any circum- stances, and not even approximately reached un- less the democratic ideal is abandoned. However, when we turn from politics to business a different story is to be told, because in business the ideal lies 30 UNNECESSARY WASTE In finding not the perfectly ethical man to manage the affairs, but the biggest earner; and here the Ideal of society must He In learning how to prevent those dominated by selfishness from becoming slaves to their passions. In this, however, so- ciety has not been Idle; for in the course of time It has succeeded In developing a number of inhibit- ing forces whose activities are brought into play in degrees varying with the conditions. Of these inhibiting forces, which serve to pre- vent the selfish from losing control of their pas- sions, four are particularly worthy of mention, and, in fact, for the most part, if not entirely, cover the ground. They are: First, the law, which inhibits dishonesty through fear of Impris- onment; secondly, the desire on the part of the masters to win a good reputation for the sake of policy, which leads to caution in estimating the limits of the dishonesty that the traffic will bear within the law; thirdly, the love of a good name, not for the sake of policy, but for that of honor or pride ; and, fourthly, the conscience, which will not permit the Individual to do wrong even when he Is in a position to do so without any fear of violating business policy or sacrificing his good name. Of these, the second and third propositions belong to the category of public opinion, and they are both 31 THE people's government powerful factors In making for honesty although based on different motives. Now a striking feature of these Inhibitory forces Is that they serve to divide business Into two distinct classes, namely, the private concern and the corporation, with the result that It Is natural for the latter to be conducted on a much lower moral plane than the former. The reason Is that in the private concern they are all brought Into play, and In the corporation the first two only, and simply because the one belongs to individuals, who may not only take pride In a good name, but also have a conscience to keep them from degrading their employees by putting a premium upon their dishonesty, while the other belongs to stockhold- ers, who as individuals are not personally known In the management, and whose good names and consciences therefore do not play a part In the game. Consequently, while In the case of the pri- vate concern untruth and injustice In any of its activities, whether In buying or selling or In Its re- lations with Its competitors or employees, will re- flect, upon the responsible heads or masters. In the case of the corporation they can only reflect upon the irresponsible heads or managers. But as the corporation managers are judged by their Intangi- ble masters on a basis of financial success rather 32 UNNECESSARY WASTE than moral character, we find that In the manage- ment of the corporations the ethical element be- comes only a side Issue, being dependent entirely upon the good will of the managers. For this reason it Is here that the logical conclusion of the doctrine of the balance sheet may be studied as nowhere else. What the managers of the power- ful corporations will do to achieve financial suc- cess Is too well known to require elucidation In this book. But it may be remarked In passing that the proof of the absence of a soul In corporations Is so admirably furnished by the fact that the law and business policy alone are capable of keeping them In check. As for the management of a corporation being compared to that of a government, this much may be said, namely, that while the two are similar in some respects, there Is, nevertheless, aside from the question of business, this essential difference between them, that a government Is not devoid of a soul. The fact Is that the latter exists here in the form of the universal ego, which is not a mythical conception, but manifests itself as love of country, or patriotism, the element that unites all good citizens Into one family, and which has no counterpart In the stockholders of a corpora- tion. In the community or nation we have a rec- 33 THE PEOPLE S GOVERNMENT ognized ego or " I " as well as a " We.'* That Is, although I am but one in a hundred million and may not have a penny to my name, no one will find it ridiculous if I say that I love my country or that me have great resources. Indeed, a national anthem teaches me that this country Is mine. Now If a corporation should be the counterpart of a government, then a stockholder would have to be the counterpart of a citizen even If he should own but a single share. However, If I should be the owner of a share of a railway company and should say that I loved my railroad or that we carried a great many passengers every day, the people would think I was crazy. The question then Is : " Who are the * Vs ' and the ' we's ' In a big corporation?" As for the former there is no such thing; for to be an " I " it Is necessary to own every bond and share of stock, which Is next to Impossible. But does this also apply to the " we's "? To this I must reply In the negative, as these are Innumerable. It Is only that they are to be found not among the mas- ters, but among the employees. This is evident from the fact that while It would seem ridiculous for even the owner of ten thousand shares of stock to say: " We have a train at six o'clock and an- other at nine," the same statement would appear 34 UNNECESSARY WASTE quite natural if coming from the ticket agent or a boy at the bureau of information. Thus, what- ever stability there may be in a large corporation does not rest in the ownership, but in the employees who look after the property while the shifting own- ers are busy gambling in the stock. Therefore, the corporations are conducted on the principle that when the cat's away the mice will play; and when the managers here are unscrupulous the game is played in the form of a boss rule that puts the most unscrupulous politicians to shame. That the influ- ence of this game does not manifest itself in neg- lect of duty on the side of earnings is evident from the history of corporate greed, which leaves little to be desired. It is therefore limited to the side of expenditures, where it manifests itself in the form of waste. In discussing this question with my friends, I have discovered that naive individuals are under the impression that the management of corpora- tions is not likely to be wasteful, because, in their opinion, those who wish to make a success of their business cannot possibly have any motive for wast- ing. That a material motive therefor is lacking is perfectly clear; but another element is here brought into play which will serve as an adequate explanation. Thus, while there is no pleasure in 3S THE PEOPLE S GOVERNMENT wasting for the sake of wasting, there is pleasure in bossing for the sake of bossing; and as the love of power Is one of the strongest of human pas- sions, It Is In this that the motive will be found. A person who spends a hundred thousand dollars a year to maintain a stable of thoroughbreds does not do so for the sake of spending that sum, but because he enjoys the sport. In brief, the man at the top wastes when he has the power to do so not because he enjoys the waste, but because he en- joys the sport of subjecting others to his will. And In the corporations he enjoys privileges in this respect that are not paralleled in any other field in an enlightened country, partly because there is no such thing as patriotism among the stockholders, and partly because even the most ethical among them do not appear desirous of killing the goose that lays the golden egg. That is, if the manager of a corporation is the means of earning ten mil- lion dollars a year, it Is deemed quite proper that he should be permitted to waste a million in the enjoyment of the sport of bossing the ranch, even If in so doing he not only wastes the million, but converts his subordinates into moral degenerates. The sums wasted in this manner in the public service and the corporations, even if amounting to billions per annum, may be readily replenished. In 36 UNNECESSARY WASTE the former by an Increase In taxes, and in the latter by an Increase In prices. But the moral degrada- tion coincident upon this species of boss rule can- not be compensated for by the wealth of nations. The general viewpoint In regard to public and cor- porate waste falls to hit the mark, because the peo- ple are In the habit of thinking of such waste In terms of dollars and cents, while the question Is primarily one of morals, and only Incidentally one of cash; and when they begin to appreciate this they will also begin to change their tactics. If my meaning is not clear In the first instance, it will be- come so when It Is borne In mind that In all forms of crime involving questions of money only, It Is primarily not the loss of money to the victim, which is often a mere bagatelle, but the crime per se against which society rebels. And In the case of voluntary waste in the management of pub- lic and corporate affairs exactly the same moral principle Is Involved, although the world has not yet come to consider it as such. If society is to be consistent with Its own moral dictates. It must lend Its support to those who mani- fest the desire to do their duty; but In fact it lends Its support to the man at the top even when he compels his subordinates to humor him to the ex- tent of violating the first principles of duty. It is 37 THE people's government this attitude of the boss toward his subordinates that constitutes the source of all voluntary waste ; and it is against the endorsement of this attitude by society that I rebel, and not against the mone- tary losses, however stupendous in the aggregate they may be. As for the remedy, the plan that I have devised will apply to the corporations as well as to govern- ment; for while the two forms of organization differ in some essential respects, they also have a number of points in common. And, fortunately, as to the element in which we are specifically inter- ested, the two are exactly identical. It is only that by reason of the absence of a soul in the cor- porations the plan will require modification in certain particulars, not to mention that it will natu- rally meet with greater opposition from the stand- point of adoption, because it may possibly exert an unfavorable influence on profits for the reason that it may not be easy to find persons with large earn- ing capacity unless they are given the privilege to boss. However, as for the absence of a soul, this in itself need prove no insuperable obstacle, as we may here profit by the faith of Voltaire, who de- clared that if there were no God we should be under the necessity of Inventing one. And in the case of the corporations we should be obliged to 38 UNNECESSARY WASTE Invent a God, who, even if infinitely inferior to the Almighty, would nevertheless be infinitely supe- rior to none. Having called attention to the fact that the man- agement of a public department differs from that of a business In that there Is but one side to the ledger, It is equally important to note that in re- spect to the side that It does maintain all forms of government and of business meet on a common platform. The one to which I here refer is that of the expenditures or costs. In all forms of ac- counting It Is customary for society to base its cal- culations on what are known as debits and credits; and It Is simply necessary to bear this In mind In order to be able to appreciate that whatever differ- ences there may be in fundamentals between busi- ness and government manifest themselves on the credit side, and are due to the fact that In business the credits are earned, while In government they are exacted. In business we have earnings and expenditures and in government taxes and expendi- tures; and while there is an essential difference be- tween earnings and taxes, expenditures are ex- penditures the world around. The government has the power to levy taxes as it pleases, but It must purchase its labor and supplies on the same basis as the private concern and the corporation. 39 THE PEOPLE S GOVERNMENT Again, when we compare the rationale of earn- ings and expenditures, we find that they are oppo- sites in every particular, which arises from the fact that in the one case the ideal lies in expansion or increase in profits, and in the other in contraction or decrease in costs. Earnings are obtained as a result of competition ; and in order to achieve suc- cess it is often necessary to act in haste and to re- sort to untruth and injustice for reasons of self- preservation, the welfare of the individual being here at stake. Reductions in costs, on the other hand, are, for the most part, the result of an in- crease in working efficiency due to progress in the world of science, the benefits of which are intended to be universally distributed, the individual Inter- ests being only Incidental to those of the race. While competition means warfare, science is peace, allowing time for deliberation, besides mak- ing untruth and injustice hindrances rather than helps to success. And that these opposites mani- fest themselves very strangely side by side Is evi- denced by the fact that the same Individuals who carry on a relentless warfare against one another during the day will come together as brothers at night In society meetings to deliberate upon ques- tions of working efficiency, which, for the most part, center in the idea of a reduction In costs. In 40 UNNECESSARY WASTE the business and scientific associations, then, we have a platform upon which the proprietor of a business, the corporation managers, and the public employees all meet on a basis of common interests; and when the discussions partake of the nature of strife, the motive underlying the latter is not a selfish one, as In the field of competition, but un- selfish in that the war is waged in the interest of universal progress. What has been stated will serve to call to mind the four possible relations In human control : ( i ) the decision of questions of Interest to the Indi- vidual by the individual; (2) those of universal interest by society; (3) those of Individual interest by society; and (4) those of universal Interest by Individuals. The first is demanded by the doc- trine of personal liberty, which is prevented from becoming converted into license by the third, the element that lies at the basis of legality, both being essential to universal progress. The second is the ideal of government which has thus far failed of realization by reason of the existence of the fourth, which continues to remain in vogue, not because it is desirable, but because the world has not yet learned how to prevent it. Nevertheless, a solution of the problem is in store for us, and it will be found in separating questions of individual 41 THE people's government from those of universal interest, or questions of business from those of science, or working effi- ciency, and deciding the latter on judiciary princi- ples, while the former may continue as heretofore to be decided on a basis of expediency as the laws of competition may demand. As for the efficiency courts, it is evident that they would serve the same purpose in the conduct of private and corporate affairs as in government. It is only that they could not be forced upon private concerns or cor- porations without subverting the doctrine of per- sonal liberty. In regard to the novelty of the plan, this of course does not lie in the idea of separating the business from the scientific departments, which has already become the custom among progressive peo- ple, but in that of going a step farther by according to the scientific departments an independent status. The act of establishing a scientific department is accomplished when an investigator is added to the corps of workers, whether this be in government or in business. But there is this difference be- tween subordination and independence, that under the former the conclusions of the investigator are subject to acceptance or rejection at the discretion of the man at the top, while under the latter such conclusions would be placed beyond his discretion- 42 UNNECESSARY WASTE ary power, and would have to be accepted or re- jected on their merits, regardless of personal views or inclinations. That is, the head of the scientific department would be no longer a sub- ordinate of the head of the business or public de- partment, but would labor directly under the su- pervision of the efficiency court, to which alone he would be accountable for his actions. With the conditions as they have heretofore been, the re- sults of the investigations of the scientific depart- ment have often been looked upon in the light of mere opinions to be placed side by side with those of the boss, who might be entirely ignorant of the facts, and yet whose judgment would be given the right of way if it did not accord with that of the investigator. But under the plan herein sug- gested this could no longer occur. In sum and substance, the independence of the scientific departments would mean that in business the costs would be looked upon as a problem inde- pendent of earnings, and in government as one in- dependent of politics. As this proposition has the double advantage of being not only invulnerable from the standpoint of pure science, but also in perfect harmony with the moral order in demand- ing that the truth shall take precedence over all other considerations, it is quite safe to assume that 43 THE people's government the adoption of the plan, at least in the conduct of public affairs, will be only a question of time, al- though It Is probably destined to meet with a great deal of opposition before that time arrives. As to the nature of the opposition that may be reasonably expected, this practically speaks for Itself; for as It so happens that the proposition, reduced to its lowest terms, means simply that the man at the top shall be robbed of the power to pre- vent his subordinates from being faithful to their rightful masters. It Is evident that It cannot possi- bly be opposed on moral grounds, but only on those of expediency. However, as the only possi- ble counter proposition, reduced to its lowest terms, must be to the effect that it is better for society to employ as subordinates persons who will cheat the master In obedience to a command of the boss than those who will oppose the boss when he commands them to do wrong, it is not so easy to make a prediction concerning the form in which the opposition will manifest itself in the open. For would any respectable citizen be bold enough to preach such a doctrine on the rostrum or in the press? However, as a substitution of judicial for boss rule In determining questions of working efficiency stands for no less than the abolition of a despotic 44 UNNECESSARY WASTE privilege that it has heretofore been customary for the man at the top to enjoy, namely, the right to pass judgment on the efficiency and veracity of his subordinates without according them the same right in return, opposition to the change cannot fail to appear, although in a democracy its source can be neither personal nor factional, because a privilege of that nature is so completely subversive of the democratic ideal. Whatever opposition there may be will therefore have to manifest itself in an intangible form, and more specifically in the form of the negative force known as inertia, which in this instance could only result from a disinclina- tion on the part of the people to make the psycho- logical readjustments that would be required be- fore they would be able to become accustomed to the notion that discipline could be maintained in an organization without the necessity of placing an arbitrary ruler at the top. And a discussion of the character of these readjustments will now be in order. 45 CHAPTER III SOME NEEDED READJUSTMENTS IN OUR CONCEP- TIONS OF TERMS As for the psychological readjustments, I wish to say at the outset that if we are desirous of building a structure that will hold, we shall be obliged to begin at the foundation. And in the present instance this will lie in philological consid- erations, that is, in a renaissance in the conception of the meanings of words that have a direct bear- ing on the problem of efficiency in general and the relation between bosses and subordinates in par- ticular. Thus, let us assume that a controversy arises be- tween a boss and a subordinate in which the boss is lying and the subordinate is telling the truth. The question then is: Should the people under these circumstances lend their moral support to the boss in the interest of discipline or should they give It unequivocally to the subordinate though the heavens fall? Up to the present time they have made it the rule to stand by the boss, not through 46 NEEDED READJUSTMENTS IN TERMS any deliberate attempt to reward dishonesty and punish honesty, but because they have not known of any other form of procedure that v/ould work, that Is, with labor performed In teams under the direction of bosses who are not their own masters. As for my question, I have not been able to find any Instance In which It has ever been asked be- fore, or at least with any Intent of calling forth a discussion, because apparently the only respectable verdict could be that the truth shall be given the precedence over discipline. In fact, I do not know of more than two writers, namely, Machlavelll and Nietzsche, who have been sufficiently venture- some to take the opposite stand. However, as I do not regard It as likely that my plan will be shelved until at least some attempts shall have been made to prove its absurdity, I shall take It upon myself to suggest what lines of argument in opposition would be, In my opinion, likely to lead to the most fruitful results, and also to answer those objections here, in order that the prelimi- naries may be threshed out with the appearance of this work. My thesis Is, then, that when a controversy arises between a boss and a subordinate the truth shall be given the precedence over discipline, and the issue therefore decided in favor of the sub- 47 THE PEOPLE'S GOVERNMENT ordinate If he Is right. Here the critic Is entitled to ask: What Is truth? However, while In the case of truth my thesis Is as secure as the law of gravitation, I take a dif- ferent stand In regard to opinion; for here my plan demands that when the opinions of bosses and subordinates differ those of the bosses shall be given the right of way. Question: What Is an opinion and wherein does It differ from truth? Next It will be pertinent to ask whether the plan that I am proposing Is sufficiently practical to be worthy of adoption even If demanded from the standpoint of abstract ethics. This will call for a definition of terms that have a direct bearing on the conception of practicality, foremost among which are theory and theoretical, practice and practical. And, finally, as the suggestion to give the right of way to truth In preference to discipline will Inci- dentally accrue to the benefit of efficiency, and as Increased efficiency has Its inception In universal experience, our notions concerning the meaning of efficiency and experience are also In need of read- justment in the light of my thesis. Let us now look a little more closely Into the conceptions of some of these terms In order to see what mental readjustments would be required if 48 NEEDED READJUSTMENTS IN TERMS the adoption of my plan should ever be contem- plated. First, then : What is truth ? Personally, I can- not, of course, enter into the discussion of this question without seeing the humorous side. For if the greatest of thinkers from the beginning of time to the present day have been unable to give a satisfactory explanation as to what the truth really is, does it not seem rather ridiculous on my part to pretend to have definite views on the sub- ject? And yet at the risk of making myself ridicu- lous I shall be bold enough to declare that I have, although they may not be very profound. For, as I see it, truth is represented by the conception of a proposition that will admit of neither a denial nor a counter proposition that society would not regard as irrational. Thus: Proposition i : Two is more than one. De- nial : Two is not more than one. Counter propo- sition: One is more than two. Proposition 2: Water runs down hill. Denial: Water does not run down hill. Counter proposition : Water runs up hill. Now obvious as all this may appear. It is never- theless evident that there must be some kind of a flaw somewhere along the line. For if the truth 49 THE people's government should really be something so elementary as this, how could it happen that the more intellectual among my friends should have smiled so know- ingly when I told them that I favored the notion of giving the truth the precedence over all other considerations? And when I insisted to the ex- tent of showing them that I really meant what I said, why did they turn around and chide me for presuming to know that two was more than one or that water ran down hill when even Socrates, the wisest of men, had declared that he knew but one thing, which was that he knew nothing? That Socrates said this I should not think of de- nying, because I could not rationally deny a fact of record; but I do not think he meant it to be accepted literally. What he probably did mean was simply that a person who pretends to wisdom must refrain from taking a dogmatic stand in re- gard to propositions the answer to which is not clear. The confusion here, it seems to me, has been the result of a non-sequitur, namely, the idea that because we cannot know everything about everything, we cannot know anything about any- thing. Thus, if after considering the pros and cons in reference to the conception of virtue we ar- rive at the conclusion that we cannot be sure of what it is, are we warranted In accepting this as 50 NEEDED READJUSTMENTS IN TERMS proof that we cannot know whether two is more or less than one or whether water runs up or down hill? But let us look a little further into this. Socra- tes claimed that he knew more than any of his contemporaries because he knew at least that he knew nothing, while the others did not even know that much; and the Skeptics went a step farther by proclaiming that they did not even know enough to know that they knew nothing. But here I enter a claim that stands as a diametrical opposite, namely, that I know positively not only some things, but so many things that I feel myself competent to go on making statements indefinitely without any fear of intelligent contradiction, so many in fact that there would not be enough paper in the world to print them all. Do I mean to indi- cate by this that I know infinitely more than Socra- tes knew? Not at all; for any ordinary child can do the same thing. Thus, one is less than two; one is less than three, and so on, ad infinitum. Again, A is a letter of the alphabet; B is a letter of the alphabet, etc. Or, B comes after A and before C; C comes after B and before D, etc.; New York has more inhabitants than Chicago; New York has more inhabitants than Philadelphia, etc. There is an impression to the effect that 51 THE PEOPLE S GOVERNMENT every one Is entitled to his own opinion. But can there be two Intelligent opinions on millions of pos- sible propositions of this sort? Would any of them admit of a denial or a counter proposition that society would not regard as ridiculous? If Socrates exceeded all other persons In wis- dom because he was conscious of the fact that he knew nothing, then I may claim the distinction of exceeding all other persons in stupidity because I am conscious of knowing more than all the paper In the world will print. However, as I am not sufficiently vain to claim any such distinction, my modesty leads me to believe that there Is some sort of a misunderstanding Involved here. And the explanation that I shall offer Is that while here- tofore there has been abroad the notion that the truth Is something too subtle for the human mind to grasp, I take the stand that It Is sometimes too obvious to attract our attention, and that In look- ing for the mote we may be overlooking the beam. Naturally the reader will be apt to believe that some light could be thrown on the question by re- ferring to a dictionary. But this idea In Itself serves to bring before us no less than a whole series of truths too obvious to attract our atten- tion. It Is true, first, that there Is a book devoted to the definition of words; secondly, that If we 52 NEEDED READJUSTMENTS IN TERMS wish to refer to it we must fetch It; thirdly, that we must look for truth under t; fourthly, that t comes after s, and so on. Here the critics may say that it is only making sport of the conception of truth to use such elementary ideas to illustrate it. But are the things I have mentioned not truths? And can there be two opinions in regard to any of them? Let us not look to the extreme end of the universe for the things that are so near at home. As for the connection between this and our problem, it is, namely, that when we are con- fronted by two opposite statements it must either so happen that neither can be proved to be true at the time and place, or that one of them can be proved to be true and the other untrue. And my contention is that when the latter is the case it will be invariably found that the untruthful statement results from the denial of facts as obvious and elementary as any of those mentioned above, it matters not how broad and comprehensive the subject may be. Perhaps this statement will be regarded as too dogmatic, and if it can be proved to be so I shall be only too glad to modify it In accordance with the evidence. At any rate, this would not serve to change my plan of depart- mental management except to the extent of strengthening it; for, insofar as that plan is con- 53 THE people's government cerned, it does not contemplate giving the sub- ordinate the authority to take issue with his boss unless he is capable of showing that the latter re- fuses to recognize an elementary fact. This, however, will be all that is required in the interest of universal progress from the stand- point of efficiency; for such progress is simply dependent upon the adoption of improvements in methods and devices when they have reached the stage at which their denial can be no longer main- tained on a rational basis. Heretofore it has been customary to pardon such denial on the score of conservatism, although it is evident that when conservatism reaches such a stage it can only be regarded as bona fide lying. In respect to the mo- tive for lying over matters of that nature, we need look no further than to the fact that the boss will be reluctant to acknowledge that a subordinate knew something that he did not know. However, when I proceed from truth to opinion, I find that I am leaping to the opposite extreme ; for while I look upon the idea of truth as a very elementary affair, that is, so far as It pertains to our problem, I regard that of opinion as one of the most, if not the most, complicated of all our con- ceptions, when regarded from the same point of 54 NEEDED READJUSTMENTS IN TERMS view. As for truth, this of course may be viewed from two sides, for It has a metaphysical as well as a physical significance; and I have refrained from calling attention to Its metaphysical aspect because this Is a matter apart from our problem. But I may well afford to do so, because truth In Its metaphysical sense Is so essentially different from truth In Its physical sense that no explanation is required to Indicate whether we are referring to the one or the other. For example, what is there in common between the two questions: " Is there a personal God?" and "Does water run downhill?" On the other hand, the difficulty with the word opinion Is that while, like truth, it has not only a physical, but also a metaphysical, significance, there Is nevertheless this difference between them that we are In the habit of using " opinion " In such a way that there may be nothing in the context to enable us to distinguish the physical from the meta- physical aspect. There Is perhaps no other term that brings the metaphysical so lightly Into play. From the point of view of our problem, I should define an opinion as a judgment, or per- haps rather an inference, based on facts acquired as the result of personal experience, or of study- ing the results of the experiences of others, or 5S THE PEOPLE S GOVERNMENT both. But opinions differ from our elementary truths in that they are lacking in certainty to such an extent that the converse, so far from being irra- tional, may be true; and where this is not the case the alleged opinions are not at the time mere opinions, for they have the validity of truths. Again, during the course of evolution facts loom up that serve to convert opinions into truths. Thus far the coast is clear; for what I have mentioned does not extend beyond the mere com- monplace. But this tells only one side of a two- sided tale, and the difficulties are to be found on the other. The side that I have given has been the one that may be variously designated as the theoretical, or academic, or universal, or imper- sonal, and the other as the practical, or non-acad- emic, or individual, or personal. If the difference between these two sides does not at once appear obvious to the reader, he can- not fail to appreciate my meaning when I call his attention to the fact that a distinction must be made between the opinion at which the individual has arrived as a result of his observations, studies, and reflections, on the one hand, and the opinion that he gives to those with whom he has business or official relations. The opinion he gives ap- pears in the form of a statement, which is clearly 56 NEEDED READJUSTMENTS IN TERMS a physical manifestation. But the opinion he has is purely subjective, unknowable to any one but himself, and therefore can only be classed with the metaphysical ideas. That is, you cannot know what I think about a proposition concerning which there is a reasonable doubt any more than you can know whether there is or is not a personal God. You can only know what I tell you that I think in regard to it. My statement merely in- dicates what I want you to think that I think of it; and whether it represents what I really think, or just the reverse, or a compromise between the two, you cannot know. Therefore your only guide to my thoughts is the statement which purports to be my opinion. But if the spirit of fair play is to prevail, this must be recognized to the extent that when a controversy arises between two indi- viduals, judgment must be passed not upon the basis of their relative standings as individuals, but only upon that of the relative values of the state- ments of the two parties, irrespective of their wealth or rank or reputations as thinkers, the only basis upon which the judiciary may claim a raison d^etre. If the opinion I give represents a sincere ac- count of the opinion I have, the statement is worthy of being regarded as truthful even if it Is 57 THE people's government not strictly speaking a truth, and, contrariwise, untruthful even if it should subsequently turn out to be a truth. But aside from the question of truthfulness we have that of competence. For granting that the statement made by an individual is truthful, the question then still remains whether or not that particular individual is sufficiently con- versant with the facts to have an enlightened opin- ion upon it. It is just here that the people gen- erally are in the habit of going astray by reason of the assumption that the opinions expressed by persons of higher standing are to be regarded as uniformly more worthy of credence than those expressed by persons of lower standing, whether from the standpoint of wealth, official rank, cul- ture, knowledge, or intelligence. But putting aside all considerations except those of education and intelligence, and granting that the minds of those who are superior in official rank are uniformly superior to the minds of any of their subordinates, a concession which in itself exceeds the limits of the rational, is it possible for any sane individual to go so far beyond this con- cession as really to believe that there is not a single topic upon which it is possible for a subordinate to be better posted than his boss? Of course it is not. Indeed, logically, the truth would 58 NEEDED READJUSTMENTS IN TERMS rather be the other way round, so that we should be sticking more closely to the rational by taking the stand that there was scarcely any topic upon which at least one out of a large number of subordinates was not better posted than his boss. This is the case for the reason that the subordinate's range of activity is ordinarily a great deal narrower than that of the boss, thus affording him an opportunity to become that much more familiar with the de- tails. Thus, while heretofore society has been in the habit of giving more credence to opinions ex- pressed by bosses than to those expressed by sub- ordinates, I am rather Inclined to take the other side. But, however this may be, I think I have said sufficient to indicate that if we are desirous of giving the truth the right of way over discipline, we must adjust our minds to the idea that it is not the authors of the statements, but the statements themselves, that must be considered on their mer- its. It Is only that I do not contemplate giving to subordinates the authority to take Issue with their bosses except In such Instances in which they are capable of proving that the decrees of the latter are contrary to the facts. It Is therefore not a question of opinion against opinion, but one of truth against untruth, that concerns us here; for 59 THE people's government where the truth is not clear I believe in giving the views of the boss the right of way. So much for opinion. Let us now direct our attention to the group of words which revolve around the conception of practicality. And here readjustments are surely in order; for these terms have come to be employed in such conflicting ways that their usage now-a-days can only be regarded as a travesty. To begin with, let us take the word most closely aUied to the term opinion, namely, theory, the bond of union between the two lying in the cir- cumstance that like ^' an opinon " so " a theory " may be defined as not a fact. On the other hand, however, there is this difference between them, that while an opinion is partly a subjective or per- sonal and partly an objective or impersonal affair, a theory is wholly an objective or impersonal af- fair, being intended to be received on its merits without regard to its authorship. What I have stated will suffice to indicate that although opinion and theory are in common par- lance often used interchangeably, they neverthe- less belong to different categories of thought. But having differentiated them in this way, and directing our attention to theory, we cannot pro- 60 NEEDED READJUSTMENTS IN TERMS ceed a single step without becoming involved in all sorts of contradictions. From the standpoint of our problem it is in- teresting to note, in the first place, that a theory, like an opinion, can only manifest itself as a state- ment, so that when we judge by appearances alone there is nothing to indicate whether it is the one or the other. Then the affair is further compli- cated by the fact that both truth and untruth as well can only appear as statements. Consequently, whenever a statement which does not represent a self-evident truth or untruth looms up before us, it is impossible for us to know at a glance whether it is a truth, an untruth, an opinion, or a theory, a condition which has a direct bearing on the re- lation between the boss and the subordinate. This will be appreciated when it Is borne in mind that dogmatic statements made by bosses are ordinarily accepted as truths or facts, while counter-state- ments when made by subordinates are ordinarily looked upon as untruths or theories. The ques- tion of opinion and counter-opinion never comes up In the relation between bosses and subordinates, because the latter are not entitled to express their views at all when these are avowedly mere opin- ions. This Is as it should be; and if I were the ruler of the universe I should issue a decree to 6i THE PEOPLE S GOVERNMENT the effect that the first offense in that direction should be punished by a reprimand or a fine, and the second offense by discharge. My maxim would be that the subordinate had no right to op- pose the boss unless he should catch him in a de- liberate lie; but I should punish deliberate lying on the part of bosses by discharge for the first offense. But putting aside the moral aspect of the prob- lem and confining our attention to the logical alone, the contradictions involved In the concep- tion of the term- theory begin to come into view when we contrast its particular with its general sense. Thus, for example, the reader will recog- nize that in the case of opinion a contrast of this nature is absolutely without significance ; for to de- clare that an opinion was not a fact would mean exactly the same thing as to declare that opinion was not fact. On the other hand, when we play the same trick with the word theory, we find an entirely different state of affairs, although this does not appear to have been generally recognized. For while it is true that a theory is not a fact, nothing could be more absurd than a declaration to the effect that theory was not fact; for theory in its general sense is synonymous with science, the characteristic feature of which Is its fidelity to 62 NEEDED READJUSTMENTS IN TERMS facts. In brief, theory is a blanket word which covers all literature pertaining to any sphere of knowledge, including, in the first place, all known laws a-nd fundamental principles ; secondly, all the facts recorded by all the workers within that sphere; and, thirdly, all the recorded opinions or views upon questions concerning which positive knowledge has not yet been attained. As for the bearing of the contrast upon our problem, this becomes evident when we look to the derivatives of the word, namely, theorist, the- orizer, and theoretical, which, both analogically and etymologically, are extremely delusive. For example, what is a botanist or a zoologist? The dictionary tells us that he is a student of, or one versed in, or a specialist in, botany or zoology. But when we refer to a person as a theorist, do we intend to convey the impression that he is versed in the theory of any particular subject, meaning by this that he is familiar with the funda- mental principles, the literature, and other data pertaining to It? Not at all; for a person so versed is classed as a student, a scholar, a scientist, a specialist, or an expert, as the case may be. The truth Is that when we speak lightly of a theorist, we do not mean one who has a thorough knowl- edge of his subject, but one who is regarded as 63 THE people's government Incapable of recognizing the difference between a theory and a fact, or who is incapable of seeing the folly of his views, and therefore deserves to be classed as a mental delinquent. The confusion that manifests itself here is played as a trump card by bosses in the way of an effort to ridicule those of their subordinates who have become suf- ficiently conversant with the facts through study to feel competent to take issue with their bosses on questions of fact. For the latter make it their business to convey the Impression to others that persons who read up the literature of their sub- ject lose their natural power to distinguish between a theory and a fact. If we look at this question from a practical point of view, it will be recognized that there are really three different varieties of persons who are to be classed as theorists. In the first place, we have those who answer the above description, that Is, persons who are In the habit of spinning out theories that are either out of harmony with known facts or have no practical bearing whatever. Sec- ondly, there are the persons who construct theories on the basis of known facts with a view to their application to fields In which they have not yet been utilized. It Is theorizing of this sort that 64 NEEDED READJUSTMENTS IN TERMS ultimately results in the various forms of discov- ery and Invention. In truth, nearly all the great Ideas have their Inception In a mere flight of the fancy as to how known phenomena may be util- ized In new ways. And, thirdly, we have the In- dividuals who are dubbed theorists by persons who have an object In causing others to believe that they are lacking In common sense, so that their statements may be looked upon as unworthy of at- tention. But this object Is always present when subordinates are too honest to cater to the wishes of unscrupulous bosses. Sometimes these public servants do have Impossible schemes, but this is by no means invariably the case; and whether or not this Is so In any particular instance Is in itself a question of facts. In view of what I have men- tioned It is evident that the term theorist stands for so many conflicting Ideas as to be unworthy of being credited with any definite meaning; so that if the truth is to prevail In controversies be- tween bosses and subordinates but one guide to a correct decision is at hand. This is, namely, the nature of the statement and that of the counter- statement, each of which must then be considered on its merits. Now when we turn from theorist to theoretical, it would be natural to suppose that we should be 65 THE people's government Still remaining as much within a related sphere of ideas as we are when we turn from botanist to botanical. This conception, however, will not hold on analysis; for the two words are no more closely related than theory in its particular sense is related to theory in its general sense, from which, in fact, they are respectively derived. To appreciate this it will be simply necessary to bear in mind that when we speak of a theorist we do not think of one who is given to the study of theory, but to one who is given to the construction of theories, while when we speak of a person who has enjoyed a theoretical training, we do not think of one who has been taught the art of constructing theories, which is something that cannot be taught, but of a person who has studied in the class-room and the library what others have observed and thought, thus acquiring the benefit of universal in contradistinction to individual experience. Another strange delusion exists in the traditional conception of the relation between theory and the- oretical, on the one hand, and practice and prac- tical, on the other. Upon this point Hamilton says: "The terms theory and theoretical are properly used in opposition to practice and prac- tical; in this sense they were exclusively employed 66 NEEDED READJUSTMENTS IN TERMS by the ancients; and in this sense they are almost exclusively employed by the continental philoso- phers." To my mind this quotation is of interest par- ticularly from an evolutionary point of view, be- cause it shows that while those terms were used exclusively by the ancients as opposites, the una- nimity was no longer maintained among philoso- phers in Hamilton's day. And taking his state- ment as it stands, the explanation is to be found in the fact that after the advent of science they could be no longer regarded in the light of oppo- sites, because, from a scientific standpoint, they are symbolic of mutual support. As for theory and practice, the one represents experience and the other reflection, which, so far from being opposed, travel together like the two feet in walking, or are connected as intimately as the alternate bricks in a wall. As a result of ex- perience we acquire Ideas, while the ideas thus ac- quired give us the ability to see things more ac- curately, and therefore to learn that much more from our experiences, and so on toward a greater degree of perfection. Therefore the notion that theory does not improve practice, or that a theoret- ical education does not form a very essential part of a practical education, is absurd. As the truth 67 THE people's government of this Is so evident, it might be supposed that no sane person would ever think of denying it. But this again is a delusion resulting from the fact that there are two sides to the question. Now while it will be generally conceded that one who reflects upon the results of his efforts will make more improvement than one who labors with- out reflection, we are nevertheless still too much dominated by the fallacy that reflection has no value unless it is based on the experiences of the individual himself; for the vast majority of per- sons are still under the impression that one per- son cannot learn from the experiences of others. The fact is, however, that of a thousand and one Ideas In our minds, but one has been acquired as the result of our individual experiences, while the thousand represent the experiences of others. In- deed, If we did not profit by the observations and reflections of others in that proportion, more or less, we should still be in an uncivilized state. Practical people have no respect for the views of theorists, although they are sufiiclently benevolent to humor them to the extent of using electric lights, telephones, elevators, automobiles, trains, steamships, the telegraph wire, wireless teleg- raphy, and other visionary things of that ilk. Next, as for theoretical being opposed to prac- 68 NEEDED READJUSTMENTS IN TERMS deal, such a supposition would convey the notion that theoretical and practical knowledge, so far from traveling hand In hand, represented in fact opposing armies. But If so the logical conclu- sion would necessarily be that the study of books tended to weaken the powers of observation. This Is actually claimed by bosses who do not want their subordinates to become too enlightened. Perhaps the bosses are right. But If so are we sane In con- tending that we are a practical people so long as we continue to lend our support to schools, uni- versities, and libraries? And if this question seems ridiculous, does It not seem equally ridic- ulous to declare that theoretical knowledge does not deserve to be placed In the category of prac- tical knowledge? This simply shows again how essential it is in the interest of universal progress to revise our Ideas as to the meaning of terms that have a bearing upon efficiency. Next, let us consider the word practical, which Is perhaps more competent than any other In the entire vocabulary to Illustrate the absurdities In verbiage when carried to their logical conclusion; for there is none that more openly stands for op- posite Ideas with nothing in the context to show whether it Is Intended to convey a certain mean- 69 THE people's government ing or the reverse. And what can we make of a term that may be defined as both yes and no, with nothing In the context to help us out? As for em- ploying the same words to express opposite ideas or opposite words to express the same ideas, there Is nothing unusual about that; and In view of the paucity of terms It Is perfectly legitimate to do so when the sense serves to prevent any misunder- standing. For example, is there anything am- biguous about the statement that the train ran fast until it stuck fast in a snow drift? Or does it make any difference whether I say that a factory was going to shut down or shut up ? As for the direct bearing of the term upon our problem, this Is Illustrated by the refusal on the part of a boss to adopt a suggestion from a sub- ordinate on the score that the idea Is not practical. To most persons this will suffice to serve as a sat- isfactory explanation, because most persons are as much In the habit of bewaring of anything that the boss labels as such as they are of a mad bull. This, however. Is simply owing to the fact that they do not stop to consider that the subordinate would not have made the suggestion if he had not had reason to believe that it was practical. And the logic of this is that the question of practicality simply resolves itself Into one of facts. That is, 70 NEEDED READJUSTMENTS IN TERMS whether or not the suggested Idea Is practical can- not be decided by the boss arbitrarily any more than any other question of facts which In the ulti- mate analysis will resolve itself into one of ve- racity. In regard to the contradictions involved In the term, these may be perhaps most aptly Illustrated by taking as examples the three Ideas of a prac- tical boss, a practical subordinate, and a practical device or method, respectively. When we speak of a device or method as being practical, we mean, of course, that It is one which Is capable of doing Its work efficiently; and it is this that creates the Impression generally that practicality Is more or less synonymous with efficiency. But when we speak of a practical boss, do we necessarily refer to one who directs his efforts toward seeing that the work entrusted to his care Is performed effi- ciently? Not at all, for the boss who concentrates his attention upon the performance of his duties In any such manner Is not regarded as a practical man, but as an Idealist. The truth Is that the prac- tical boss Is one who understands how to take ad- vantage of the opportunity to profit by the confi- dence reposed In him by others without getting caught; while the question of efficiency does not really concern him at all. And It Is for this rea- 71 THE PEOPLE S GOVERNMENT son that the service is the least efficient when per- formed under the direction of bosses who from the standpoint of pohtics have the reputation of being the most practical. As for the subordinates, it is not necessarily the most efficient among them who acquire the reputation of being the most prac- tical ; for this distinction is won by those who best understand how to accommodate themselves to the conditions of their environment, that is, by those who are saints in the company of saints and sinners in the company of sinners. The practical subordinate does as he is told, and like the faith- ful proof-reader follows his copy even when he is obliged to jump out of a fourth story window after it. He keeps his own counsel; never has any- thing to suggest; and before all he steers clear of any and all things that could possibly throw him into a controversy with his boss. The device, then, is practical in proportion to its efficiency; the boss in proportion to his ability to utilize his op- portunities to profit at the expense of others; and the subordinate in proportion to his disposition to obey orders and keep his own views to himself. What I have stated will suffice to show that the conception of practicality may be viewed from two different standpoints, the one being personal and the other impersonal; personal practicality being 72 NEEDED READJUSTMENTS IN TERMS represented by the idea of being successful In ac- quiring wealth or rank, irrespective of the methods employed to reach the goal, and impersonal prac- ticality by the Idea of rendering efficient service, irrespective of the conception of reward or pun- ishment. The question then Is whether the ap- pellation of practical shall be given to the individ- ual who succeeds In acquiring wealth or rank with- out performing any service that will accrue to the benefit of society, or to the one who accomplishes things that do accrue to the benefit of humanity without a thought as to the quid pro quo. As a result of tradition we have acquired the habit of classifying those who center their thoughts in self-advancement as practical and those who cen- ter them in the performance of their duty or on social advancement as idealists or theorists. But are not the thoughtful writers, the inventors, and the reformers more practical members of society than those who win rank and fortune by taking advantage of their fellow men? If a great In- ventor should never receive any profits from his Inventions, would this justify us In declaring that his Inventions were not practical? That I am not the first to recognize that the term has opposite meanings is proved by the manner in which the dictionaries try to define it. While, 75 THE people's government for example, the Standard, definition 2, Informs us that practical means " unscrupulous; as a prac- tical politician," definition 5 tells us that It means " manifested In practice, as practical religion." And this version Is followed by a quotation from "Pilgrim's Progress," which says: "The soul of religion is the practical part." Are we to judge from this that the soul of religion is its unscrupulous part? Or does not all this rather leave us in the dark as to whether practicality Is something desirable or undesirable, as in the case of the alleged enlightenment we get from the defi- nition of ambition in the same dictionary? For, while definition 2 tells us that " ambition " means : " An eager desire or steadfast purpose to achieve something commendable or that which is right in itself," what are we to make of this when it is preceded by this quotation from Nordhoff: " Teach yourself to despise ambition; it is one of the meanest of passions." Are we to learn from it that the desire to do right because It Is right is one of the meanest of passions, or that our vo- cabulary is in need of reform? In view of what I have mentioned it is evident that we are in need of so readjusting our minds as to the meaning of practicality that we may be pre- vented from falling into the error of confusing per- 74 NEEDED READJUSTMENTS IN TERMS sonal success with working efficiency. Thus, while an individual may be more successful than the average because he Is more efficient, It must be re- membered that his greater success may also be due to factors that have no direct bearing on working efficiency, such as luck in becoming placed in a suc- cessful environment, or in making Investments that turn out successfully, or again because he may be more unscrupulous. And, contrariwise, while an individual may be less successful than the average because he is less efficient, It may also be that he is so for reasons that have no bearing on his efficiency whatever. This is very well illustrated by the fact that so many of those who have been promi- nent factors in raising society to a higher plane of efficiency have themselves been unable to earn their salt. These have assisted in paving the way for an increase in earnings or a decrease in costs that can only be estimated In terms of billions, while they themselves have remained poor. As for my plan of departmental management, it had Its inception simply in the fact that the ideas which have the most practical value are so fre- quently held by persons who have the reputation of being the least practical among a group of work- ers. And my suggestion in regard to the estab- lishment of an efficiency court has no object in 75 THE people's government view other than that of giving the lowly as well as those in high station an opportunity to tell to an impartial tribunal just why they claim that the methods and devices suggested by them are more efficient than those they are commanded to use. In the interest of universal progress in general, and in that of fair play to subordinates in particular, then, it is incumbent upon us to adopt the view that practicality has no legitimate meaning other than that of efficiency, so that when a boss de- clares that a suggested method or device is not practical, it must be taken to mean that he does not regard it as efficient, a declaration, however, which in turn must be looked upon as a question of facts, and decided on its merits by an impartial tribunal. 76 CHAPTER IV PRACTICALITY AND EFFICIENCY Now when we direct our attention to the term practicality In Its relation to efficiency, we have by no means clear sailing, because practicality has not only an absolute, but also a comparative, meaning. Thus, In the first place. Is the apparatus, method, or person A capable of doing this or that piece of work at all? And, secondly. Is A capable of do- ing It as well as or better than B or Incapable of doing It as well? That an entity which Is incapable of doing at all what It attempts to do is not practical Is self- evident. If a machine that Is heavier than air cannot be made to fly. It is naturally a fool only who will call It a practical flying machine. But here the element of change is brought into play; for a machine of that nature which cannot be made to rise from the ground to-day may perhaps be made to do so to-morrow, and to stay in the air the day after to-morrow, and therefore become practical in time. Then after it has once demon- 77 THE people's government strated its ability to fly for a more or less substan- tial period, it is the fool only who will declare that it cannot be made to fly. This much, which illustrates the conception of practicality from the absolute standpoint, is too clear to require further comment. From the rela- tive point of view, however, the conception is by no means as simple as this, because confusion is thrown into the camp from the fact that the no- tion includes not only that of evolution, but that of devolution as well, in the sense of falling be- hind in the race when superseded by something better. What I have in mind here is the idea that at least in most instances the things that are of use to us from a mechanical standpoint are characterized by the three stages that may be termed: (i) the not yet satisfactory; (2) the satisfactory; and (3) the no longer satisfactory, which would correspond to the conceptions of the not yet practical, the practical, and the no longer practical. In brief, the satisfactory or practical stage be- gins when a new thing has been developed to the point where from the standpoint of efficiency it is capable of competing on an equal footing with other things in the field that are intended to ac- complish the same purpose under the same condi- 78 PRACTICALITY AND EFFICIENCY tions; and it ends when after having reached its maximum something new with greater latent effi- ciency has been developed to the point where it has succeeded in surpassing this maximum; the newcomer then remaining the practical thing until it is surpassed by another in the same manner. It is therefore an error to believe that a thing is prac- tical simply because it is capable of doing the work for which it is intended. That a more efficient will eventually replace a less efficient device is obvious from the fact that if this did not occur there would be no such thing as universal progress, although a long time always elapses before the replacement is complete, be- cause a change Is never effected except through the adoption of the superior device by one individual or group of Individuals after another. Here the question In which we are Interested is that of de- termining whether It Is those who are among the first to fall in line or those who hold back until they are compelled by the conditions to do so that are to be regarded as the more practical. If the reader should regard this as a foolish question he would be laboring under a delusion, because while a priori it is natural to look upon the former as such, the fact is that our ambiguous verbiage throws so much confusion Into the camp that the 79 THE people's government question cannot be satisfactorily answered unless it is analyzed in the light of both intellectual and moral considerations. From the intellectual point of view the am- biguity becomes obvious when we bear in mind the distinction that is made in business between the scientific and the practical man. By a scien- tific man is meant one who believes in basing his views on the results of universal experience, and by a practical man one who believes in relying primarily on the results of his own experiences. This distinction as I see it should be Interpreted not so much in the light of a difference In early training as In that of mental attitude; because we know from observation that a scientific training does not necessarily make the Individual broad- minded or the absence of It narrow-minded, for these qualities are born rather than made. The guiding star of the scientific mind Is Investigation, and the zenith of Its philosophy standardization, while the guiding star of the so-called practical man Is his personal judgment, based partly on in- accurate observation, and partly on his own In- stincts or Intuitions. The former Is a truth seeker and the latter a slave to his whims and conceit. In view of what has been mentioned the answer to our question has become self-evident, because 80 PRACTICALITY AND EFFICIENCY under such conditions It Is as natural for the sclen- tlfically-mlnded individuals to precede the prac- tically-minded ones in abandoning the less in favor of the more efficient devices as it is for water to run down hill. The range of vision of the prac- tical man is limited for the most part to that of his own environment, while that of the scientific man is practically unlimited, because it includes not only his own environment, but that of his con- temporaries as well, so that he becomes cognizant of developments of which the practical man re- mains in Ignorance. Indeed the ignorance of in- numerable practical men who are regarded by the unsophisticated as oracles would furnish food for fairy tales galore. An important element to be considered in con- nection with the idea of a change in two directions is that from a strictly universal point of view there is but one thing which is always up to date, and that Is the present day. But a puzzling fea- ture in regard to time, and one that has a very es- sential bearing on the element of progress, is that of determining whether yesterday is to be looked upon as the day before or behind to-day. Its practical significance manifests itself when we come to consider the question of leadership. The puzzle lies in the fact that when we refer to a for- 8i THE people's government ward movement, as in a parade, we recognize that before indicates in front or ahead or in advance of. Thus, the officials came before the common- ers, or, again, the commoners came after the offi- cials. However, when we refer to time this order is completely reversed, because to-morrow, which is the day in front of us, is the day after this. But the contradiction becomes at once resolved when we conceive of a movement in opposite direc- tions, the one representing progress and the other time; progress being a forward and time a back- ward movement. There is, however, this differ- ence between the two forms of motion, that the forward movement is accomplished as a result of human effort, while the backward movement is accomplished against our will; time carrying us backward while we stand still, as on a moving plat- form. The philosophy of this Is that if we wish to protect ourselves against being carried backward by time, we are compelled to keep marching for- ward on the moving platform at a rate of speed equal to that at which It moves in a backward di- rection. It Is In this way only that it Is possible for us to keep our ideas up to date. Naturally, when I use this figure I intend that It shall be so interpreted as to convey the picture that there are 82 PRACTICALITY AND EFFICIENCY innumerable moving platforms traveling at greatly varying rates of speed, corresponding to the na- ture of different ideas; some being capable of holding their own for a long period against all other competitors In the field, while others are superseded at a very rapid pace. In the former instances but little effort need be expended upon marching forward In order to keep up to date, while at the other extreme keeping up-to-date will call for continual hustle and bustle. If we look at the world from the above men- tioned standpoint, namely, that progress moves in a forward and time In a backward direction. It will be necessary for us to come to a clearer under- standing as to the meaning and value of experi- ence. The difficulty here Is again due to the fact that the term stands for different conceptions, but without adequate psychological differentiations. A proverb tells us that experience Is the best teacher. However, while In spirit It tells the truth. Its phraseology is entirely too vague to con- vey any definite meaning, although If modified in two directions it will. In my opinion, tell the truth literally as well as In spirit. As it stands It is lacking in both strength and breadth. The con- ception of experience being the best teacher is erroneous, because In fact it Is the only teacher. 83 THE PEOPLE S GOVERNMENT Therefore the proverb would be duly strength- ened if it should read: Experience is the only teacher. But this again is erroneous in that it conveys the impression that there is here a single teacher only, while in truth there is a staff of three teachers; and this is wherein it is lacking in breadth. The three teachers are : ( i ) practice, or learn- ing to do by doing; (2) personal observation and reflection in the course of one's practice, the ele- ments that serve to make it intelligent instead of purely mechanical; and (3) universal guidance, whereby one individual receives the benefit of the results of the activities and reflections of others, which represents the study of theory, and includes that form of investigation which gives us the sta- tistical knowledge that leads to standardization. These three conceptions would be represented by the propositions : ( i ) I learn to do by doing. This is the purely mechanical point of view, which is exemplified by length of service alone, as " I have had five years' experience in this or that line." (2)1 learn to do better by observing the different ways in which I attempt to do the same things and then comparing the results. This is the practical point of view. And (3) I learn to do best by studying how others in the same field are doing 84 PRACTICALITY AND EFFICIENCY what I attempt to do, and then comparing my re- sults with theirs. This represents the scientific bent of mind, which seeks guidance in standards. These are the three conceptions of the mean- ing and value of experience. The only difference between scientific management, on the one hand, and unscientific or practical management, on the other, is that in the former guidance is sought in universal experience, while in the latter the views of the bosses alone are in control. The practical man does not by any means claim that he is unable to learn from others. On the contrary, he claims to be most reasonable In this respect. It is only that he finds that those who disagree with him are invariably in the wrong. An interesting question in this connection is that concerning the comparative values of knowledge and skill in their relation to working efficiency. From the standpoint of knowledge two things are required: (i) knowing what ought to be done under given conditions; and (2) knowing how the thing ought to be done in the light of the latest Information. Admitting that knowledge has no practical value unless It leads to doing, the ques- tion is whether or not it can be designated as prac- tical if the knower has had no personal experience in that particular line of work. In brief, if as a 85 THE PEOPLE S GOVERNMENT result of study I learn what ought to be done and how, can that knowledge be made of practical value to anybody unless I acquire the ability to do it myself? Upon this point opinions differ. Log- ically, however, the question will permit of but one answer, namely, that the practical value of my knowledge is not contingent upon my ability to do the work myself, because the same purpose will be served if I impart this information to one who happens to possess the ability to do it. Its value will then manifest itself in the form of in- creased efficiency on the part of the latter. If this is recognized, then it will be apparent that if B has the information it will be absolutely immaterial whether he has had more or less prac- tical experience than A or none whatever. Should human affairs be universally conducted on this prin- ciple then but little would be heard of antiquation, because the A's who were kept too busy with rou- tine matters to keep in touch with the times them- selves would resort to the procedure of maintain- ing a lookout by employing B's to watch for new developments, and to let them know when the day had arrived upon which it became advisable to change their methods and devices. But unfor- tunately the cause of progress here meets with an obstacle in the form of human nature, in that those 86 PRACTICALITY AND EFFICIENCY who have the power to decide what shall be done, as well as those who have had experience in doing, are, at least for the most part, unwilling to follow the advice of such B's as I have indicated, upon whom they have become accustomed to look as theorists or dreamers. Here then we have an- other inversion in that those who are standing still believe themselves to be moving, while those who are moving forward are said to be dreaming. Another practical application of the same idea manifests itself when we come to consider the question of the relative values of the judgments of the older and younger in service. Thus, assum- ing that A and B are of equal intellectual caliber, and that they had both completed an equal techni- cal course, the former in 1880 and the latter in 1 9 10, are we justified in concluding that on the whole the judgments of the former are necessarily of greater value in 19 11 because he has had thirty-one years' experience, while the latter has had but one year's experience or less? My an- swer is in the negative, because I maintain that the relative values of their judgments will be depen- dent both upon the nature of the question at issue and the use that the older In service has made of that additional period. If the latter happened to have the bent of mind that impelled him to keep 87 THE PEOPLE S GOVERNMENT moving forward at an adequate pace while time was carrying him backward, then on the whole his opinions would possess a greater value, because, in addition to being as well informed as the latter, he would have acquired an amount of worldly wisdom in the form of a knowledge of the tricks of the trade that the latter would not have had the opportunity to acquire. However, if he had failed to keep in touch with the times after his graduation in 1880, while material progress had been made in his line later, then there would be forms of knowledge, notably in respect to methods and devices, in which he would be not thirty years ahead of but thirty years behind the latter, and the value of their judgments would be reversed. It is often regarded as a joke that a newcomer in any given field should believe himself to be capable of giving advice to those who had been active in it for a generation or more. But the joke is really on the other side; because if he is in possession of the knowledge of the most recent developments, while the others had failed to keep in touch with the times, a mere glance at the situa- tion may suffice to tell the tale to the Inexperienced man. There is a proverb in English which tells us that gray hairs bring wisdom. But as against this there is one in German that reads: Kein PRACTICALITY AND EFFICIENCY Esel so gross wie ein alter Esel. You pay your money and take your choice. So much for the relation of practicality to work- ing efficiency from the intellectual point of view. Let us now take a glance at its moral aspect, which differs from the intellectual in that it introduces an element which does not enter as a factor in the latter, namely, the selfish motive, that is, the mo- tive which leads the individual to seek guidance not in the light of truth, but in that of his own personal interests. While from a purely logical standpoint practicality and efficiency travel in par- allel lines in that, all other things being equal, the individual may be said to be the more practical the more he is on the lookout for new develop- ments in methods and devices, the parallelism no longer holds true in a uniform sense when self- interest enters as a factor. And the reason is that there are conditions under which self-interest and efficiency come into conflict in such manner that the individual serves his own interests best not when he endeavors to increase his efficiency, but when he does the reverse. In such instances there is an element that ranks above efficiency from the standpoint of practicality, and this is poHcy, which manifests itself differently under different condi- tions. 89 THE people's government There Is, however, but one situation of interest to us here, namely, that in which a subordinate who knows more than his boss is expected by the latter to act as if he knew less. And this situation al- ways arises when a boss is possessed of these two characteristics: (i) Love of power to the ex- tent of demanding implicit obedience to his com- mands; and (2) conceit to the extent of resenting the implication that he does not know it all. But when such a condition does obtain the subordinate cannot be obedient to his chiefs commands unless he steps backward from a more modern to a more antiquated position. In brief, if the boss demands that he be looked upon by his subordinates as their leader in thought as well as in rank, it is evident that those who are ahead of him in thought will fare better at his hands by pretending to be be- hind him and acting accordingly than they will if they are sufficiently true to their honest convictions to refuse to submit to his bigotry. No further comments are required to prove that from the standpoint of self-interest the individual may be placed in a position in which he will be more prac- tical if he suppresses his efficiency than if he at- tempts to develop it. This is particularly the case in our country, where official rank bears so very little relation to merit, and bossism reigns supreme. 90 PRACTICALITY AND EFFICIENCY A point to be considered In this connection is that the retrogression In or suppression of effi- ciency on the part of a subordinate for a selfish reason is not under all conditions to be regarded as unethical, because the problem of the tangible in contradistinction to the intangible master here enters as a factor; and the difference is that from the standpoint of efficiency the law of compensa- tion acts differently in the two instances. For in the former the penalty for Inefficiency is paid by the person under whose direction the service is performed, while in the latter it Is paid by others. In brief, if the proprietor of a business tells an employee to do his work in a way that the latter knows to be more wasteful than need be, the em- ployee may be morally obligated to suggest a better way, but he is by no means morally obligated to re- fuse to waste after having made the suggestion, because the proprietor is privileged to waste if he chooses. But where there is no tangible master his place Is supplied by one who holds a position of trust; and his status differs from that of the proprietor in that he is specifically pledged to con- duct the affairs In his charge with the smallest pos- sible amount of waste. In such Instances, there- fore, the problem of efficiency has not only an economic but a moral bearing as well, because the 91 THE PEOPLE S GOVERNMENT individual in a position of this nature who does not do all in his power to eliminate waste is mor- ally guilty of a breach of trust. Naturally, as questions of morality belong to the category of the will, it follows that waste cannot be immoral unless it is voluntary, so that it would be unjust to class it as dishonest if it should be the result of ignorance. And as charity is always to be commended, we ought to be charitable enough to assume that no individual in a position of trust would ever be depraved to the extent of delib- erately commanding a subordinate to waste the property of his employer; and we should therefore train ourselves to believe that the command to waste is always given in ignorance. The logic of it is, then, that the immorality of the act is to be charged not against the official who commands, but against the subordinate who obeys, when he knows that in doing so he is committing a wrong. This, however, is not intended to imply that the subordinate who consciously does wrong under these conditions is necessarily to be held morally responsible for his immoral action. Thus, if the act is considered by itself, we are justified in con- cluding that it was his duty to refuse to obey the command. But when we come to consider the consequences of the refusal, we find ourselves 92 PRACTICALITY AND EFFICIENCY caught in a trap if we are too dogmatic as to this, because the refusal may result in a greater wrong, so that we are here confronted by the problem of the conflict of duties. What I have in mind is the fact that every individual is under obligation to earn a livelihood in order that he may not become a burden to society; and if his refusal should cost him his position, he may be committing a greater wrong by refusing to commit a dishonest act upon the command of his boss than by complying with his request. Consequently no rule on this score will hold, but every instance will have to be de- cided on its own merits. However, if the boss cannot be held morally responsible when he gives an improper command in ignorance, or the subordinate ethically accounta- ble if he consciously obeys a dishonest command in order to keep his family from want, are we therefore forced to conclude that there is no such thing as moral responsibility for wrongs done when labor is performed in groups in the absence of a tangible master? I answer emphatically in the negative, because this would leave out of con- sideration the fact that there were masters in the field even if they were not tangible. And in the ultimate analysis it will be found that the moral responsibility rests upon the shoulders of the in- 93 THE people's government tangible masters, that is, upon the shoulders of those who voluntarily confer upon an individual in a position of trust the power to command his subordinates to degrade themselves as a condition of service. As I see it, then, the unnecessary waste coinci- dent upon the conduct of public and corporate af- fairs IS due to the power voluntarily conferred by the intangible masters upon officials to prevent their subordinates from being sufficiently true to themselves to labor honestly for their daily wage. That the people do not confer such power upon the bosses with that intent is too evident to call for comment. What then is their object in doing so ? None whatever except to be true to the hypo- thesis that the person who is responsible for the results of labor should have the power to do it or have it done as he thinks best. However, while this theory is perfectly just, it is anything but just to apply it In this connection, because, as I have stated on a previous page, there is in the land of officialdom no such thing as responsibility for waste. Consequently, in this Instance, the result- ing condition represents power without responsi- bility, and this is despotism. 94 CHAPTER V RATIONAL VERSUS IRRATIONAL LEADERSHIP As for the element that renders the power des- potic, this is simply the result of the traditional belief that the individual who is selected as the leader in action is entitled to be looked upon as the leader in thought as well, which represents a most stupendous fallacy. To appreciate this it will be simply necessary to recognize that leader- ship in action may be conferred through election or appointment upon an individual whose qualifica- tions are very mediocre, while genuine leadership in thought results from merit alone. However, while all this is too well known to require further comment, why is it that from the beginning of time to the present day it has been the custom of society to ignore such facts, and act upon the principle that the brains follow the votes as com- merce follows the flag? But do we not act on that principle when in our daily practices we so invert things that while we may know that the man at the top is not there because he knows the most, 95 THE people's government we nevertheless feel obligated to give him credit for knowing the most because he is on top? To give an Individual credit for knowing more than he knows Is not necessarily condemnable, be- cause it is not only gracious to be courteous, but godly to be more generous than just. However, from the standpoint of academic honesty there are conditions under which such credit not only ceases to be either gracious or godly, but, on the contrary, must be looked upon as no less than satanic in its nature. And this is the case when the courtesy Is bestowed upon an individual at the expense of others without their consent, which is always the condition when It Is bestowed upon the chief of a group of workers. In brief, such is the law of compensation that we cannot give the chief the credit of knowing more than he knows without giv- ing the subordinate the credit of knowing less than he knows. But why resort to the extremity of calling this satanic? Simply because a policy of this nature cannot be followed without making sport of truth, and to make sport of truth is dia- bolical. If this is not clear It will become so when it is borne in mind that we cannot give an indi- vidual credit for knowing more than he knows un- less on occasions we resort to the expedient of per- mitting his statements to count as true when we 96 RATIONAL VERSUS IRRATIONAL LEADERSHIP know them to be untrue, and, vice versa, that we cannot give an individual credit for knowing less than he knows unless on such occasions we call his statements untrue when we know them to be true. The occasions to which I here refer specifically are those upon which a subordinate is sufficiently un- practical to value the truth more than his job, and therefore to rebel against the existing order of things to the extent of refusing to obey his boss when the latter asks him to do what he knows to be wrong. The question that arises here is that of deter- mining whether upon such occasions the subordi- nate should be discharged. Naturally if this ques- tion should be put to a class of children in the school room it would be unanimously answered In the negative, because academically society would side with the subordinate. But from a practical point of view the answer Is by no means so simple, because disobedience on the part of a subordinate in a group of workers cannot fail to exert a de- moralizing Influence upon his colleagues which may lead to disorganization. Regarding the devil's part In the game, does not this become manifest in the conception of the demoralizing influence of morality? But who Is to blame for such a condition? Is 97 THE people's government the subordinate to blame for producing discord by refusing to obey a wrongful command? If we accept the contradictory definitions and quotations of the dictionary to the effect that the desire to do right because it is right is one of the meanest of passions, then he must be looked upon as the culprit. However, as this logic will not be re- garded as respectable in respectable society, we shall have to exonerate the subordinate whose con- scientious scruples have gained a mastery over him. How society would answer the question if it should be put to a vote to-day is clear; for it would ap- pear to it that the boss was to blame in command- ing the subordinate to commit a dishonest deed. In truth, however, this would be fully as unjust as to blame the subordinate for demoralizing the service by refusing to be dishonest. The reason is that as their leader in thought It is his duty to direct his subordinates to do what he believes to be best. Then if he is not wise enough to recog- nize his own limitations, he may ask them in ig- norance to do what they know to be wrong, in which instance he surely Is not morally guilty. Indeed I am sufficiently charitable to go further and declare that we are not necessarily justified in regarding him as morally guilty even when he is aware that he is doing wrong, because we must 98 RATIONAL VERSUS IRRATIONAL LEADERSHIP consider not only the deed, but the temptation as well ; and if we put too much temptation in an in- dividual's way we cannot blame him for doing wrong any more than we can blame a chain for breaking if we place too great a burden upon it. Yet it is a matter of history that there is no form of temptation that can be compared to official power in the hands of a lover of power when he has no respect for truth or justice and his subjects are not protected by adequate means of redress. In such instances his mind becomes literally un- balanced in that his passions gain a mastery over his reason, and he is no longer morally accountable for his actions. Official power numbers among its prerogatives the privilege on the part of the in- cumbent to do unto others as others are not per- mitted to do unto him. But unless this privilege Is counterbalanced by a force of equal Intensity in favor of the subject, its exercise by those who are slaves to their passions is liable, even In the very centers of civilization, to lead to arbitrary deci- sions worthy of a Munchausen without overstep- ping the limits of the law. With us It has resulted in what has been termed government by bosses. In the ultimate analysis, then, the blame for the maintenance in our country of a condition under 99 THE people's government which morality frequently comes to be a cause of demoralization rests upon the shoulders of those who lead their officials into the inordinate tempta- tion of giving them the power to command their subordinates to do wrong without making adequate provision for the protection of those who refuse to do what they know to be wrong. However, this would all be changed by adopting the system of conducting the departments on judiciary prin- ciples. If the departments should be conducted on ju- diciary principles in such manner that every indi- vidual in the public service would be free to be as honest in the position of subordinate without preju- dice to his job or preferment as his nature bids him to be in the conduct of his private affairs, then from a moral standpoint alone the system would be worth inaugurating. However, the emancipa- tion of the subordinate is not the end of the system, but merely the means to a very much loftier end, namely, the emancipation of the reason from the domination of the will. The ultimate goal, there- fore, would be the triumph of the reason over the passions in the conduct of public affairs, and con- sequently the realization of the philosopher's dream in at least one field of activity. The emancipation of the reason from the will lOO RATIONAL VERSUS IRRATIONAL LEADERSHIP translated Into common parlance means simply that the truth Is to be given the precedence over all other considerations. What I refer to here Is truth not in the mystical sense, but as represented by statements of facts capable of verification by accepted standards of proof, as Indicated on pre- vious pages. But is It necessary to Inaugurate a new system of departmental management in order that such elementary truths as these may have the right of way over the will of those in power? This question may be answered most emphatically In the affirmative, and simply for the reason that official power in the traditional sense confers upon the incumbent the privilege of disregarding the ac- cepted standards of proof, and therefore of form- ing irrational judgments upon which his subordi- nates are expected to act, thus subjecting them to Irrational leadership. The only object I have In pleading for the establishment of the efficiency courts Is that of putting a check upon the chief w^hen he forms judgments that cannot be sus- tained without violating the accepted standards of proof. And if the opportunity for violating them Is eliminated, then obvious untruth and injustice as well as voluntary waste will be eliminated apace. My contention is then that every unjust decision is the result of a chain of reasoning which contains lOI THE people's government at least one step as irrational as the statement that water does not run down hill or that 2 + 2 = not 4, although an analysis may be re- quired to bring that step to the light. I maintain as well that all unnecessary waste results from de- cisions of that nature, so that it would all be eliminated with the elimination of the irrational link. Now in view of this does it appear that I am making a great demand upon an enlightened society in asking it to grant to the subordinate merely the privilege of refusing to act upon the principle that two and two do not make four? Of course it does not, because the request is apparently so modest. But things are not always what they seem; and nothing can be more mistaken than the notion that the request is modest, because it can- not be granted without abandoning the traditional belief that the leader in action shall also enjoy the status of leader in thought, while this cannot be abandoned without a psychological revolution. As to just what I mean by leadership in thought in departmental management, it will suffice for me to mention that it would be represented by the statement: " You must believe what I tell you to believe, and act accordingly." Naturally, as no one can be forced to believe what he does not really 102 RATIONAL VERSUS IRRATIONAL LEADERSHIP believe, the enforcement cannot be extended be- yond the hypocritical stage of pretense, which causes the subordinate to lead a double life, that of the true and that of the subordinate self. But if the subordinate should be given the privilege of remaining sufficiently true to himself to refuse to act upon what he knows to be untrue, then it is evident that the boss would be deprived of the privilege of commanding him to believe what he tells him to believe, and therefore of his status of leader in thought. Under this arrangement the status of the boss would not be changed so far as leadership In action was concerned, because his executive and supervisory functions would remain unaltered. In that he would still have the power to issue orders to his subordinates and to insist upon their being obeyed. It is only that he would be deprived of the power to enforce the irrational, because the subordinates would have the power to offer resistance when they knew that the orders were indefensible in the light of the reason. But could not the subordinate be mistaken as to this? Not unless he had gone Insane, because his privi- lege of resisting would be limited to the sphere of demonstrable proof that could not be mistaken by one who was sane. 103 THE PEOPLE S GOVERNMENT But how about the leader in thought? What kind of a person should we select to occupy that position when no longer occupied by the leader in action? The answer to this is very simple; for as no one is competent to do justice to it unless he possesses the two qualifications of omniscience and moral perfection, it will have to be abolished as a personal conception and its place supplied by something of a higher order, something which even the boss will be obliged to acknowledge as his superior. And this is the truth in the form of facts capable of verification by the two universally recognized standards of proof, namely, the evi- dence of the senses and the rules of simple arith- metic. In brief, what we need is to free ourselves of the conception of an official leader in thought, and adopt in its stead that of the leading thought. Yet this proposition is again revolutionary, be- cause it cannot be accepted unless we disregard the wealth, official rank, and personal influence of the sponsors and opponents of an issue that awaits our decision, while our habits of thought have trended in the opposite direction. But shall we worship the Golden Rule or the Golden Calf? The terms leader in action, leader in thought, and leading thought, as I have them in mind, may be expressed in the form of a figure, as follows: 104 RATIONAL VERSUS IRRATIONAL LEADERSHIP Line // Line /// Leadership in Thought Leading thought E D C B A A B C D E Order Constant B Order Variable C > o* D E In this figure action is represented by the ver- tical line and thought by the two horizontal lines. From the standpoint of action the vertical rep- resentation is proper, because it conveys the im- pression of superiority and inferiority in official rank, an arrangement which is essential to the maintenance of discipline when individuals labor in groups toward the attainment of a specified end. And in regard to thought the horizontal repre- sentation is proper, because it conveys the im- pression of relativity from the standpoint of prog- ress. As for Lines // and ///, the former is intended to stand for the idea of leadership in thought and the latter for that of the leading thought. It will be noted that they differ in two particulars. In 105 THE people's government the first place, Line II is attached to Line I, while Line III is free. And, secondly, the order of suc- cession is different; for while in the former it is fixed according to rank, thus being merely a reflec- tion of Line I, in the latter it is intended to be shown both as Inverted and shifting; and as shift- ing it Is capable of arrangement in many different ways. But the fundamental difference between them Is that In Line II the merits of a proposi- tion are estimated on the basis of the official rank of its sponsor, while in Line III they are estimated on the basis of facts regardless of official rank. It must be remembered that In this connection the conception of merit refers to a single factor only, namely, the ehmlnatlon of unnecessary waste by the use of the most economical methods and de- vices known at the time ; it being naturally under- stood that this Is to be interpreted as Implying the most economical when all the conditions are con- sidered. And It is essential that this be borne in mind, because the bosses who are opposed to tak- ing suggestions from subordinates are accustomed to leading others to believe that this or that sug- gestion would not have been made If the subordi- nate had had sufficient brains to recognize that a method or a device which is the most economical under some conditions may be far from being so io6 RATIONAL VERSUS IRRATIONAL LEADERSHIP under others. But the truth Is that we have here before us simply a question of facts In which as elsewhere each Issue must be decided on Its merits. In those Instances In which the boss Is capable of sustaining his contention without resorting to Ir- rational statements his plea as to conditions must be accepted as well founded. Otherwise, how- ever, his claim should be unceremoniously thrown out of court. At the present time we are still slaves to what Is technically known as the system; and the system means no more than that the Individual who Is placed officially above another In rank must be given the prerogative of looking upon himself as occupying a more advanced position In thought as well, and even In those Instances In which It Is self- evident that he Is no more familiar with the sub- ject than a new born babe. As for the absurdity of the situation, this Is carried to Its logical con- clusion among enlightened peoples no more fla- grantly than In our own country. For Is It not true that In the conduct of our public affairs we often Invert matters to the extent of conferring upon novices the ranks of A and B, as a result of which the C's, D's, and E's, who constitute the per- manent staff, and who have had opportunities to become specialists In their respective fields, are 107 THE people's government obliged to acquire their information not through individual or universal experience, but from the oracular statements of the ignorant? Personally I have always had my misgivings as for human beings being descended from monkeys. But when I reflect upon our system of departmental management I think my doubts are fully justified, because the evidence here seems to prove conclu- sively that we Americans at least have not yet de- scended. Line II, then, represents the inflexible system of boss rule, the system that causes us to regard the views of A as more trustworthy in every in- dividual instance than those of any other person in the organization. Thus, those methods and devices are the most economical which A declares to be such. This is not intended to imply that he will be continually called upon to assert his author- ity in a manner that will put his power to the test. It is only that when this does occur his declara- tions are given the right of way. Again, when the issue is one in which he is not directly inter- ested the prerogative devolves upon B, C, or D, that is, upon the person who occupies the highest official position among those who do desire to as- sert their authority in regard to it. But an essen- tial point to be noted in this connection is that even io8 RATIONAL VERSUS IRRATIONAL LEADERSHIP ' when A does not assert himself directly, he never- theless usually does so indirectly by giving his moral support to a servant of higher as against one of lower rank, which is equivalent to self-as- sertion on his own part. The notion that A's statements should be credited with a greater value than those of B, C, D, and E combined, on all questions arising within the organization. Is naturally in Itself irrational. But the absurdity as it would appear from the pic- ture of Line II is but a mole hill as compared to a mountain when we come to consider the true con- ditions; and the reason is that the letters do not stand for single Individuals but for classes, the members of which increase numerically with the descent In the scale. Thus, while an organization has but one A, it may have, more or less, half-a- dozen B*s, tens of C's, hundreds of D's, and thou- sands of E's. But is It conceivable to any one with a grain of human intelligence that there should not be a single Individual among the thou- sands or tens of thousands of E's who does not know a single fact that Is unknown to one higher up? Of course It Is not, and for that reason it is not conceivable that any Intelligent Individual who is In favor of an honest government should continue to lend his support to the traditional 109 THE people's government system as illustrated by Line II after he had duly reflected upon the question. By this I do not in- tend to imply that the traditional system is disad- vantageous from a practical point of view, because I am not by any means convinced that honesty is the best policy. The only declaration that I care to make emphatically is that it is not honest. If we want an honest government we must stand by the man who is right although he may be but an E, and for that reason we must abolish Line II and adopt Line III in its stead. It will here be necessary for me to call at- tention to the technical position occupied by E, which IS not only unique in the scale of official rank, but extremely delusive and paradoxical as well. It IS unique because E differs from the others In that he has no official power ; his rank In this respect being merely on a par with that of the private citizen. Thus, In the capacity of an individual he Is, like the latter, governed by others without having any power to govern others In re- turn. Even D, who Is governed by A, B, and C, has at least sufficient Individual authority to dic- tate to E In all matters that those higher up are willing to leave to his judgment. And that the technical position of E Is both delusive and para- doxical is owing to the fact that while the absence no RATIONAL VERSUS IRRATIONAL LEADERSHIP of official power serves to keep him in the rank of the private citizens, it does not for that reason de- grade his status as an individual, but, on the con- trary, does just the reverse. As it is in the nature of democracy that those who govern shall do so by the consent of the governed, does it not follow that those who are governed must be looked upon as the masters of those who govern if a democracy is such in fact as well as in name ? Nor do I need any evidence in support of this view beyond the fact that our public officials are technically known not as the masters, but as the servants, of those who are governed. In the ultimate analysis, then, it is not in the public official, but in the private citizen, that the rulership is lodged under a democratic form of government. And when this idea is carried into the sphere of officialdom itself, we find things so inverted that It is not the official of higher rank who is the real master of one of lower rank, but just the reverse, the true boss being not the person who bosses, but the one who is bossed. Thus, In thinking of the relation between D and E we must adjust our minds to the notion that E Is not the servant, but the master, of D, the latter as pub- lic official being the servant of the citizen. But what is the nature of the relation between C and lU THE PEOPLE'S GOVERNMENT D? It is exactly the same as that between D and E, although an explanation will be required to make this clear. Here the explanation lies in the fact that in a democracy the public employee who enjoys any official power whatever has a dual status, namely, that of public servant and that of private citizen. In situations in which he has power he is a servant, and in those in which he has none he is a citizen. As E has no power he is always acting in the capacity of a citizen. And as for D, in his status of boss to E he is a servant, while in that of subordinate to C he is a citizen, and as such his master. In his capacity of subor- dinate it is his duty to be obedient to the com- mands of his superior, but in that of private citi- zen it is his duty to see that the commands of his official superior are honest and rational. Then when he finds that they are not, it is his duty to protest and that of the people to lend him their support. The above conception of the relationship be- tween chief and subordinate is not only logical, but it has the additional advantage of presenting a picture of the Millennium in that it shows a con- dition under which the last would be the first and the first the last. But that it nevertheless fails to 112 RATIONAL VERSUS IRRATIONAL LEADERSHIP be Invulnerable follows from the circumstance that the argument Is based not on an established fact, but merely on an assumption, so that the validity of the conclusion Is contingent upon whether or not society Is willing to assume the major premise, which, while apparently an axiom, is In truth a debatable question. The assumption is, namely, that the public employee shall be entitled to take the same active interest in the cause of good gov- ernment as the private citizen is expected to take. But this is a debatable proposition, because active interest in the cause of good government implies two privileges which society may not deem it ex- pedient to confer upon those who occupy subor- dinate positions in the public service. These are, first, freedom in the expression of one's views on public Issues, whether in private conversations, on the rostrum, or in the press; and, secondly, the right to criticise public officials irrespective of their rank. As for the sentiment of the people upon this matter, it represents a bull of the most fla- grant variety, and for the simple reason that. while they believe that a member of the civil service should play the role of good citizen, they do not regard it as proper on his part to be sufficiently disloyal to his official superior to take a public 113 THE people's government Stand against him even when he is obviously in the wrong. Is this not a practical illustration of our little ditty: Mother, may I go in to swim ? 4 Yes, my darling daughter. Hang your clothes on a hickory limb, But don't go near the water? As for the subordinate who desires to be honest, but is not permitted to be so, does he not remind us of the deserted wife who, while rocking the cradle with one foot, was wiping her tears with the other? We are told that the price of democracy is eternal vigilance ; and with this view I am heartily in accord. We are also told that the vigilance in our country will be inadequate until our citizens take more interest in the conduct of public af- fairs; and with this view I am not in accord, be- cause I believe that the difficulty does not lie in the lack of interest, as there seems to be an abun- dance of this, but in the failure to utilize to the best advantage that which already exists. How- ever, what we want is not a general sort of interest in public questions in general, but a definite interest in the individual questions as they arise; and the foundation of such interest, which is ordinarily 114 RATIONAL VERSUS IRRATIONAL LEADERSHIP referred to as intelligent, Is a knowledge of facts. But how in the world is it possible for any citizen to be sufficiently intelligent to know the facts about the thousand and one issues, local and State as well as national, in which he is expected to take an Interest? The mere suggestion is absurd. As I see It the solution of the problem does not lie In the endeavor to lead the ordinary citizen to be- lieve that It is his duty to become familiar with the facts, but In the endeavor to lead him to appre- ciate that It Is his duty to lend his support to the facts, regardless of what the status of those who present them may be. If we encourage the man who knows the facts to come forward when an Issue Is to be decided, and assure him a square deal when he does, the vigilance problem will be solved. To summarize my theory In a nutshell. Its char- acteristic feature Is that leadership in thought shall be centered not In selected Individuals as heretofore, but In those persons who are most fa- miliar with the merits of the Individual issues as they arise, so that Instead of being In any sense fixed. It will be altogether a shifting affair. Thus, it will shift indiscriminately with the Issue to an A, a B, a C, a D, or an E, as the case may be, the E's including the private citizens. As for A, he 115 THE people's government will remain the leader in action in that he will retain the same right as formerly to be the chief in command. He will, however, be no longer free to command as his moods may strike him ; for his orders will have to be based on the best ideas from whatever source they may happen to be de- rived. Under the traditional system, then, the em- ployee of lower rank is expected to be obedient to the commands of his official superior even when he regards them as dishonest or irrational. But what happens if he refuses to follow the leader to this extent, and instead makes it a rule to stand pat on his own knowledge when he believes him- self to be in the right? Why he simply creates a disturbance for which the traditional system has no satisfactory remedy to offer, and which under it can only be brought to an end in one of three un- satisfactory ways, while with the plan that I shall propose the opposition manifested by the subor- dinate who beheved himself to be in the right would be amicably settled without any disturbance to the discipline whatever. As for the three remedies with the existing sys- tem, the first lies in the surrender of the rebellious subordinate by becoming a part of the machine; and this is the manner in which the problem is or- ii6 RATIONAL VERSUS IRRATIONAL LEADERSHIP dinarlly solved. Thus, the average individual who starts out in life with high ideals has not the fortitude to stand by his convictions when he finds the current against him, so that after a more or less prolonged attempt to be true to himself, he begins to follow the lines of least resistance and accommodate himself to the ways of the world. But in those exceptional instances in which he has the stamina, it is only a question of time when the conflict will result in one of the other two al- ternatives. That Is, the end of the conflict can then only be brought about by the ousting of the man by the machine or the breaking of the machine by the man. As the strength of the machine is naturally so vastly greater than that of the man, the outcome in the vast majoriy of instances speaks for itself. In order that the man may succeed In breaking the machine. It is necessary for him to gain a fol- lowing; and occasionally the required support does actually materialize. But, if so, what purpose is served thereby? Is the change brought about fundamental? Not at all; for no change will be effected thereby except that the broken machine will be repaired or replaced by a new one based on the same model. As for Its repair, this may manifest itself in the shape of reforms instituted 117 THE people's government by the same coterie, or in a partial change in the personnel among those at or near the top ; while its replacement would mean the ousting of all the old leaders and the entrance of a new coterie, as when the representatives of a bad government club are replaced by those of a good government club. But the system would remain exactly the same even if the personnel of the new machine should hap- pen to be on a great deal higher plane, because those higher up would still have the authority to think for those lower down, so that the Golden Rule would still be suspended. Nor will a funda- mental change be effected until the latter is ac- cepted as the basis of action. In respect to the acceptance of the Golden Rule as a basis In the conduct of public affairs, it would be a mistake to regard this as a mystical notion. In truth, the whole conception Is contained in the idea of what might be called reciprocal supervi- sion, which Is founded on the notion that just as it is the duty of B to supervise the actions of C, so it Is the duty of C to supervise those of B. For If B tells C that he wants a particular thing done In a way that the latter knows to be not the best way, and C has the means of obtaining the authority to do it in the manner In which he sug- Ii8 RATIONAL VERSUS IRRATIONAL LEADERSHIP gests, in opposition to the wishes of B, provided his facts are found to be as alleged, then naturally the system of supervision will be reciprocal in its nature. 119 CHAPTER VI RATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND RECIPROCAL SUPERVISION As for reciprocal supervision, the procedure in practice would be very simple. Briefly, if B should command C to do what the latter would regard as irrational, it would be the duty of C to call B's attention to the alleged mistake and ask for a change in his decision. B would then be at liberty at his discretion either to accept or reject C's suggestion. If he should accept it, no con- troversy would arise; but if he should reject it, he would have the authority to insist upon C's obeying the command, and it would then be the duty of the latter to obey. Up to this point the supervision would be directed from above downward only, as of yore; but the reciprocating stroke would now follow. Thus, when C became aware that B had rejected his suggestion, it would be obligatory on his part to file a protest, accompanied by a statement of the facts, with the efficiency court. I20 RECIPROCAL SUPERVISION The case would then be put on the calendar and In due time come up for a hearing. When the difference between the traditional and the proposed system is viewed in the light of its final analysis, it will be found that it does not lie in any direct change in the official powers of the boss, as he would have the same authority to com- mand the subordinate under the new plan as under the old, but simply in the fact that he would be placed in a position in which he would be obliged to defend his decisions before an impartial tribunal upon the request of a subordinate who claimed that they were contrary to proof. But would any sane individual In a position of trust be silly enough to render decisions that he could not defend with- out denying the vahdity of the evidence of the senses or of the rules of simple arithmetic, if he knew that In due course he would be called upon to defend them in public? Of course he would not; and the result would be that official power would cease to unbalance the minds of Its Incum- bents. Bind a giant hand and foot, as the subor- dinate from time Immemorial has been bound, and a pygmy can make a sorry sight of him. But If the giant should be freed of his fetters, Is It con- ceivable that the pygmy would dare to strike him ? In this Instance the giant Is represented by the 121 THE people's government sum total of human experiences, and the pygmy by the individual who is authorized by society to pass judgment upon the value of those experiences in the light of his own personal views, passions, and interests. Now, when our C takes issue with a decision of our B on the score that it is contrary to demonstrable proof, and the latter refuses to be guided by the former's contentions, we have not a case in which the individual B takes exception to the views of the individual C, but we have one in which the individual B demands that his own personal judgment shall be given the precedence over the judgment based upon the sum total of the experiences of all the workers in the field from the beginning of time. And the pygmy is thus emboldened to defy the giant under the tradi- tional system because he knows that heretofore it has been the custom of society to lend its sup- port to an official of higher as against one of lower rank, regardless of the facts. But the whole situation would be changed if society should so reverse its maxim as to place the facts above the man. Are the people entitled to a square deal from the bosses if they themselves are not willing to give a square deal to the subordinates who are desirous of doing their duty toward them? By 122 RECIPROCAL SUPERVISION no means. Consequently, if the people wish the bosses to do their duty they themselves must do their own by assuring justice to honest subordi- nates, which under our conditions can only be made possible by giving them the right to appeal from the decisions of bosses of any rank to some sort of a tribunal outside of Line I. Then if a controversy should arise between a boss and a subordinate, the lies of a boss of lower rank could be no longer reinforced by the endorsement of a boss of higher rank, because the latter would no longer have any jurisdiction in the matter. As a result the former would be thrown on his own re- sources to fight out the issue with his subordinate strictly on its merits. And, as I have mentioned, if the people should afford the honest subordinates protection against the machinations of dishonest bosses no further vigilance would be required to keep the bosses straight. It would then only be incumbent upon us to see that the outside entity was so constituted that it could not fall a prey to the domination of the bosses. But in this re- spect the working plan that I shall propose in the next chapter seems to me to be all that could be desired. As for the status of A, this would not be in any way affected by the change insofar as his own 123 THE people's government legitimate duties were concerned. Indeed, the only effect from this standpoint would be the re- lief from the performance of a function that does not legitimately belong to him, and which very often he does not enjoy. If he should still have the power to appoint the department heads, then it would be his duty to make the best appointments in his power, or, at least, it would be in his interest to do so. But the moral responsibihty would end with the appointment. That is, if B should prove to be a fool or a knave, A should not be made to feel that his appointee's indefensible decisions re- flected on himself; for if he is then he will feel impelled to endorse them even when at heart he is not in sympathy with them. The fact is that, as a rule, the A's have sufficient duties on the legislative side to keep them busy, as was indi- cated in the opening pages; and they will do well enough if they perform these satisfactorily. As a result of the proposed arrangement, we should no longer have a condition under which the responsibility for the departmental manage- ment would be more or less divided at the top be- tween A and B ; but, instead, it would rest entirely on the shoulders of B. Then from this it would naturally follow in turn that B would be no longer accountable to A for his decisions and actions, as 124 RECIPROCAL SUPERVISION the functions of A in this respect would be trans- ferred to the efficiency court, before which the em- ployees from B to E, in case of a controversy, would meet as man to man. In this manner we should be creating a condition under which the lowest ranking employees would be assured the same degree of justice as those of the highest rank, and under which we should be maintaining in fact what heretofore has been maintained in theory only, namely, equality without regard to wealth or station. If an organization should be conducted on the principle that an E was entitled to meet a B as man to man before an impartial tribunal to decide upon questions of methods and devices, even if the former should be of very low and the latter of very high intellectual caliber, then the system of reciprocal supervision would be in force, as un- der these conditions the subordinates would ex- ercise a check upon the bosses as the latter have heretofore exercised and would still continue to exercise it upon them. But the factor of equality in the pressure requires further elucidation. Thus, under the traditional system an order Issued by a boss to a subordinate meets with no obstruction because the latter must obey, while a suggestion made by a subordinate to a boss may be 125 THE people's government acted upon or obstructed at the latter's discretion. With this arrangement the proposed plan would not interfere in such a way as to create any dis- turbance in discipline, because, as I have men- tioned, the subordinate would still be obliged to obey the commands of his boss, and the latter would still have the power to reject suggestions offered by the former until the matter had been adjudicated. Naturally, if such a system should be In vogue, a change would be effected not only in the official status of the subordinate, but also in the attitude of the boss, as a result of which the latter would wish to meet the former for a free interchange of views in order to find whether the differences between them could not be settled amicably. The attitude of the superior would be- come thus changed for the reason that he would be no longer in the position of an infallible, and therefore could not disregard facts of record with- out subjecting himself to ridicule when they were reviewed on appeal. As a result, the proposed efficiency court would serve to exert an influence on departmental man- agement similar to that exerted by the jury in the transactions of ordinary affairs outside of official circles, which is that of preventing unscrupulous persons who desire to be known as respectable 126 RECIPROCAL SUPERVISION from acting dishonestly by the mere reason of Its existence. That Is, If the boss knows that a sub- ordinate may obtain justice from others If he can- not obtain it from him, he will be unlikely to make resort to others necessary, because he will be serv- ing his own Interests best by being just himself. In fact, to a considerable extent at least, the order maintained In the conduct of private affairs may be attributed to the circumstance that private transactions are really conducted on the principle of reciprocal supervision, in that the courts exist solely for the purpose of compelling an alleged wrongdoer to defend his action upon the complaint of any one who claims that the wrong has been committed. As for the equality of the pressure from a mechanical point of view, an analysis will be re- quired to make this clear. Looking at the plan in Its most elementary form, C's appeal from a decision by B would no longer go up Line I to A; for an appeal of that nature is characterized by inequality In that A may join forces with B, while C must fight against both single handed. Consequently, if C Is to re- ceive fair play his appeal must be taken In a side direction to the apex of a triangle, where B would be obliged to meet him as man to man. Thus: 127 THE PEOPLE S GOVERNMENT EX. C ^ EFFlClENOr COURT Under the present system an appeal by E to C from a decision by D would be still more unequal, because A, B, and C could all join forces with D against E. But if E should have the authority to meet D at the apex of the triangle, A, B, and C would be out of the race, and we should again have a fair test of strength even with the poor and friendless man in the ring. In practice, however, the affair is not so simple, because complications arise from the factor that brings the question of fixing responsibility into play. Now, if E should have occasion to protest against an order that he had received from D, this would not necessarily indicate that D and E did not agree, as the order might have originated with one higher up, while D might be no more in sympathy with it than E. But if the act should reach the ears of outsiders and cause dissatisfac- tion among them, those higher up would try to throw the blame on D. Under the traditional 128 RECIPROCAL SUPERVISION system, which affords no protection to subordi- nates, it is wrong on the part of the people to allow those higher up to make a scapegoat of D, because he must either obey the order or run the risk of being discharged. But under the pro- posed system, which would afford him protection, he would be legitimately regarded as the culprit; for if his views should have accorded with those of E, it would have been his duty to protest against transmitting the order to him, thus fixing the re- sponsibility upon C. And if the order had originated with B against the better judgment of C, then it would have been C's duty to file a protest. In this way the problem of fixing re- sponsibility would be automatically solved; for if no one should be willing to assume it in the event of an unjustifiable command having been given to a subordinate, then there would be no one in the field to compel the latter to act upon it, and it would become ineffective by default. Now the change brought about by this arrange- ment would mean no less than the fact that while heretofore an order originating with A has been permitted to pass through the hands of B, C, and D to E, and to be carried into effect by the last without meeting with any genuine obstruction any- where along the line, because those who have at- 129 THE people's government tempted to protest against the machinations of the bosses have had no recognized status, the new plan would afford recognition to a subordinate of any rank who had good cause to protest and sufficient self-respect to refuse to become a party to a dishonest scheme. It is only that in the in- terest of discipline he would be obliged to obey the order for the time being; but the protest would free him of all blame. In theory this could be done under the present system ; but the contestant would not be assured a fair trial. Again, as for the pressure from below upwards being equal to that from above downwards, this will manifest itself most definitely in the fact that the appeal will assure the same attention to the suggestions of subordinates as to the commands of bosses. Briefly, while under existing circum- stances a command coming from A is permitted to pass through to E without obstruction, a sug- gestion coming from E is liable to obstruction from any of the bosses from D to A. That is, if it has been approved by D or C, it may still be rejected by B or A. Under the proposed plan this power of obstruction by any of the bosses would remain unchanged, with this difference, however, that the responsibility for such obstruc- tion in any individual instance would be automatic- 130 RECIPROCAL SUPERVISION ally fixed by the fact that It would have to be defended upon appeal by the obstructor. There- fore, aside from the question of delay, a sug- gestion by a subordinate would have the same value as an order by a boss; because, unless an obstructor should appear to oppose it, or, if ap- pearing, should fail to maintain his contention, it would in due course be carried into effect. It is only that if opposed it would not be acted upon until it had been approved on appeal, while the order of a boss would remain effective until it had been recalled on appeal. Naturally, if a sugges- tion offered by a subordinate should fail to meet with any response from a superior who had the power to act upon It, such power would not au- tomatically devolve upon the subordinate himself. But it is my idea that In the event of his being unable to obtain a response one way or the other within a reasonable time from an official In power, it would be his duty to bring the matter to the at- tention of the efficiency court, whose duty it would be to place it on the calendar and decide It on its merits. The object to be obtained by the plan will be that of giving the truth the right of way over official rank, and this It will be able to ac- complish provided the truth is perfectly clear. In the ultimate analysis, then, the appeal would 131 THE PEOPLE'S GOVERNMENT resolve Itself Into a weapon of defense against voluntary waste; and if the plan should be prop- erly applied unnecessary waste could not fail to be reduced to a minimum, because all intelligent employees who were interested In their work would be continually on the alert to discover the best way of doing it. That there is nothing to prevent them from being on the alert for that purpose under the present system is true enough. But there would be this difference, that while now such labor Is frequently not only wasted, but re- warded with abuse and persecution besides, it would then not only be recognized as meritorious, but all discoveries of merit would be utilized as soon as their claims had been proved to be war- ranted by the facts, because no one would have the power to prevent such action. And I know of no greater incentive to exertion for persons of good caliber than the knowledge that it is not made in vain. While logically the pressure from above and below would be equal, a complication would nevertheless have to be looked for In the fact that the protection of the subordinate would be likely to cause a reaction which would have a tendency to go to the opposite extreme In producing a state of over-cautiousness on the part of the boss. If 132 RECIPROCAL SUPERVISION SO, there would be a tendency on his part to act upon suggestions that would not be worthy of such recognition. The question would then arise as to how we should be able to protect ourselves against a contingency of that nature. The solution of this problem, however, would ultimately be brought about upon the principle that water seeks its own level, and for the simple rea- son that there are more subordinates than bosses. Thus, let us say that a B has as his Immediate assistants two C's, whom we shall designate as C^ and O. Then let us assume that C^ makes a suggestion which affects the work of C^ as well as his own. The suggestion Is accepted by B, as a result of which O is ordered to act accordingly. However, on looking over the matter the latter finds that he cannot conscientiously obey the order and In consequence he files a protest. B then finds himself between two fires, so that ultimately the controversy will become one between the two sub- ordinates of the same rank. The problem will then resolve Itself Into that of finding a way of relieving B of the responsi- bility of deciding the Issue on his own Initiative; and this may be done by the adoption of a rule to the effect that all suggestions made to bosses by subordinates shall be referred to others for ^33 THE people's government investigation. This suggests the establishment of a bureau of research, the duties devolving upon which shall be those of separating the wheat from the chaff In the case of all suggestions, the opinion of the Investigators to serve as an Indication as to whether or not In any Individual Instance the sug- gestion should be accepted or rejected. The mem- bers of the bureau would have no power to act, their functions being merely advisory. But In most instances their advice would probably settle the controversy. In its makeup the bureau would not differ from a scientific department of any well managed organization. It is only that its con- clusions could not be overruled by arbitrary de- crees of the bosses. The latter would not be un- der any obligation to be guided by them; but If they should refuse to do so in individual in- stances, they would have to explain their reasons before the efficiency court. The elimination of waste would mean a de- crease in taxes and in the cost of living, and an increase in wages, dividends, and the per capita wealth. But what is all this as compared to the moral revolution that would take place in the con- duct of public and corporate affairs if the bosses should no longer have the power to give to their will the right of way over the reason? This 134 RECIPROCAL SUPERVISION question opens a vista to my mind that appears too good to be true. But still, after years of reflection, I am unable to see why the scheme can- not be made to work as planned. The only thing that could serve to cause It to prove a myth would be the Impossibility of keeping the departmental court of appeals from being controlled by the bosses. But even this difliculty may be readily overcome as the reader will see for himself when he Is familiar with the working plan, which will now be discussed. ^3S CHAPTER VII THE EFFICIENCY COURT AND THE BOSSES: A PRACTICAL WORKING PROPOSITION As the plan had its inception in the idea that questions of fact arising in the pubhc service shall be decided on a basis of facts, instead of as here- tofore by bosses who have had the power to de- cide them contrary to the facts if they so desired, it is evident that the proposed doctrine cannot be carried into effect unless some sort of provision is made whereby the decisions of the bosses on questions of fact shall become subject to revision by a tribunal whose members are neither bosses themselves nor subject to the domination of bosses. And in the ultimate analysis the prob- lem resolves itself into one of finding a rational way of enabling the people themselves to pass upon the facts if subordinates find occasion to take exception to rulings by the bosses when questions of common honesty are at stake. That this proposition will not be publicly opposed by respect- able persons on theoretical grounds is clear 136 THE EFFICIENCY COURT enough. Consequently, whatever objections may arise can only be based on practical considerations, and it is to these that I shall now call the attention of the reader. As it stands, then, the proposition really repre- sents a plea in favor of the referendum. How- ever, as the referendum in the ordinary sense is not only open to criticism when applied to ques- tions of fact, but could not even be suggested for that purpose without overstepping the limits of sanity, the solution will lie in maintaining its spirit without the form. This may be done by estab- lishing a rational referendum, the characteristic feature of which would be that of obtaining the expression of the will of the whole people through the channel of a wieldy number, that is, through the channel of a tribunal of the people sufficiently limited in numbers to be capable of acting in- telligently on questions of fact. In spirit this is what the jury implies. It is only that expediency would demand a change in form to suit the re- quirements of the occasion. In brief, the idea I have in mind is that of embodying within a small sphere the will of all the respectable members of the community in the same way in which the al- kaloid of a field of vegetable material may be brought within the confines of a small vial. And 137 THE people's government I shall show how this principle may be carried to the extent of embodying the universal will in a single individual, who, to preserve the nomen- clature, might be termed the referee. There is, however, but one condition under which the people could be assured that the individual selected to represent the universal will would do so not merely in theory, but in fact; and this would lie in placing him technically in a position in which he would not have the power to be unfaithful to them even if he should be disposed to be dishonest. What will naturally strike the reader here is the notion that the individual selected to represent the whole people in the settlement of disputes between bosses and subordinates would in this way become endowed with powers similar to those now enjoyed by the bosses, so that the change would serve to accomplish nothing beyond transferring the power from one person to another. Upon analysis, however, it will be found that this is not true in fact, because even when we leave aside the safeguards to be mentioned the duties devolving upon this person would serve to differentiate him from an ordinary boss. For while apparently his position would be analogous to that of A on Line I of our figure, there would be among others 138 THE EFFICIENCY COURT this essential difference between the two positions, that the specific duties of the referee would be Hmlted to settling disputes between bosses and subordinates, a service which A Is not expected to perform except on rare occasions. Now as it so happens that with A work of this nature is a purely incidental affair, it naturally follows that the degree of conscientiousness he manifests in settling such disputes constitutes but one of many factors in judging of the value of his services as a whole. And even if he should be known to show partiality here, the matter would be generally overlooked on the ground that no one can be expected to be perfect. If, however, an Individual should be employed to perform this service only, and with the distinct understanding that all controversies must be decided by him on their merits, then favoritism would constitute a breach of trust, so that what could be regarded as a mere Incident with A would be actual corruption if manifested by the referee. The specific duty devolving upon the referee, then, would be merely equivalent to that of tell- ing the truth when the truth was known; and if no dependence could be placed on his veracity his services would have to be regarded as worthless, whatever his qualifications in general might be. 139 THE people's government For this reason success would appear to be con- tingent upon the employment of truthful persons to act in that capacity. However, if this should be true, then the whole scheme would be dissipated into thin air, because it would be simply a return to the old idea that an honest government was dependent upon honest rulers. But, fortunately, this is not the case. In fact, the whole philosophy of the scheme centers in the Idea that the veracity must be Inherent not in the incumbent of the office, but in the office itself by reason of Its strategic position, so that the moral qualifications of the referee would be at least for the most part a matter of Indifference. Thus, just as we have be- come accustomed to the notion that the salary goes with the office even If Its Incumbent Is an Im- becile, so we must become accustomed to the no- tion that the truth goes with the office even if Its incumbent Is a liar. That this Is not a mere flight of fancy will be appreciated when it is borne In mind that the posi- tion of the judge is of that nature; the truth com- ing from the members of the judiciary being in- herent not In the men, who do not differ from other human beings, but in the bench, which oc- cupies a strategic position that renders self-evi- dent untruthfulness Impossible. Naturally, if a 140 THE EFFICIENCY COURT judge had the inclination to do so, there would be nothing to prevent him, for example, from de- livering a charge to the jury that would misrep- resent the statements that had been made by the witnesses and that would be altogether contrary to the stenographer's records. But no judge would think of doing this unless he had suddenly gone Insane. It Is not only that he would make a fool of himself if he did, but he could serve no purpose by doing so, because the decision of the jury would be annulled and a new trial granted on an appeal. The safeguards to be mentioned would place the referee In a similar position doubly secured, and for the simple reason that the appeal, which under our judiciary system is a very expensive affair, would here not only be granted free of charge, but would be compulsory as well. That Is, a subordinate who had filed a protest with the referee would not be Immune from blame If the latter should decide the Issue contrary to demonstrable proof unless he appealed from that decision to the next higher tribunal, which would be composed of the parties by whom the referee was delegated to act, and to whom he would be obliged to give an account of his actions. The practicability of the plan would of course be contingent upon the possibility of devising a 141 THE people's government scheme whereby the department chiefs and sub- ordinates from B to E could reach the people by following a line over the head of the referee out- side of the political sphere, in order that he might have more to gain than to lose by refusing to sub- ject himself to the domination of the party bosses. In my opinion, this could be done by creating a link between the departments and the whole peo- ple In the form of a strictly non-partisan, public spirited organization whose sole purpose would be that of assuring a square deal to all employees who protested against doing what they knew to be wrong in obedience to the commands of public servants higher up. Then if the referee should be the personal representative of such an organiza- tion, it Is evident that the probability of his form- ing an alliance with the party bosses would be practically nil, not only because such action would be so likely to be discovered, but also, and more particularly, because an Irrational decision on his part could not fail to be reversed on appeal to the higher authority on the non-partisan line, so that he could not have his own way if he would. As for the makeup of the organization, it Is not Improbable that many different schemes would have to be tried before a genuinely satisfactory one had been devised, although I have a sugges- 142 THE EFFICIENCY COURT tlon to offer In the form of a method which It seems to me would work. The entity I have in mind would be composed of a combination of as- sociations that have neither partisan nor personal purposes In view, but which nevertheless are in- herently pubhc spirited to the extent of being in- directly interested in the cause of good govern- ment. Of the innumerable forms of associations in existence, however, I can think of three only that would come within this classification, namely, the bar associations, the chambers of commerce, and the scientific societies. As we could no more conceive that an organization of this nature would cast a majority vote on partisan lines in favor of the wrong side of a non-debatable question than we could conceive of an apple faUing upwards in- stead of downwards, it follows that a referendum to it on a question of common honesty would an- swer the purpose of a general referendum as fully as if the issue should be put before the whole peo- ple, or, for that matter, before the whole civihzed world. Again it is equally evident that its vote would be more intelligent, if for no reason other than that the smaller number would enable the voters to get so much closer to the facts. But if my contention should be logical to this extent, would it not be equally logical to contend 143 THE people's government that a second step in the concentration of the uni- versal will would be afforded if a non-debatable question should be submitted to a committee of such an assembly? Therefore, if there should be five societies in a union, and each should ap- point a single member only, would not this com- mittee of five, which would be analogous to a jury, represent the will of the whole people as fully as if the will of all should be expressed by means of a general referendum? Again, following the same line of thought, is it not equally evident that the same thing could be accomplished if the committee should appoint a single individual to take the testimony at the out- set in any given instance ? And that his decisions would be rational is clear from the fact that no person whose activities should be conducted in the limehght to that extent would be bold enough to decide any issue in defiance of the evidence of the senses or of the rules of simple arithmetic, like a boss who is empowered to do so. Conse- quently, we should have in the creation of the office of referee a step which would lead to a technical position in which the universal will could be made to find expression through the decisions of a single individual as well as it could by means of a general referendum. 144 THE EFFICIENCY COURT As for the mechanism of the scheme In Its en- tirety, the referee would represent the court of first resort to which the subordinate would appeal from an irrational decision on the part of his boss. And if he should regard the decision of the referee as equally irrational, it would be not only his privilege, but his duty, to appeal from it to the committee, thence to the organization, and finally to the people. But as lies are noted for their short legs, is it conceivable that they could ever succeed in traveling that distance? We can- not prevent liars from lying; but we can build a machine on the principle that a lie dropped into it at one end will come out the truth at the other. In regard to the makeup of the organization that I have suggested. It might at first appear to be open to the criticism of being enlisted on the side of capitalism, because the labor interests do not seem to be represented. In fact, however, such a conception would be as delusive as it could possibly be, because the object of the plan is not legislative, but protective. For what class is to be taken under Its wing except that which is com- posed of the under dogs who are desirous of being true to their consciences when those higher up are desirous of using them as tools? The truth is that the character of the entity will be 145 THE people's government Immaterial so long as it is capable of accomplish- ing this purpose. It is simply that like our courts it will be intended to afford redress to all who have good reason to seek it. And even if our courts should be as imperfect as many who know them best believe them to be, does not the fact remain nevertheless that half-a-loaf is better than none? The suggested plan would represent a new heteronomic force in the conduct of public affairs, and a force, moreover, which would be analogous to a catalytic agent In that, at least to a consider- able extent, If not entirely, the efficiency court would serve to bring about the contemplated change in the relationship between boss and sub- ordinate by the mere reason of Its presence, so that it would rarely if ever be called upon to try a case. As for its essential feature, this would not He in the form of the efficiency court, but In the element that would distinguish It from the ordinary judiciary, namely. In that the Issues sub- ject to trial before It would be limited to strictly non-debatable propositions, because the subor- dinate would have no authority to protest unless he could prove that his boss had taken an irra- tional stand, whether In Issuing a command or in refusing to accept a suggestion. But as the 146 THE EFFICIENCY COURT boss could not afford to have publicity given to a decision of his own that he could not possibly de- fend before an impartial tribunal, it would appear that the protest submitted to him by the subor- dinate would suffice to cause him to reverse his own decision, and especially if he had been ad- vised to that effect by investigators who had been delegated to study the facts. Naturally, a psychological revolution of this nature could not be expected to be effected in a day, so that before any degree of perfection would be reached we should probably be obliged to cope with a transitional stage of longer or shorter duration. However, that sooner or later the wheels will be set in motion appears to me to admit of no doubt; because, in spite of what I may have said on previous pages by way of badinage, I have sufficient confidence in humanity to believe that the vast majority of people are born with a sense of justice that impels them to desire that the truth shall prevail when it Is clear. If I should be mistaken In this It could only be because society will ultimately take the stand that when the boss Is a fool or a knave It shall be the duty of his subordinates to become fools or knaves as well. Perhaps It will, for who can tell; but I prefer to think the other way. 147 At the outset the vast majority of the subordi- nates, for one reason or another, would no doubt be disinclined to avail themselves of the privileges and opportunities thus placed at their disposal. But after the novelty had had time to wear off, a change in attitude would be likely to take place. Fortunately, however, the nature of the plan is such that success would not be contingent upon the attitude of the majority, because the facts would have the right of way even if they could find but a single sponsor. Nor would it even be necessary for the sponsor to be a public employee; for any citizen interested in the cause of good government would be authorized to take the mat- ter in hand after he had become cognizant of the facts. As it is never safe to use philosophical terms without an adequate explanation for fear of being misunderstood, I am wary about using the term " individual sovereignty " in the closing paragraph of this book. But if we can conceive of the possibility of conferring upon a private citi- zen the authority to have a public abuse corrected after it has been called to his attention, then it would naturally follow that within rational limits at least the notion of individual sovereignty was not altogether chimerical. 148