productiveness. There are several reasons why this should 
be so. In the first place, there is the reason which has 
already been frequently given; namely, the unreliability 
of human judgments. A foreman’s or superintendent’s 
opinion of a worker’s moral qualities is very easily in 
fluenced by many facts which are quite incidental, such 
as manner of speech or personal appearance. A man may 
be a very excellent worker and rank very high in the 
quantity and quality of his work and yet create an un 
favorable impression because of such characteristics. 
A second reason which makes it unwise to estimate an 
individual’s moral qualities otherwise than in terms of 
production is the fact that these qualities are themselves 
relative rather than absolute. As has been pointed out, 
the moral qualities depend largely on the work to which 
an individual is assigned. Therefore, they should be 
judged with reference to this work rather than in an abso 
lute fashion. If the work is suited to the capacities and 
preferences of the worker, he is quite likely to reveal the 
desirable moral qualities; whereas, if he is not properly 
situated, he is likely to give signs of traits which are un 
desirable. In either case, these would be exhibited in the 
quantity and quality of his work. If a worker fails to 
measure up to a certain standard of production, he should 
not be credited with a variety of undesirable moral traits. 
Rather he should be described as below the desired level of 
production and tried out on work of a different nature. 
No foreman or superior has the right to label his workers 
as morally unfit except in the most obvious cases. As a 
matter of fact, very few foremen have the courage to do 
so. One of the greatest drawbacks in the keeping of in 
dividual records hitherto, particularly in the matter of 
obtaining from the foreman a written statement of the