EMPLOYMENT PSYCHOLOGY, LABOR, AND INDUSTRY 2,11 
human nature in a manner altogether too mechanical, 
and the human being too much as if it were a mere autom 
aton, to be adjusted and shifted accordingly. 
Now, strange as it may seem, even the manufacturer 
sometimes adopts a hostile attitude and resents the method 
of employment psychology on the ground that it is too 
scientific and too formal for application to human beings. 
Although entirely convinced of the necessity of applying 
scientific methods to the inspection, classification, and 
treatment of his material equipment, he is quite satisfied 
with the application of crude clerical methods to the 
treatment of his human equipment. And even if con 
vinced of the value of applying the scientific method to 
the study of people, he considers it too involved and 
costly for application to his particular problems. The 
possibility of supplementing the physical, chemical, and 
medical laboratories with a psychological laboratory has 
thus far occurred to only the most farsighted of indus 
trial leaders. 
As a partial answer to this possible view the following 
quotation from an article in “The Harvester World”, by 
Cyrus McCormick, Jr., is given: “Automatic machinery 
has come to stay. Progressive machining and progressive 
assembly are known sciences. The time has come when 
we must ask ourselves frankly if we are making the same 
good use of man power that we are of machine power. 
Speaking economically, an employer should take not only 
the same, but better, care of his men than he does of his 
machines. No factory superintendent would consent to 
the operation of any gear cutter, for instance, which was 
so dulled as to cause its rate of production to drop below 
the point of efficiency. Do we take the same care to keep 
our men from being dulled? I mean just this, if we spend