EMPLOYMENT PSYCHOLOGY 
I92 
that records of this kind are frequently available, es 
pecially in the case of piece-workers. Such records, in 
spite of the varying conditions of production and manage 
ment which may tend to destroy their impartiality, are 
far more reliable and uniform than any other record which 
can be obtained. The personal opinions of foremen, in 
structors, or other superiors are at all times a poor sub 
stitute for such an objective-production record. However, 
the higher we go in the scale of work the less likely are we 
to find workers doing the same kind of work under con 
ditions which make it possible to measure and compare 
their relative output or production. Imagine trying to 
estimate and compare the work of the manager of one 
department with that of another. Manifestly, it is im 
possible to make such a comparison except in the most 
general terms, and in terms of personal opinions rather 
than in terms of an impersonal measure of units of work 
actually produced. 
These three conditions, therefore—first, the necessity 
for dealing with work which the psychologist can under 
stand, secondly, the necessity of trying preliminary tests 
on a large group engaged in the same kind of work, and 
thirdly, the necessity of an objective or impersonal measure 
of the work—set a distinct limit to the scope of psychologi 
cal tests, particularly with regard to the selection of big 
men. Psychologists, in their eagerness to live up to all 
the demands which have been put upon them, have some 
times hesitated to admit this limitation. They have 
allowed themselves to be credited, by the too interested 
friends of psychology, with a technique which enables 
them to select men for higher types of work. No one, 
more quickly than the employment manager, will recog 
nize the inadequacy of this technique when it is given