256 
EMPLOYMENT PSYCHOLOGY 
There are several serious objections to this kind of job 
analysis. To begin with, it is not job analysis at all but a 
kind of thinly disseminated character analysis. Anybody 
can make a hasty tour of inspection, gather a superficial 
knowledge of a number of jobs, and then describe them in 
such comprehensive terms as those just enumerated. In 
the next place, these qualities are so general and vague 
that they mean very little when tied up with a particular 
job. Any number of jobs can be described equally well 
by such words and phrases as industry, patience, accu 
racy, application, routine temperament, loyalty, static, 
and so on. But these words mean little or nothing at all as 
they stand. They are detached and theoretical. Pa 
tience as such, for instance, is an abstract and meaningless 
quality. A man may be very patient in one way and very 
impatient in another. A tool maker may be patient in 
watching a slow and very important cut but very im 
patient with his family or his foreman. Therefore, it is 
useless to call for a man of patience unless it is possible to 
distinguish between different kinds of patience and then 
specify which kind is desired. The same thing may be 
said of every one of these general qualities. A man may 
be very energetic or dynamic at one kind of work but very 
lazy or static at another kind. Suppose a man asks for 
employment in a position requiring marked initiative, 
energy, and executive ability. The person conducting 
the interview may decide that this applicant is possessed 
of these qualities, and consequently recommend that he be 
hired. The man is hired and set to work. After a few 
weeks he discovers that his work is not at all what he 
expected but is outside the scope of both his training 
and desires. Instead, therefore, of developing initiative, 
energy, and executive powers, he becomes plodding,