THE MEASURE OF COMPARATIVE PRODUCTIVENESS 305 
reasons for laying off a worker, has been this difficulty. 
Neither the foreman nor the worker considers this a just 
or an accurate procedure, for the very reason that the 
judgment expressed is too dependent on the personal 
equation and other unreliable variables. On the other 
hand, the record of a man’s actual work, his comparative 
productiveness, is an impersonal criterion which is fair 
from both points of view, that of employee and employer, 
and does not excite the animosity so likely to be aroused 
by a personal opinion. 
A third reason for judging moral qualities in terms of 
production rather than in terms of the descriptive ad 
jectives usually applied is the fact that the former is 
usually much the more sensitive indicator. For instance, 
if a worker has been out late the night before or has taken 
part in some strenuous celebration, it may not be apparent 
to the foreman on the following morning, but the effects 
will hardly escape the impartial record of the man’s pro 
duction for that day or ensuing days. Continuous irregu 
larities in the worker’s manner of living may be kept from 
the foreman for a long time, but they are bound to affect 
the worker’s ability to turn out work. The same principle 
applies to most moral traits. Impatience, lack of concen 
tration, carelessness, dissipation, laziness, dishonesty—all 
of these traits will express themselves in the amount of 
work done by the individual with mathematical certainty. 
Therefore, for the sake of this increased certainty and 
decreased ambiguity, the description of a worker’s moral 
qualities should be limited to his production record. 
There are instances, to be sure, in which the moral 
qualities must be considered in themselves. Honesty, for 
example, is not always or entirely expressed in a man’s 
productiveness. Therefore it is difficult to compare men