EMPLOYMENT PSYCHOLOGY
who can and does hold down his job for six months is
classified as a success at that job.
Satisfaction in the job is an asset to be sought. If it can
be shown that there is a close relationship between length
of service and efficiency on the job the problem reduces
itself to simpler terms. If there is no relationship between
the two, and if tests select the efficient, the problem of appropriate
 incentives to remain with the company confronts
the management.
Frequently the problem finds its solution in an analysis
of the circumstances under which the men leave the employ
 of the company rather than in an analysis of their
temperament. Check lists of reasons for leaving and suggested
 remedies are given by Bezanson (8) and Benge (7).
Too much credence should not be given to the employee’s
own reasons for leaving, as it may be difficult for him to
formulate them, he may wish to leave an opening for a
return to the company, or he may rationalize, that is, find
a plausible reason in place of the real one which he does
not care to admit even to himself. The foreman’s reasons
for a large turnover in his department should also be accepted
 with reservations.
Length of service as a measure of success may have negative
 value in an occupation which is considered merely as
a training ground. Here brevity of service before transfer
or promotion indicates vocational accomplishment.
9. Advancement in the firm. Advancement may be
measured in two ways, either of which may be considered
a criterion of success. The investigator may choose as his
criterion the mere fact that the worker is promoted, or he
may choose the rapidity with which the worker is promoted.
In either case he selects as prominent successes in the occupation
 those who have been promoted because of the ability
they have shown in that occupation, regardless of whether
or not they have been promoted to positions requiring the
same abilities. But if the management has advanced them
not because of the ability they have displayed in that par-40