: EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATION 
psychological tests, of maintaining a lunchroom, of paying a higher 
rate for overtime, of providing group insurance, and of innumerable 
other policies cannot be judged by the rdte of labor turnover. Each 
may have some effect upon turnover; but reduction of labor turnover 
should be regarded neither as the end sought nor as an indication that 
the policy in question is fulfilling its purpose. 
The purpose itself moreover, should be scrutinized and evaluated. 
Reduction in the unit cost of the product without unduly lowering 
its quality is an objective ordinarily to be considered praiseworthy. 
Another legitimate purpose may be improvement in the condition or 
status of workers in so far as it may result without unwarranted impo- 
sition of its cost upon consumers or other workers. Benefit to workers 
and reduction in cost of production may result, of course, from the 
same policy, which then becomes doubly justified. Granting that the 
objective of a certain practice is proper, the problem then confronting 
management is to determine whether the practice actually produces 
the result sought and does so without deleterious by-products. 
Since rarely are the results directly observable, circumstantial 
evidence of the effects must be accepted. Moreover, since the ful- 
fillment of the purpose is generally a matter of degree, being “more or 
less” than an anticipated result, quantitative measurements must be 
employed. This necessity for resort to indirect evidence presents 
two dangers which should be avoided. In the first place, there is 
danger that routine operation of the particular plan will come to be 
regarded as an end in itself and the only evidence sought will be such 
as to indicate that the plan is being carried out. Such evidence is 
needed, but it should not be confused with evidence as to the results 
of the plan. In order that the results of any scientific experiment may 
be properly evaluated, it is, of course, necessary to show that the 
experiment was conducted under “controlled” conditions; but the 
report of the experiment is inconclusive if it stops with mere descrip- 
tion of the “set up.” The second danger consists in too ready accept- 
ance of a single, quantitative index as adequate for evaluating results. 
In the second case, attention becomes focussed on this index as an 
end in itself. 
The first of these dangers may be illustrated by a concern which, 
having established a centralized employment department, is satis- 
216