Dont split hairs. When you come to hypothetical situations designed to test your judgment, you have come to the toughest of all questions.4 In this kind there are correct answers, and the testers make no bones about it. Restricted as the choice is, however, determining which are the correct ones is extremely difficult, and the more intelligent you are the more difficult. One tester, indeed, states that the measurement of practical judgment is “unique and statistically independent of such factors as intelligence, and academic and social background.” He has a point. Consider the question about the woman and the baby at the window of the burning house. It is impossible to decide which is the best course of action unless you know how big the fire is, whether she is on the first floor or the second, whether there is a ladder handy, how near by the fire department is, plus a number of other considerations.
On this type of question, let me confess that I can be of very little help to the reader. I have made a very thorough study of these tests, have administered them to many people of unquestioned judgment, and invariably the results have been baffling. But there does seem to be one moral: don’t think too much. The searching mind is severely handicapped by such forced choices and may easily miss what is meant to be the obviously right answer. Suppress this quality in yourself by answering these questions as quickly as you possibly can, with practically no pause for reflection.
The judgment questions from 25 through 28 are much easier to answer.5 The right answers here are, simply, those which represent sound personnel policy, and this is not hard to figure out. Again, don’t quibble. It is true enough that it is virtually impossible to tell the worker why he didn’t get promoted unless you know whether he was a good worker, or a poor one, or whether Jones’s uncle did in fact own the plant (in which case, candor could be eminently sensible). The mealy-mouthed answer d)—“Let’s figure out how you can improve”—is the “right” answer. Similarly with questions about the worker’s home life. It isn’t the concern of the company, but it is modern personnel dogma that it should be, and therefore “agree” is the right answer. So with the question about whether good supervisors are born or made. To say that a good supervisor is born deprecates the whole apparatus of modern organization training, and that kind of attitude won’t get you anywhere.
Know your company. Questions 29 and 30 are characteristic of the kind of test that attempts to measure the relative emphasis you attach to certain values—such as aesthetic, economic, religious, social.6 The profile of you it produces is matched against the profile that the company thinks is desirable. To be considered as a potential executive, you will probably do best when you emphasize economic motivation the most; aesthetic and religious, the least. In question 29, accordingly, you should say the skyscraper makes you think of industrial growth. Theoretical motivation is also a good thing; if you were trying out for the research department, for example, you might wish to say that you think Sir James Newton helped mankind more than Shakespeare and thereby increase your rating for theoretical learnings. Were you trying out for a public relations job, however, you might wish to vote for Shakespeare, for a somewhat higher aesthetic score would not be amiss in this case.
There are many more kinds of tests and there is no telling what surprises the testers will come up with in the future. But the principles will probably change little, and by obeying a few simple precepts and getting yourself in the right frame of mind, you have the wherewithal to adapt to any new testing situation. In all of us there is a streak of normalcy.
1 Leading Tests of this type include:
The Personality Inventory by Robert G. Bernreuter. Published by The Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. Copyright 1935 by The Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.
125 questions; measures several different things at once; scoring keys available for neurotic tendency; self-sufficiency; introversion-extroversion; dominance-submission; self-confidence; sociability.
Thurstone Temperament Schedule by L. L. Thurstone. Copyright 1949 by L. L. Thurstone. Published by Science Research Associates, Chicago, Ill. 140 questions. Measures, at once, seven areas of temperament: to wit, degree to which one is active, vigorous, impulsive, dominant, stable, sociable, reflective. “The primary aim of the Thurstone Temperament Schedule … is to evaluate an individual in terms of his relatively permanent temperament traits. One of the values of the schedule is that it helps provide an objective pattern, or profile, of personal traits which you can use to predict probable success or failure in a particular situation.”
Minnesota T-S-E Inventory by M. Catherine Evans and T. R. McConnell. Copyright 1942 by Science Research Associates, Chicago, Illinois.
150 questions. Measures three types of introversion-extroversion—thinking, social and emotional.
The Personal Audit by Clifford R. Adams and William M. Lepley, Psycho-Educational Clinic, Pennsylvania State College. Published by Science Research Associates, Chicago, Ill. Copyright 1945 by Clifford R. Adams. All rights reserved.
450 questions. Nine parts, of 50 questions each. Each part measures “a relatively independent component of personality.” Extremes of each trait listed thus: seriousness-impulsiveness; firmness-indecision; tranquillity-irritability; frankness-evasion; stability-instability; tolerance-intolerance; steadiness-emotionality; persistence-fluctuation; contentment-worry.
2 Outstanding example is the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, Revised Edition, by Starke R. Hathaway and J. Charnley McKinley. Published by The Psychological Corporation, N. Y. 495 questions. This yields scores on hypochondriasis, depression, hysteria, psychopathic deviation, masculinity and femininity, paranoia, psychoasthenia, schizophrenia, hypomania. It also yields a score on the subject’s “test-taking attitude,” with a score for his degree of “defensiveness-frankness.” If the subject consistently gives himself the benefit of the doubt, or vice versa, the scoring reveals the fact. This is not a test for the amateur to trifle with.
3 An example of this kind of testing is the Conservatism-Radicalism Opinionaire by Theodore F. Lentz and Colleagues of The Attitude Research Laboratory. Published by Character Research Association, Washington University, St. Louis, Mo., Dept. of Education. Copyright 1935. 60 statements are given; the subject indicates whether he tends to agree or disagree. His score is obtained by checking the number of times he sides with the conservative statement side vs. the radical one.
4 Two tests of this type are:
Test of Practical Judgment by Alfred J. Cardall, N.B.A., Ed.D. Published by Science Research Associates, Inc., Chicago, Ill. Copyright 1942, 1950 by Science Research Associates, Inc. All rights reserved. 48 Forced-choice questions “designed to measure the element of practical judgment as it operates in everyday business and social situations.” How were the “best” answers chosen? “Rigorous statistical analysis was supplemented by consensus of authority. …”
Practical Social Judgment by Thomas N. Jenkins, Ph.D. Copyright 1947. All rights reserved. Executive Analysis Corporation, N. Y. 52 questions about hypothetical situations; subject must choose the “best” and the “poorest” of given answers.
5 An example of this kind of test is How Supervise? by Quentin W. File, edited by H. H. Remmers. Published by The Psychological Corporation, N.Y. Copyright 1948, by Purdue Research Foundation, Lafayette, Indiana. 100 questions on management policy and attitudes.
6 A Study of Values, Revised Edition, by Gordon W. Allport, Philip E. Vernan, and Gardner Lindzey. Copyright 1951, by Gordon W. Allport, Philip E. Vernan, and Gardner Lindzey. Copyright 1931 by Gordon W. Allport and Philip E. Vernan. Published by Houghton, Mifflin Co.
45 forced-choice questions. Answers are scored to give a measure of the relative prominence of six motives in a person: theoretical, economic, aesthetic, social, political, and religious. A profile is charted to show how he varies from the norm on each of the six.
Acknowledgments
First of all I want to thank my colleagues on Fortune. So many o
f them were so helpful in so many ways that I could not name them without listing the whole masthead. But I do in particular want to thank Managing Editor Hedley Donovan, and not merely because I am a good organization man. For three years he gave me the time and the freedom to follow my own trails, and though some of the material in this book has appeared in Fortune, through his forbearance and understanding I was able to work on this as a book rather than a collection of articles. Where it lacks the cohesion I was aiming for the failing is mine and not the importunings of journalism.
I also want to thank those who were good enough to give a critical reading to my preliminary drafts: Alex Bavelas, Reinhard Bendix, Nelson Foote, Herbert Gans, Wilbert Moore, Thomas O’Dea, David Riesman, and Hugh Wilson.
W. H. W.
Index
A
Abegglen, James C., 278 fn
Abrams, Frank, 106
Activity Vector Analysts, 175
Adams, Clifford R.., 406 fn
address changes, 159, 159 fn, 270
administrator, new ideology of, 134–136; versus scientist, 224–225, 227–228
Advertising Age, quoted, 25
Advertising Association of the West, 86
advertising schools, college degrees, 86–87
age and income segregation, 319
Allied Stores, Levittown survey, 317
Allis, Frederick, 108 fn
Allport, Gordon W., 410 fn
“Alpha” tests, 172
ambition, 130, 156–157
American Community Builders, 282
American Cyanamid Company, 208
American Dilemma, An, (Myrdal), 29
American Dream, 4, 5
American Economic Review, 220
Anderson, Robert, 382, 383
Andree, Dr. Robert G., 391 fn
aptitude tests, 172, 182–183, 184
Army Air Force, mass testing, 183
Atkinson, Brooks, 246 fn
Atomic Energy Commission research, 218
Attitude Research Laboratory, 408 fn
average income, community, 307 fn
B
Babbitt (Lewis), 107
Baber, Eric, Park Forest High School, 386, 389, 390 fn, 392 fn; quoted, 387, 388 fn
Back, Kurt, 346 fn
Baltzell, Digby, 274
Barzun, Jacques, 197–198
Basso, Hamilton, 271 fn
Beard, Charles, 20
Bednarik, Karl, Der Junge Arbeiter von Heute, 67 fn
behavior patterns, suburbia, 330–335
Behavioral Sciences, Center for Advanced Study in the, 233
Bell Laboratories, 208–211, 215, 403
Bell Telephone Company, employee education, 101
Bello, Francis, 207, 208
belongingness, 7, 32–46, 161, 290, 357
Bendix, Reinhard, 44, 253 fn
Benz, V. C, quoted, 195
Bernreuter Personality Inventory, 189–190, 405 fn
Bethel, Maine, group development experiments, 54, 55, 56
Bettger, Frank, How I Raised Myself from Failure to Success in Selling, 253
big business, seniors’ preference for, 69–70, 71
Big Business Executive, The (Newcomer), 279 fn
Big Business Leaders in America (Warner and Abegglen), 278
Blandings’Way (Hodgins), 161
Bonte, Rev. Bert, 378; quoted, 379
Booker, Edward E., 79 fn
Booz, Allen and Hamilton, 162, 163
Borberg, William, 30
Boston University, public relations, degree in, 86
Bowman, A. A.., 59
Boy, How to Help Him Succeed, The (Fowler), 253 fn
Brasted, Kenneth, quoted, 107
Bredvold, Louis I., 24 fn
Brooks, John, Pride of Lions, A, 271 fn
Brown, John Mason, quoted, 246 fn
Brustein, Robert, quoted, 256–257
Buckley, William, Jr., 65
budgetism, suburbanites, 323–330
bureaucrat: euphemism for, 18; hero, 76
bureaucrats, generation of, 63–78
Burnham, Harry L., managerial revolution, 277
Buros, Oscar K., The Fourth Mental Measurements Yearbook, 189 fn
Burton, Philip, 87
Bush, Dr. George P., 220, 227
business, influence on education, 101–109
business-administration courses, 8–9, 84, 85
business leaders, background, 277–278
“buzz” session, 55–56
C
Caine Mutiny, The (Wouk), 243–248
California, mining camps, 293
Carnegie Foundation, grants to individual research, 231, 232
Carnegie Institute of Technology, 91, 99–100
Carothers, Wallace Hume, 207, 210
Case Institute of Technology, 91
Cather, Willa, A Lost Lady, 271 fn
Catholic Action Movement, 373
Catholic church, Park Forest, 373 centrality of homes, influence on social life, 346, 347
Chappie, Elliot, quoted, 29
Chase, Stuart, The Proper Study of Mankind, 33 fn
Chauncey, Henry, “The Use of Selective Service College Qualification Test,” 84 fn
chemical industry, industrial scientists, 208
Chicago, University of, graduate school of business administration, 85
Chicago Heights, chaplaincy program, 371 fn
Chicago Tribune, Park Forest vote, 300 children: influence on family friendships, 342; organization training, 382–392
Christian Century, 369
Christian Family Movement, 373
Christmas Clubs, 328–329
chronology of construction, influence on social life, 346
church, suburbia, 365–381
Clark, J. G., 189 fn
classlessness, suburbia, 298–312
Clews, Henry, 14–16, 113, 253
collective versus individual work, 77–78
collectivization, false, 49–51
College English Association, 107
College Placement, Journal of, ad headlines, 71–73
college seniors, employment preferences, 68–69, 74–75
college students, 65–67, 73–74
Collegiate Schools of Business, American Association of, 85
Commentary, 376 fn
communality, Organization people, 277
communication skills, 93–94, 99
community: integrating, 348–349; social activities, 290–291; traditional, 268
community church, 369
company type, 195
compartmentalized work, benefits, 401
“Compensation, Executive, The Determinants and Effects of” (Roberts), 163 fn
competition, co-operative, 159–160
Comte, Auguste, positivism, 25
conferences, 54, 106–108
“Conference Sense” (handbook), 54
conflict: bias against, 29; breakdown in communication, 35–36; man and society, 7, 13
Conquest of Poverty, The, 252
Conservatism-Radicalism Opinionaire (Lentz), 408 fn
consumption, inconspicuous, 312–329
Coogan, Father, 373
corporation executives, educational background, 79 fn
corporation presidents, results of tests for juniors, 198–199
corporations: recruiters, 63; research policy, 205–217; testing, 171–201; training programs, 109–128; transfer policy, 275
counseling, nondirective, 36–37
Couth (Oxford University magazine), quoted, 67
creativity, group source, 7
Crocker, Rev. Robert, 371
Cronbach, Lee J., Essentials of Psychological Testing, 189 fn
Curran, Charles, quoted, 309 fn
curriculum, “practical,” 78–100
cut-price problem, manufacturers, 315 fn
D
Dalton, John, atomic theory, 226
debt consolidation, suburbanites
, 326
Democrats, vote in Park Forest, 300–301
Denney, Reuel, 55
Denver University, 86, 87 department stores, revolving credit plans, 327–328
Descartes, René, 25
deviation, reprisal for, 359–360
Dewey, John, 20, 21, 23, 43
Dichter, Dr. Ernest, quoted, 17 fn
Dickson, William J., Management and the Worker, 33 fn
Didier, Father, 373
Dirksen, Everett, 300
discipline, Park Forest schools, 385
“Distribution of Ability of Students Specializing in Different Fields” (Wolfle and Oxtoby), 84 fn
Donne, John, 396
draft deferment program, U.S. Army, 83
Drexelbrook, Philadelphia, 280, 290–291, 333 fn
driveways and stoops, placement influence on friendships, 343–344
Drucker, Peter, 98
du Pont de Nemours: employees’ attitude toward work, 127; industrial scientists, 208; inoculation against socialism, 121; nylon discovery, 209–210
Durkheim, Emile, 4
Dworkin, Martin, quoted, 246 fn
E
Eastman Kodak, industrial scientists, 208
École Polytechnique, Paris, 25
Economic Research, National Bureau of, 233
Economist, The, European scientists, 240
education: attitude toward, survey, 96–97; business influence on, 101–109; corporation executives, 79 fn; students majoring in, 83, 84 fn
Education, Office of: engineering curriculums, 91; statistical reports, 81 fn–82 fn
The Organization Man Page 49