investigators, the lengthening list of specialists: statisticians, chemists, cost experts, etc. Finally, in the case of most shrewd and successful executives, there are counselors on the outside whom he calls in when necessary.

Testing the Evidence

The information which these several sources focus upon the executive's desk varies widely in value. Part of it is truth itself, part the beliefs of misguided yet sincere persons, part the work of deliberate falsifiers. The testimony must be subjected to searching criticism before final acceptance.

Criticism, analysis, is the necessary complement of imagination. Imagination sees the whole in the part—the finished work in the specimen. It says: What I have seen leads me to believe that the whole enterprise (or article) will be valuable, sound, profitable, etc., providing the portions yet to be filled in are up to certain standards of execution, etc. Analysis makes sure that the parts are all filled in and that they are up to specifications. It takes an inventory. It cross-examines the new plan. It goes over every item of the proposition and tests it out sternly, making no allowances, assuming-in order to be safe that what is not present perhaps is wrong, unfavorable, hostile.

How can we test our ideas, test that deliberately controlled sequence of ideas which we call thinking? Chiefly by going over the steps of the process to see whether we have made mistakes. This is the method which all of us use. The scientist does the same things as the untrained man, only more carefully and systematically. The untrained man rarely takes a trial balance of the evidence for and against a certain view. He assumes as a matter of course that his mental processes are accurate and sufficient and acts accordingly, whereas the scientist tests his thought constantly, making sure of every step he takes.

Systematic and Accurate Procedure

When the untrained man does test his thought, moreover, he is apt to do it unsystematically, whereas the scientist is careful to use orderly, even procedure. Knowing the proneness of the mind to jump the track, the scientist observes strictly the rules of the game while analyzing; he is careful to pin down each idea in a set place and order.

But the most important difference is this-the scientist strikes for essentials and thereby makes his analysis at once swifter and more accurate.

Analysis, criticism, is not mere faultfinding. Mere faultfinders are often among the most easily deceived; they do not know where the weak spots are. When the Twentieth Century stops at junction points in its wonderful run, trainmen with torch and hammer go along tapping wheels and axles, here and there. It is quickly done—just a light tap at a certain point. Untrained men, merely because they do not know the critical points where the strain comes, might tap all over the wheel yet miss the weak spot.

Analysis for the Executive

The system of analysis or critical method which the man in an executive position is to use, if it is to secure him superior results, should have three characteristics:

I. It should be reliable and accurate.

2. It should be generally applicable to all sorts of ideas, problems, etc.

3. It should be simple and quick.

The man in an executive position is obliged to decide many different kinds of questions. In most cases he cannot pretend to expert knowledge, since knowledge in any line comes only after long, specialized study and experience. He has all kinds of problems put up to him by his subordinates, all of whom

are individuals with divergent information and different viewpoints. It is necessary, unless the business is to slump or the tenure of his job is to be terminated, for him to give substantially the right answer to question after question.

The executive faced with these various problems never forgets also that he is in charge of a going concern, which means that decisions must be prompt. He is in a very different position from that of the scientist in his laboratory, or the judge in a court of law. The judge, for instance, has practically all the time he wishes, and he has at hand a carefully selected and classified array of the opinions of other judges on this point.

The executive needs, in order to make headway, a reliable working apparatus for testing ideas, proposals, and methods. If the plan passes this scrutiny, and if it is important in any way, it may then be tested more deliberately by the persons of special knowledge who are familiar with the case.

What Does the Idea Mean?

The first step in testing an idea, method, or proposal, is to see what it means. Express it in terms of your habitual activity so that you are sure of just what is implied by every part of it.

This would seem a matter of course, and yet hardly any step is more neglected in common life. The lawyer scrutinizes at once the language of the statute, or the contract on which his case depends. The chemist proceeds at once to an analysis of elements in the specimen placed in his hands. But the "busy" executive often jumps at the meaning of a proposal without translating it with any definiteness into the terms of his actual business life. A large proportion of the difficulties and misunderstandings which the executive has to adjust come from neglect on someone's part to grasp the exact significance of a proposal, or order, or explanation. It is as if a purchasing agent were to order goods on every

requisition placed in his hands without troubling himself to see whether they are already in the stores department. The fact is that many proposals, improved methods, etc., reveal their futility at once when we grasp their plain meaning.

The psychologists call this part of the testing process "definition of terms." The phrase is useful if we keep in mind that we are concerned here not with words but with ideas. Lincoln was particularly good at this, and it contributed largely to his success. A man who sees clearly the object which is held before his eyes knows at once, in most cases, whether or not he likes it. So when a person comprehends what a proposed business plan implies he can generally decide at once whether it is worth investigating. Time and care spent at this point will invariably save time and effort later on. Furthermore, it is the necessary basis for other tests.

When the Government's coal order came in the winter of 1918, stopping work on Mondays, the suggestion was made to lengthen the working day for the rest of the week to an equivalent extent. The office manager had to consider various items before he understood the meaning of that proposal. It would involve altered arrangements for light and heat, janitor and elevator service, and the making of new shipping and mailing schedules, etc. It would involve also the difficulties, real and fancied, which employees might have in adjusting themselves to the changed hours. When he knew what the proposal really meant, for his business, he was prepared to consider its value.

Competence of the Witness

Once we know what an idea means the next question is usually: Who brings it up? Merchandising plans suggested by the advertising manager of Wanamaker's will arrest the attention of any merchant. The fact that a plan brings an introduction from a good source does not prove that we

should accept it, but it is warrant for admitting it to the waiting room for closer scrutiny.

In estimating the credibility of a witness we consider mainly:

1. His General Intelligence and Standing. A matter brought up by a trusted official of the company has the presumption of an attentive and favorable hearing—so with one brought up by an old customer in good standing, or the representative of a well-known firm, even though there have been no previous dealings with him.

2. His Knowledge of the Particular Case in Hand. The opinion of an expert on his specialty of the head bookkeeper regarding ledger systems, the janitor regarding ventilation, cleaning, etc., the clerks in the mailing department regarding stamping or letter-opening machines-merits always careful consideration.

3. His Freedom from Bias. This is a necessary check on the preceding test; the expert is usually more or less swayed by prejudice regarding his specialty. One who is "on record" with regard to a particular matter is not often entirely open-minded in his attitude.

4. His Honesty; How Far He is Swayed by Self-Interest. This test is constantly in use by the man in an executive position. Most of the proposals of all sorts which come before him are some way bound up with intentions of profit for someone. He must decide how far the statement or the conduct of a person concerned is to be taken as sincere; to be relied on. Often the expert, of even high intelligence, must lie under suspicion because of the possibility of self-interest.

The Idea Itself

1. Its Apparent Reasonableness. A third test considers the idea by itself. Does it-for one thing-appear consistent with well-established experience; with other known facts in