associations that belong to the old are apt to remain.[7] The
thoughts of "knack, aptitude, tact, adroitness,"--not to speak of
the less desirable "Brute Force," "shrewdness, subtlety, cunning,
artifice, deceit, duplicity," of the older idea of management remain
in the background of the mind and make it difficult, even when one
is convinced that management is a science, to think and act as if
it were.

It must be noticed and constantly remembered that one of the
greatest difficulties to overcome in studying management and its
development is the meaning of the terms used. It is most
unfortunate that the new ideas have been forced to content
themselves with old forms as best they may.

PSYCHOLOGICAL INTEREST OF THE TERMS.--Psychology could ask no
more interesting subject than a study of the mental processes that
lie back of many of these terms. It is most unfortunate for the
obtaining of clearness, that new terms were not invented for the new
ideas. There is, however, an excellent reason for using the old
terms. By their use it is emphasized that the new thought is a
logical outgrowth of the old, and experience has proved that this
close relationship to established ideas is a powerful argument for
the new science; but such terms as "task," "foreman," "speed boss,"
"piece-rate" and "bonus," as used in the science of management,
suffer from misunderstanding caused by old and now false
associations. Furthermore, in order to compare old and new
interpretations of the ideas of management, the older terms of
management should have their traditional meanings only. The two sets
of meanings are a source of endless confusion, unwarranted
prejudice, and worse. This is well recognized by the authorities