instances of bad management under these systems containing as they do
the elements which lead to discord and ultimate loss and trouble for
both sides.

If neither the prosperity of the company nor any particular type or
system furnishes an index to proper management, what then is the
touchstone which indicates good or bad management?

The art of management has been defined, "as knowing exactly what you
want men to do, and then seeing that they do it in the best and cheapest
way.'" No concise definition can fully describe an art, but the
relations between employers and men form without question the most
important part of this art. In considering the subject, therefore, until
this part of the problem has been fully discussed, the other phases of
the art may be left in the background.

The progress of many types of management is punctuated by a series of
disputes, disagreements and compromises between employers and men, and
each side spends more than a considerable portion of its time thinking
and talking over the injustice which it receives at the hands of the
other. All such types are out of the question, and need not be
considered.

It is safe to say that no system or scheme of management should be
considered which does not in the long run give satisfaction to both
employer and employee, which does not make it apparent that their best
interests are mutual, and which does not bring about such thorough and
hearty cooperation that they can pull together instead of apart. It
cannot be said that this condition has as yet been at all generally
recognized as the necessary foundation for good management. On the