11: Practice Plus Theory
Scott asserts that "the demand for trained and experienced men is never supplied" and that most organizations find their ability to grow impeded by the lack of such men.
The tactic of seeking to attract men trained by competitors is both expensive and ineffective: men are loyal to firms that have brought them up, and companies that invest in training likely invest in retention, compensating their best people to a level which is not likely to be offered elsewhere.
Those men who are constantly seeking employment are generally those who are dissatisfied with any employment - generally because they have not been trained to be particularly good at any form of work. The breadth of experience such a man gains in roving from one house to another is generally of little value - to be marginally competent in many things is to be adept at no one thing.
He also asserts that "scientific management has conclusively demonstrated" that individuals with "haphazard experience" are not as effective or efficient as those with concentrated experience. This is true both of laborers who perform physical tasks and mental workers whose occupation is primarily problem solving. Men with depth of experience always outperform those with breadth of experience.
The Value of Experience
Experience in an activity develops proficiency in that activity: it is by repetition that an individual develops skill to the point at which a physical activity becomes mechanical and can be performed with little attention - and while mental activities require attention, the process by which they are done becomes routinized.
On the other hand, consciousness and attention is necessary to the improvement of a procedure. A man who is adept at shoveling coal works mindlessly to maintain his level of production - but if he is to improve it is through being attentive to his activity that he discovers methods of improvement, attempts them in practice, and observed the results. These periods represent the plateaus and increases in the level of efficiency.
The chief difference between a machine and a man is that men are capable of adjusting themselves whereas a machine cannot. Once put in motion, the machine performs the same actions - which has great consistency, but certain drawbacks:
- A machine is incapable of improvement. A man can recognize and implement a change that will make him more efficient, but a machine never can - an external operator must observe and adjust the machine.
- A machine is incapable of adjusting to circumstances. A man can recognize that "standard procedure" is ineffective and make adjustments to be productive, but a machine never can. An automatic loom will continue going through the motions of weaving when it has run out of thread.
Unskilled laborers may be treated like machines: a supervisor or foreman can direct their activities and demand compliance to standards of performance, and discourage them from trying a different way to achieve an outcome. And in this manner a crew of twenty men becomes a beast with forty hands and one brain, and the brain cannot keep track of the actions of that many hands.
In terms of experience, a micro-managed worker can make neither improvements nor adjustments to his work, nor improve his performance in any way if he is held to behave like a machine - to do exactly as ordered in the manner ordered. He gains no benefit from experience other than a proficiency at following instructions, and he contributes no benefit other than the performance of his task exactly as instructed. In terms of improvement, he becomes no better at the job over time.
And over the long term, a man who is made into a machine is only as useful as a machine. And like a machine, he will be scrapped when a better method is found that no longer requires his function.
Experience and Improvement
A worker who is compelled to work in a certain way becomes efficient in performing his duties as described - but can only become as efficient as the process will allow, and no more. Thus work that assumes a machine-like quality has a maximum level of output, when the process is performed precisely to the extent of a man's stamina and endurance. In terms of his productivity curve, he will rise to a plateau and no further.
Experience of a worker who is allowed latitude in accomplishing a goal has virtually unlimited potential for improvement. He may not only master an efficient process, but discover a process that is more efficient. In terms of his productivity curve, he will rise to a plateau, maintain it for a time, and then rise to an even higher plateau.
The short-term increases are the result of learning to perform a task using the existing tools and methods. But the long-term increases are attributable to the introduction of some new tool or method of work.
As such, experience that increases the proficiency of performance of an existing action lead to short-term improvements only, and experience that discovers a more efficient or productive action lead to sustainable long-term improvements. The latter, naturally, should be the objective of the foreman or manager. And as it has been said, a man who is restricted to standard procedures and traditional practices has no opportunity to discover more efficient or productive tools or methods.
It has also been conceded that new techniques are learned by a process of trail and error, and carry with them the risk of "error" in that a proposed new process may be less efficient than an old. As such, shops that mean to restrict creative freedom to a few (a manager may implement a new procedure but a worker may not) magnify the risk that a change will be detrimental, and that it will be carried on in spite of its detriment.
That is, in a shop where one manager dictates procedure to 100 workers, all 100 workers will go wrong when the manager dictates a change. And the manager, ever conscious of his rank and status, will be loath to admit his mistake and insist his men continue to follow his orders even when the flaw is obvious.
But if each worker has the latitude to attempt his own improvements, a new idea may be tried by ten men, or a single man, without much fanfare. If the change is in error, they will discover it more quickly and abandon the bad idea and they will be able to do so without lauding their foolishness. This means any detriment of a bad idea will not be widespread or long-lived, and it can be quickly abandoned without any damage to reputation.
There is some fear in uncontrolled innovation: that men will work in random ways and never settle into an effective pattern, and that good ideas will be abandoned as men constantly try new things. However, this is not the natural habit of men: they generally enjoy settling into a productive routine, and make a change only if it seems to improve their efficiency. So long as management sets the goal, and rewards performance, the men can be trusted to be earnest in seeking improvement.
How Experience is Secured and Utilized
Scott describes four processes by which experience can be secured and utilized: haphazard, apprenticeship, theoretical-practical, and practical-theoretical.
I. Haphazard Experience
The sad truth of it is that the present practices in teaching workmen skills is very haphazard. Schools teach students the skills they might need in an abstract form, often buy rote and with little to no practical application. When a new employee is hired he is sent to the shop with little instruction, expected to observe and figure out the job with little guidance.
This is even more so of the knowledge workers than laborers. A man who is meant to fuel an engine is shown how to shovel fuel into the boiler, but a man who is meant to sell a product is simply told to "go sell" without any instruction. It is to his credit that, by some haphazard process, men can teach themselves to do a task with some level of proficiency - but this ability is too much relied upon by the vast majority of employers.
For employers, this leads to employee turnover. Men who might have become competent with instruction are unable to figure things out on their own and leave in frustration, or are dismissed for being less productive than needed. As such a man may learn a piece of the job in one shop, another piece in another shop, and over the course of several years come to develop competency in his trade.
Learning by experience means learning by mistakes and successes - which carries with it the necessity of making mistakes, and some of them quite serious. "The burnt child avoids the fire" summarizes the issue of haphazard learning: it would be better if the child were taught to avoid the fire without getting burned.
This is not merely a theoretical consideration of what might happen - looking at the high turnover rate in businesses in general, and certain industries and positions specifically, it is a widespread problem.
II. Apprenticeship Experience
The apprenticeship system, long established in skilled trades, improves upon the system of haphazard experience by placing a man (or more often a boy) under the direct tutelage of an individual who has master a craft. The apprentice learns by observing, then by doing minor tasks, and taking on tasks of increasing complexity until he has gained sufficient skill to ply his trade independently.
Although the apprenticeship system has had significant success, it has been largely inconsistent: a student can only be as good as his teacher, and some men who are adept at performing a task are not adept at teaching it to others. Apprenticeship also has its drawbacks: it takes a long time to train from novice to master, and the system has often been exploited to provide masters with unpaid workers (effectively, slave labor, though an apprentice could leave a master).
Apprenticeship is also of decreasing importance in the age of industrialization, as most factory workers perform a small part of a task - a worker might fashion the legs of a chair, but never design or build a complete chair. The system of specialized labor and piecework is designed to eliminate the need for mastery, and workers develop "skill" in tasks that are meaningless in and of themselves.
III. Theoretical-practical Experience
The theoretical-practical model is effected in the modern educational system. A chemist spends years in school learning the theories of chemistry, and then applies his theories in practice when he takes a job as a chemist.
It is generally believed that much of education is wasted - a chemistry student who becomes a petroleum chemist has wasted years studying every other field of theory. Though it is argued that his education prepares him for any number of positions that require knowledge of chemistry, he eventually settles into one specific position that uses only a fraction of the theoretical knowledge he undertook the time and expense to learn.
It should also be remembered that the university system was never created in order to train men for specific vocations: a young man went to study to improve himself and develop a general knowledge of the world that he might have a keen understanding of things, but not for any specific purpose. As such, many university curricula produce fine minds that are not suited to any specific purpose.
There is also the notion, which quite often proves true, that knowledge of the way things ought to work is not always aligned to the way that things actually do work - such that the student's perception is warped and his education is not merely useless, but counterproductive in that he is guided to confidently undertake poorly conceived approaches. Also, given the rate at which technology progresses, the knowledge that a student gains in university is very often outdated by the time he enters the working world.
The progress of education and the specialization of schools, particularly in schools designed to teach a specific vocation, has done much to advance knowledge and prepare workers - so their service to society has been invaluable. But their efficiency in training each student involves wasteful and counterproductive effort in learning things that will never be applied.
IV. Practical-theoretical Experience
The inverse of the theoretical-practical method of learning puts practice before theory: a man is put to work at a task and coaches him as he attempts to perform the task. It has about it the sense of efficiency because it is focused on what is obviously needed, but inefficiency because the student fumbles haphazardly with the task before learning to do it correctly.
However, practical-theoretical approaches are often used to improve the skill and efficiency of workers. It is assumed that someone else already has (somehow) learned to do the task by methods that are somewhat efficient, and the experience enables him to coach others.
A Concrete Example
Scott further illustrates the methods of gaining experience in the example of watching boys attempt to solve an intricate block puzzle someone had left in a boarding house.
- The first boy to solve the puzzle did so by trial and error, experimenting until he finally had it solved. This is the haphazard method, and it took many days for him to stumble on the solution.
- A second boy had been watching the first struggle and solve, and by observing his successes and failures learned how to solve the puzzle. This is the apprentice method, and the second boy took around two hours to solve it.
- A third boy inspected the puzzle without at first trying to solve it. He examined the puzzle to figure out how the pieces moved about, the principles by which it operated. This is the theoretical-practical approach, and when he finally set to work on the puzzle, he solved it in about half an hour.
- The last boy set to the puzzle on his own, and asked questions of the third boy, who coached him to overcome difficulties as they arose, until finally arising at the solution. This practical-theoretical approach enabled the boy to solve the problem in about fifteen minutes.
Clearly, the author is a proponent of practical-theoretical, though there is the issue of how a person who coaches another employee is to gain his knowledge in the first place. As such it is an excellent approach for training new employees to do a task that experienced ones already know how to do, but inapplicable when an entirely new task must be learned.
Combining the Methods
The methods of gaining experience have been described in their "pure" forms, but in actuality an individual gains knowledge by combining the methods.
- An individual may attempt to figure things out on his own, but then seek to observe someone else, study the principles, or seek tips and advice.
- A tutor may demonstrate by example, provide either practical or theoretical guidance, or allow his student to work things out for himself.
- An educator may give lectures in theory, but also demonstrations of practical applications, allow students to experiment in a laboratory, and lend practical advice to someone who is performing a task.
Thus, an individual seeking to gain proficiency well be very inventive in overcoming the obstacles of ignorance and inexperience. Some may feel more comfortable learning by one mechanism than another, and may even find one method faster or more effective than another in gaining proficiency.
A brief mention is given to the manner in which competition discourages some forms of learning. When more productive men are rewarded for outperforming others, it becomes contrary to their financial interests to help others to gain knowledge and they may even seek to prevent others from becoming more proficient.
Scott asserts that "there is no warfare between theory and practice" and the most valuable and effective methods of learning will leverage both. To practice without theory is to embrace inefficiency, and to theorize without practicing is to guarantee misguidedness.