12. Individuals and Groups
Examining the personal structure of an individual's interests and proclivities is not necessarily the best tactic - few vocations are undertaken in solitary, and most involve the way in which he interacts with other people and the groups to which he belongs. As work is for most a social setting, then so should be any evaluation.
At the same time, the interaction style of an individual may shift depending on the particular group of individuals with whom he interacts. A thorough examination may require placing the individual in groups composed of different members, in order that his character will show itself to a sufficient degree.
He briefly mentions the theories of psychology that attribute characteristics to laborers of a given race or ethnicity, and the notion that given positions might be best staffed by Italians, Irish, Hungarians, Greeks, or Russian Jews. But there appears to be no consistency. In one manufacturing center, people expressed with great certainty that Swedes were best suited to a given kind of work, and in another it was averred with just as much certainty that they were unfit for the same work. The same can be said when the assertions involve gender or other demographic factors.
Where there are certain characteristics that are found to be prevalent in members of a given demographic category, this tends to be vague and spurious. Even when statistical analysis is done, it is found that there is a broad range of personalities that may be spread widely from the demographic average - and this poses a problem when the average is assumed to be true of all.
There are also forms of analysis that are on the fringes of psychology. Consider graphology, the inspection of handwriting, which maintains that a certain loop or flourish, the space between the letters and the position of dots and crossbars, are proof of certain qualities of character. Under scrutiny, such correlations have been found to be weak and handwriting analysis is extremely unreliable as an indicator of personality.
Attentiveness, which is rather in the center of efficiency in a broad range of occupations, is often related to the task in which it is measured. It has been found that two workers measured as being equally attentive, but both were complete failures because they were not so attentive in a given position - and in one case they became highly efficient as soon as they exchanged position. As such "attentiveness" in general is a poor indicator of attentiveness in a specific environment and set of tasks. Consider, as an example, the quality of focus - a man may be attentive to a broad range of things, such as changes in his environment, but unable to remain attentive when focused on a small task, such as the assembly of fine parts on a workbench.
And while vocational literature has made some reference to the requirements and conditions for various occupations the author has "nowhere" found any reference to mental functions, such as the level and kind of attention or memory skills that are required for success.