The artist's standard is diametrically opposed to the capitalistic standard. We honor the capitalist not for what he does, but for the money he gets for what he does. We honor the artist for what he does and never because of the monetary considerations which follow his creation.
_To substitute the standard of the artist for the standard of the capitalist would be impossible in business, yet a harmonious working of the two is possible_.
Such a harmony was probably present in the old industrial guilds, which developed a class consciousness creating its own ideals. Within the guild the most skillful workman had the highest honor. The work itself, independent of the money which might be received for it, was uppermost in the worker's mind.
The executive seeking to stimulate love of the game among his workmen should in some way see that social approval attaches itself
to the work as such and not to the wage which is secured by means of the work. The workmen must be given an interest in the work as well as in the wage.
Executives everywhere find that ``getting together'' with others engaged in the same work is most stimulating. We are inspired by the presence of others engaged in the same sort of work and giving approval to success in our particular field.
_The third condition for securing a love of the game is that the work itself must appeal to the individual as something important and useful_.
Its useful function must be apparent, and the necessity and advantage of perfect performance must be emphasized. I play golf because the game permits me to assert myself and engage in independent and exhilarating activity. My devotion to my professional tasks, however, is dependent upon the fact that I regard psychology, whether the work be in research or instruction, as of the greatest importance to science and to mankind in general. The work as a whole and all the
details of it seem to me to be important. In performing my daily tasks they seem to me to be worthy of the most persistent and enthusiastic effort.
Doubtless there are classes of work incapable of appealing to individuals as does my work to me. But in many instances work seems menial and ignoble because it is not understood. It is not seen in its relationships and broader aspects. The single task as performed by the individual is so small and so specialized that it does not seem worth while.
The dignity of labor demands that the workman should respect the work of his hands.
He should look upon his accomplished tasks as of inherent dignity independent of the monetary recompense to be received. To keep the workman's efficiency keyed up, the employer should see to it that this broader aspect of labor is emphasized and that the day laborer finds some reason for his labor besides his wage. It is the only game he may ever have time to play. It is to the interest of
himself, his employer, and society at large that he should enter enthusiastically into it and be ennobled by it.
_Professional, technical, and vocational schools are serving a noble function in emphasizing the dignity of the work for which they are preparing young men_.
They are more and more presenting the broader aspects of the subjects taught. Even the altruistic and extremely technical aspects of the subject are found profitable. The narrower and apparently the more practical course does not result so successfully as the broader and more cultural ones.
The boy who goes direct into work from
the public school is not likely to c
to see how the different cogs are essential and
worthy factors in the total process.