For anyone who has worked - on an assembly line, as a bureaucrat-in-a-box - the greatest workplace nemesis is a nonexistent ideal: the theoretical person against whom your "efficiency" is measured. Often, not even a boss or office rival is as irritating as this cold standard, the product of stopwatch-wielding efficiency experts and industrial psychologists who claim to have a scientific measure of "average output." In The One Best Way, science writer Robert Kanigel examines the first so-called efficiency expert of them all: Frederick Taylor, the turn-of-the-century engineer and pioneering management consultant.

Taylor's idea was simple: break down all jobs into their smallest component tasks, experiment to determine the best way to accomplish them and how fast they can be performed, and then find the right workers to do them. It was called scientific management, or "Taylorism" -- a formula to maximize the productivity of industrial workers. "The coming of Taylorism," Kanigel writes, took "currents of thought drifting through his own time -- standards, order, production, regularity, efficiency -- and codif[ied] them into a system that defines our age."

Though he had an enormous impact on our everyday lives, today Taylor is little known outside management circles. This is curious: in his own time, Taylor was a world-class celebrity, advocating an organizational revolution that would link harder work to higher wages -- as well as instituting shorter working hours and regular "cigarette breaks." His books and articles were translated into all the major languages and passionately studied, even in the Soviet Union, as guides to a future industrial utopia; he was, in many ways, Stalin's prophet. Yet Taylor was also reviled as a slave driver who devalued skilled labor and despised the common worker, and he was ridiculed as a failure in many of his business undertakings.

Much of Kanigel's book is devoted to descriptions of the shops that Taylor worked in: a ball-bearing factory, a paper mill, and machine-tool plants, to name a few. It's dramatic how different the world he describes is from the work environment of today. Here were no highly educated managers attempting to exercise minute control over relatively unskilled employees. Instead, craftsmen dominated these oily pits -- spinning steel-cutting lathes, constructing elaborate sand molds for machine tools, and maintaining the gigantic leather belts that harnessed the energy of central steam engines. THis was in many ways the most fascinating part of the book for me: I learned what people did in the decaying mills that surrounded my New England home.

To all but the most practiced eye, such a workplace was a chaotic scene. What the craftsmen did -- and what they were capable of -- was largely a mystery to management, which deprived the managers of control and power, leading to a number of stunningly counterproductive practices. If tool and die makers produced jigs beyond a certain threshold, for example, 19th-century foremen would dock (!) their pay per item -- an obvious incentive for them to slow down. And because ball-bearing inspectors in a Fitchburg mill worked slowly and talked too much, they were forced to put in 101/2 -hour days, without breaks.

Taylor witnessed such practices and decided to change them. In one of his most famous experiments, on "Schmidt", he got a common laborer to double the number of bars of pig iron he transported down a plank each day. All he did was pay the man more, linking higher output directly to higher wages -- hardly a revolutionary thought today. His solution for the gossipy ball-bearing inspectors was to separate them, shorten their working hours, increase their pay, and allow them to relax occasionally; in return, they were expected to work harder, and they did.

Once Kanigel establishes that Taylor's method worked well (to a certain extent), the book becomes tough going. Despite his elegant prose, Kanigel's exhaustive treatment of his subject's life and experiments strained my interest. Do we really need to know, for example, that Taylor once spent months alternating the size of coal shovels in the name of furnace-stoking efficiency? Or the entire list of his vacation companions for one summer? Such biographical detail can add spice to a compelling narrative, but to include them only as an exercise in thoroughness, as Kanigel does, is simply tiring. Taylor simply is not interesting as a personality.

Kanigel also glosses over many important issues. Taylorism really did devalue certian kind sof skilled labor, and the costs have been high. The "Taylorized" doctors of the HMO era, for example, must work with administrators peeking over their shoulders, dispensing pills at the expense of empathy and other unmeasurable healing skills. And once factory workers lost their control and even their comprehension of manufacturing processes, many ceased to take pride in their work and stopped making suggestions for improvement. This may be one reason why Japanese and European design is often superior to American. Taylorism also spawned the rise of management consulting, with its sham exercises and goals -- often a huge diversion of managerial talent in the name of efficiency. Kanigel, however, largely ignores this darker side of Taylorism; the true impact of his legacy gets lost in the details. The result is a 600-page profile of a narrow and compulsive man with a single, if influential, idea.

Recommended, but only for scholars and specialists.

Kanigel illuminates the life and times of both Fred Taylor and the revolution his ideas spawned. Without explicitly understanding how Taylor's ideas have shaped our lives we cannot understand the profound impact this 19th Centruy man continues having on our day-to-day lives. With the often misplaced notion of efficiency so deeply ingrained in the very fabric of our lives, we often ignore the profound impacts of blind quests for efficiency.

Who do you know who can reliably recognize the tipping point where efficiency destroys effectiveness (and with it competitiveness)? Who do you know who would challenge changes in the name of efficiency because the changes would impair quality, effectiveness, morale, or labor relations? Without understanding Fred Taylor and efficiency, how can you avoid mistaken applications of the notion? What will keep a 19th Century man from being the most influential man of both the 20th Century and the 21st Century?

This is a wonderful book. You shouldn't reject this book based upon your opinion of its subject. The books is written very well and evokes enough of the times in which Taylor lived to give us a more nuanced portrait of the man within the context of his world.

Nowadays, F.W. Taylor is often portrayed as either a villain who has all but enslaved us or he is defended as not really meaning what he said. Instead, this book shows us Taylor's nineteenth century upper middle-class background and spends a good amount of time on character development and work habits.

Once all this is understood, Taylor's seemingly obsessive goals become more understandable. He did have many important insights in making work efficient. When he began manufacturing was done in thousands of very small shops. It was horribly inefficient. His work did help our economy and helped the average worker become more productive. However, I still can't understand how someone could think having a human body physically haul 47 tons of pig iron per day is a good thing. There is a definite quality of life aspect that still wasn't grasped by these early efficiency experts.

Another extremely valuable topic the author clarifies is that Henry Ford's assembly line had more to do with meatpacking than Taylor's Scientific Management. Taylor's critics have unjustly used Henry Ford's manufacturing techniques as evidence against Taylor's methods when Ford himself made statements denying Taylor's influence. Also, like many original thinkers, Taylor was ill served by many who came after him and used his name but not his methods. This is all clearly laid out in this valuable book.

This isn't a whitewash or a book of simple praise. It paints a complex portrait of Taylor, but gives us enough context to understand him within his time. We get to know something of his character and that helps a great deal. It is a big book but reads short and is surprisingly engaging for a book on manufacturing. This book gave me insights into the early twentieth century that I needed to make certain pieces fall into place. It has a prominent place in my library and I hope a lot of people read it.

This is a well-organized, clear, short reference work. Well done

Here is the little red bok.
If the big one is too expensive for you, you can always buy this. You'll find inside all the important protocols and data for molecular biology.It's up to date, and clearly presented.
Try it, and then buy the big one!

This book is an essential tool for people in the scientific field such as Molecular Biology (obviously), Biochemistry, and Neuroscience. It is comprehensive and up-to-date as far as the techniques are concerned. It is good value in a sense that you don't have to buy the whole "Current Protocols Series" which costs an arm and a leg if you do. Although nowadays, a lot of "kits" are commercially available, the techniques found in this book explain principles and provide different alternatives suited for your needs. Molecular Cloning by Maniatis et al., although needs updating, is still a helpful reference in my opinion and it complements this book.

This was the third Goddard title I read .. & I was a little disappointed. I wouldn't recommend reading this title first .. try (say) In Pale Batallions or Hand In Glove first. I've given it 4 stars because the writing/language is still superb Goddard. I deducted one star only because (personally) I found the ending a little far-fetched.

I have been a book addict since little and specailly a mistery novel fan. Recently, I often got so bored with junk publication of mystery novels but When I first encountered his book I knew that he was genius! TAKE NO FAREWELL, PAINTING THE DARKNESS, PAST CARING, INTO THE BLUE, HAND IN GLOVE, BEYOND RECALL, OUT OF SUN.... I still have more Goddards to read but my personal top 3 so far would be PAINTING THE DARKNESS, PAST CARING and INTO THE BLUE. CLOSED CIRCLE is a good book although it may lack the twist and mystery compared to other books by Goddard. But I am so attached to this book and keep reading in order just to reach the ending, which is my favorite part and the most beautiful ending by Goddard which envoke visual and emotional sensation as if I were there. The last few sentences, I can even recall as it is so beautiful and so sad. (This novel is not as sad as other Goddard's books, though) I would love to read sequal if any.

Robert Goddard's books are all pretty much alike - and they're all pretty good: Crimes committed in the past coming back to haunt the protagonists later on.

Written in beautiful prose, the likeable and believable characters in Mr. Goddard's novels stumble through twists and turns, uncovering truths that turn out to be lies in the end.

A lot of research and a great feel for the times that the story takes place in (the 1930's in this case) are another trademark of Mr. Goddard's skills.

Reading any Robert Goddard novel is like watching a Hitchcock movie, and "Closed Circle" is one of the best.

I haven't read the 1990 National Geographic article on new evidencies of Peary's reaching the N. Pole, but I've certainly read other books on polar expeditions and I sure recommend this one. Although Mr. Wally's literary value is somehow restricted (he's an explorer in the first place, not a writer)and that makes the beginning a bit tiresome, when it gets to discuss facts and attitudes in polar travelling he's certainly very good.

It doesn't matter wether Mr. Peary did or not reach the Pole after all. If you take a look at the history of polar expeditions, you will see that for decades nobody really cared about a sportsmen challenge (albeit formidable)which would not mean any particular contribution to mankind's knowledge or well-being, but they'd rather focus on expanding the limits of science through adecuate research.

I certainly admire polar travellers, and Amundsen's raid to the S. Pole is a paradigma, but none of the qualities or higher ambitions of people like Amundsen (he did many more things), Nansen, Shakcleton or Scott I can see in Peary or Cook.

Peary's atttitude towards the inuit and their belongings (read the episodes about the meteorits and eskimos being almost deported and afterwards dissected) would have been rejected by any of the other explorers I mentioned, and even under the light of early 20th century must be deplored.

Enjoy yourselves

Wally Herbert has presented a very thoroughly researched and documented book on the Peary/Cook race to the North Pole concluding that Cook flat out lied about arriving at the Pole (that's easy to correctly conclude)and Peary carelessly missed it by numerous navigational errors. This is a tale that can seemingly never be put to rest. Sir Wally Herbert is well qualified to research and write such a book as he himself dog sledded from Barrow Alaska, over the North Pole and back below the Arctic Circle to Spitzenberg in 1969. I thought the author was very even handed about his research and his fair presentation of the facts as he could best interpret them. I think however, Wally Herbert mistakenly concludes that Peary missed the Pole and presumably 'lied' about achieving his goal of being the first to arrive at the North Pole. After I read Herbert's book I took the opportunity to re-read a 1990 National Geographic article entitled "New Evidence Places Peary at the Pole". In the article an independent body of geographic, photographic and navigational experts from the Navigation Foundation of Rockville, MD were presented with all of the navigational details of Peary's diary notations, his photographs, ocean depth soundings and preserved navigational equipment. The article makes a very convincing and cogent presentation that Peary's photographs (the angle and extent of shadows within the exposures) when measured photogrammetrically present unalterable proof that the photos were taken with five miles of the pole. Further the ocean depth sounding results taken on the way to the pole by Peary are currently consistent with what we now know about the actual depth of the Arctic Ocean along the meridian travelled by the Peary Expedition. Although National Geographic and the Navigation Foundation have in my opinion substantiated Peary's success in attaining the pole this is no discredit to Herbert's well written book that should be read by anyone interested in polar and arctic history.

Mr. Herbert has laid to rest the question of priority at the North Pole, Commander Peary did not reach it and lied to the world about his claim. Forget the National Geographic, they would look very foolish to refute the story after all these years. We can hardly expect them to be objective. Almost all polar scholars agree. Peary did not obtain his goal(nor did Dr. Cook). Read this book, come to your own conclusion. I'm sure you will agree.

Nearly as interesting as Kidnapped, but with quite a bit more romance

This sequel to _Kidnapped_ does not start out as well as _Kidnapped_; however it soon makes up for it. _Catriona_ takes up the story of David Balfour only one or two days after _Kidnapped_. He must now try to clear his name and the name of James Stewart of the Appin murder. This will not be easy because the Campells want James Stewart to hang.

Robert F. Hoke led an interesting life. He was a young man when the Civil War broke out (mid-twenties) and enlisted as a lieutenant in the 1st North Carolina Volunteers, seeing combat at the Battle of Big Bethel in Virginia in 1861. Four years later, a Major General, he was one of the principle players at the Battle of Bentonville, one of the last battles of the Civil War. In between he missed few battles (though Gettysburg was one; he'd been severely wounded), rose quickly through the ranks to prominence, and was roundly and pretty universally praised, at least according to the author. All of these things are summarized relatively competently in 14 of the 17 chapters of this book; the remaining chapters cover his pre- and post-war life, and summarize his achievments. What then is my gripe? Well, I have several.

First, the author is a bit more pro-Confederate than you would expect in this day and age. Granted both author and subject are from the same part of North Carolina, but is that any excuse for the use of the word "Negro?" I haven't seen that in a book published since the '50s, perhaps early '60s. And no, it's not part of a quotation. Captured North Carolina soldiers who enlist in the Union army are traitors, while Union soldiers who wind up in Confederate ranks are "trators" (note the quote, implying the author disagrees with the judgement of treason). It's all a bit much.

Second, the author imparts a great deal of wisdom and skill to Hoke. I have no problem with some of it, but the idea that he was so skilful that General Lee would want himself replaced by Hoke should Lee be incapacitated or killed seems to stretch the bounds of believability a bit too much.

Third, the author is handicapped by the characteristic that he imparts to Hoke in the subtitle; modesty. Hoke never wrote much of anything about his war service, kept no diary during the war, wrote few letters discussing it (at least that have survived), and never gave speeches or anything. He never attended veterans' reunions (very unusual for a Civil War general from either side) saying that the war was over, and it was time to look forward. Consequently, the book is very much Hoke as others saw him, not as he saw things himself. This last point, I will grant you, is not the author's fault, but it does hamper the book somewhat in that the picture of Hoke is almost exclusively external; we have no idea what he's thinking most of the time.

Lastly, there are no maps. In a book of Civil War biography like this where the author is trying to tell you that Hagood's brigade was deployed to the east of the swamp, facing a creek, with Hill's division on his left, you need to be able to look at the map to see which creek or river, etc. No one has the capability to look at all this stuff and visualize where everyone is on the battlefield.

I have a collection of over 500 books on the Civil War. The best one by far is Gen R.F. Hoke. Daniel Barefoot puts his heart and soul into his work. Daniel has the same qualities as Gen. Hoke and I guess that's why the book is so great. This book takes you through the life of R.F. Hoke from cradle to death. After reading this biography you will understand why Gen. Lee chose Gen. Hoke to assume his command should something terrible befall Lee. A must for every student of the Civil War.

I just can't think of anything. This book is part of his collection of short stories 'No Comebacks', and follows Mr Sam Nutley, a mild mannered fellow if ever there was one, as he veers from the straight and narrow for the first time in his life. How does he get out from this 'intolerable and unthinkable' situation? The only thing that annoyed me was how he wanted his determinedly middle class, middle of the road, downtrodden life to continue as it was, but we are at least given some insight into this at the end. Classic Forsyth.

A great voyage in to existential fiction, it can be obvious, sometimes you cant even see it, but its always there. Even though some of the works were written ages ago, they still mantain their relevence. You wouldn't think from my email adress that i'd read existential stuff.

This book is not overly analytic, but I thought it was good reading. His account of Frederick the Great's 14 great battles (Mollutz, Chotusity, Hohenfriedberg, Soor, Lobositz, Prague, Kolin, Rossbach, Leuthen, Zorndorf, hochkirch, Kunersdorf, Liegnitz, and Torgau)are very well done. This is a fun book to read.

At last, here is a book that presents the quirky and all-too-human side of Methodist history. You'll meet a wide array of ministerial giants -- from Francis Asbury, the tireless itinerant bishop roundly acknowledged to be the father of American Methodism...to "Crazy" Dow, an evangelist with as many idiosyncracies as a "Northern Exposure" character. This is not dry historical reading by any stretch. A must-read for any student of Methodism or mainstream religion in general, this is a colorful window into one of the most influential religious organizations in the world.