Parkinson's Law formulated by Cyril Northcote Parkinson states : "Work Expands so as to fill the Time Available for its Completion". Granted that work (especially paper work) is elastic in its demands on time, it is manifest that there is little or no relationship between the work to be done and the size of the staff to which it may be assigned. A lack of real activity does not result in leisure. A lack of occupation is not necessarily revealed by a manifest idleness. The thing to be done swells in importance and complexity in a direct ratio of the time to be spent. This fact is widely recognized, but less attention has been paid to its wider implications, especially in the field of public administration. Politicians and taxpayers have assumed that a rising total of the number of civil servants must reflect a growing volume of work to be done.Cynics have said that the multiplication of officials must have left some of them idle or all of them to work for shorter hours. The fact is that the number of officials and the quantity of work are not related to each other at all. The rise in the total of those employed is governed by Parkinson's Law, and would be much the same, whether the volume of work were to increase, diminish, or even disappear.
We must picture a civil servant, A who finds himself overworked. Whether this overwork is real or imaginary is immaterial. But we should observe that A's view might easily result from his own decreasing energy: a normal symtom of middle age. There are three possible remedies. A may resign, he may share his work equally with B, or he may ask for two subordinates C and D. There is no instance ever of A choosing the first two options. A always chooses the third option, two subordinates to work for him. By having B appointed in the same level of hierarchy, he will face a rival, when A's superior retires. So, he would have C and D, junior men, below him. They will add to his consequence, and by dividing the work into two categories between C and D, A will have the power of controlling C and D. If A has only one assistant C, he will find himself sharing the work with C and the same problem of sharing the work with B will arise.
Subordinates must be two or more, each kept in fear of others being promoted ahead of himself.
When C complains of being overworked, he may, with the help of A, get two more assistants, E and F to work under C. But A can avoid internal friction between C and D, only by appointing two assistants, G and H to work for D.
Seven offials are now doing the work, originally done by one. This essentially is Parkinson's law.
Perhaps this is where The Peter Principle comes into operation.
4 comments:
One of the lessons we teach in computer science classes is "Parkinson's Law".
This enables the learner to keep redundancy in an organization to a low level, which is important in any I.T. company. There is just no sense in too many operators doing a single job. Mistakes are also avoided or reduced to a minimum.
Archie is right. Everyone must be told about Parkinson's Law. The number of government servants is growing up even when technology has made work easier than ever before. No more typing on manual typewriters, etc. The same thing goes for the number of ministers and their offices. How many unnecessary ministries are there! Work Expands!
Ha Ha Ha!
I have heard about Parkinson's Law, but it is now it has been properly explained. I can understand how the government ministries and officials are expanding constantly.
It also explains how companies like Satyam Computers can have so many "invisible employees". Perhaps this is the situation in almost all shady operations.
I have read "Yes, Minister" and I recall Sir Humphrey Appleby's tenacious hold on the Civil Service. He was adamant to the view that the Civil Service was the most important thing in the country. Another instance of Parkinson's law
Post a Comment