Parkinson Law , infinity business and
surplus efficiency (
11 min.)
by
Juan B. Lorenzo de Membiela
Doctor of University of Valencia
Parkinson's law or law of the ascending pyramid was formulated for the first time in the magazine «The Economist», in 1955. Published by Cyril Northcote Parkinson, Professor of history at the University of Malaya, under the title 'Parkinson's law and other essays' in London in 1957. Condensed experiences from two British military agencies, air and Navy, for several years. He noted how the number of employees of the Admiralty and the Ministry of colonies increased in direct proportion to the reduction of the number of units of the British army and the process of disappearance of the Empire.
Parkinson's law or law of the ascending pyramid was formulated for the first time in the magazine «The Economist», in 1955. Published by Cyril Northcote Parkinson, Professor of history at the University of Malaya, under the title 'Parkinson's law and other essays' in London in 1957. Condensed experiences from two British military agencies, air and Navy, for several years. He noted how the number of employees of the Admiralty and the Ministry of colonies increased in direct proportion to the reduction of the number of units of the British army and the process of disappearance of the Empire.
Between 1914 and 1928
the British Navy increased its auxiliary scale 78% and its officers on land and
40% administrative, although the total number of staff fell 32% decreasing 68%
the number of warships in service.
The facts of the
Parkinson's work covers a broad period of time and also includes causing the
black Tuesday in 1929. Hence the appropriateness of referring to the same. This
demonstrates that we we have a phenomenon beyond sociological crisis, military
or financial, political regimes, or administrative or business structures.
When Northcote
Parkinson was in the army as a major State of the Royal Air Force officer,
recalls: «We were about seventy in my unit.» To be honest, none of us did much
to win the war. (…)Mandated by our unit a Commodore. Below there was a Colonel.
The Colonel, a frigate Captain low. Then came I: the Mayor (...). By a series
of circumstances, Commodore fell ill, the Colonel was transferred, and the
captain of frigate departed. And I was I.(…) Suddenly I realized that the job was
ten times easier when everyone was out. There was no one that corrected me my
grammar and, of course, nothing of the meetings. None of paperwork (...) » .
Today it is a law and
a series of principles deferred, relegated as simple bureaucratic sarcasm, especially
for authors of American influence (Chiavenato, 2006: 266) and Spanish (Morales,
2004: 104). However, he had incidence in Spain in the field of public service
in the 1950s, very sensitive to issues of management. Professor Villar Palasí
qualifies it for «humorous but truly inexorable» (1965,85).
It should not be
forgotten that it was supported by several authors, among some, by Danish Poul
Meyer management science specialist; the German, naturalized American, Fritz
Morstein Marx and Polish, France, Georges Langrod resident.
It still has some
economists, regarding compelled on the theory of the contemporary
administration, as Henry Minztberg (2002: 275) Although in very specific
aspects such as the growth of organizations.
Despite this,
Parkinson's law is due to practice, to what has been lived. They are not
results of theoretical speculation, and only, therefore, it deserves a careful
reading.
Professor Jordana
Pozas, published in «Documentation administrative» in 1959 some principles that
make up this law. They are completed with annotations of other teachers (cf.:
Fernandez, 1964,84).
Parkinson's law says:
work expands to fill all the time available for its completion. I.e., the more
time has to run an activity, more time will be taken for this purpose.
The principles of the
Act are as follows:
1. A manager want to
always multiply the number of subordinates, but never of his rivals. And that
is to give more importance within the organization.
2. Workers are
created work reciprocally, useless. I.e., the proliferation of unnecessary
subordinates produces, as a result, a generation of equally unnecessary
activities.
3. A Chief always
invented work to their subordinates.
4 No relationship
exists, or very little, between the work that has been carried out and the
number of employees that has mandated.
5. Seven men are
capable of causing more work than it did when I used to do it only to his boss.
6. The time used in
the discussion of each issue of an agenda is because inverse to the importance
of the subject under discussion.
7. The perfection of
the structure of the company is only achieved when the institution is about to
collapse.
8 Organizations are
imperfect and its objectives are only achieved very late when they are already
obsolete.
9. If the head of the
organization is not one of the best will try to surround yourself with
employees who are worse than him, and in turn, they will try to have
subordinates who are worse than all.
10. Expenditures rise
to cover all income.
One of the most controversial
issues is that referring to the steady growth of the administration or company:
regardless of the volume of work, the staff of a large company increases by a
percentage ranging from 5,17% 6.56% a year.
The Parkinson's work
resulted in numerous studies, among them, the Mason Haire in 1959, the of
McWhinney in 1965 and the of Blau and Schoenherr in 1971.
He was Rushing, who
in 1968 discovered that the growth of organizations affected two distinct
components: the managers decreased while the administrative. This was due to
the increase of specialisation in the company.
Another thing is if
efficiency is achieved in this way or not. Blau and Schoenherr always
increases, or in the worst cases, is maintained. But without a doubt, an excess
of administrative apparatus arrived a moment because nothing can be kept in
infinity (Mintzberg, 2002: 279) is unacceptable.
And another thing
will be if efficiency is, today, the culmination of any management. Peter
Senge, for example, qualifies it as a surface (Senge, 2008).
