Organigramme?
Isn't it interesting that the growth in the number of bureaucrats described in the text quoted above, is exactly as predicted by "Parkinson's Law"?
Yes there really is a Parkinson's Law - read "Parkinson's Law" by C. Northcote Parkinson (ISBN 0-345-30064-5) first published by Ballantine Books in 1957. I just happen to have a copy handy and here on page 12 the law is expressed in the formula x = 100(l + 2k to the m) divided by yn where k is the number of staff seeking promotion through the appointment of subordinates, l is the difference between the age of appointment and the retiring age, m is the fraction of total manhours spent on internal administration and n is the number of effective units being administered. Parkinson found that the value of x will lie between 5.17% and 6.56% (at the 95% confidence level) irrespective of any variation in the amount of work (if any) to be done. The British Colonial Office is an extreme example where the staff increased from 372 in 1935 when the British Empire still flourished, to 1,661 in 1954 at which time there had ceased to be any colonies left to administer. The Colonial Office was then absorbed into the Foreign and Commonwealth Office - naturally with no loss of jobs or seniority.
Sorry to digress but the growth tendency of bureaucracies is a very interesting phenomena that is not entirely irrelevant to this thread. . . . .**********************************. .Through difficulties to the cinema
[ 06 February 2002: Message edited by: Blacksheep ]</p>