Parkinson Revisited: A Component Analysis of the Use of Staff Specialists in Manufacturing Organizations

The substantial body of research on the correlates of the size of the support staff in organizations has produced highly inconsistent results. One reason for this may be that most researchers have focused on a single aggregate measure of support staff. A study of 20 manufacturing concerns confirmed a suspicion that the total size of support staff may be a very heterogeneous trait, and that treating it as one homogeneous variable may have resulted in oversimplified or even misleading conclusions. This study found support staff to consist of four relatively independent components, each of which was related to different organizational and situational variables (such as process technology and technological change), while aggregate staff was related only to organization size. These results suggest that future research should not be confined to a simple aggregate measure of the number of staff specialists in organizations, but should, rather, focus on each of the staff components or specialties separately.

[1]  D. Silverman,et al.  The Structure of Organizations. , 1971 .

[2]  D. Mills,et al.  The Effect of Changing Size Upon the Internal Structure of Organizations , 1955 .

[3]  R. Akers,et al.  Size and the Administrative Component in Occupational Associations , 1970 .

[4]  John Henry Freeman,et al.  Problems of Definitional Dependency: The Case of Administrative Intensity , 1973 .

[5]  C. Northcote Parkinson,et al.  Parkinson's Law or the Pursuit of Progress , 1958 .

[6]  Thomas F. James,et al.  Size and Growth as Determinants of Administrative-Production Ratios in Organizations , 1972 .

[7]  W. Rushing,et al.  The Effects of Industry Size and Division of Labor on Administration , 1967 .

[8]  P. Lawrence,et al.  Organization and environment , 1967 .

[9]  R. Hall,et al.  The Size of the Supportive Component in Organizations: A Multi-Organizational Analysis , 1963 .

[10]  Peter M. Blau,et al.  Interdependence and hierarchy in organizations , 1972 .

[11]  A. Bryman,et al.  Size and the Administrative Component in Churches , 1974 .

[12]  John H. Freeman.  Environment, Technology, and the Administrative Intensity of Manufacturing Organizations , 1973 .

[13]  L. Pondy.  Effects of Size, Complexity, and Ownership on Administrative Intensity , 1969 .

[14]  J. Child.  Parkinson's Progress: Accounting for the Number of Specialists in Organizations , 1973 .

[15]  Tom R. Burns,et al.  The Management of Innovation. , 1963 .

[16]  Theodore R. Anderson,et al.  Organizational size and functional complexity: a study of administration In hospitals , 1961 .

[17]  J. Inkson,et al.  Organization Context and Structure: An Abbreviated Replication. , 1970 .

[18]  Joan C. Woodward.  Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice , 1966 .

[19]  E. Holdaway,et al.  Administrative Ratios and Organization Size: A Longitudinal Examination. , 1971 .

[20]  W. Rushing.  Organizational Size and Administration: The Problems of Causal Homogeneity and a Heterogeneous Category , 1966 .

[21]  B. C. Reimann.  On the Dimensions of Bureaucratic Structure: An Empirical Reappraisal , 1973 .

[22]  Michael T. Hannan,et al.  Growth and Decline Processes in Organizations. , 1975 .

[23]  Jeffrey Pfeffer,et al.  Executive Recruitment and the Development of Interfirm Organizations , 1973 .

[24]  D. Pugh,et al.  The Context of Organization Structures , 1969 .