A few weeks ago, I read that during the past century the number of Bishops doubled from 56 to 113, and that redundancies are possible because during the same period, numbers of clergy and attendees more than halved. In this age of the multi-parish, priest it obvious that their workload has not reduced, but one can ask, what work is it that Bishops now do that was not done by their Edwardian counterparts?
This question might easily be answered by those whose early reading included works by Professor, C. Northcote Parkinson. He wrote many entertaining books whilst analysing Government Expenditure and an early insight came when he noticed that the number of civil servants needed to run the British Empire in its heyday was the same as that thought necessary to run, I think it was the Potato, Tomato and Cucumber Marketing Boards, of the mid-fifties. He further noted how, in Nelson’s day, each Admiral was responsible for something like 60 ships at ratio of 1:60. But that by 1955 the number of Admirals exceeded the number of ships by 2.1
Observations such as these led him to question how these oddities could occur, and this, in turn, led him to investigate the nature of work itself. He studied big organisations, and concluded that people employed found work for themselves because, not to do so, rendered them liable to the sack. It was he says, “A sense of insecurity which drove them to keep busy, and this was particularly true of people employed by Government.”
He wrote, “Every employee will thus find work for himself and, to further ensure his security, will then invent work so much so, that he becomes incapable of doing the job himself, at which point a subordinate becomes necessary.” He, in turn, repeats the process, and by this means the number of employees, and of course, necessary supervisors, managers etc, expands. Thus, each additional employee means more time available to create work.
It was this revelation that led Professor Parkinson to propound his law, now famous throughout the world, “Work expands in proportion to time available for its completion.”
It does not matter what the work is, and questions as to whether or not the work is necessary become irrelevant in the drive by the individual to justify himself and thus increase job security. The issue crucial to each employee is what new work can be found that will increase job security?
It is easy to spot evidence of the operation of Parkinson’s Law in Government and big Corporations, the organisation will be awash with emails, memos, letters, pamphlets and guidance notes covering every possible eventuality. It will generate instructions, orders, procedures and method statements ad nausea. Its Head Office will be festooned with Mission Statements, Visions, Goals, Objectives and Targets. It will ensure everyone has a job description, and that daily meetings and awareness training ensures a full diary for every employee.
In this Benefice there are many, whose work includes dealings with government departments where the application of Parkinson Law is blindingly apparent. But given the news of the number of Bishops, could it also be true of the bureaucracy of the Church?
Parkinson concluded that whatever the size of an organisation his law always applies and, as a consequence, he argued that the most efficient company would be a one man operation run from a shed in someone’s garden.
Could it be, that we can now look forward to a time when each parish has its own Vicar, acting pretty well independently but with a surplus Bishop located in a wooden shed at the bottom of the garden?
View from the Pew 