|
U.S. SCHOOLS APPEAR TOP- HEAVY WITH ADMINISTRATORS
Maybe one of the reasons why american students aren't performing as well as their counterparts in other countries, in spite of the tremendous amount of money spent in the United states on elementary and secondary education, is that the money isn't going into teaching but into the administrative component.
A recent study shows that between 1960 and 1984, the number of U.S. teachers grew by 57 percent and the number of principals and supervisors by 79percent. During that same period, the ranks of other staffers, from curriculum specialists to guidance counselors, skyrock-eted-nearly 500 percent. Although teachers still outnumber non-classroom personnel by a seven to one margin, since 1970the portion of spending devoted to teacher salaries has dropped, from 50 to 41 percent.
Educators attribute some of the growth in the administrative component to expanding social needs in order to serve more poor, disadvantaged, and minority students whose personal problems- if left unattended can severely hinder learning. In chicago, for instance, the number of classroom teachers dropped by 7 percent between 1976 and 1986, whereas the number of school psychologists rose by nearly 21 percent and the ranks of social workers grew by 64 percent.
California school districts found that the administrative component superintendent, assistants, principals, business managers, and other support staff increased as the size of the school district increased. but there are far more studies showing the size administrative component relationship to be either negative or curvilinerar.
The Negative-Correlation Argument. Exclusive of any empirical data, it seems more reasonable to expect the administrative component to decline as size increases. We are not arguing that the absolute number of supportive personnel would decline but rather that it should decline as a proportion as size increases. This conclusion is based on the assumption of efficiencies from economies of scale. As organizations expand, they of course require more managers and staff to facilitate coordination. but not in the same proportion as size increases. A manufacturing firm that does $5 million a year in sales and employs sixty people may require the services of a full-time purchasing agent. If sales doubled, it`s unlikely that the firm would need two purchasing agent. Similarly, a typical hospital can increase its patient load by 10 percent with little or no addition in accounting personnel, dietitians, and the like. Both examples illustrate economies of scale that suggest that as an organization grows, there should be a decrease in the proportion of personnel allocated to indirect activities. The logic of this argument has received substantial empirical support.
A study of Veteran`s Administration hospitals found the administrative component to decrease as the organization increased in size. An investigation of five sets of organization-including package delivery services, automobile dealerships, volunteer fire companies, labor-union locals, and political associations also found a negative relationship In each of the sets of organizations, as the size of the organizations increased, the administrative component declined. Census information by industry was used by an-other investigator to test the size-administrative component relationship. While a negative relationship was found, it was concluded that this could be explained better as due to the loss of control across hierarchical levels than to economies of scale with large size. Moreover, owner-managed organizations and partner-ships were found to be less likely to add administrators than incorporated firms were because to do so would result in dilution of the owners' personal power. So while this research confirms the negative correlation, it suggests that maintenance of control may be a primary motivator for owners of firms to keep the number of administrators and support staff in check as the size of the organization increases.
The Curvilinear Argument. There is also evidence to suggest that the size administrative component relationship is not linear.
Rather, it is curvilinear the administrative component is greater for smaller and larger organizations than for those of moderate size. As organizations move out of the small category, they enjoy the benefits from economies of scale. But as they become large, they lose these benefits and become so complex as to require significant increases in the administrative component to facilitate coordination and control.
Conclusions. Trying to draw practical conclusions from the research on the administrative component may be impossible. No consistent patterns emerge. Whether this is due to the fact that any relationship found between size and the administrative component is purely spurious or due to inconsistencies in the way that the administrative component is measured can be answered only through more research. It's possible, for example, that the dominant determinant of the administrative component is not size at all. Arguments have been made that better predictors include complexity, technology and environment, and whether the organization is declining or growing. On this last determinant, for instance, several investigations have found that the process of decline in organizations does not have the opposite effect on the administrative component as does growth. The administrative component tends to increase on the upswings but the decreases on the downswings are not as great, suggesting that management may be reluctant to let members of the administrative component go during periods of decline. We will discuss the different problems as sociated with growth versus decline at length in chapter 17
So where does all this leave us? First, there are economies of scale operating to reduce the relative size of the administrative component as the organization's size increases. But these economies do not exist regardless of the increases in size. At some point, the diseconomies of size offset the economies, and more support staff is required to coordinate the organizations' activities. Just where this "point" is, however. Is unclear. It undoubtedly varies by industry or type of organization, reflecting different technologies and environments.
Second, size is not the only factor that influences the administrative component. Other factors undoubtedly include the type of organization, environment and technology, complexity, and whether the organizations is undergoing growth or decline.
Finally, maybe Parkinson was right given the "animal" he chose to observe the British Royal Navy. The navy was probably operating in the diseconomy zone, where increases in size were accompanied by comparable or large increases in the administrative component. Also, government employees in organization such as the military and public school systems have little motivation to keep the administrative component in check as we might expect in owner-dominated business firms. Maybe what parkinson discovered is that "in the absence of direct performance measures, managers build empires" However, Parkinson,s observation is undoubtedly not a "law" ; rather, he has given us an accurate de-scription of what occurs under certain specific conditions