Stardate 20010920.2208 (On Screen): Parkinson's Law is a gem of a book; I'm pleased to see that it is back in print, and I cannot recommend it highly enough. It was published originally in the 1950's and it contains a series of short chapters which describe observations on the nature of the world which are simultaneously funny and true. It's essential equipment for anyone operating in today's bureaucratic world (i.e. for all of us). The first article, which has the same title as the book, lists the justification for the now famous Parkinson's Law: "Work expands to fill the time available." (Along with a large number of correlaries not described by him: "Clutter expands to fill the deskspace available", "Books expand to fill the shelf-space available", "Computer files expand to fill the diskspace available", "Expenses expand to fill the budget available", "Programs expand to consume the CPU power available" and so on.) Another one points out that any organization which actually fits its office space is dying; vibrant growing organizations invariably are cramped. One of them talks about how to write a help-wanted ad and how to consider candidates. Each article visits its subject in sufficient depth to explore it and to entertain, without pounding it into the ground. (It's not like "The Peter Principle" which only has one thing to say but uses an entire book to say it; Parkinson tosses off even more profound observations than that about every seven to nine pages.)
One of the most piercing of the articles talks about the life cycle of governmental cabinets. The problem is that there is a general tendency for them to grow because there is prestige and power associated with membership, but as they do so they also become inefficient. At a certain point, they cease to matter and a new body will form which contains the most important members of the old one, which is smaller and which takes over most of its functions. He gives as a historical example various cabinets in the government of Great Britain, and documents how this process has happened fully six times. His analysis places the point of inefficiency somewhere near 14 members, but the practical way of telling that a cabinet has ceased to matter is when people start getting put onto it as a means of affirming how important they are, for the prestige alone, at which point the size of the body begins to grow rapidly. He also discusses the US cabinet and mentions that (at the time) it remained an important body (with some 11 members) but that it was perilously close to ceasing to matter.
Based on his principles, I date the death of the US cabinet to the 1980's, at which point it got replaced by the National Security Council as the critical governing body of the executive branch. The Cabinet still meets but it no longer actually does anything important; the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense are in the NSC (which, with six permanent members is still capable of functioning) but such less important positions as Labor, Commerce and Interior are only invited to attend when they're actually needed. The beginning of the end for the cabinet as a meaningful body was when the Department of Health, Education and Welfare was divided into two (creating a new cabinet secretary) by separating Education out "to prove our commitment to Education". That was, IIRC, the first propagandistic (as opposed to functional) addition to the cabinet. The Cabinet was certifiably dead when the head of the Veterans Administration and the head of the Environmental Protection Agency became members. For the last fifteen years, addition of anyone to the US cabinet has been a symbol without actual meaning, and so it is today. President Bush just added its 22nd member, and a cabinet that large cannot function effectively. (It's also at the cusp of one of Parkinson's transition points, 22-24 members, where it is about to undergo another major transition and deemphasis.) That's not to say that Bush's creation of an anti-terrorism czar is guaranteed to be a waste of time, but the fact that he has been made a member of the cabinet is meaningless and unimportant. (discuss)
