This network doesn't have an admin yet. If you'd like to manage this space, you can claim this network!
Sign up for one of our subscription plans and assume the helm, taking this network to the next level with advanced administrative options and features!
Nonprofit
organizations also exhibit excessive bureaucratic expansion. For example, in
the decade 1975-85 college administrative staffs increased by almost
two-thirds, many times more than the modest increases in the faculty and
student body during the same period. "Congressional logrolling, bitter
service rivalries and massive bureaucratic inertia are the enemies of military
preparedness, blocking reforms that are desperately needed to prepare the
military for the 1990s and beyond."
Increased
bureaucratic complexity is apparent to every American taxpayer in the forms and
procedures that are required. A recent commissioner of the U.S. Internal
Revenue Service agrees that "the tax law, in large part, may no longer be
administrable by the IRS and no longer comprehensible by most taxpayers and
many of their advisors." Business and individuals are reported to have
spent in 1984 more than 1.8 billion hours filling out government forms. For
their part, bureaucracies are producing increasingly legalistic and complicated
documents and communications of many kinds that are incomprehensible to most
people.
A
"document request" by the chairman of the U.S. Senate Judiciary
Committee addressed to a nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C.,
is a supreme example of "information overkill." It contains twelve
sections with an average of ten or more subsections asking for an incredible
list of documents, memoranda, correspondence, law cases and actions explaining
and justifying a wide range of personal and organizational activities extending
back more than five years. A final section lists eight Instructions and
Definitions. The document request, published in its entirety in the Wall Street
Journal, must be seen to be believed. It illustrates the extent to which
bureaucratic complexity can be carried out by an overzealous and unrealistic
staff: providing reason enough for the nominee either to refuse to reply to
such a burdensome inquiry, or to withdraw his name from consideration if he is
sufficiently disillusioned with government by such excess.
Nonprofit
organizations also exhibit excessive bureaucratic expansion. For example, in
the decade 1975-85 college administrative staffs increased by almost
two-thirds, many times more than the modest increases in the faculty and
student body during the same period. "Congressional logrolling, bitter
service rivalries and massive bureaucratic inertia are the enemies of military
preparedness, blocking reforms that are desperately needed to prepare the
military for the 1990s and beyond."
Increased
bureaucratic complexity is apparent to every American taxpayer in the forms and
procedures that are required. A recent commissioner of the U.S. Internal
Revenue Service agrees that "the tax law, in large part, may no longer be
administrable by the IRS and no longer comprehensible by most taxpayers and
many of their advisors." Business and individuals are reported to have
spent in 1984 more than 1.8 billion hours filling out government forms. For
their part, bureaucracies are producing increasingly legalistic and complicated
documents and communications of many kinds that are incomprehensible to most
people.
A
"document request" by the chairman of the U.S. Senate Judiciary
Committee addressed to a nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C.,
is a supreme example of "information overkill." It contains twelve
sections with an average of ten or more subsections asking for an incredible
list of documents, memoranda, correspondence, law cases and actions explaining
and justifying a wide range of personal and organizational activities extending
back more than five years. A final section lists eight Instructions and
Definitions. The document request, published in its entirety in the Wall Street
Journal, must be seen to be believed. It illustrates the extent to which
bureaucratic complexity can be carried out by an overzealous and unrealistic
staff: providing reason enough for the nominee either to refuse to reply to
such a burdensome inquiry, or to withdraw his name from consideration if he is
sufficiently disillusioned with government by such excess.
