(d) The following factors, which make organiza tion, should be considered in the adaptation of the or ganization type to the character of one's business : (1) Structure: lines of authority, responsibility, di vision of labor, system, discipline.
(2) Records: accounting, statistics, instruction.
(3) Esprit de corps: cooperation, team work.
(e) The managing principle by which every organ ization should be controlled is the determination of the relative importance played by each of these factors; since this is influenced by purpose, conditions and ma terial, no two administrative policies would follow ex actly the same course.
(f ) The name or designation of a type of manage ment depends upon the element (see d) which re ceives the greatest emphasis. Hence, (1) if lines of authority are emphasized in one way, the organization in which this occurs is called a "military type"; (2) if lines of authority are emphasized in another way, in volving the division of labor, especially as applied to administrative functions, the organization is spoken of as a "staff" or "functional type"; (3) if system—ac counting -and—o-ther facilitating activities—is well-or ganized, then the type is known as a "systematized type"; if this feature is lacking, a general weakness of discipline prevails, and the organization is classed as unsystematized; (4) if a serious attempt is made to increase the esprit de corps thru committee work, then we have a type known as the "committee" form of — management.
3. Several differences between types.—Just what distinction is to be emphasized in the classification of staff and military types of management is not always made clear. The military organizations of today un doubtedly employ staff methods and have developed them to a high degree of efficiency. The contrast which most writers have in mind when comparing the staff with the military type seems to be the method of exercising control of the business, or the execution of orders and commands. The military type suggests a domineering attitude, an autocratic method and pro motion by seniority. The staff implies specialized knowledge, conferences and advancement thru proved fitness. The military type is usually described as a
one-man power having for its ruler a despot who de termines his actions by the standards of inherited in formation, and who manages his business by rule of-thumb methods. The staff type is pictured as be ing just the reverse of this. Here the manager is su preme in command, but he is advised at every step by experts whose information upon their specialties is the very latest that can be found. Neither snap judg ments nor empiricism is in control.
4. Why type distinctions grew up.—Since there is so much discussion on the subject today it may be well to state the case somewhat more at length than the importance of the distinction between the military and the staff types warrants. The distinction has grown up largely thru the attacks of industrial engineers upon the present system of industrial organization. They found most of the industrial plants of the country poorly managed because in most cases one man was trying to do everything. The manager, finding his powers limited in time and space, put much responsibility upon the- superintendents. These, in turn, forced the work of carrying out orders upon the foremen. The latter, becoming overburdened, were compelled to rely more and more upon the judgment and initiative of the workmen. This system brought the burden of the work and responsibility upon the very men who were least able to bear it. Disorgani zation and great waste we're the results. Since the manager with his superintendents, foremen, etc., sug gested the army organization, tbe name military was attached to it. This military form became associated with poor management and extravagant waste in pro duction. Then came the discovery that some con cerns had increased their efficiency by hiring expert chemists, draftsmen, students of labor questions, etc. This at once suggested the staff organization. The system was then developed so as to put most of the important functions of management under the guidance of a body of specialists. A business, there fore, which had such an addition to its managerial equipment was spoken of as being organized on the staff principle.