?Parkinson's law“ – why fixed costs grow without adding tasks – and what you can do against it – practical guide“

In my career, I’ve repeatedly observed a curious yet pervasive phenomenon: work, resources, and processes expanding far beyond their actual necessity. This isn’t mere coincidence or bad luck; it’s a systemic issue that Cyril Northcote Parkinson articulated brilliantly in 1955. Parkinson’s Law, at its core, states: “Work expands to fill the time available for its completion.”

Although originally meant to describe inefficiencies in bureaucracies, Parkinson’s insights hold just as true in modern organizations. Over time, I’ve seen how unchecked growth leads to inflated costs, inefficient processes, and an organization’s steady drift away from its core purpose. However, I firmly believe that recognizing these inefficiencies is the first step in breaking free from them. By adopting deliberate strategies, we can address these tendencies and build organizations that are leaner, more agile, and ultimately more successful.

Understanding the Problem: Why Inefficiencies Grow

Parkinson’s Law doesn’t merely describe procrastination or tasks taking longer than they should. It also highlights why organizations themselves tend to grow unnecessarily. Parkinson observed that bureaucracies expand through two main forces. First, there’s the “multiplication of subordinates,” where managers hire more staff than required to either bolster their status or lighten their own workload. Second, there’s the “creation of work,” where subordinates generate tasks for one another, inflating the perceived workload and justifying further resource expansion.

The result is often frustratingly familiar. I have experienced that organizations grow by two to four percent annually, even when workloads remain constant. This growth is compounded by annual merit or bargaining increases (e.g. 3%), leading to personnel costs that rise by five to seven percent each year. Over time, these escalating costs erode profitability and introduce a dangerous complacency into operations.

I’ve witnessed this phenomenon play out countless times. For instance, I’ve seen project managers request assistants to handle routine tasks, even though the workload itself hadn’t changed. Similarly, teams introducing new systems often argue for additional resources, claiming that the “effort has increased” - when inefficient processes were never addressed. These examples may seem small, but they accumulate into significant inefficiencies that burden organizations over time.

The Subtle Signs of Parkinson’s Law at Work

The first step in combating inefficiencies is recognizing where Parkinson’s Law manifests. I’ve found that it often appears in four key areas.

One (1) is the tendency for deadlines to stretch unnecessarily. When teams are given more time than they truly need, tasks expand to fill that time, often with diminishing returns. Another (2) is the steady rise in costs per employee. I’ve noticed that these increases often outpace market inflation or merit adjustments, revealing inefficiencies hidden in organizational structures. Meetings (3) are another major culprit. They grow larger and more frequently, but their outcomes remain frustratingly stagnant. Lastly (4), there’s the issue of outdated processes. In many cases, I’ve seen automation and digital tools applied to workflows that were never questioned, perpetuating inefficiencies instead of eliminating them.

These patterns can persist for years if left unchecked. But when organizations regularly review their operations, the inefficiencies become glaringly obvious - and entirely preventable.

Practical Solutions: What I’ve Found Effective

Addressing inefficiency isn’t simply about slashing budgets or cutting corners. It requires cultivating a mindset of accountability, focus, and continuous improvement. Through my own experience, I’ve identified several practices that can effectively counter Parkinson’s Law and its consequences.

One (1) of the most transformative tools I’ve used is value stream mapping. It’s a process that breaks down every step of a workflow to identify inefficiencies and unnecessary actions. For example, when analyzing order entry processes, I’ve seen organizations uncover steps that could be automated, tasks that could be reassigned to lower-cost roles, or bottlenecks that could be eliminated entirely.

Additionally, by transitioning fixed costs into value stream costs (2) - tying costs directly to profitability - organizations gain clarity on what’s adding value and what isn’t. That practice is mainly driven by Lean thinking to arrange value creation and the organization along the customer. Best practice companies hardly have a head-quarters employees as people that do not qualify for value-add value streams are not needed. ?

Another critical step is challenging deadlines and timelines (3). Parkinson’s Law thrives on the idea that time creates inefficiency, and I’ve found that managers often overestimate how long tasks truly require. I believe that managers need hands-on experience with the work their team’s handle. This gives them a realistic understanding of task durations and helps them set ambitious yet achievable deadlines. In fact, one of my own practices is to reduce any proposed timeline by 10% and use that as the new target. I’ve found that this not only ensures efficiency but also drives teams to perform at their best.

Meetings and team sizes also deserve scrutiny. I often reflect on Jeff Bezos’s famous “two-pizza rule,” which states that teams should be small enough to be fed with two pizzas. This principle resonates with me because I’ve seen how smaller, focused groups produce better outcomes. In contrast, large teams and overcrowded meetings dilute focus and slow decision-making. When I encounter meetings with more than eight participants, I always ask: do all of these people need to be here? Excluding non-essential attendees sharpens the conversation and accelerates decisions.

Another area where organizations can counter inefficiency is by aligning costs with value. Too often, I’ve seen companies allow costs for routine tasks to rise year after year without questioning their value. Take something as basic as order entry. If the cost of performing this task increases annually without a corresponding increase in output and quality, it’s time to rethink the approach. Automation, process simplification, or task reassignment to lower qualifications, can achieve the same results far more efficiently.

Finally, I strongly believe in cultivating a culture of continuous improvement. Digital transformation often automates processes but doesn’t address whether those processes should exist in the first place. This is where tools like KAIZEN (e.g. Empty-Seat KAIZEN) and Quick Response Quality Control (QRQC) come into play. By regularly questioning and refining workflows - even automated ones - organizations can ensure that inefficiency doesn’t creep back into their operations.

Leadership’s Role in Breaking the Cycle

At the heart of any successful effort to combat Parkinson’s Law is leadership. Leaders must set the tone for the entire organization by modeling efficiency and holding themselves accountable. This begins with setting clear expectations. I’ve always pushed teams to achieve more with less - not by overloading them, but by challenging them to think creatively and prioritize what truly matters.

Measuring progress is equally critical. Metrics like cost per employee, process times, and output volume provide valuable insights into where inefficiencies are hiding. Leaders also need the courage to challenge assumptions. I’ve often seen managers hesitate to question timelines or resource requests for fear of appearing unreasonable. But I believe that boldness is essential. Leaders who question the status quo and push for better outcomes set a powerful example for their teams.

Conclusion: A Call to Action

Parkinson’s Law is a silent but powerful force that affects every organization. If left unchecked, it leads to bloated structures, escalating costs, and declining competitiveness. But I believe that with deliberate effort, organizations can overcome these tendencies. By embracing practices like value stream mapping, challenging deadlines, rationalizing teams, and fostering continuous improvement, we can build organizations that are not just efficient but resilient and future ready.

The question isn’t whether Parkinson’s Law is at work in your organization—it almost certainly is. The real question is: what are you doing about it? As leaders, we have the responsibility to challenge inefficiency wherever we find it. By doing so, we can ensure that our organizations remain agile, competitive, and focused on what truly matters. It’s not just about cutting costs - it’s about creating a culture where efficiency and innovation thrive. That, to me, is the true antidote to Parkinson’s Law.