590 Forestry Quarterly 



attention are scattered over too much country. In District 4, 

 the concentration of extensive grazing questions should be sufficient 

 to occupy one man's time on a Forest about the size of two of the 

 present ones, without excessive travel. There might be a ques- 

 tion of poHcy here, however, requiring that the grazing work be 

 handled in person by the supervisor. 



In order to get the main management systems clearly defined 

 it might be well here to outHne them, even at the expense of re- 

 peating old material. Different men separate the systems in dif- 

 ferent manner according to what they conceive to be the principal 

 lines of cleavage. 



One of the first divisions into management types was the 

 separation into traditional, transitory and functional systems. The 

 first is simply the old system gradually evolved since men first 

 began working together. As the particular industry enlarged and 

 one man had more than he could do, another man was placed with 

 him to take over half of that line. As more space, tools, etc. , were 

 needed, they were added without any definite planning or separa- 

 tion of activitias. The transitory type was brought about by the 

 first efforts toward more efficiency. A separation of activities 

 was made, workers were made specialists, and responsibility for 

 each step placed definitely. With the separation of the work 

 of planning from the work of execution, and instruction of the 

 worker how to do his work as weU as what to do, came the fimc- 

 tional system. Scientific selection and training of workers, a 

 planning department, and the various bonus systems are parts 

 of the functional type. 



A later division of types, resembling the above, is unsystematized, 

 systematized and efficiency. The difference between the first two 

 is largely one of records, with an attempt to correct high costs in 

 the systematized type by periodic paper comparisons. With 

 the setting of standards came the efficiency type. Costs were based 

 not on comparisons with what had been done, but on comparison 

 with a standard of accomplishment. 



A type division often used is that into military and staff sys- 

 tems. This division does not seem especially clear, as the staff 

 system in the army is very highly developed. In the words of Prof. 

 Galloway: "The contrast when comparing the staff and military 

 types seems to be the method of exercising control of the business, 

 or execution of orders and commands. The military type is 



