When Mr. Dickenson became Director it was his prediliction to stabilize the Service. As a former Deputy Director, Regional Director, and Washington Office employee he was interested in conciliation and compromise with a strong emphasis on decentralized management and operations. His organizations were based on a single Deputy Director, then two Deputy Directors (one a non-park professional and also a political appointee) and finally a single Deputy (the non-park professional). His organization was strongly influenced by economics and saw consolidation of like functions under fewer management levels (see charts #37 & #38).

In May 1985, William Penn Mott became the twelfth Director of the National Park Service. Although a professional park manager Mr. Mott's career was not with the Service. Although it is too soon to make judgments or predictions, there is some indication there will be a blurring of the classifications preservation or use-oriented. There is some indication that he will be use-oriented in the urban or population density areas and preservation oriented as it relates to the traditional or one-of-a-kind ecosystem parks.

It is somewhat apparent that Director Mott will take a high profile approach to the Directorship. The energy and enthusiasm shown to date might well be construed as a kinship with Mather, Albright, and Hartzog. The press appears to feel that he (Mr. Mott) may be willing to confront hatever problems the system might have and be willing to make unpopular decisions. His imprint on the organization is, however, yet to be seen.

The process of developing an organizational structure has become over the last 15 years a cumbersome process. A formal organizational change takes a minimum of three months, some have taken a year or more and some are never formally approved. Several organizations that actually functioned fall into this category (charts #30 & #31).

Organizations are not necessarily developed solely for program needs. One should realize that many times organizations are developed around personalities and personal relationships. For example, where the establishment of the Associate Director position in the October 1956 organization can be viewed as an organizational need related to Director Wirth's implementation of Mission 66, the creation of an organization with three Deputy Directors in 1971 does not have a programmatic basis. The differences between the two organizations are clear examples of organizational/personal need as perceived by the Director of the moment. Due to style and background one appears as an organizational need, the other a personality based need. This is not to say that one or the other organization is not good, but rather to point out that those at the head are the change agents and that organizations are developed around program needs and/or personalities, that organizations do reflect the background, personality, and style of the Director and that Directors establish organizations which in their minds are the best ways to accomplish the business of the Service.

The final two charts (#39 & #40) trace the organizational development of the administrative function from its Chief Clerk roots in 1919, and the Ranger, Naturalist, and Historian park related functions from their 1925 base in the Education (Natural History) Branch under Ansel Hall. Perhaps these two depictions show more about the growth of the Service from a simple organization to a complex organization of interdependent, interrelated subsystems of the whole than any of the organizational charts.

(continued)