Pari 8, July 24th. 1926. When many of the undertak3ngs, past and present, to whioh the Rockefeller Foundation has given aid we -lned, it in evidemt that, neither in theory nor in practice, can they be divided along llnes oorre8pondhg to the different Boards and divisions of the BuaZ&%+&ker Folllldation. futile to lay such emphasis pn the policies and preroptives of the Divisions of the Rockef6ller Foundation that specific undertakings in Field work must usually be dismembered into arbitary ani artificial parts, not only for the purposes of administration but even before they can be given offioial oon- aideration. In my opinion it is Divisional idemtity has been mphasiaed to the 1 point of iaolation. Rather than addust our organisation to cope wlth problens as they oocur (and, be it noted that our field is the World and the variety very great 1, re aut and trim opprtun- i itiea to fit the narrow and apmrently inelaetio limits of f Divisional or BO- pOliOg* WOW, it ia clear that for getting work done, arlrigmnent arrl designation of responsibility are neoessary. have not cane in this phase of wore they have oane rather in the relection of programnee, the definition of meres of work an8 the determination of policies. The President of the Faundatiun, in But our diffiaulties -2- the task of cto-oxlimting and controlling the activities of able, experienced ad eager Division chiefs, ha8 let the study of new opportunities, the selection of programmes, the detenaination of policy a& the assignment of resgansibility be taken away from his office - to bewane the cause of uncertainty, contention axl irritation smmg the ahiefs of Boards alld Divisions. mecutive haads of Divisions constitute good caulsellors for the President and good advocate6 of their cause before him and the Trustees, but onlgwithin certaln limits can they be good judges of ea& other's claims. Under the present organlestion, the greater the tension between Boards the more zxauerms, intrioate and folmal becanes the machinery for maintaining cooperation. If the 1 President is to continue largely as a moderator between different 1 Divisions, I oan suggest no reorganisation which would serve any better than the present arrangement to stave off suspicion and stalanate. I i So far a8 the prblic is aancerned, ue might just as well have the Rockefeller Boards incorporated under the title of the 't3oaldteller people". mysterious and inoorqgrehensi#e to the public. a unity which we spend hours denying, but the la& of it is a cantinu- a1 hindrance and irritation. Divisional autonomy within the Foundation is equally We are credited with The only reorganisation which I believe would be worth making would have these two obJeots:- It would also mean that inveetlgation of new fields of work and the adoption of new policies would be a function, not of mponent Divisions of the Boundation but of the PreeiBent'e offloe. I would Mer queetion the validity of the Wepend= I (2) The other objeot of reorganisation prhould be to assure a far greater conoern in the choice and training of officers and their assletants. Lf I make no other godnt I would ask attention to the eeleotion and training of officer8 and representatives of these BoarCLs. Chly a mall part of our I i i i 1 work la independently administered by us; we are almost oontinually dependent upon the co-operation of the recipient, axx~ therefore upon the inteuigenae, taot and wisdam of 4uT offioers. Inevitably we are oonsidered a8 apeoialiets and aonsulted as advieera. times, regreeentatives of the oonstituent Boards of the B.F. uhosen by persons ignorant of the lntemded work,or sasigned I have seen, not once but several 4 to it in haste an8 inexperience, ultimately to ureate distress and disoredit of the Foundation, thenselves, and even the ideas whioh the Bou~trtion was bacrkinga This is not fair and it is not wise; 8p organisation depend8 on men, anda reorganisation should not overlook the oonstant importance of their selecrtion and further training.