Introduction:
The research seeks to
explain in detail concepts of division of labor. It has been observed that
these economic elements though theoretical, influence a larger aspect of the
practical way of life especially in the business aspect. With relatable
practical examples, the writer tries to shed more light on the noted concepts
with the desire to create awareness and a learning platform, especially with
those desiring to undertake entrepreneurship as an option to employment.
Analysis:
Division of labor may
be achieved through the division of processes or employment into parts, each of
which is carried out by a separate individual. In addition, individuals
cooperate either consciously or unconsciously in order to undertake a divisible
process or types of work in employment with the specific goal of completing a
specific task. In regards to the subject issue, a good example could be drawn
from a pin factory. Through working together as a team though each with
separate tasks, it is possible to produce 2400 times as much than it would be
if each worker was working separately without separation. This way, work is
done more efficiently and productivity is higher. Work is divided in the sense
that one person pulls out the wires to be used while another one straightens it,
the third party in the line cuts it in order to allow for the fourth person to
point it and for the fifth to grind it. This way, all the distinctintive
operations are divided and performed by different hands. It is therefore
beneficial to consider the aspect of division of labor, in terms of better
productivity, higher volume and efficiency at the work place. This way, a
company is guaranteed of a continuous flow of material in case of demand to the
market, therefore being competitive.
While division of labor
is characterized by much positivism, there have been various controversies
surround in the theory. It is argued that while the practice creates a lot of
efficiency at the work place, it also results top dehumanization of the
workers/employees of the company. This is in the sense that the continuous
differentiation of jobs makes the workers become diminished in the sense that
they become self centered and isolated at work (Pollard 1965). This is because
of the repetition of the work that they constantly have to carry out meaning
that they fail to develop a communal approach to issues especially in regards
to tackling/solving problems. One of the major controversies with the system is
that division of labor makes people less connected with the society in which
they live in. It is argued that due to this process at the work place, people
become less wealthy in the society since they are generally drilled to be just
average creature even in their all round skills at the working place.
In another aspect altogether,
it has been argued that the phenomenon of division of labor leads to over monotony
of the job thus resulting into decreased production unlike what it is argued to
fulfill. In this aspect therefore, mechanization is encouraged thus leading to
standardized products and co-related services. This means that the workers are
barred from thinking in a broader perspective and that their degree of
creativity is reduced immensely. In this aspect therefore, there have been
controversies on whether it is actually positive to the existence of the
workers in regard to career development (Marx 1976) .The fact that they are highly
specialized in the processes that they have each been accustomed to means that
they can not develop in terms of progression. Consequently they are inhibited
in the same field and in cases of recession end up experiencing unemployment as
they are not dynamic in the skills that they posses.
There has also been the
issue of whether it is actually right to carry out division of labor in the
context of globalization where countries are encouraged to carry out
specialization according o what they can possibly produce at there best.
Critics however are of the opinion that international division of labor/specialization
can be explained in regards to the work/tasks as done by the nations rather than
the fact that division of labor is majorly influenced by the commercial aspect of
the process, meaning that some countries might be more favored than others in
the allocation of processes. It is also argued that in order for the process to
be fair for all the countries. It is necessary that effective policies are put
into place sine displacement of people from their jobs and is a major phenomenon
resulting from specialization. The major challenge however is to ensure that
every employee is able to get a working position that matches their criteria and
capabilities.
There is also a
controversy revolving around the process and what would be the most ideal, just
and efficient way of carrying out the process. Although it is generally
accepted that the process of division of labor is inevitable and very necessary,
basing on the fact that no single individual is able to perfect on all the tasks,
this factor leads to the development of hierarchies in the work place. However,
the structure of the hierarchies could be due to a multitude of factors. However,
it is hard to determine a fair and just means through which certain people
should be able to fall in a certain hierarchical level (Mason 2008). However,
due to the capitalist nature in the way processes are done in the modern world,
it is inevitable that allocation of such hierarchical levels will be conducted
in a fair and just manner. In order to get the best results, management will
only try a couple of options and implement that which works for their best interest.
The problem with this system is that it does not always work effectively in all
the places (Braverman 1974). In many case, a technique that was deployed and
worked in one area may fail to work in another area effectively. In the event
of implementing the process the employees are made to become more ignorant and
insular in nature at their working places since their working lives are
strictly shaped by a particular task.
The issue of division of labor has also been
confronted with the controversy of sexual division of labor. How does management
determine which tasks work effectively for one gender than for another gender?
And why should there be discrimination in the allocation of tasks for the genders?
It is common knowledge that the division of tasks at the workplace in regards
to the women is usually centered in a manner that makes them more convenient in
regards to issues of child bearing However, this aspect does not entail the
restrictions in regards to what amount of
work in regards to a particular task can men do? Instead the roles are
basically divided in regards to least effort required and role consistent tendencies
(Mason 2008). In order to alleviate this problem however, it is argued that the
constraints could be eliminated through child case provisions, though there
have been no ethnographic examples regarding the same.
Another controversy is
that through the division of labor greater alienation of individuals in the workplace
is encouraged therefore leading to demoralization and imposition of labor
discipline on the individuals involved. According to Karl Marx, the whole
process may lead to poor overall skills by the employees at the work place and
thus create little or no enthusiasm for their jobs at the wok place (Marx
(1976). Through the process of alienation, the workers become depressed at the
work place therefore becoming spiritually and physically complied to behave like
machines. He also argues that due to the fact that tasks are allocated rather
than chosen by the employees themselves, they cannot express their own human
development in the allocated tasks (Smith 1976). Although this is a negative
aspect surrounding the process, it has commonly been implemented in order to
ensure that direct producers in regards to the product market are removed from the
supply chain (Perrow 2002). Despite the fact that the issue creates harmony ate
the work place, it should be important that the management considers whether
the out put created is inclusive for the whole or just for the part and if so,
how will they create a harmonious whole for all the entities of the
organization.
There have also been
issues regarding the peculiar problems of distribution as caused by division of
labor. Due to the monotony created by working only on a specific work routine,
people become very experience in only one aspect (Taylor 1919). This means that
those whose skills are not applicable in a particular routine end up being less
demanded and irrelevant at the work place. Finally the issue of chronic
unemployment may result thus causing the employees to be displaced. It is even made worse if the economy
fails to develop other sectors that can be able to take in those that have been
displaced at their jobs.
Conclusion:
It is evident and even
common knowledge that when work processes are divide into parts, more
efficiency and productivity is realized. However, there is no positive process
without detrimental effects. This is also the case with the division of labor.
However, it can be justified to state that regardless of the costs and
consequences of the process. It is highly positive than negative. The process
is therefore highly recommended for any business organization.
References
Pollard, S
1965. The Genesis of Modern Management – a study of the industrial revolution
in Great Britain London, Edward Arnold Publishers pp160-74
Smith, A
1976. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations especially
pp13-30 and 781-788
Taylor,F,W
1919. The Principles of Scientific Management.
Marx ,K 1976,
Capital – A Critique of Political Economy Vol. One, chapter 13 ‘Co-operation’
Mason,P 2008.
Live Working or Die Fighting especially chapter 2 and chapter 9
Perrow,C 2002. Organizing America Princeton, Princeton
University Press, chapter 3, pp48-63.
Braverman, H
1974. Labour and Monopoly Capital, chs. 3 & 4
No comments:
Post a Comment