Division of Labor: Adam Smith - Essay Example

DVISION OF LABOR: ADAM SMITH By Division of Labor: Adam Smith Division of labor has, to a great extent, improved production levels and efficiency of organizational structures. Division of labor enables specialization hence better performance from the workforce due to experience gained over recurrence of the same tasks. However, efficiency of division of labor is dependent on several factors. With division of labor, each department has increased dexterity, more time is saved and advancements in technology hence improving departmental production and consequently production of the entire organization. Several factors such as necessity can be attributed as the driving forces behind division of labor. Advantages of division of labor can be seen in large organizations that have various branches and finally the branches incorporate into one bigger organization. Each branch has its own set of activities that it works on and has perfected. For instance, in a manufacturing organization there could be branches such as finance, production, sales, and marketing among others. Combination of all these branches makes one large organization and bringing together activities from the various branches gives better performance than if these tasks were to be conducted by one body. In his example about pin making, Smith argues that division of labor yields better results that non specialization (Smith, 2007, p. 3). This implies that division of labor is certainly an important aspect in increasing production levels in an organization. Actually, division of labor yields multiples than what would have been produced without division of labor. Combinations of the results presented from division of labor are seemingly unachievable if each person carried out the entire process alone. Borrowing from Smith’s example of pin making, it is evident that sometimes production of one person may not even yield one complete production of a pin per day. The efficiency and change brought about by division of labor is amazing. Increasing number of branches within an organization raises the chances of more production. This implies that breaking down a large organization into various stand-alone branches adds efficiency and consequently increased production. Evidently, countries that have adopted division of labor are more productive. Each person in the society has specific tasks and upon bringing the various different tasks together, the total production of the country is great. For instance, areas with huge chunks of land are used specifically for farming and the people around those areas only dwell in agricultural activities. In addition, agriculture is a broad field and there is need for specialization. Some farmers deal with animals while others deal with crop production. The division goes even further to the different kinds of crops grown. At the end of the day combination of these different activities yields better results in terms of production. Division across all other sectors is alike and combination of produce from all these sectors yields greater national production. Division of labor is heavily dependent on skill levels at each branch. A skillful workforce yields greater and larger quantities than branches with limited skills. However, skill levels are also arguably improved to a great extent by division of labor that leads to specialization. Since division of labor breaks down the larger work into smaller segments, it creates simplicity hence the workforce can easily gain experience and skill. The recurrence of carrying out the same task makes it possible for the entire workforce to develop better skills and realize other ways of maneuvering around the specific task hence increasing quantities produced. Borrowing from Smith’s example of nail makers, it is evident that being accustomed to one task yields better results. In Smith’s example men accustomed to making nails every day can make up to 3000 nails in a day yet a smith who is not accustomed to nail making can at best only make 800 nails in a day (2007, p. 5). This implies that specialization improves skill and consequently boosting production levels. A lot of lost time can be spared by adopting division of labor. This can be attributed to the fact that no time is wasted juggling from one activity to another. Various operations require different skills and sometimes differing equipment. According to Smith a lot of time may be lost as one person juggles from one activity to another (2007, p.5). This implies that it is better to perform one activity since it does not require change of location or equipment hence saving considerable time that would otherwise have been lost if the work was dedicated to only one person. With different branches across the organization, each branch readily waits for its part of the overall operation and no time is wasted in preparations. As a result, the overall operation runs smoothly without any delays hence increasing production levels with consideration to time. Advancements in technology and improvement of equipment used in production processes are also necessary in improving production. Equipment advancements are entirely dependent on efforts of people with a great deal of knowledge about the particular operation in play. Since division of labor is attributed to the improvement of skills and increased knowledge in a particular operation, it can be related to creating room for advancements. As the same workforce concentrates on the same operation repeatedly, there is bound to be discoveries on how to improve the operation in a bid to make it easier and increase production. Application of the right machinery greatly increases production levels. This is because improved machinery carries out the same task more efficiently and in a shorter period of time. Furthermore, application of the right machinery ensures that the workforce does not do much hence reducing energy depletion levels. Arguably, most inventions are largely reliant on division of labor. In a bid to make work easier, people have dwelt in improving existent machinery and creation of new ones. However, this is not to say that all inventions are made by workmen who are in the specific units of operation. Many inventions have been made by different people without direct ties to the machinery in play. This though is dependent on knowledge and discovery of the imminent need. Smith argues that great inventions are however as a result of different people coming together to make one great invention such as the ship (2007, p.7). Additionally, it is division of labor that leads to a productive society as each member engages in different activities and at the end of the day there is creation of an effectively functioning society. Smith however argues that division of labor is not entirely dependent on human wisdom (2007, p.7). Division of labor can therefore be attributed to collective human activities such as communications and interactions. These different interactions are the ones that integrate to one whole functioning unit made up of smaller segments. The understanding and concentration of each person to a specific activity and then collectively joining them together at the end is the main driving force behind division of labor. This implies that the nature of human beings and intellect is core in enabling an effective division of labor. For instance, Smith argues that although animals may be at times be seen as if to work together, in real sense they do not and it is just a mere coincidence and accidental concurrence in the same object (2007, p.8). This implies that human intelligence may arguably be considered the driving force behind division of labor. The various activities that man participates in eventually give birth to division of labor. This is to say that for exchange of one thing for another, there is need for corporation hence great need for relations. All this efforts are in a bid to get what is required. Smith argues that man sometimes acts in own self-interest to obtain something in return that they do not possess. This implies that some activities may seem to benefit other people but the real reason is that it is meant to bring individual gain. As a result, there is need to play part in societal activities since the only way to ascertain acquisition of all things needed is through trade. For trade to happen there needs to be exchange of one thing for the other. This implies that people have to play their part in societal activities to gain something for exchange. In this regard, it would be in order to conclude that work and cooperation is inevitable. Under the same concept of playing own parts to meet the needs of each person, is division of labor based. One activity by one party enables the next operation to take effect and the sequence goes on until the entire operation is complete. Basing it on the example by Smith about hunters, it is evident that different operations are dependent on each other for completion of the greater operation and existence of a self-sustaining society. A group of people engages in making arrows and hunting tools due their skillfulness and at the end exchanges them for the required goods possessed by those with better skills in the particular fields (2007, p.8). This implies that for acquisition of desired good and services every person needs to be part of a particular task. Additionally, for the best results and fulfilment of all needs an individual needs to engage in an activity that will be most productive. Consequently, people engage in one activity that they specialize in hence promoting division of labor. Division of labor is also dependent on natural talents. This is because men will always tend to partake what they are most comfortable in order to gain the most from it. Therefore, need may arguably be considered a driving force for division of labor. In conclusion, it is evident that division of labor yields greater results and adopting it would be essential in improving productivity. Division of labor helps to improve on some highly valuable factors such as skills, timeliness, and advancements in production equipment. It is through experience that people learn better and through division of labor the workforce gains experience due to recurrence of same activity hence improving skillfulness. Adopting division of labor saves time normally lost during transfer from one+ operation to the next. Additionally, division of labor increases chances of inventions due to improved skills in one area of operation. However, it is in order to conclude that division of labor is not mainly facilitated by human wisdom but by other greater factors such as necessity. Actually, since necessity leads people to work and specialize in their most productive areas, it could arguably be considered as the main driving force behind division of labor. Works Cited Smith, A 2007, An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations, Volume 1, New York, Cosimo. Read More