Why the Division of Labour within the Workplace Is So Controversial - Literature review Example

Why the division of labour within the factory/workplace is so controversial Introduction The annual labour is considered as a fund that supplies all the conveniences and necessaries of life. The dexterity with which labour is applicable in nay nation depends on the proportion between the number of those employed and those who are not. Therefore, division of labour refers to the narrow specialization of the tasks in a production process so that every worker becomes a specialist in doing a certain task (Anderson et.al 1990, p. 237-52). The term was first used by Adam Smith in his description of the wealth of nations for the separation of manufacturing operations into clear and distinct processes assigned to various machines to enhance performance. Furthermore, Smith concluded that workforce organized according to division of labour was superior compared to the non-divided labour (Christofori 2007, p. 735-36). The traditional industries had the division of labour as their main motive force for economic growth. With the increase in division of labour, work remains transformed into ‘element’ and it easier to accomplish small, work elements than a single large task. The level of skills required in accomplish a task in division of labour remains substantially diluted due to deskilling. The industry gains complete control of the workforce and this enhances flexibility in planning of the work processes. As a result, speed and accuracy by a worker may be enhanced. Also, division of labour saves time, enhances automation of tasks and output are increased due to increased specialization (Hill 2007, p. 339-66). Division of Labour in Workplace The greatest achievements in productive power of labour and the dexterity, judgement and skills, have been applied in division of labour. The division of labour in general society remain considered through identification of the manner in which the manufacturers operate. The trifling manufacturers may require the division of labour be ignored, but for the great manufacturers, the division of labour is crucial in enhance performance due to the great wants of the people. In such manufacturers, work may be divided into many subsections. The subsections necessitate simplicity of operation. Each worker becomes an expert in the assigned task (Jandt & Anna 2009, p. 641-51). The great multiplication of production of the different arts in the context of division of labour results in uniform opulence that goes beyond the lowest ranks of society. Each workman has much to accomplish in the task assigned to, to dispose off beyond what can occasionally be able to accomplish (Elgarte 2008, p.90). Originally, the division of labour does not result from the human wisdom. Despite the necessity, adoption of division of labour has been gradual and slow due to the certain propensity of the human nature to accept and exchange one thing for another. Regardless of the originality of the propensity on which no further account can be demonstrated, it does not guarantee an individuals position to enquire. Labour productivity depends on division of labour that allows workers save time to perform different activities, improves dexterity of workers, and enhances innovativeness of the worker in operation of different machines. According to Smith, the operation of ordinary workers is not of substantial pursuance, he instead refers to division of labour among the productive units with two types of specialized workers. These are makers of machines; men of speculation, who combine the power of most distant objects (Jandt & Anna 2009, p. 641-51). Difference in natural talents, in people, is a reality, and the person who distinguishes men of different specializations is not much the cause like the division of labour. The difference in the dissimilar characters arises not mostly from nature, but from education, custom and habit. In childhood, most characters appear to be similar, but the difference comes and widens with time until it is worth noticing. Without the disposition to tract, exchange and barter, each man should have procured the necessary and convenience of life wanted (Smith & Edwin 2000). The increase in division of labour in factories enhances the technological advancements to the increase in knowledge. Some workers are usually exclusively engaged in production machines, some concentrate on production processes while others are trainers. According to smith, the accumulation of capital is fundamental in growth theories. The most profitable way of capital deployment is the productive division of labour. The division of labour and capital accumulation is intimately connected. Capital accumulation allows for division of labour and stimulates capital accumulation. The capital accumulation must be in nature of things, previous to division of labour. As a result, subdivision of labour is proportional to the accumulated capital. The quantity of materials worked on by a certain group of people increases with the subdivisions of labour. The reduction in operations of every workman, more inventions take place to enhance constant employment to an equal number of employees (Jaspers 2003, p. 45). Smith emphasizes on the correlation between accumulations of capital in growth processes and the qualitative change. The change entails the subdivision of labour among firms as a result of creation of new branches. Division of labour remains usually limited by the extent of market. Specialization permits surplus production for certain goods. Difference in talents is truly remarkable among men of the various professions, and disposition renders the difference useful. Effects of different geniuses and their talents cannot be classified using a common stock. Every person in a group of expertise must; however, contribute to the personal growth (Smith & Edwin 2000). Controversies of division of labour The methodical and rational management of labour is a leading management problem within the industrial revolution and require fiercest traditional wrench. Whatever the difficulties of the practising managers, it is limited to the scientific spirit of other components of management. This was held by those who were fully involved in such matters, and in this case, nothing new was to be learnt since labour was controlled by the workshop masters. Pioneers in the industrial revolution were compelled to lay foundations for the labour management practices that involved complex and novel pitfalls. They experienced different problems, and small portions of the masters brought experience of others in the limelight (Smith & Edwin 2000). Traditionally, most firms that were growing into industrialization experienced problems in management of labour and they were forced to recruit it first. The two principal difficulties experienced were the workers aversion to the entry of the new enterprise with the rules and discipline unaccustomed. The reliable and skilled labour was also limited. Any worker leaving the domestic workshop to hold a factory entered into a new culture with a new sense of direction. The non-accumulative men and those accustomed to working for subsistence had to comply with the cash stimulus into to be able to react to the stimulus provided (Kim 2009, p. 41-64). Recruitment of the uncongenial work was challenging, and the accidental or deliberate modelling of workers in prisons and workhouses worsened the situation. Regardless of whether they began working, the guarantee for the labour was not there. Labourers for domestic or agricultural industries do not embrace monotony of the factory life and pioneering employer experiences problems in enhance stable and reliable labour. Many workers are transient, deviant and marginal. Few early manufacturers experienced problems with labour due to few people, and the migratory and restless nature of the available labour. In other cases, workers are so much heated at first after which they lose morale after the introduction to the real business (Jandt & Anna 2009, p. 641-51). The personal inclinations have established most of the industrial workers prefer working in cottage industries to factories. Most workers have not fully embraced working in factories. The reasons for preference are varied, and are not all of them that are economically based. There is a need to overcome such beliefs rather than shifting from factories to the cottage industries. This requires absorption of a whole new culture, and traducing and spurning the old one to fit with the new surroundings, new employer relations and livelihood uncertainties. The involuntary recruitment of factories heralds problems experienced in factories regarding division of labour could not have been experienced. The early entrepreneurs looked for docile labour turning easily to the un-free labour. The complementary efforts of turning the poorhouses to workhouse manufactories were entirely unconnected. This was to punish the idle men and educate people on how to work in order to lower the rats of poverty (Jandt & Anna 2009, p. 641-51). Various factories are experiencing problems with division of labour. This is contributed b the unwillingness by workers to congregate in the large establishments. However, the transformation of such workers require powerful forces; both attractive and repellent, to embrace working in a factory. The forces are varied than the ones that are considered by the economists. Repellent forces include the enclosures and clearances while attractive forces include high money wages. The normal economist assumptions of the fixed parameters in social customs and the permanent labour supply have been used as measurement against the changes of magnitudes in such forces; attractive and repellent (Sullivan 2000, 437-56). The paradox of 18th century and the increased unemployment, as depicted displacement of hand worker, exist concurrently with inadequate labour. This is because workers were averse in taking up any employment offered and the unwillingness of the employer to tolerate the work habits of most workers. The trained labour in both the old and new skills was inadequate. Therefore, any expansion of an industry experienced problems due to lack of skilled labour. For instance, the industrial revolution in Britain experienced an unbalanced expansion that was interrupted by wars, and the demand for labour was exceptionally acute (Vivenza 2001, p.34-9). The innovations for the workforce requiring concentrations of craftsmen are still experiencing problems. The shortage of men with skills has been experienced in many industries. Pool for such workmen and absence of a single man to hold up the outstanding works is quite a problem. Several factories have failed terribly due to insufficient expertise. For instance, in England, it was common for young people to be sent outside country immediately after leaving school. They were not sent to any institution of higher learning. Research has shown that, upon their return home, a person looks more dissipated, unprincipled and more incapable of serious application to business, study or any useful activity. The education system has increased controversy regarding the division of labour in many factories. For instance, the study of civil law was among few citizens and certain families. Those students willing to study law frequented companies of their friends and relations since they were required to understand it. In such systems, such sciences may subsist nowhere while in the incorporated societies with greater regard for propensity for revenue and education can act at the independent of their industry (Smith & Edwin 2000). Limitation of division of labour by the markets The power of exchange gives occasion to division of labour. Extent of the division is limited by the extent of market. A small market discourages any dedication by people to employment. Some workforce can only be found in large towns. For instance, a porter can only worker in towns since the village may provide a narrow sphere for operation. The extent of market must be proportional to the popularity and of a certain region of location (Vivenza 2001, p.34-9). The country workmen can work anywhere and in different industries that are closely related. A carpenter deals wood while a smith deals with iron. However, a carpenter acts also as a joiner, carver and cabinet-maker among others. Such a person working on a daily basis cannot dispose off one day’s work. Therefore, industries should aim at improving themselves along the coastline. The workers should be enough to ensure that goods are attended appropriately. However, due to the nature of work, exceedingly few people work in such areas (Vivenza 2001, p.34-9). The economists have upheld the division of labour as a supreme law in the human society. Therefore, most of the social relations are regulated by the law and custom. Custom is most times at odd with the law and tends to express a different form of the social solidarity. Also, social solidarity is not manifested in any perceptible form, but the imperfect manifestations of the internal psychological state can be used to investigate on the related effects like the scientific nature of solidarity (Smith & Edwin 2000). Reference List Christofori, G. (2007). Division of Labour. Nature 446.7137 , pp. 735-36. Hill, L. (2007). Adam Smith, Adam Ferguson and Karl Marx on the Division of Labour. Journal of Classical Sociology 7 (3) , pp. 339-66. Jandt, J. M., & Anna, D. (2009). Spatial Organization and Division of Labour in the Bumblebee Bombus Impatiens. Animal Behaviour 77(3) , pp. 641-51. Smith, A., & Edwin, C. (2000). The Wealth of Nations. New York: Modern Library. BIBLIOGRAPHY \l 1033 Elgarte, J. M. (2008). Basic Income and the Gendered Division of Labour. Basic Income Studies 3(3) . Anderson, R. J., Stephanie, H., & Wes, S. (1990). The Division of Labour. Réseaux 8(2) , pp. 237-52. Jaspers, B. (2003). Division of Labo(u)r: International Unionism and the Schism in the United Auto Workers. Kim, K. (2009). Adam Smiths Theory of Economic History and Economic Development. The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 16(1) , pp. 41-64. Sullivan, O. (2000). The Division of Domestic Labour: Twenty Years of Change? Sociology 34(3) , pp. 437-56. Vivenza, G. (2001). Adam Smith and the Classics: The Classical Heritage in Adams Smiths Thought. Oxford, England: Oxford UP. Read More