Thursday, November 6, 2008

Smith, A. (1776). On the Division of Labour.

Smith, A. (1776). Of the Division of Labour.
In J. M. Shafritz, and J. S. Ott, (1987) Classics of Organization Theory (Eds.). Illinois: The Dorsey Press
Summarized/Critiqued by Ramya T.V

Adam Smith attributes the greatest improvement in the productive powers of labour to the concept of “division of labour”. As an illustrative example, in a small organization where ten men struggled to produce a single pin in a day, they could instead produce 4800 pins per person per day, if they were able to organize their work in a superior fashion. The “superior fashion“ essentially was to subdivide the pin-making activity into distinct steps, and for each worker to take care exclusively of one or more distinct steps, and then to coordinate these steps.

The advantage from the division of labour has many ramifications, including even the separation of various trades and employments. This separation is highest in “developed” countries, where there is a high degree of industry and improvement. Smith goes on to compare agriculture and manufacture, and opines that the nature of agriculture is such that it is not greatly amenable to subdivision of labour, owing to the seasonal nature of the tasks and therefore labour needs, and hence does not keep pace with manufacture in its rate of progress. As a result, nations are distinguished more for their superiority in manufacture rather than agricultural produce.

Three different reasons contribute to the increased productivity achieved through the division of labour. Firstly, the increased dexterity of every man resulting from a single minded focus on a simple activity/set of activities, results in a measurably greater efficiency on the job. Secondly, there is a switching-time between tasks which can cumulatively have a significant effect owing both to the lost time as well as inertia of starting on a new task, which division of labour considerably reduces. Thirdly, specialization also facilitates readier automation by those performing the task, which provides superior efficiencies. Automation can also originate from the makers of the machines or from philosophers in general.

Summarily Smith concludes that the opulence in output, as a consequence of the division of labour, spreads prosperity and abundance at all the different levels of a well governed society. This enables comfortable “accommodation” of members at all levels of society and the person at the lowest level of society in a developed nation maybe better off than the person at the highest level of an un-developed nation, where the development can fundamentally be attributed to the concept of division of labour.

1 comment:

TV said...

I am another TV....I really do not expect you to publish this comment.

My critiques on your article: :-)...take a breath... i am trying to thrash you down like a demanding professor.

Poor Adam Smith, he did not know that people would be sitting and reviewing his article after 225 years. The class case of division of labour started many years ago when Men started hunting in the wilderness and women used to stay at home. Even a junior school kid would say that it doesnt need 10 people to create a pin in a day.

If it was about the dexterity, man would not have really evolved in life. Just imagine the dexterity life of a typical software engineer. Look at the number of devices that he is handling in a day starting from mobile phone, TV/cable, Handicam, SLR Cam, Laptop, software applications like weblogic, SAP, Email tools, sharepoints, the facebooks, orkuts, linkedin, driving cars, bikes, playing guitar/piano, cooking at home, washing/ironing clothes, games: cricket/ soccer, aquarium, gardening, plumbing, wiring etc. Do you beleive that it is dexterity world that we live in.

My son(4 yr old) watched the cartoons that I used to see when I was 14(Giant Robot..if you remember). He plays the video games that I used to play when I was 10-12. Probably you would argue that its basically due to the availabilty. How about learnings in school. I learned my first words when I was probably 6, my son learned it at 4. Basic Mathamatics at 5, where as I think it was at 7/8 for me.

I do not beleive that dexterity raised the bar of human standards, it is sheer scaling of our grey cells and how much complex you can take it forward. Look at the way how your CV looks in comparison with another person who studied with you in the 5th std.

gotta go....