Researchers are now saying that efforts to simplify work tasks actually have negative results for both companies and their employees. What do you think?
I think simplify work tasks with work specialization,actually have positive and negative results. The positve results could be: jobs are divided into various steps and each of them are performed by an individual; it makes efficient use of diversity of skills that workers hold; it could lead to higher productivity; it saves time. The negative results: jobs become to simplified; employees become bored and tired; quality of work may suffer; absenteeism rises. Example of work specialization could be McDonald's,
Simplify work tasks seams to be the best thing to do for a lot of managers but in the end it just creates confusion and contrasts between the employees. Human beings can't work like they are machines in an assembly line. Mcdonald's tries to do that assigning many tasks to its employees but the results of it is that its employees are always tired and stressed.
I think it really depends on a company, whether it is a big,new company or famous all over the world.As it was mentioned in the notes, in Mc Donald's work specialization is really high but the results are always satisfying, because they sort of follow their objective of delivering "fast food". Sometimes it could be boring for the employees, but as long as the company is successful the employees will be totally glad for putting an effort to the company that is successful. In case if the company gets bigger it actually needs high specialization even for the community, more jobs more people are get hired.
I think that it's depends. when you have a company like mcdonald's, the employees have limited time to do there task so in order to do it good In short time you have to simplify it, but if you have other company that the employees don't have limited time to do the task they will just get board because they don't have the pressure of time. so it's depend on the company needs and the type of the task
Work specialization could be a good idea because: -Each employee can be an expert to some degree. -Task refinement by the specialist leads to higher levels of productivity. -Work can be completed faster and more efficiently due to specialization. -Quality control costs are lowered due to specialization. -Gives employees a sense of pride and job security due to their specialized skills. -All of the previously stated could lead to higher profit potential
COULD BE A BAD IDEA BECAUSE: -jobs become to simplified. - employees become bored and tired. - quality of work may suffer. - absenteeism rises.
If we talk about work specialization, we have to consider two different points of view, the manager's and the employee's one. From the manager's point of view, the work specialization is the best solution to adopt in order to make the firm work in the right way. In contrast, for the employees it can be seen as a positive thing if we consider that, doing always the same activity, they become very high qualified and specialized in their work, but also as a negative thing, for what concerns the feelings and the conditions of workers who can get extremely bored, and as a consequence, start to work without passions and motivation, being not efficient anymore.
I thing the reason for negative results for the companies is obvious. because they would receive less work done and pay more wages for more people. and in here, the challenging question is that why it is also negative for workers . In my opinion , because of boredom and the feeling of unsatisfactory for workers. to make it more clear,I mean if workers have simple jobs to do - simpler than what they can actually do - then they feel that they are not useful ( productive ) enough and it can cause into depression and boredom, as a matter of psychology.
I think that work specialization is a mood to do a work in the best possible way, because the individual should be highly qualified in that work. The negative effects coulde be seen in terms of costs, as the many employees for a work previously done by one individual and also in terms of motivations and feelings of a person who does always the same task every day.
Well the main objective of work simplification is to break down tasks into smaller components; the idea behind this is to maximize productivity. Workers are trained to carry out tasks in the simplistic way possible so they become highly skilled and specialized in performing that exact task repetitively and therefore maximizing productivity. With that said I believe work simplification can be beneficial for the company but not for the employer, at least not in a long haul. Workers become stuck in a rut of boredom, their jobs starts to feel as duty that no longer challenges them. This could then affect the motivation and morale of the workers which can lead to poor productivity.
I think that every company should try to reach great efficiency without causing too much fatigue, boredom or stress to its workers. By consequence I believe that a certain degree of specialization is necessary and useful in all the organizations but it hasn’t to be excessive.The secret lies in finding the right balance\level of specialization that could stimulate all the workers, making them conscious of the real importance of their task for the success of the whole community-company.
I think that the main negative consequence falls on the employees. They feel like their capabilities are underestimated and useless to the company because their jobs get simpler as time goes by, therefore they work with less enthusiasm and they create a negative effect on the company itself.
I personally think that work specialization has positive and negative aspects and it's all about the point of view from where we focus. If I have to analyse work specialization from the point of view of a manager or one of the shareholders of the company it is a good thing because of the profit maximization. The same thing examinated from the point of view of one of the employees will appear negative since the employee will result only a small part of something extremely big!
This analysis is obvious because in my opinion work specialization is a legacy of an old point of view on industrial work. The employee needs to be motivated by the work he does and the excessive division of tasks brings to the alienation of the worker. So it is not good for both workers and firm as it leads to bad working conditions and thus to a decrease on productivity.
I believe that simplifying work tasks could be a good idea because if specialized employees have just one task their job would be more efficient. But in a long-term it could have negative results because employees could get bored, not stimulated and motivated in what they are doing. Although I think that it depends from a company to another and on the type of job employees are required to do.
simplifying work could have a negative influence in specific organizations and could be positive in other organizations, it depends. if the organization Is build from mechanics and engineers, their work couldn't be simplified, because the character of the work. if an organization is build from sellers in cloths shop, so their job could be simplified, because they have a simple tasks.
It depends by several factors. The specialization could fit well fot some companies but could be not very suitable for others. A big corporation involved in a very complex circuit of production and a competitive market and further linked to many relationships needs the division of the tasks according to the specialization segments. This format guarantee very innovative results and top quality products/services thanks to the several skills of the task and the employees but could be expensive and suggests an organic organization structure. In the case of little companies involved in small business it's better to have a simplification in order to achieve an equity and to manage in a healthy and handy way producing a sustainable value with ease. It's also true that simplification could influence negatively the production affecting the workers and their motivations, following a profit maximization's philosophy that won't never lead to an optimum.
Breaking down tasks into several simplier ones may have a positive effect on the company and employees at first but, I believe, in a long term, it would lead to both inefficiency of employees and company. Human natural indisposition to division of labors, that implicates unmotivation, boredom, unchallenging jobs, will have a strong negative impact on the productivity of the workers, thus of the azienda itself.
Researchera are discovering nothing new, actually... This concept of simplified tasks belong to an ancient concept of work. Workers have to do something in which they can use all their skills in order to maximize their efficiency. Division of tasks can bring really negative results. Human brain needs to stay active and for this reason a work can be much more productive if he has to undertake a more relevant task.
I think that work specialization is one of the best way to increase the efficiency of an azienda. Indeed, if a man have to focus his energies just on one task, he will be more effective and quick in doing his job. But when work specialization is applied for a long period time, it leads the employees to boredom, tiredness and inefficiency. Thus, in my opinion work specialization is a useful strategy just for short-time lenght jobs.
I believe that in a first moment the work specialization is necessarily positive for both company and employees. Apparently we could think that dividing the job in several task is automatically a benefit for the employees and therefore also for the company. Though this process can easily become a deficiency whenever employees are no more stimulated by their job that has become too monotonous. Therefore i believe that the work specialization depends on several factor as the attitude of the employees, their degree, and the work that ha to be done. What is sure is that if the specialization is taken to extremes it will affect negatively on the company.
I think there are negative and positive sides of this and some positive sides is that ,specialisation increase in production because the various expert along the production process work together to boost greater production, helping workers to develop greater skills through repetition of the same procees.Negative to companies because of the repetition making the job to be boring for them which may lead to loss of interest in the job being done.
I think it depends on the type of company. As it is said in the book, at McDonald’s the simplifying of work tasks is useful to the purpose of the company. While, maybe in other companies it would be useful not to break into steps a task because the person who does that job must have a wider view of his activity and cannot do only one part of it.
I think that human being are basically creative, we can be ''forced'' to be specialized in order to increase productivity but at the end of the day we are still human and not machines. So while I believe that long period of one-task work can lead to a decrease in productivity due to alienation I anyway believe that if human civilization reached such high level like today it is mainly thank to workers specialization.
Work specialization is a good way to divide a work into more tasks. But when it becomes excessive, there are many negative aspects for human beings to be considered: tell me honestly, who would do the same action for 8 hours per day, 12 months per year? Do you really think a worker, or better, a human being, can feel accomplished in being treated like a machine? I know that working is not always a pleasure, sometimes people cannot choose what to do, but at certain point work specialization comes close to exploitation. Let machines do the machines, and humans do the humans.
No, I do not agree with the researchers. I think simplifying work tasks have positive results on companies and employees as simplifying works include dynamism, combine several processes into one and reject unnecessary processes. It always copes with the changing nature of tasks and way of doing them.
No, I do not agree with the researchers. I think simplifying work tasks have positive results on companies and employees as simplifying works include dynamism, combine several processes into one and reject unnecessary processes. It always copes with the changing nature of tasks and way of doing them.
I think that relegate man to do the same thing every day , continuously , almost automatically , can damage both the worker and the company . It is through constant stimuli , novelty and diversification that the employee becomes productive and consequently added value for the company . Reduce the infinite human potential to a series of mechanical actions is almost a waste of human resources and under-estimation of the value of the employee himself .
I strongly believe that work specialization is a key factor to work as efficient and effective as possible, but due to the fact that each worker's job is simplfy it make him/her feel unfulfilled about his/her real capabilities and consequently it brings to the opposite effect: workers are bored, do not work with the same interest as before, they do not work in the interest of the company. So I think that it is a positive factor but that gives out negative results
I think that the right balance is always in the middle and never in the two extremes. Excessive simplify work tasks with work specialization can bring results, both positive (Each employees can be specialized to some degree, work can be completed faster and more efficiently, etc.) and negative(employees become bored and tired, absenteeism, etc.) but never achieve the right balance that the organization needs.
In my opinion at the beginning the simplification of work tasks has positive results because it helps employees to be more efficient and maximizes the productivity of the organization but in the long term it has a negative effect since employees could get bored and could loose their motivation.
To me the reason for negative results for the companies is obvious because they would receive less work done and pay more wages for more employee.In my opinion , because of boredom and the feeling of unsatisfactory for workers. to make it more clear,I mean if workers have simple jobs to do - simpler than what they can actually do - then they feel that they are not useful enough and it can cause into depression and boredom.
The simplification of work tasks in an organization could seem a good idea to increase the efficiency of the business because the job will be limited and simpler, but we have to consider, that we're managing people, not machines. The success of an organization mostly depends on the way employees work, so on people. Those persons have to feel alive, they have to be satisfied and motivated by their jobs and sometimes, the simplification of work tasks can decrease satisfaction of workers and therefore, it can cause negative changes the way they do their job.
The simplification of work tasks in an organization could seem a good idea to increase the efficiency of the business because the job will be limited and simpler, but we have to consider, that we're managing people, not machines. The success of an organization mostly depends on the way employees work, so on people. Those persons have to feel alive, they have to be satisfied and motivated by their jobs and sometimes, the simplification of work tasks can decrease satisfaction of workers and therefore, it can cause negative changes the way they do their job.
Work specialization has been and is nowadays something so important for the increase in the organization productivity. For the first period both the company and the employees are satisfied of their work and tasks, working efficiently and effectively. Then after a certain period, employees will get bored of their job, decreasing their efficiency and so decreasing the productivity of the firm. So work specialization is fundamental but must be more flexible, for example giving employees different tasks. They could also be simple tasks but must be different, so it will not be boring, will be something different and productive for both the employee and the company.
Work specialization requires few operations by the labours due to its task separation. It can be efficient through the use of low skills and low cost labour and it can increase productivity and task implementation since the employee performs only a small part of the task reducing the possibility of mistakes. But Job semplification may cause problems on the employee's attitude, satisfaction and productivity. He/She may feel bored, less motivated by the repetition of work and less things to learn for personal development. Too much focus on just one production stage may not allow the employee to transfer attention on something else and it precludes the possibility to socialize with other employees.
I think work specialization must be used because implies less time to complete a job, because brings to higher results in terms of productivity (of workers) and efficiency since every employee has specifical competences but it has not to become the core of the business because the workers are humans instead of machines and a very high work specialization will make them aliens... so as in every field the work specialization must be cleverly used in order to obtain better results and happy workers.
Work specialization can be either positive and negative but depends on the organizations. It can be positive because it's a great way to divide a work into multiple steps. While a negative example is that a worker that always has to do the same things at work,is not stimulated so he cannot be self-efficient in what he's suppose to do,leading then to negative results for the firm. Obviously a worker with more extensive expertise and that expands his horizons, brings better results to the organization.
It could be said that this effort brought by the organizations can have either positive or negative effects. As for the advantages, with a work specialization, firms can much easily supervise the work of the employees, and have a better overall organization within it. While from a negative point of view, the employee is not stimulated doing always the same thing, and this will undermine his motivation and, the production of the organization.
I think it depends on the size and type of the company. If the company is big and more mechanistic(e.g. company's which produces machines), I think the best option is to simplify the work to lessen the stress on the employees and being more efficient and effective at the same time which can lead to the boost of the company's production as well as the profit increases.
If the company is small(e.g. restaurant), simplifying the tasks of employees will lead to less motivation that means being less efficient and effective, which can harm the company's production.
The work specialization has both negative and positive consequences depending on the points of view . If the firm sets the level of work specialization high, the productivity will increase but after a long time it can damage the employees' behaviour that feel understimated. The dissatisfaction of the employees is a huge risk for the firm itself
There are several aspect that must be examined when treating this topic, one of this is that definitely there is an increment of efficiency at the very beginning since the work to be done has an easier level of fulfillment, the real problem is that with time passing by the satisfaction of the workers produced by their job terribly decreases causing a lack of efficiency hardly solvable. so in my opinion in the right amount work specialization is a good thing as long as, as soon as the inefficiency arises the firm goes back for a period of time to a more organic way of working after which it is possible to increase the work specialization again and so on in this way.
obviously work specialization produces negative effects. from the point of view of workers , they would do every day the same action , so they will get bored.Consequently, from the organization's point of view , bored workers will not produce in a efficient way .
In my opinion simplifying work tasks would be negative only for the employees and not for the company. A company can only take advantage of the work specialization of its employees because the productivity of the company itself would increase, and so the number of human needs met. From the point of view of the workers doing everyday the same exact easy task surely results boring, and not challenging at all. Dividing the production process in several tasks doesn't make workers feel proud of their work (ex A. a worker has the task to produce a pair of shoes. It takes him 2 hours hour of harsh work to produce it but at the end he is satisfied of what he has done. ex B. a worker has the task to take the shoes produced and put them in a box. He is able to put 500 pair of shoes in the boxes in 2 hours but at the end he feels useless).
Work specialization is a useful strategic element in order to make the work to do faster and to have more people specialised in that specific job. In fact over time employees became very proficiency and expert in carrying out that specific task. A lot of people think that work specialization could lead to great increases in productivity but it is also true that, the human diseconomies from division of labour being to fatigue, stress, poor quality and boredom. This is reason why at some point, work specialization no longer leads to productivity.
Work specialization is a useful strategic element in order to make the work to do faster and to have more people specialised in that specific job. In fact over time employees became very proficiency and expert in carrying out that specific task. A lot of people think that work specialization could lead to great increases in productivity but it is also true that, the human diseconomies from division of labour being to fatigue, stress, poor quality and boredom. This is reason why at some point, work specialization no longer leads to productivity.
Work specialization is a very important tool in the hands of the company. If we just think about that work specialization it helps to direct the company in certain ways,the job that has to be performed but also the motivation of the employees to do their job. For what concern the latter point,i believe that this is one of the strongest views that the owners and the company have to maximize. The division of the job in more tasks in fact, will lead employees to be less motivated about their job but also the continuity and monotony will lead to laziness brining the company to instability. As a consequence, it will undermine both the daily run of the company so as the employees that will be fired,lazy,bored of their work.
The work specialization is a tool that undoubtely helps managers to improve the efficiency of the company and also of each employee. This is the main reason why it beceame so used and wide-spreaded around the world. Altough it may seems to have just positive consequences, managers must take in consideration also the negative effects that it has on workers. Without any doubt, the single employee, just performing his specific task, will gain more experience and skills than anyone, but at the same time work specialitazion, at some point, could also lead to boredom, poor quality and to laziness. I personally think that work specialization is very useful and efficient, but to avoid negative consequences I would specialize my employees just for a specific and not too long period of time, for example 1 year, and then keep on changing their tasks.
The work specialization , determining tasks, request to the employee to specialize in a single activity without the possibility to enlarge his field and so not growing inside the company, but what i suppose is the most notable fact of this work specialization is that the work become so much boring for the employees cause of the monotony and this may bring with the passage of time to the decrease of the level of productivity ,so determining a loss for the company. In this way both the company and the employee are damaged. However in some big companies ,managers may prefer to adopt the work specialization cause the huge amount of work to do so its use depends from the kind of process and quickness the company needs.
Work specialization has a negative impact on the business and employees. The answer is simple. Simplicity may be efficient, but it stifles growth for both the business and its employees. Understanding that the market demands change constantly, so when companies do work specialisation, it can hurt a company. Exemplified in the idea that the company has to adhere to change constantly, this can lead to obsolete departments within a company, which means, depending on how big a company is, letting go of employees can become a constant need for a company to adapt to the ever changing market, which can prove to be costly when it comes to severance packages, while also making it unreliable in a potential employees eyes, and also becoming detrimental to employee motivation, has they fear that they may be out of the company if need be. It could be avoided if the worker had a plethora of skills, meaning that a company may just need to adapt by shifting the worker to another department, making the company fluid, allowing the company to keep most of its employees while they hone their skills in other departments.
I believe, work specialization could cause human diseconomies because employees might be bored of their job as it's so simple and in an limited area and even they might leave their job , so if human diseconomies happens productivity of the company will decrease .
I think that what researchers found out about this topic is an undeniable truth. Everyone needs to know what he's really doing in his job, to understand the importance of his tasks. This is not possible where there is an organizatonal structure characterized by high specialization, rigid departmentalization and a low level of partecipation of employees in decision making. By consequence, working in this kind of environment becomes monotonous and boring (it could also be dangerous for our psychological health). In this way, employees are not stimulated to do better and the firm obtains negative results too.
I think that the negative effects are for the company and for the employees. In the first case because if the company simplifies the tasks, it also has to increase their number and the number of employees and there could be problems of quality. While for what concerns the negative effects for the employees, they could feel understimated amd be less motivated.
I think that the negative effects are for the company and for the employees. In the first case because if the company simplifies the tasks, it also has to increase their number and the number of employees and there could be problems of quality. While for what concerns the negative effects for the employees, they could feel understimated amd be less motivated.
In my opinion researchers are right; simplify work tasks can bring negative results, firstly on the employees and consequently also on the companies. In fact, simplify work tasks means give less challenge opportunities to employees and this means that they won’t improve their selves that much anymore. This brings the employees to think that their job is boring and demoralizing. Employees will become lazy and will work badly. This factors will surely lead to negative results on the companies themselves, because a company whose employees work badly is a company that cannot reach its objectives in the best way and it will probably fail.
I both agree and disagree. Methods, simplifying production processes, creates large unemployed population. For example, in fabrics a machine produces more products in per seconds than a single employe. Rate of production inreases as simplifying methods are used more frequently. Also effort is spent to produce a single product decreases with simplifying methods. Therefore, employers choice to use machines instead of people. This affects economy and market adversely. If the population of unemployed people is relatively high, crises can be seen. On the other hand, simplifying methods may decrease the quality of products. Therefore, in order to balance economy, both simplifying methods And human labour should be used. It also depends the entity of businesses. For example, traditional businesses may choice to produce more qualified products with traditional methods. For them quantities of products may not matter.
I both agree and disagree. Methods, simplifying production processes, creates large unemployed population. For example, in fabrics a machine produces more products in per seconds than a single employe. Rate of production inreases as simplifying methods are used more frequently. Also effort is spent to produce a single product decreases with simplifying methods. Therefore, employers choice to use machines instead of people. This affects economy and market adversely. If the population of unemployed people is relatively high, crises can be seen. On the other hand, simplifying methods may decrease the quality of products. Therefore, in order to balance economy, both simplifying methods And human labour should be used. It also depends the entity of businesses. For example, traditional businesses may choice to produce more qualified products with traditional methods. For them quantities of products may not matter.
I think that simplifying work tasks is a great idea but employees should learn how to perform different tasks, in this way employees can be rotated each hour and they don’t have to do the same thing the whole day. If a job is very simple and employees have to do it everyday all day, they get bored and tired. This leads to low productivity.
I think there is a cause and effect relationship between the feeling of the employees and the results of the companies in which they work. Mostly the results depend on the work done by the employees. It is easy to point out, from a managerial position, that the work specialization helps employees be more efficient. What is not easy to see is that somehow the work specialization makes employees feel useless and underestimated and this, of course, affects the company's productivity.
I think there is a cause and effect relationship between the feeling of the employees and the results of the companies in which they work. Mostly the results depend on the work done by the employees. It is easy to point out, from a managerial position, that the work specialization helps employees be more efficient. What is not easy to see is that somehow the work specialization makes employees feel useless and underestimated and this, of course, affects the company's productivity.
As we know, managers have to take many important decisions and one of them is linked to work specialization. In my opinion high work specialization can have both positive and negative results and it depends on the goals of the different organizations (for example fast food companies use this kind of specialization to be faster). However, high work specializations is not as positive as some managers believe because it transforms employees in machines and it can create many problems in an organization beacuse these employees become not motivated in working for that company.
In the organizational design the work specialization has a great depht because it could change the structure of the organisation. In my opionion,it have both positive and negative aspects. In some firms the specialization could bring to the success and to be more efficient,like the fast food,where the most important feature is the velocity to do the task appointed to each employee,whereas in other companies work specialization could bring to the failure. In fact, the stress and the boredom of employees,done by the routine in doing everyday the same boring thing,cause low productivity,poor quality of products, and above of all sadness in working. I think that the better choice that top managers could take is to change the task of employees after a certain time,according to the scope of the firm (as we saw in the fast food a high specilization causes economic advantage). In this way workers can feel happy to learn new things, can have more creativity,and can see better their workplace. As we can see in Hard Times by Charles Dickens,men started to be considered as machines from the 19th century,age of industrialization, but if in a hand the spread of industries and of fragmentation of the work can be seen as a great improvement,on the other this leaded to the leveling of the society. Each man should use all resources and competencies and should be not consider as an industrial machine (...even if in a lots of markets it is an utopia!)
Even though a specialized worker produces more than an artisan, we don't have to forget that we are humans and so we are not designed to act as machines or robots. The difference between our society and the pre industrial era can be found in the role of workers, indeed though we renounced our creativity we gained in wealth and progress. More specialization would probably bring more alienation than gain resulting in a waste effort.
Even though a specialized worker produces more than an artisan, we don't have to forget that we are humans and so we are not designed to act as machines or robots. The difference between our society and the pre industrial era can be found in the role of workers, indeed though we renounced our creativity we gained in wealth and progress. More specialization would probably bring more alienation than gain resulting in a waste effort.
From the point of view of employees, work specialization produces negative effects, they do every time the same actions and so their tasks could become boring and unsatisfactory. Beside, from the organization's point of view , bored workers will not produce good products.
I think that the work specialization may be useful in a mechanistic organization where the division of labor is very useful . However in the modern conception of the managment I believe that the work specialization may affect because the market is growing and freedom within their work is more useful than a standard to be met.
In my opinion work specialization is a useful action to draw a clear and organized pattern of the whole work of an organization. On the other side, it can lead workers to feel bored about their specific tasks reducing their productivity and innovation.
In my opinion work specialization is a useful action to draw a clear and organized pattern of the whole work of an organization. On the other side, it can lead workers to feel bored about their specific tasks reducing their productivity and innovation.
As far as I'm concerned, work specialization is an useful way to divide the tasks and make employees do what they can do better. But this, as researchers sustain, can cause stress and can make employees bored with their job, putting at risk the productivity and the efficiency of an organization. So, I agree with this part of the researchers' reasonment, even though I do not consider work specialization a wrong solution.
As far as I'm concerned, work specialization is an useful way to divide the tasks and make employees do what they can do better. But this, as researchers sustain, can cause stress and can make employees bored with their job, putting at risk the productivity and the efficiency of an organization. So, I agree with this part of the researchers' reasonment, even though I do not consider work specialization a wrong solution.
I think that we should not rely us on these researches, because if the technological development enables us to improve the working conditions, the comfort of the same workers and to speed up the labour process, it is entirely positive.
I think that when a company simplifies work tasks too much the effect on the employees is absolutely negative. Of course the risk of mistakes is reduced, but people would start hating their job and this is something that could be extremely dangerous as well. Managers should try to find the right level of work specialization in order to make employees' lives interesting but not stressing, directly asking them what they think would be a fair compromise. Although this would not be an easy thing to accomplish, I think that the results would be absolutely positive for the company.
in my opinon, there is no way to say in general if it is better an high specialization or not. it always depends on how qualified the workers are. if they are not, then you will need high specialization to monitor their work, to make sure they do what they can do, to reach efficency. but if you work into a qualified environment, then a high specialization will appear as a cage into which are trapped. they will demoralize, lowering the effectiveness of the firm and their yield
It obviously depends on the kind of of company you're working in. If it's a fast food company, then i would go for an high specialization, if it's big corporation then i definitely wouldn't. At the same time, if we have qualified employees we are not forced to simplify the tasks, while if our employees are not as qualified as they should, then it'd be better to divide the work.
I think simplify work tasks with specialization have both negative and positive results.first of all work specialization produces negative results.(employees) they repeat the same thing again and again their are no chance to use their skill, no motivation, employees get unsatisfactory.simply an unsatisfied workers cannot think creatively,and they cannot produce good products
As we know, work specialization is the degree to which tasks in an organization are divided into separate jobs. In my opinion, the fact that a job is broken down into steps, and each steps is completed by a different person it's a good solution: each person has a recognized capability and is stimulated to do her/his part in the best way she/he can. All the people are focused on their job to reach the objective of the firm and I also think that, in our time, more you are specialized in something, more you have oppotunities to work. It is also a positive thing for the azienda, because, if the job did not reach the final objectives, it is easier to understand in which part of the productive processes tha mistake has been made.
efforts to simplify work tasks have both negative and positive effects according to the situation that when man power and time is lesser that efficiency/increase in the productivity at this circumstances employees may feel work pressure and they lack the motivation power,so it results in negative effect to employees and positive to company
I think that work specialization could be positive on one hand, as the work is divided into several steps and each employee becomes specialized in his/her own. But on the other hand, it could be negative as the employees become demotivated and bored in doing always the same things. And this factor could badly influence the whole company. Therefore what is important is to avoid overspecialization, and always try to leave space for the creativity of the employees, as their pleasure in carring out their work will brilliantly affect the company itself.
I think that there is a certain limit to which work specialization should be applied. It is absolutely unavoidable and necessary to separate tasks within the company in order to simplify different operations. However, I think that when a business entity does that, it can lead to the risk of oversimplification which consequently asks for more employees which leads to inefficiency. To sum up, I think simplifying work tasks can be negative sometimes because overspecialization is not efficient.
Dividing a whole process in specific simplified tasks could bring both to absolute efficiency and productivity as well as to disastrous effects for the company. It is obvious that engaging in the same tasks over and over again will at some point lead to high specialization of the employees and therefore to efficiency of an organization. However, I believe the process will be to destined to an outbreak. I consider it ethically wrong to bring a human work to limited tasks, obstructing his creativity, inspiration and motivation to find alternatives. Treating human beings as if they were machines doesn’t increase the value of neither the employee nor the firm.
I think that simplifying work task could be both positive or negative, depending by the task that we are taking into exam. If we are talking about an alienating work maybe is a good choice, taking into consideration the employee, that his/her task has been simplified making it more affordable. Doing this the worker will be more suitable with his task and more convinced that his workplace respects him and his dignity as part of the firm making, if possible, his self-esteem greater. In the other hand, making certain job easier could be a wrong choice both for the company and the worker, slowing their productivity and the motivation. It is not always a good idea limiting the creativity or the capacities of a worker with a new machine or a new engine. It is anyway difficult to take a position because a lot depends on which kind of work are we talking about and so it is not only about a mere and absolute ethical point of view.
"If you are the most intelligent person in the room, you must escape as fast as you can.It is not the room you must be at." One must be pushed to their limits to achieve more.If you are in your comfort zone, you are sure to stay at the same place which is maybe the worst place to be in. So,I strongly believe that the only way to improve is to do something you are scared of,to do something new and to be surrounded by people who are already where you want to go and/or who have your beliefs and are as hungry as you are. I will not consider "simplifying work tasks" as a serious question because in my opinion, it is nothing!If you simplify work tasks of your employees it does not mean you are a good director,rather it shows you did not learn anything and your entity is up to failure! You must hire employees who want to achieve more, who want to develop and to be pushed because our world is changing by minutes. If you are not willing to change you are fated!
No I’m not agree with this theory. I consider the division task in a company like a good strategy of action because a company (better if it is a big one) can specializes their employees in what they do better.
Simplifying work tasks can be dangerous for firms, because employees need to be stimulated by their work and got involved in what they do in order to not get bored. Letting the task being more technical can increase the risks, that sometimes generate interest and dedication on what the employee is doing.
Simplify the work tasks should be the goal of every manager and firm, the problem is how you do it! You risk to create chaos and confusion.. For examle splitting a task in many sub tasks : a duty carried out by a single individual is 100% better done than one accomplished by more persons with different ways of doing.
I do agree, if an employee has the same fixed role and the same actions to follow, he can lose his motivation in doing that job well. I think that nowadays it is better to have more knowledge and abilities. Performing more responsibilities and taking care of more problems the employee will feel more complete and satisfied. So, simplifying the tasks will reduce the possibility of the employee to get more experience, and for the company it will not be good also because they will have employees that have limited abilities.
The study indicates that various efforts to increase efficiency by simplifying workers’ job responsibilities may in fact be leading to lower employee job satisfaction and productivity over time. “In a globally competitive marketplace, companies are trying to introduce efficiency wherever they can to improve their financial performance for stockholders.
It varies from company to company, even though work specialization might be considered extremely useful in terms of maximizing efficiency (for large companies), it can also lead to demotivation of individual workers and hence creating a negative impact on the companies efficiency as well as workers productivity in the long run. It should be noted that work specialization should be carried out mainly within larger organizations since it would help creating a synergy between the factors of production hence resulting in a much higher benefits for the organization both financially and non-financially.
I think that work specialization is a strategy that at the beginning, can be functional for the employees and profitable for the firm, but in the future, employees want something new and more exciting. If the employees are not motivated and enthusiastic in what they are doing, they will not work with efficiency and they will not maximize the productivity. The right strategy, is to find a point where a work specialization is balanced with strong motivation coming from training courses, stage or activities that improve the capabilities of the employees.
I think that a too high specialization is in conflict with the employee's expectations as stakeholders: in fact if tasks are divided into too many steps, there is no more space for personal development and satisfaction; and, since, according to the stakeholders'theory, each stakeholder contribute to the economic activity of an organization in expectation of an adequate reward, an employee whose legitimate interests are not satisfied would not contribute in the most efficient way to the business activity of the firm.
I also share the idea that problem could raise with work specialization. Works that demand too much knowledge and expertise in different areas can cause stress to employees and can be unproductive for the firm. Similarly, if the task are simplified, more people are needed as there has to be at least one person for every phase of the production and also people are less involved in their roles.
I think so that efforts to simplify work tasks actually have negative results for both companies and their employees. Here work is being divided into several parts and done these several parts of work by individuals. That is why the work becomes repetitive by employees and they become bore doing the same job. Mentally, employees think that they are no longer productive and it efficiently effect the company's goal eventually.
I think I agree to some degree with the researchers. Nowadays, as new trends and innovation keep continuing to change rapidly, it would be difficult for the organization to keep up to date so the tasks become somewhat outdated. Work specialization would not lead to productivity over a period of time; this would mean that the employees cannot think outside the box and be creative.
I think simplify work tasks with work specialization,actually have positive and negative results.
ReplyDeleteThe positve results could be: jobs are divided into various steps and each of them are performed by an individual; it makes efficient use of diversity of skills that workers hold; it could lead to higher productivity; it saves time.
The negative results: jobs become to simplified; employees become bored and tired; quality of work may suffer; absenteeism rises.
Example of work specialization could be McDonald's,
Simplify work tasks seams to be the best thing to do for a lot of managers but in the end it just creates confusion and contrasts between the employees. Human beings can't work like they are machines in an assembly line. Mcdonald's tries to do that assigning many tasks to its employees but the results of it is that its employees are always tired and stressed.
ReplyDeleteI think it really depends on a company, whether it is a big,new company or famous all over the world.As it was mentioned in the notes, in Mc Donald's work specialization is really high but the results are always satisfying, because they sort of follow their objective of delivering "fast food". Sometimes it could be boring for the employees, but as long as the company is successful the employees will be totally glad for putting an effort to the company that is successful. In case if the company gets bigger it actually needs high specialization even for the community, more jobs more people are get hired.
ReplyDeleteI think that it's depends. when you have a company like mcdonald's, the employees have limited time to do there task so in order to do it good In short time you have to simplify it, but if you have other company that the employees don't have limited time to do the task they will just get board because they don't have the pressure of time. so it's depend on the company needs and the type of the task
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWork specialization could be a good idea because:
ReplyDelete-Each employee can be an expert to some degree.
-Task refinement by the specialist leads to higher levels of productivity.
-Work can be completed faster and more efficiently due to specialization.
-Quality control costs are lowered due to specialization.
-Gives employees a sense of pride and job security due to their specialized skills.
-All of the previously stated could lead to higher profit potential
COULD BE A BAD IDEA BECAUSE:
-jobs become to simplified.
- employees become bored and tired.
- quality of work may suffer.
- absenteeism rises.
If we talk about work specialization, we have to consider two different points of view, the manager's and the employee's one. From the manager's point of view, the work specialization is the best solution to adopt in order to make the firm work in the right way. In contrast, for the employees it can be seen as a positive thing if we consider that, doing always the same activity, they become very high qualified and specialized in their work, but also as a negative thing, for what concerns the feelings and the conditions of workers who can get extremely bored, and as a consequence, start to work without passions and motivation, being not efficient anymore.
ReplyDeleteI thing the reason for negative results for the companies is obvious. because they would receive less work done and pay more wages for more people. and in here, the challenging question is that why it is also negative for workers . In my opinion , because of boredom and the feeling of unsatisfactory for workers. to make it more clear,I mean if workers have simple jobs to do - simpler than what they can actually do - then they feel that they are not useful ( productive ) enough and it can cause into depression and boredom, as a matter of psychology.
ReplyDeleteI think that work specialization is a mood to do a work in the best possible way, because the individual should be highly qualified in that work. The negative effects coulde be seen in terms of costs, as the many employees for a work previously done by one individual and also in terms of motivations and feelings of a person who does always the same task every day.
ReplyDeleteWell the main objective of work simplification is to break down tasks into smaller components; the idea behind this is to maximize productivity. Workers are trained to carry out tasks in the simplistic way possible so they become highly skilled and specialized in performing that exact task repetitively and therefore maximizing productivity. With that said I believe work simplification can be beneficial for the company but not for the employer, at least not in a long haul. Workers become stuck in a rut of boredom, their jobs starts to feel as duty that no longer challenges them. This could then affect the motivation and morale of the workers which can lead to poor productivity.
ReplyDeleteI think that every company should try to reach great efficiency without causing too much fatigue, boredom or stress to its workers. By consequence I believe that a certain degree of specialization is necessary and useful in all the organizations but it hasn’t to be excessive.The secret lies in finding the right balance\level of specialization that could stimulate all the workers, making them conscious of the real importance of their task for the success of the whole community-company.
ReplyDeletesimplify a work task have a negative result for company and employee
ReplyDeleteemployee: -
bored
bad quality
cant work too long time
company:
cant control the quality of worker
the worker will easy to quit the job
if once of task get a problem, you need time to find a replacement
I think that the main negative consequence falls on the employees. They feel like their capabilities are underestimated and useless to the company because their jobs get simpler as time goes by, therefore they work with less enthusiasm and they create a negative effect on the company itself.
ReplyDeleteI personally think that work specialization has positive and negative aspects and it's all about the point of view from where we focus.
ReplyDeleteIf I have to analyse work specialization from the point of view of a manager or one of the shareholders of the company it is a good thing because of the profit maximization. The same thing examinated from the point of view of one of the employees will appear negative since the employee will result only a small part of something extremely big!
This analysis is obvious because in my opinion work specialization is a legacy of an old point of view on industrial work. The employee needs to be motivated by the work he does and the excessive division of tasks brings to the alienation of the worker. So it is not good for both workers and firm as it leads to bad working conditions and thus to a decrease on productivity.
ReplyDeleteI believe that simplifying work tasks could be a good idea because if specialized employees have just one task their job would be more efficient. But in a long-term it could have negative results because employees could get bored, not stimulated and motivated in what they are doing. Although I think that it depends from a company to another and on the type of job employees are required to do.
ReplyDeletesimplifying work could have a negative influence in specific organizations and could be positive in other organizations, it depends.
ReplyDeleteif the organization Is build from mechanics and engineers, their work couldn't be simplified, because the character of the work.
if an organization is build from sellers in cloths shop, so their job could be simplified, because they have a simple tasks.
It depends by several factors. The specialization could fit well fot some companies but could be not very suitable for others. A big corporation involved in a very complex circuit of production and a competitive market and further linked to many relationships needs the division of the tasks according to the specialization segments. This format guarantee very innovative results and top quality products/services thanks to the several skills of the task and the employees but could be expensive and suggests an organic organization structure. In the case of little companies involved in small business it's better to have a simplification in order to achieve an equity and to manage in a healthy and handy way producing a sustainable value with ease. It's also true that simplification could influence negatively the production affecting the workers and their motivations, following a profit maximization's philosophy that won't never lead to an optimum.
ReplyDeleteBreaking down tasks into several simplier ones may have a positive effect on the company and employees at first but, I believe, in a long term, it would lead to both inefficiency of employees and company. Human natural indisposition to division of labors, that implicates unmotivation, boredom, unchallenging jobs, will have a strong negative impact on the productivity of the workers, thus of the azienda itself.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteResearchera are discovering nothing new, actually... This concept of simplified tasks belong to an ancient concept of work. Workers have to do something in which they can use all their skills in order to maximize their efficiency. Division of tasks can bring really negative results. Human brain needs to stay active and for this reason a work can be much more productive if he has to undertake a more relevant task.
ReplyDeleteI think that work specialization is one of the best way to increase the efficiency of an azienda. Indeed, if a man have to focus his energies just on one task, he will be more effective and quick in doing his job. But when work specialization is applied for a long period time, it leads the employees to boredom, tiredness and inefficiency. Thus, in my opinion work specialization is a useful strategy just for short-time lenght jobs.
ReplyDeleteI believe that in a first moment the work specialization is necessarily positive for both company and employees. Apparently we could think that dividing the job in several task is automatically a benefit for the employees and therefore also for the company. Though this process can easily become a deficiency whenever employees are no more stimulated by their job that has become too monotonous. Therefore i believe that the work specialization depends on several factor as the attitude of the employees, their degree, and the work that ha to be done. What is sure is that if the specialization is taken to extremes it will affect negatively on the company.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI think there are negative and positive sides of this and some positive sides is that ,specialisation increase in production because the various expert along the production process work together to boost greater production, helping workers to develop greater skills through repetition of the same procees.Negative to companies because of the repetition making the job to be boring for them which may lead to loss of interest in the job being done.
DeleteI think it depends on the type of company. As it is said in the book, at McDonald’s the simplifying of work tasks is useful to the purpose of the company. While, maybe in other companies it would be useful not to break into steps a task because the person who does that job must have a wider view of his activity and cannot do only one part of it.
ReplyDeleteI think that human being are basically creative, we can be ''forced'' to be specialized in order to increase productivity but at the end of the day we are still human and not machines.
ReplyDeleteSo while I believe that long period of one-task work can lead to a decrease in productivity due to alienation I anyway believe that if human civilization reached such high level like today it is mainly thank to workers specialization.
Work specialization is a good way to divide a work into more tasks. But when it becomes excessive, there are many negative aspects for human beings to be considered: tell me honestly, who would do the same action for 8 hours per day, 12 months per year? Do you really think a worker, or better, a human being, can feel accomplished in being treated like a machine? I know that working is not always a pleasure, sometimes people cannot choose what to do, but at certain point work specialization comes close to exploitation. Let machines do the machines, and humans do the humans.
ReplyDeleteNo, I do not agree with the researchers. I think simplifying work tasks have positive results on companies and employees as simplifying works include dynamism, combine several processes into one and reject unnecessary processes. It always copes with the changing nature of tasks and way of doing them.
ReplyDeleteNo, I do not agree with the researchers. I think simplifying work tasks have positive results on companies and employees as simplifying works include dynamism, combine several processes into one and reject unnecessary processes. It always copes with the changing nature of tasks and way of doing them.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI think that relegate man to do the same thing every day , continuously , almost automatically , can damage both the worker and the company . It is through constant stimuli , novelty and diversification that the employee becomes productive and consequently added value for the company . Reduce the infinite human potential to a series of mechanical actions is almost a waste of human resources and under-estimation of the value of the employee himself .
I strongly believe that work specialization is a key factor to work as efficient and effective as possible, but due to the fact that each worker's job is simplfy it make him/her feel unfulfilled about his/her real capabilities and consequently it brings to the opposite effect: workers are bored, do not work with the same interest as before, they do not work in the interest of the company. So I think that it is a positive factor but that gives out negative results
ReplyDeleteI think that the right balance is always in the middle and never in the two extremes. Excessive simplify work tasks with work specialization can bring results, both positive (Each employees can be specialized to some degree, work can be completed faster and more efficiently, etc.) and negative(employees become bored and tired, absenteeism, etc.) but never achieve the right balance that the organization needs.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion at the beginning the simplification of work tasks has positive results because it helps employees to be more efficient and maximizes the productivity of the organization but in the long term it has a negative effect since employees could get bored and could loose their motivation.
ReplyDeleteTo me the reason for negative results for the companies is obvious because they would receive less work done and pay more wages for more employee.In my opinion , because of boredom and the feeling of unsatisfactory for workers. to make it more clear,I mean if workers have simple jobs to do - simpler than what they can actually do - then they feel that they are not useful enough and it can cause into depression and boredom.
ReplyDeleteThe simplification of work tasks in an organization could seem a good idea to increase the efficiency of the business because the job will be limited and simpler, but we have to consider, that we're managing people, not machines. The success of an organization mostly depends on the way employees work, so on people. Those persons have to feel alive, they have to be satisfied and motivated by their jobs and sometimes, the simplification of work tasks can decrease satisfaction of workers and therefore, it can cause negative changes the way they do their job.
ReplyDeleteThe simplification of work tasks in an organization could seem a good idea to increase the efficiency of the business because the job will be limited and simpler, but we have to consider, that we're managing people, not machines. The success of an organization mostly depends on the way employees work, so on people. Those persons have to feel alive, they have to be satisfied and motivated by their jobs and sometimes, the simplification of work tasks can decrease satisfaction of workers and therefore, it can cause negative changes the way they do their job.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWork specialization has been and is nowadays something so important for the increase in the organization productivity. For the first period both the company and the employees are satisfied of their work and tasks, working efficiently and effectively. Then after a certain period, employees will get bored of their job, decreasing their efficiency and so decreasing the productivity of the firm. So work specialization is fundamental but must be more flexible, for example giving employees different tasks. They could also be simple tasks but must be different, so it will not be boring, will be something different and productive for both the employee and the company.
ReplyDeleteWork specialization requires few operations by the labours due to its task separation. It can be efficient through the use of low skills and low cost labour and it can increase productivity and task implementation since the employee performs only a small part of the task reducing the possibility of mistakes.
ReplyDeleteBut Job semplification may cause problems on the employee's attitude, satisfaction and productivity. He/She may feel bored, less motivated by the repetition of work and less things to learn for personal development. Too much focus on just one production stage may not allow the employee to transfer attention on something else and it precludes the possibility to socialize with other employees.
I think work specialization must be used because implies less time to complete a job, because brings to higher results in terms of productivity (of workers) and efficiency since every employee has specifical competences but it has not to become the core of the business because the workers are humans instead of machines and a very high work specialization will make them aliens... so as in every field the work specialization must be cleverly used in order to obtain better results and happy workers.
ReplyDeleteWork specialization can be either positive and negative but depends on the organizations. It can be positive because it's a great way to divide a work into multiple steps. While a negative example is that a worker that always has to do the same things at work,is not stimulated so he cannot be self-efficient in what he's suppose to do,leading then to negative results for the firm. Obviously a worker with more extensive expertise and that expands his horizons, brings better results to the organization.
ReplyDeleteIt could be said that this effort brought by the organizations can have either positive or negative effects. As for the advantages, with a work specialization, firms can much easily supervise the work of the employees, and have a better overall organization within it. While from a negative point of view, the employee is not stimulated doing always the same thing, and this will undermine his motivation and, the production of the organization.
ReplyDeleteI think it depends on the size and type of the company.
ReplyDeleteIf the company is big and more mechanistic(e.g. company's which produces machines), I think the best option is to simplify the work to lessen the stress on the employees and being more efficient and effective at the same time which can lead to the boost of the company's production as well as the profit increases.
If the company is small(e.g. restaurant), simplifying the tasks of employees will lead to less motivation that means being less efficient and effective, which can harm the company's production.
The work specialization has both negative and positive consequences depending on the points of view . If the firm sets the level of work specialization high, the productivity will increase but after a long time it can damage the employees' behaviour that feel understimated. The dissatisfaction of the employees is a huge risk for the firm itself
ReplyDeleteThere are several aspect that must be examined when treating this topic, one of this is that definitely there is an increment of efficiency at the very beginning since the work to be done has an easier level of fulfillment, the real problem is that with time passing by the satisfaction of the workers produced by their job terribly decreases causing a lack of efficiency hardly solvable.
ReplyDeleteso in my opinion in the right amount work specialization is a good thing as long as, as soon as the inefficiency arises the firm goes back for a period of time to a more organic way of working after which it is possible to increase the work specialization again and so on in this way.
obviously work specialization produces negative effects. from the point of view of workers , they would do every day the same action , so they will get bored.Consequently, from the organization's point of view , bored workers will not produce in a efficient way .
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion simplifying work tasks would be negative only for the employees and not for the company. A company can only take advantage of the work specialization of its employees because the productivity of the company itself would increase, and so the number of human needs met.
ReplyDeleteFrom the point of view of the workers doing everyday the same exact easy task surely results boring, and not challenging at all. Dividing the production process in several tasks doesn't make workers feel proud of their work (ex A. a worker has the task to produce a pair of shoes. It takes him 2 hours hour of harsh work to produce it but at the end he is satisfied of what he has done. ex B. a worker has the task to take the shoes produced and put them in a box. He is able to put 500 pair of shoes in the boxes in 2 hours but at the end he feels useless).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWork specialization is a useful strategic element in order to make the work to do faster and to have more people specialised in that specific job. In fact over time employees became very proficiency and expert in carrying out that specific task. A lot of people think that work specialization could lead to great increases in productivity but it is also true that, the human diseconomies from division of labour being to fatigue, stress, poor quality and boredom. This is reason why at some point, work specialization no longer leads to productivity.
ReplyDeleteWork specialization is a useful strategic element in order to make the work to do faster and to have more people specialised in that specific job. In fact over time employees became very proficiency and expert in carrying out that specific task. A lot of people think that work specialization could lead to great increases in productivity but it is also true that, the human diseconomies from division of labour being to fatigue, stress, poor quality and boredom. This is reason why at some point, work specialization no longer leads to productivity.
ReplyDeleteWork specialization is a very important tool in the hands of the company. If we just think about that work specialization it helps to direct the company in certain ways,the job that has to be performed but also the motivation of the employees to do their job. For what concern the latter point,i believe that this is one of the strongest views that the owners and the company have to maximize. The division of the job in more tasks in fact, will lead employees to be less motivated about their job but also the continuity and monotony will lead to laziness brining the company to instability. As a consequence, it will undermine both the daily run of the company so as the employees that will be fired,lazy,bored of their work.
ReplyDeleteThe work specialization is a tool that undoubtely helps managers to improve the efficiency of the company and also of each employee. This is the main reason why it beceame so used and wide-spreaded around the world.
ReplyDeleteAltough it may seems to have just positive consequences, managers must take in consideration also the negative effects that it has on workers. Without any doubt, the single employee, just performing his specific task, will gain more experience and skills than anyone, but at the same time work specialitazion, at some point, could also lead to boredom, poor quality and to laziness.
I personally think that work specialization is very useful and efficient, but to avoid negative consequences I would specialize my employees just for a specific and not too long period of time, for example 1 year, and then keep on changing their tasks.
The work specialization , determining tasks, request to the employee to specialize in a single activity without the possibility to enlarge his field and so not growing inside the company, but what i suppose is the most notable fact of this work specialization is that the work become so much boring for the employees cause of the monotony and this may bring with the passage of time to the decrease of the level of productivity ,so determining a loss for the company. In this way both the company and the employee are damaged. However in some big companies ,managers may prefer to adopt the work specialization cause the huge amount of work to do so its use depends from the kind of process and quickness the company needs.
ReplyDeleteWork specialization has a negative impact on the business and employees. The answer is simple. Simplicity may be efficient, but it stifles growth for both the business and its employees. Understanding that the market demands change constantly, so when companies do work specialisation, it can hurt a company. Exemplified in the idea that the company has to adhere to change constantly, this can lead to obsolete departments within a company, which means, depending on how big a company is, letting go of employees can become a constant need for a company to adapt to the ever changing market, which can prove to be costly when it comes to severance packages, while also making it unreliable in a potential employees eyes, and also becoming detrimental to employee motivation, has they fear that they may be out of the company if need be. It could be avoided if the worker had a plethora of skills, meaning that a company may just need to adapt by shifting the worker to another department, making the company fluid, allowing the company to keep most of its employees while they hone their skills in other departments.
ReplyDeleteI believe, work specialization could cause human diseconomies because employees might be bored of their job as it's so simple and in an limited area and even they might leave their job , so if human diseconomies happens productivity of the company will decrease .
ReplyDeleteI think that what researchers found out about this topic is an undeniable truth. Everyone needs to know what he's really doing in his job, to understand the importance of his tasks. This is not possible where there is an organizatonal structure characterized by high specialization, rigid departmentalization and a low level of partecipation of employees in decision making. By consequence, working in this kind of environment becomes monotonous and boring (it could also be dangerous for our psychological health). In this way, employees are not stimulated to do better and the firm obtains negative results too.
ReplyDeleteI think that the negative effects are for the company and for the employees. In the first case because if the company simplifies the tasks, it also has to increase their number and the number of employees and there could be problems of quality. While for what concerns the negative effects for the employees, they could feel understimated amd be less motivated.
ReplyDeleteI think that the negative effects are for the company and for the employees. In the first case because if the company simplifies the tasks, it also has to increase their number and the number of employees and there could be problems of quality. While for what concerns the negative effects for the employees, they could feel understimated amd be less motivated.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion researchers are right; simplify work tasks can bring negative results, firstly on the employees and consequently also on the companies.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, simplify work tasks means give less challenge opportunities to employees and this means that they won’t improve their selves that much anymore. This brings the employees to think that their job is boring and demoralizing. Employees will become lazy and will work badly.
This factors will surely lead to negative results on the companies themselves, because a company whose employees work badly is a company that cannot reach its objectives in the best way and it will probably fail.
I both agree and disagree. Methods, simplifying production processes, creates large unemployed population. For example, in fabrics a machine produces more products in per seconds than a single employe. Rate of production inreases as simplifying methods are used more frequently. Also effort is spent to produce a single product decreases with simplifying methods. Therefore, employers choice to use machines instead of people. This affects economy and market adversely. If the population of unemployed people is relatively high, crises can be seen. On the other hand, simplifying methods may decrease the quality of products. Therefore, in order to balance economy, both simplifying methods And human labour should be used. It also depends the entity of businesses. For example, traditional businesses may choice to produce more qualified products with traditional methods. For them quantities of products may not matter.
ReplyDeleteI both agree and disagree. Methods, simplifying production processes, creates large unemployed population. For example, in fabrics a machine produces more products in per seconds than a single employe. Rate of production inreases as simplifying methods are used more frequently. Also effort is spent to produce a single product decreases with simplifying methods. Therefore, employers choice to use machines instead of people. This affects economy and market adversely. If the population of unemployed people is relatively high, crises can be seen. On the other hand, simplifying methods may decrease the quality of products. Therefore, in order to balance economy, both simplifying methods And human labour should be used. It also depends the entity of businesses. For example, traditional businesses may choice to produce more qualified products with traditional methods. For them quantities of products may not matter.
ReplyDeleteI think that simplifying work tasks is a great idea but employees should learn how to perform different tasks, in this way employees can be rotated each hour and they don’t have to do the same thing the whole day. If a job is very simple and employees have to do it everyday all day, they get bored and tired. This leads to low productivity.
ReplyDeleteI think there is a cause and effect relationship between the feeling of the employees and the results of the companies in which they work. Mostly the results depend on the work done by the employees. It is easy to point out, from a managerial position, that the work specialization helps employees be more efficient. What is not easy to see is that somehow the work specialization makes employees feel useless and underestimated and this, of course, affects the company's productivity.
ReplyDeleteI think there is a cause and effect relationship between the feeling of the employees and the results of the companies in which they work. Mostly the results depend on the work done by the employees. It is easy to point out, from a managerial position, that the work specialization helps employees be more efficient. What is not easy to see is that somehow the work specialization makes employees feel useless and underestimated and this, of course, affects the company's productivity.
ReplyDeleteAs we know, managers have to take many important decisions and one of them is linked to work specialization. In my opinion high work specialization can have both positive and negative results and it depends on the goals of the different organizations (for example fast food companies use this kind of specialization to be faster). However, high work specializations is not as positive as some managers believe because it transforms employees in machines and it can create many problems in an organization beacuse these employees become not motivated in working for that company.
ReplyDeletespecialization*
DeleteIn the organizational design the work specialization has a great depht because it could change the structure of the organisation. In my opionion,it have both positive and negative aspects. In some firms the specialization could bring to the success and to be more efficient,like the fast food,where the most important feature is the velocity to do the task appointed to each employee,whereas in other companies work specialization could bring to the failure. In fact, the stress and the boredom of employees,done by the routine in doing everyday the same boring thing,cause low productivity,poor quality of products, and above of all sadness in working. I think that the better choice that top managers could take is to change the task of employees after a certain time,according to the scope of the firm (as we saw in the fast food a high specilization causes economic advantage). In this way workers can feel happy to learn new things, can have more creativity,and can see better their workplace. As we can see in Hard Times by Charles Dickens,men started to be considered as machines from the 19th century,age of industrialization, but if in a hand the spread of industries and of fragmentation of the work can be seen as a great improvement,on the other this leaded to the leveling of the society. Each man should use all resources and competencies and should be not consider as an industrial machine (...even if in a lots of markets it is an utopia!)
ReplyDeleteEven though a specialized worker produces more than an artisan, we don't have to forget that we are humans and so we are not designed to act as machines or robots. The difference between our society and the pre industrial era can be found in the role of workers, indeed though we renounced our creativity we gained in wealth and progress. More specialization would probably bring more alienation than gain resulting in a waste effort.
ReplyDeleteEven though a specialized worker produces more than an artisan, we don't have to forget that we are humans and so we are not designed to act as machines or robots. The difference between our society and the pre industrial era can be found in the role of workers, indeed though we renounced our creativity we gained in wealth and progress. More specialization would probably bring more alienation than gain resulting in a waste effort.
ReplyDeleteFrom the point of view of employees, work specialization produces negative effects, they do every time the same actions and so their tasks could become boring and unsatisfactory. Beside, from the organization's point of view , bored workers will not produce good products.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI think that the work specialization may be useful in a mechanistic organization where the division of labor is very useful .
However in the modern conception of the managment I believe that the work specialization may affect because the market is growing and freedom within their work is more useful than a standard to be met.
In my opinion work specialization is a useful action to draw a clear and organized pattern of the whole work of an organization. On the other side, it can lead workers to feel bored about their specific tasks reducing their productivity and innovation.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion work specialization is a useful action to draw a clear and organized pattern of the whole work of an organization. On the other side, it can lead workers to feel bored about their specific tasks reducing their productivity and innovation.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I'm concerned, work specialization is an useful way to divide the tasks and make employees do what they can do better. But this, as researchers sustain, can cause stress and can make employees bored with their job, putting at risk the productivity and the efficiency of an organization. So, I agree with this part of the researchers' reasonment, even though I do not consider work specialization a wrong solution.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I'm concerned, work specialization is an useful way to divide the tasks and make employees do what they can do better. But this, as researchers sustain, can cause stress and can make employees bored with their job, putting at risk the productivity and the efficiency of an organization. So, I agree with this part of the researchers' reasonment, even though I do not consider work specialization a wrong solution.
ReplyDeleteI think that we should not rely us on these researches, because if the technological development enables us to improve the working conditions, the comfort of the same workers and to speed up the labour process, it is entirely positive.
ReplyDeleteI think that when a company simplifies work tasks too much the effect on the employees is absolutely negative. Of course the risk of mistakes is reduced, but people would start hating their job and this is something that could be extremely dangerous as well. Managers should try to find the right level of work specialization in order to make employees' lives interesting but not stressing, directly asking them what they think would be a fair compromise. Although this would not be an easy thing to accomplish, I think that the results would be absolutely positive for the company.
ReplyDeletein my opinon, there is no way to say in general if it is better an high specialization or not. it always depends on how qualified the workers are. if they are not, then you will need high specialization to monitor their work, to make sure they do what they can do, to reach efficency.
ReplyDeletebut if you work into a qualified environment, then a high specialization will appear as a cage into which are trapped. they will demoralize, lowering the effectiveness of the firm and their yield
It obviously depends on the kind of of company you're working in. If it's a fast food company, then i would go for an high specialization, if it's big corporation then i definitely wouldn't. At the same time, if we have qualified employees we are not forced to simplify the tasks, while if our employees are not as qualified as they should, then it'd be better to divide the work.
ReplyDeleteI think simplify work tasks with specialization have both negative and positive results.first of all work specialization produces negative results.(employees) they repeat the same thing again and again their are no chance to use their skill, no motivation, employees get unsatisfactory.simply an unsatisfied workers cannot think creatively,and they cannot produce good products
ReplyDeleteAs we know, work specialization is the degree to which tasks in an organization are divided into separate jobs. In my opinion, the fact that a job is broken down into steps, and each steps is completed by a different person it's a good solution: each person has a recognized capability and is stimulated to do her/his part in the best way she/he can. All the people are focused on their job to reach the objective of the firm and I also think that, in our time, more you are specialized in something, more you have oppotunities to work. It is also a positive thing for the azienda, because, if the job did not reach the final objectives, it is easier to understand in which part of the productive processes tha mistake has been made.
ReplyDeleteefforts to simplify work tasks have both negative and positive effects according to the situation that when man power and time is lesser that efficiency/increase in the productivity at this circumstances employees may feel work pressure and they lack the motivation power,so it results in negative effect to employees and positive to company
ReplyDeleteI think that work specialization could be positive on one hand, as the work is divided into several steps and each employee becomes specialized in his/her own. But on the other hand, it could be negative as the employees become demotivated and bored in doing always the same things. And this factor could badly influence the whole company. Therefore what is important is to avoid overspecialization, and always try to leave space for the creativity of the employees, as their pleasure in carring out their work will brilliantly affect the company itself.
ReplyDeleteI think that there is a certain limit to which work specialization should be applied. It is absolutely unavoidable and necessary to separate tasks within the company in order to simplify different operations. However, I think that when a business entity does that, it can lead to the risk of oversimplification which consequently asks for more employees which leads to inefficiency. To sum up, I think simplifying work tasks can be negative sometimes because overspecialization is not efficient.
ReplyDeleteDividing a whole process in specific simplified tasks could bring both to absolute efficiency and productivity as well as to disastrous effects for the company. It is obvious that engaging in the same tasks over and over again will at some point lead to high specialization of the employees and therefore to efficiency of an organization. However, I believe the process will be to destined to an outbreak. I consider it ethically wrong to bring a human work to limited tasks, obstructing his creativity, inspiration and motivation to find alternatives. Treating human beings as if they were machines doesn’t increase the value of neither the employee nor the firm.
ReplyDeleteI think that simplifying work task could be both positive or negative, depending by the task that we are taking into exam.
ReplyDeleteIf we are talking about an alienating work maybe is a good choice, taking into consideration the employee, that his/her task has been simplified making it more affordable. Doing this the worker will be more suitable with his task and more convinced that his workplace respects him and his dignity as part of the firm making, if possible, his self-esteem greater.
In the other hand, making certain job easier could be a wrong choice both for the company and the worker, slowing their productivity and the motivation. It is not always a good idea limiting the creativity or the capacities of a worker with a new machine or a new engine.
It is anyway difficult to take a position because a lot depends on which kind of work are we talking about and so it is not only about a mere and absolute ethical point of view.
"If you are the most intelligent person in the room, you must escape as fast as you can.It is not the room you must be at."
ReplyDeleteOne must be pushed to their limits to achieve more.If you are in your comfort zone, you are sure to stay at the same place which is maybe the worst place to be in. So,I strongly believe that the only way to improve is to do something you are scared of,to do something new and to be surrounded by people who are already where you want to go and/or who have your beliefs and are as hungry as you are. I will not consider "simplifying work tasks" as a serious question because in my opinion, it is nothing!If you simplify work tasks of your employees it does not mean you are a good director,rather it shows you did not learn anything and your entity is up to failure! You must hire employees who want to achieve more, who want to develop and to be pushed because our world is changing by minutes. If you are not willing to change you are fated!
ReplyDeleteNo I’m not agree with this theory. I consider the division task in a company like a good strategy of action because a company (better if it is a big one) can specializes their employees in what they do better.
Simplifying work tasks can be dangerous for firms, because employees need to be stimulated by their work and got involved in what they do in order to not get bored. Letting the task being more technical can increase the risks, that sometimes generate interest and dedication on what the employee is doing.
ReplyDeleteSimplify the work tasks should be the goal of every manager and firm, the problem is how you do it! You risk to create chaos and confusion.. For examle splitting a task in many sub tasks : a duty carried out by a single individual is 100% better done than one accomplished by more persons with different ways of doing.
ReplyDeleteI do agree, if an employee has the same fixed role and the same actions to follow, he can lose his motivation in doing that job well. I think that nowadays it is better to have more knowledge and abilities. Performing more responsibilities and taking care of more problems the employee will feel more complete and satisfied. So, simplifying the tasks will reduce the possibility of the employee to get more experience, and for the company it will not be good also because they will have employees that have limited abilities.
ReplyDeleteThe study indicates that various efforts to increase efficiency by simplifying workers’ job responsibilities may in fact be leading to lower employee job satisfaction and productivity over time.
ReplyDelete“In a globally competitive marketplace, companies are trying to introduce efficiency wherever they can to improve their financial performance for stockholders.
It varies from company to company, even though work specialization might be considered extremely useful in terms of maximizing efficiency (for large companies), it can also lead to demotivation of individual workers and hence creating a negative impact on the companies efficiency as well as workers productivity in the long run. It should be noted that work specialization should be carried out mainly within larger organizations since it would help creating a synergy between the factors of production hence resulting in a much higher benefits for the organization both financially and non-financially.
ReplyDeleteI think that work specialization is a strategy that at the beginning, can be functional for the employees and profitable for the firm, but in the future, employees want something new and more exciting. If the employees are not motivated and enthusiastic in what they are doing, they will not work with efficiency and they will not maximize the productivity.
ReplyDeleteThe right strategy, is to find a point where a work specialization is balanced with strong motivation coming from training courses, stage or activities that improve the capabilities of the employees.
I think that a too high specialization is in conflict with the employee's expectations as stakeholders: in fact if tasks are divided into too many steps, there is no more space for personal development and satisfaction; and, since, according to the stakeholders'theory, each stakeholder contribute to the economic activity of an organization in expectation of an adequate reward, an employee whose legitimate interests are not satisfied would not contribute in the most efficient way to the business activity of the firm.
ReplyDeleteI also share the idea that problem could raise with work specialization. Works that demand too much knowledge and expertise in different areas can cause stress to employees and can be unproductive for the firm. Similarly, if the task are simplified, more people are needed as there has to be at least one person for every phase of the production and also people are less involved in their roles.
ReplyDeleteI think so that efforts to simplify work tasks actually have negative results for both companies and their employees. Here work is being divided into several parts and done these several parts of work by individuals. That is why the work becomes repetitive by employees and they become bore doing the same job. Mentally, employees think that they are no longer productive and it efficiently effect the company's goal eventually.
ReplyDeleteI think I agree to some degree with the researchers. Nowadays, as new trends and innovation keep continuing to change rapidly, it would be difficult for the organization to keep up to date so the tasks become somewhat outdated. Work specialization would not lead to productivity over a period of time; this would mean that the employees cannot think outside the box and be creative.
ReplyDelete