This blog is for the students of Fundamentals of Business
Monday 20 October 2014
Blog 19 – Work specialization
1) Researchers are now saying that efforts to simplify work tasks actually have negative results for both companies and their employees. Do you agree? Why or why not?
I think simplify work tasks with work specialization,actually have positive and negative results. The negative results: jobs become to simplified; employees become bored and tired;quality of work may suffer; absenteeism rises. The positve results could be: jobs are divided into various steps and each of them are performed by an individual;makes efficient use of diversity of skills that workers hold; it could lead to higher productivity; it saves time. Maybe an example of semplification of work could be the old model of Taylor-Ford.
I half agree with the statement above. On one hand, I think that simplifying work tasks is actually good for companies, since in this way less mistakes can be made in the process and so a company can achieve higher quality. On the other hand, however, to accomplish too easy a task would be humiliating for an employee and would give him/her little chance to improve his/her skills.
In my opinion, when tasks are over-simplified, workers can lose their flexibilty, so it is hard for them to perform other activities rather than the one they are specialized in. Excessive semplification can lead to monotony and demotivation for workers, too. This may result in a loss of productivity and efficiency also for companies. Another disadvantage may be the risk of unemployment: if a worker can only carry out some simple and mechanic tasks, he/she may not have a wide range of different skills and abilities to improve his/her position in a workplace.
It depends because it could have negative or positive aspects. For example, the job is easier and everyone knows what they have to do, so it could become bored and ripetitive. While, the positive aspects could be the efficiency and a better productivity because everything's already written and the company doesn't waste time.
In my opinion, doing the same thing for hours is so much boring and unhuman for the employees. They have definitely a functional role during the productive process, but they do just mechanic actions like robots. So, even if the simplification of work's tasks is useful for the company, it could lead to dehumanization of the individual.
Simplifying work tasks could be positive mainly for the younger employees, which don't have experience and could easily adapt themselves to a different work strategy, meanwhile more experienced employees could find several problems in replacing their old routines with different ones, this could create disadvantages for both the employees and the firm they work for.
Making tasks too easy leads to a less challenging job. This means that the employee does not give the 100% of himself/herself for the firm. This new condition affects the organization, since its workers are not induced to work as good as possible, resulting in a worse production. On the other hand too much difficult tasks do not allow not-high skilled people to work in the most productive way. So, in conclusion, firms should make tasks' difficulty appropriate to production maximization.
I agree with my colleagues because I think that simplify the work certainly bring benefits to the company but not to the worker. This is because the working phases are well identified and everyone knows what and how to do his job. This reduces the chance of error and allows greater working efficiency. On the other hand, however, the worker is forced to repeat the same actions many times and this can cause boredom, depression, and anger in the worker. So I think it's fair to make the supply chain more efficient but at the same time each component must be evaluated in such a way that everyone work in harmony and synergy. I think that there is nothing worse than making an unpleasant and inadequate job. If this happens automatically be affected throughout the company, so I think it's fair to simplify work tasks but at the same time we must be careful to satisfy the employees and respect their qualifications.
I think that it dipends under which point of view the simplification process is analyzed and it dipends which kind of tasks the companies are simplifying. Obviously in the last half-century the technology had a huge impact on the every day's jobs. At the beginning everyone was appreciating the innovative process and I think that this kind of simplifications still have an important value. On the other and, if we think to other process of simplification above human skills where manufacturing must operates with the time we will not find anymore talented and skillful workers letting substituting them with machinery that could make more products but with less quality. It dipends where task's simplifications is influencing, specially if we consider companies that work mainly with labour and therefore with personal competences, creativity and knowledge; researchers are probably stating this theory because in now days companies in order to save money are trying to elevate the productions without caring much about quality lowering competences and worker's skills.
I do agree, because if employees always have the same daily routine they star to get bored this then is being reflected on the product which is then poor quality or an inefficiency in working. This then also has a negative impact on the company.
I do agree, because if employees always have the same daily routine they star to get bored this then is being reflected on the product which is then poor quality or an inefficiency in working. This then also has a negative impact on the company.
I think that an excessive work specializationcan can lead to negative results for both parties. If an employee has got everytime the same fixed role and the same actions to follow, he can lose his motivation in doing that job well. He probably would became alienated and lose his identity not only as a member of the firm, but also as an individual,as we saw in the beginning of the twentieth century ; this is due to the lack of creativity and deresponsibilization. These things can give to the firm a negative feedback: wasting time, resources and money, losing in terms of productivity.
i do agree ,because we have a lot of advantages for the firm for example ,the employees have different kind of jobs so they product that things faster than before.And the firm can also to production maximization.
Well, I agree to what my colleagues said. Overspecialization could lead employees to be bored, get stressed by doing always the same thing (there would be no thrill in doing a detailed role). Thus, over fatigue bring up the employees to be strategically ineffective and operationally inefficient, as a result a firm would obtain just poor quality products, as well as low productivity. But as our example shows us (McDonald's organizational structure), it depends upon the situation.
I agree with researchers because the people's needs are always in transformation and companies are required continuously to develop their products to satisfy this needs. If a company have just specialized workers , it could not be able to develop or change the production. It is also very important for a worker to have different skills and knowledges because he has several possibilities of jobs and not just one; for example in this way there are not many risks of being replaced by a machine. It is expensive, but the best thing for a company is to have employees well trained.
Yes I do agree with the researchers. In my personal opinion, even though work specialization requires training and once a worker perfects a particular skill and for that matter will be able to complete assignments without much supervision, workers increase productivity since they are well trained and don't waste time trying to learn new things. But in the long term , this specialization can lead to boredom and unhappiness if there is no new opportunities and challenges. Since the will not be much opportunities for advancement, the worker might look somewhere else for personal growth.
Yes, I do agree. We saw that the expectations of the employees are not only good compensation and benefits for the work done, but also the amount of interesting work and a sense of meaning and purpose in their job opportunities for personal development. I think that (also from my personal experience), in many cases when companies try to simplify work tasks in order to increase productivity it does not more satisfy the employees needs described above. The consequence could be a lack of motivation of the workers. In turn, this could effect the productivity of the firm in a bad way. In such a situation, the employees may even not be interested in the quality of the good or service they produce and these could effect also the effectiveness of the organization.
I agree with the researchers. Adopting a work specialization by dividing and simplifing tasks is not becoming the correct way to increase the company's productivity and the employees' efficiency. Indeed, event though a work specialization could gives a company the possibility to be more focused on the quality and development of its production, we must before think about the concrete power which allows the company to be more productive: the employees. Employees ( labour) are at the base ( together with capital) of productive combination. As a consequence, in order to obtain an efficient work, the company doesn't just have to care about their good compensation's expectations, safety and benefits, but also about their sense of meaning and purpose in their job opportunities for personal developmen and the amount of interesting work. So, a tasks' semplification may lead to economic disadvantages because of the human diseconomies derived by the division of labour : fatigue, boredom, stress, low productivity ecc..
Certainly efforts to simplify work tasks actually have negative results for both companies and their employees: with an over- simplification of the work tasks the employee loses the overview of the production process of his company and, losing the sight of the common goal of the company, becomes unmotivated and isolated from his colleagues. In addition in this way the role of the employee himself is diminished. Than the employee works worse and the company loses . Employees, not being aware of the whole work of the company and not having skills intertwined and shared, will never bring innovation and development within the company. I believe that even if the simplification of work tasks may seem a good idea in terms of efficiency, it will prove to be unsuccessful because it limits the working welfare of the employees, damaging the company .
I agree with the researches. In fact in my opinion when tasks are too much simplified all stems into monotony; the over specialized work becomes boring for the employee himself and has negative results for the company. The employee doesn’t focus on different way to manage his work because it is too much specific and doesn’t find the right method to renew its tasks.
It depends. I think that the specialization on a certain sector of the firm can of course help the azienda to achieve the maximum results in that area and in all areas of specializations. On the other hand the workers are forced to do every time the same work. So, according to the American mentality, in which each person is responsible only for their own sector, only for its industry sector for which he is really prepared, I think that the specializations workers are fundamental for the firm and workers should work on the sector that they love, so the monotony should be overcome by passion for their own work.
Efforts to simplify jobs could have negative effects on the company but also to its employees. A lot of the times companies simplify jobs but just replacing human jobs by machines for two main reasons, one it costs less and two they can work 24/7 without getting tired. This obviously has a negative effect for the employees. However this could also mean that simplifying jobs could lead to a decrease in its quality and therefore its life cycle. This can have a negative effect to the company because they are going to face a decrease in sales but also employees due to difficulties for the company to pay its expenses.
Certain people think in different ways to others this can make it hard to exactly link these both together. So it can depends on what job you have and the mentality that goes with it. Some people in their jobs believe they are given too much work and to simplify their job would be a great stress release for them, with less stress may allow them to work with more efficiency in the job that they have to do. Others believe that they have trained hard to become specialised in their given field, and for a company to simplify their job, creates a negative impact in the way they think and feel as they believe that the owner may not fully believe in their capability to do the given job. I can why in certain circumstances why this may be true, but i believe for the majority of people they would be more than happy to have their job simplified to reduce stress as long as they are still getting paid the same wage, this then may allow them to work more efficiently in the simplified job as they would feel happier
I agree with the researches. In my opinion employees should have challenging work, in this way one will not get bored and have motivation to improve and gain new skills. If the managers are challenging their employees all the time company will have little turnover and overall it will be more profitable for the company.
I do agree with the statement above, because if we think to the assembly line, wich was created to simplify the job of employees, it created the loss of motivation of the worker and its alienation, so workers did not improve their knowledge and their job, this production strategy has been used for a long time, but now businesses understood that semplifying the job isn't always the best decision both for the company and the employee, an example is the JIT strategy wich shows that having employees trained to work on different parts of the process allows companies to move workers where they are needed.
Andrea Gaudiomonte I do not agree entirely with the researchers because I think their thought must be subject to a process of contextualization, as there are endless circumstances and aspects to be considered.
As my classmates state above, the simplification of employees' task could lead to positive and negative results for both companies and employees. In my point of view the process of simplification leads to negative results in the long term (stress, boredom and in certain cases laziness) while it leads to positive results instantly (efficiently and higher productivity). Thus I think that in order to operate with economicity, companies should simplify work tasks without forgetting to provide a dynamic and challenging work environment for their workers.
I am for half agree with the statement but above all there will be a positive and negative results. The negative : are that employees will get tired because there will be less work to do so will be tired The positive: there could be a good the efficiency and a better productivity because everythings is already written and the company doesn't waste time.
I actually disagree because i thinnk that semplification can usually make things much better and more productive by resolving problems of any kind that may arise in the business wheter it is small or large.Semplification reduces the amount of effort therefore in my opinion it is a valuable tool of problem solving.
I think it depends on the type of business entity. If it is a company that assumes an assembly line to produce goods or services, then it is important to have work specialization. The manager can improve the entire chain of activities. If the business entity instead is an information technology, it is preferable to allow more flexibility to employees. Streamline operations generally led to lower performance evaluations and job satisfaction. In fact, as published in the Journal of Applied Psychology: * Simplifying tasks generally led to lower performance ratings and worker satisfaction. * Having more autonomy on the job was related to better performance, higher satisfaction, and lower feelings of exhaustion. * Having a socially supportive workplace was related to greater job satisfaction, lower feelings of exhaustion, and strongly reduced the likelihood of wanting to leave the job. * People who work interdependently with others have better performance ratings, lower stress, lower turnover intentions, and greater work and organizational satisfaction. * Receiving frequent feedback from others increased job satisfaction, reduced stress and turnover intentions, and increased performance
It depends , because a complex work process can slow the productivity , and can also increase the potential for mistake . By simplifying the tasks work , we can use the time more efficient . This system may also not to function , being not adaptable to various industries and situations .
In my opinion there are many factors we should keep in mind because simplify the work tasks will give just positive effects to the company. The problem could occur if people working in their companies will work less or at all, this is a negative aspect
I agree with the researches. Through the semplification of work tasks employee cannot improve themselves at work because they do always the same thing.
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.
Simplification of work could be positive, this only if its done in an intelligent way without transforming the work of an employee to simple and monotonous. Four example i’ve been pleasantly surprised by the way with which te “Virgin Active” operates !
I do agree that efforts to simplify work tasks actually have negative results for both companies and their employees. Because the motivation of employees will decrease due to the presence of constant work and inability to learn new things.
In my opinion it always depends on what we mean with this sentence. In fact it can be interpreted in two different ways. The first one is “We simplify work tasks so that an employee can do the same job better and in less time (in order to maximize profit), even though this system can actually decrease his mental and physical growth”. In the second case I completely agree with Sara Grappasonni who says that this system could totally fit in some specific sector of the “azienda” (e.g. the experimentation of a new drug or the creation of a computer software).
I think it depends. if to “simplify work tasks ” means to make the employees works pointless, monotonous and tedious, of course this is not good for the company and the employees, whose work should always be pleasing and helpful for the company. but if the company wants to simplify work tasks by divining them, improving the effectiveness and the efficiency of the company itself then I think both the company and employees could take advantage of this situation.
Generally simplifying tasks is something that a company considers a need: becoming more efficient. Quite often the consequences are not positive: the work force demoralizes. Simplifying work tasks led to lower performance ratings and worker satisfaction. Less challenging and fulfilling duties provoke a decreased productivity and increased turnover.
Researchers are now saying that efforts to simplify work tasks actually have negative results for both companies and their employees. In my opinion researchers are right, because history tell us. The early proponents of work specialization, at the beginning of the XX century, firmly believed that, dividing tasks into separate jobs in an organization, would have exponentially increased productivity. The 'supply chain', in fact, has been, probably, the greatest idea of the third phase of the Second Industrial Revolution, but history taught us all the results of it. People who worked in factories (living in the suburbs), so the majority, accused a great shot, which influenced the literature and philosophy of that century. For this reason, in today's view, it was concluded that the work specialization no longer leads to productivity, because of human diseconomies such as boredom, stress, poor quality, asenteeism and fatigue. The summary of these words can also be found in the 'statement' : The 'azienda' should create value in a sustainable way ' (in this case the SOCIAL way). An example could be Adriano Olivetti, an entrepreneur who imagined industry to serve the community, not to exploit it and maximize profits.
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, dividing the job in different steps and simplify 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, and cannot contribute to decision-making procedure ..if required. the managers should always consider the environment in which they operate and the level of education of employees and their desire to achieve more
This is not an easy topic on which giving one’s opinion because both of them have pros and drawbacks. Work specialization could actually represent a point of strength for a firm because, companies that follow this kind of strategy, are constituted by specialized employees who focus and strengthen their skills on limited tasks. This way we can surely obtain by workers efficient products, but if firms were all like that, employees would be absolutely not flexible and could not be motivated anymore reaching levels of boredom, depression and monotony. Furthermore lots of employees would be lead to retire from that firm and, due to the lack of flexible staff, it could threaten the survival of that company. Thus, I can strongly claim that I don’t agree with work specialization and I would prefer companies composed by flexible personnel.
People must be interested and they must care about what they are doing but simplifying work task every curiosity will be loose and people will start to working mechanically. ''World is beautiful because it's uneven'', without passion and without hard working einstein would be able to discover the law of relativity? . Work task is indispensable to keep alive people desire to discovery and to work . We must to be dynimic to run the world.
I don`t think that the employees would be enthusiastic in their jobs when they are asked to do simple and boring tasks. The employees are not machines but people, nobody likes a monotony life. So if the firm requires them some work more complicated might encourage them to do something innovative. It`s a pity to not use the human mind resources, even if most of times is very hard to control employees, but I think that the creativity is the most important factor that keeps a firm to move on.
Man is not made for simple tasks, I think that for simple tasks there are the machinery because they can do these simple works faster and better than a man. Moreover doing too simple task a man can lose his labour dignity and he can go in a bed mood with a consequent lack of productivity. I think that in the middle there is the right path we have to run, the tasks have to be enough easy to increase the productivity of the business entity but not too easy to decrease the employees's satisfaction
It depends on the type of organization, but less are those companies that have a determined job to be performed by employees divided in different tasks. Now days it is required to have employees with different skills, opened to new cultural environments and challenging. This helps the company and employees at the same time. Companies benefits from skilled employees that can be very helpful during the crisis periods, and employees benefit through gaining new skills and knowledge. So, I agree with the saying of researchers
It's depends the company is in which area. to simplify work task is positive : improve the efficiency , the passion of the employee. and the free time is more than before . everyone can do anything they wanted to do. negative: the task is be simplified , if there is a wrong in one process , the next process is also have the wrong.
Yes, I agree. Because efforts to simplify work tasks can not rise productivity as well as development, expansion of the business plan. Employees may lack of motivation to continue work. Therefore, firms will be able to influenced, and it leads to bad results such as fall productivity and decrease profit, revenue.
I agree because it promotes a low labour turnover among workers thus lessening the productivity of goods and services in companies causing the production level to reduce as a result the employees are be paid at a lower rate.
no i don't think so.because the company's worker will have the simplest task.it is beneficial that they will have a high enthusiasm in working.thereby these workers can make more and more profit for company.it has benefit.
i believe there are two ways of looking at this... Simplifying tasks for employers could be a good thing but up to a certain level it becomes boring repetitively, and at the end of the day you realize that employers don't really learn anything new.It is always better when the tasks are challenging because it makes the employer active and brings out all their potential... from these they also gain more knowledge.
I think that the work specialization is humiliating for the workers because you have to do always the same thing and they have not the possibility to really understand the meaning of their work and probably they will be bored from what they're doing. So I think that is better to have a much complicated task but that maintain the real human nature able to reason and solve problem. People want to be important for the firm in which they work and the best thing to allow that is to give them important tasks. (Obviously you must recruit skilled people)
I think to simplify the task for employees is may be better for short-term. they can enhance the productivity of the product. But it's not good for long term because if employee is bored to do same task with same process then mistakes can be occurred due to carelessness and which can affect your business in a bad way. So, It is important to get full interest and delegations of employees to get efficient and good results.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think simplify work tasks with work specialization,actually have positive and negative results.
ReplyDeleteThe negative results: jobs become to simplified; employees become bored and tired;quality of work may suffer; absenteeism rises.
The positve results could be: jobs are divided into various steps and each of them are performed by an individual;makes efficient use of diversity of skills that workers hold; it could lead to higher productivity; it saves time.
Maybe an example of semplification of work could be the old model of Taylor-Ford.
I half agree with the statement above. On one hand, I think that simplifying work tasks is actually good for companies, since in this way less mistakes can be made in the process and so a company can achieve higher quality. On the other hand, however, to accomplish too easy a task would be humiliating for an employee and would give him/her little chance to improve his/her skills.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, when tasks are over-simplified, workers can lose their flexibilty, so it is hard for them to perform other activities rather than the one they are specialized in. Excessive semplification can lead to monotony and demotivation for workers, too. This may result in a loss of productivity and efficiency also for companies. Another disadvantage may be the risk of unemployment: if a worker can only carry out some simple and mechanic tasks, he/she may not have a wide range of different skills and abilities to improve his/her position in a workplace.
ReplyDeleteIt depends because it could have negative or positive aspects. For example, the job is easier and everyone knows what they have to do, so it could become bored and ripetitive. While, the positive aspects could be the efficiency and a better productivity because everything's already written and the company doesn't waste time.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, doing the same thing for hours is so much boring and unhuman for the employees. They have definitely a functional role during the productive process, but they do just mechanic actions like robots. So, even if the simplification of work's tasks is useful for the company, it could lead to dehumanization of the individual.
ReplyDeleteSimplifying work tasks could be positive mainly for the younger employees, which don't have experience and could easily adapt themselves to a different work strategy, meanwhile more experienced employees could find several problems in replacing their old routines with different ones, this could create disadvantages for both the employees and the firm they work for.
ReplyDeleteMaking tasks too easy leads to a less challenging job. This means that the employee does not give the 100% of himself/herself for the firm. This new condition affects the organization, since its workers are not induced to work as good as possible, resulting in a worse production. On the other hand too much difficult tasks do not allow not-high skilled people to work in the most productive way. So, in conclusion, firms should make tasks' difficulty appropriate to production maximization.
ReplyDeleteI agree with my colleagues because I think that simplify the work certainly bring benefits to the company but not to the worker. This is because the working phases are well identified and everyone knows what and how to do his job. This reduces the chance of error and allows greater working efficiency. On the other hand, however, the worker is forced to repeat the same actions many times and this can cause boredom, depression, and anger in the worker. So I think it's fair to make the supply chain more efficient but at the same time each component must be evaluated in such a way that everyone work in harmony and synergy. I think that there is nothing worse than making an unpleasant and inadequate job. If this happens automatically be affected throughout the company, so I think it's fair to simplify work tasks but at the same time we must be careful to satisfy the employees and respect their qualifications.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that it dipends under which point of view the simplification process is analyzed and it dipends which kind of tasks the companies are simplifying. Obviously in the last half-century the technology had a huge impact on the every day's jobs. At the beginning everyone was appreciating the innovative process and I think that this kind of simplifications still have an important value. On the other and, if we think to other process of simplification above human skills where manufacturing must operates with the time we will not find anymore talented and skillful workers letting substituting them with machinery that could make more products but with less quality.
ReplyDeleteIt dipends where task's simplifications is influencing, specially if we consider companies that work mainly with labour and therefore with personal competences, creativity and knowledge; researchers are probably stating this theory because in now days companies in order to save money are trying to elevate the productions without caring much about quality lowering competences and worker's skills.
I do agree, because if employees always have the same daily routine they star to get bored this then is being reflected on the product which is then poor quality or an inefficiency in working. This then also has a negative impact on the company.
ReplyDeleteI do agree, because if employees always have the same daily routine they star to get bored this then is being reflected on the product which is then poor quality or an inefficiency in working. This then also has a negative impact on the company.
ReplyDeleteI think that an excessive work specializationcan can lead to negative results for both parties.
ReplyDeleteIf an employee has got everytime the same fixed role and the same actions to follow, he can lose his motivation in doing that job well. He probably would became alienated and lose his identity not only as a member of the firm, but also as an individual,as we saw in the beginning of the twentieth century ; this is due to the lack of creativity and deresponsibilization.
These things can give to the firm a negative feedback: wasting time, resources and money, losing in terms of productivity.
i do agree ,because we have a lot of advantages for the firm for example ,the employees have different kind of jobs so they product that things faster than before.And the firm can also to production maximization.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWell, I agree to what my colleagues said.
ReplyDeleteOverspecialization could lead employees to be bored, get stressed by doing always the same thing (there would be no thrill in doing a detailed role). Thus, over fatigue bring up the employees to be strategically ineffective and operationally inefficient, as a result a firm would obtain just poor quality products, as well as low productivity.
But as our example shows us (McDonald's organizational structure), it depends upon the situation.
I agree with researchers because the people's needs are always in transformation and companies are required continuously to develop their products to satisfy this needs. If a company have just specialized workers , it could not be able to develop or change the production. It is also very important for a worker to have different skills and knowledges because he has several possibilities of jobs and not just one; for example in this way there are not many risks of being replaced by a machine.
ReplyDeleteIt is expensive, but the best thing for a company is to have employees well trained.
I agree because people think that is better having many roles to satisfy completely the multitask human consideration that he has of himself.
ReplyDeleteYes I do agree with the researchers. In my personal opinion, even though work specialization requires training and once a worker perfects a particular skill and for that matter will be able to complete assignments without much supervision, workers increase productivity since they are well trained and don't waste time trying to learn new things.
ReplyDeleteBut in the long term , this specialization can lead to boredom and unhappiness if there is no new opportunities and challenges. Since the will not be much opportunities for advancement, the worker might look somewhere else for personal growth.
Yes, I do agree. We saw that the expectations of the employees are not only good compensation and benefits for the work done, but also the amount of interesting work and a sense of meaning and purpose in their job opportunities for personal development. I think that (also from my personal experience), in many cases when companies try to simplify work tasks in order to increase productivity it does not more satisfy the employees needs described above. The consequence could be a lack of motivation of the workers. In turn, this could effect the productivity of the firm in a bad way. In such a situation, the employees may even not be interested in the quality of the good or service they produce and these could effect also the effectiveness of the organization.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the researchers. Adopting a work specialization by dividing and simplifing tasks is not becoming the correct way to increase the company's productivity and the employees' efficiency.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, event though a work specialization could gives a company the possibility to be more focused on the quality and development of its production, we must before think about the concrete power which allows the company to be more productive: the employees.
Employees ( labour) are at the base ( together with capital) of productive combination. As a consequence, in order to obtain an efficient work, the company doesn't just have to care about their good compensation's expectations, safety and benefits, but also about their sense of meaning and purpose in their job opportunities for personal developmen and the amount of interesting work. So, a tasks' semplification may lead to economic disadvantages because of the human diseconomies derived by the division of labour : fatigue, boredom, stress, low productivity ecc..
Certainly efforts to simplify work tasks actually have negative results for both companies and their employees: with an over- simplification of the work tasks the employee loses the overview of the production process of his company and, losing the sight of the common goal of the company, becomes unmotivated and isolated from his colleagues. In addition in this way the role of the employee himself is diminished. Than the employee works worse and the company loses . Employees, not being aware of the whole work of the company and not having skills intertwined and shared, will never bring innovation and development within the company. I believe that even if the simplification of work tasks may seem a good idea in terms of efficiency, it will prove to be unsuccessful because it limits the working welfare of the employees, damaging the company .
ReplyDeleteI agree with the researches.
ReplyDeleteIn fact in my opinion when tasks are too much simplified all stems into monotony; the over specialized work becomes boring for the employee himself and has negative results for the company. The employee doesn’t focus on different way to manage his work because it is too much specific and doesn’t find the right method to renew its tasks.
It depends. I think that the specialization on a certain sector of the firm can of course help the azienda to achieve the maximum results in that area and in all areas of specializations. On the other hand the workers are forced to do every time the same work.
ReplyDeleteSo, according to the American mentality, in which each person is responsible only for their own sector, only for its industry sector for which he is really prepared, I think that the specializations workers are fundamental for the firm and workers should work on the sector that they love, so the monotony should be overcome by passion for their own work.
Efforts to simplify jobs could have negative effects on the company but also to its employees. A lot of the times companies simplify jobs but just replacing human jobs by machines for two main reasons, one it costs less and two they can work 24/7 without getting tired. This obviously has a negative effect for the employees. However this could also mean that simplifying jobs could lead to a decrease in its quality and therefore its life cycle. This can have a negative effect to the company because they are going to face a decrease in sales but also employees due to difficulties for the company to pay its expenses.
ReplyDeleteCertain people think in different ways to others this can make it hard to exactly link these both together. So it can depends on what job you have and the mentality that goes with it. Some people in their jobs believe they are given too much work and to simplify their job would be a great stress release for them, with less stress may allow them to work with more efficiency in the job that they have to do. Others believe that they have trained hard to become specialised in their given field, and for a company to simplify their job, creates a negative impact in the way they think and feel as they believe that the owner may not fully believe in their capability to do the given job. I can why in certain circumstances why this may be true, but i believe for the majority of people they would be more than happy to have their job simplified to reduce stress as long as they are still getting paid the same wage, this then may allow them to work more efficiently in the simplified job as they would feel happier
ReplyDeleteI agree with the researches. In my opinion employees should have challenging work, in this way one will not get bored and have motivation to improve and gain new skills. If the managers are challenging their employees all the time company will have little turnover and overall it will be more profitable for the company.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with the statement above, because if we think to the assembly line, wich was created to simplify the job of employees, it created the loss of motivation of the worker and its alienation, so workers did not improve their knowledge and their job, this production strategy has been used for a long time, but now businesses understood that semplifying the job isn't always the best decision both for the company and the employee, an example is the JIT strategy wich shows that having employees trained to work on different parts of the process allows companies to move workers where they are needed.
ReplyDeleteAndrea Gaudiomonte
ReplyDeleteI do not agree entirely with the researchers because I think their thought must be subject to a process of contextualization, as there are endless circumstances and aspects to be considered.
As my classmates state above, the simplification of employees' task could lead to positive and negative results for both companies and employees. In my point of view the process of simplification leads to negative results in the long term (stress, boredom and in certain cases laziness) while it leads to positive results instantly (efficiently and higher productivity). Thus I think that in order to operate with economicity, companies should simplify work tasks without forgetting to provide a dynamic and challenging work environment for their workers.
I am for half agree with the statement but above all there will be a positive and negative results.
ReplyDeleteThe negative : are that employees will get tired because there will be less work to do so will be tired
The positive: there could be a good the efficiency and a better productivity because everythings is already written and the company doesn't waste time.
I actually disagree because i thinnk that semplification can usually make things much better and more productive by resolving problems of any kind that may arise in the business wheter it is small or large.Semplification reduces the amount of effort therefore in my opinion it is a valuable tool of problem solving.
ReplyDeleteI think it depends on the type of business entity. If it is a company that assumes an assembly line to produce goods or services, then it is important to have work specialization. The manager can improve the entire chain of activities. If the business entity instead is an information technology, it is preferable to allow more flexibility to employees. Streamline operations generally led to lower performance evaluations and job satisfaction.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, as published in the Journal of Applied Psychology:
* Simplifying tasks generally led to lower performance ratings and worker satisfaction.
* Having more autonomy on the job was related to better performance, higher satisfaction, and lower feelings of exhaustion.
* Having a socially supportive workplace was related to greater job satisfaction, lower feelings of exhaustion, and strongly reduced the likelihood of wanting to leave the job.
* People who work interdependently with others have better performance ratings, lower stress, lower turnover intentions, and greater work and organizational satisfaction.
* Receiving frequent feedback from others increased job satisfaction, reduced stress and turnover intentions, and increased performance
It depends , because a complex work process can slow the productivity , and can also increase the potential for mistake . By simplifying the tasks work , we can use the time more efficient . This system may also not to function , being not adaptable to various industries and situations .
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion there are many factors we should keep in mind because simplify the work tasks will give just positive effects to the company. The problem could occur if people working in their companies will work less or at all, this is a negative aspect
ReplyDeleteI agree with the researches. Through the semplification of work tasks employee cannot improve themselves at work because they do always the same thing.
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.
ReplyDeleteSimplification of work could be positive, this only if its done in an intelligent way without transforming the work of an employee to simple and monotonous. Four example i’ve been pleasantly surprised by the way with which te “Virgin Active” operates !
ReplyDeleteI do agree that efforts to simplify work tasks actually have negative results for both companies and their employees.
ReplyDeleteBecause the motivation of employees will decrease due to the presence of constant work and inability to learn new things.
In my opinion it always depends on what we mean with this sentence. In fact it can be interpreted in two different ways. The first one is “We simplify work tasks so that an employee can do the same job better and in less time (in order to maximize profit), even though this system can actually decrease his mental and physical growth”. In the second case I completely agree with Sara Grappasonni who says that this system could totally fit in some specific sector of the “azienda” (e.g. the experimentation of a new drug or the creation of a computer software).
ReplyDeleteI think it depends.
ReplyDeleteif to “simplify work tasks ” means to make the employees works pointless, monotonous and tedious, of course this is not good for the company and the employees, whose work should always be pleasing and helpful for the company.
but if the company wants to simplify work tasks by divining them, improving the effectiveness and the efficiency of the company itself then I think both the company and employees could take advantage of this situation.
Generally simplifying tasks is something that a company considers a need: becoming more efficient.
ReplyDeleteQuite often the consequences are not positive: the work force demoralizes.
Simplifying work tasks led to lower performance ratings and worker satisfaction. Less challenging and fulfilling duties provoke a decreased productivity and increased turnover.
Researchers are now saying that efforts to simplify work tasks actually have negative results for both companies and their employees. In my opinion researchers are right, because history tell us.
ReplyDeleteThe early proponents of work specialization, at the beginning of the XX century, firmly believed that, dividing tasks into separate jobs in an organization, would have exponentially increased productivity.
The 'supply chain', in fact, has been, probably, the greatest idea of the third phase of the Second Industrial Revolution, but history taught us all the results of it.
People who worked in factories (living in the suburbs), so the majority, accused a great shot, which influenced the literature and philosophy of that century.
For this reason, in today's view, it was concluded that the work specialization no longer leads to productivity, because of human diseconomies such as boredom, stress, poor quality, asenteeism and fatigue.
The summary of these words can also be found in the 'statement' : The 'azienda' should create value in a sustainable way ' (in this case the SOCIAL way).
An example could be Adriano Olivetti, an entrepreneur who imagined industry to serve the community, not to exploit it and maximize profits.
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, dividing the job in different steps and simplify 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, and cannot contribute to decision-making procedure ..if required. the managers should always consider the environment in which they operate and the level of education of employees and their desire to achieve more
ReplyDeleteThis is not an easy topic on which giving one’s opinion because both of them have pros and drawbacks. Work specialization could actually represent a point of strength for a firm because, companies that follow this kind of strategy, are constituted by specialized employees who focus and strengthen their skills on limited tasks.
ReplyDeleteThis way we can surely obtain by workers efficient products, but if firms were all like that, employees would be absolutely not flexible and could not be motivated anymore reaching levels of boredom, depression and monotony. Furthermore lots of employees would be lead to retire from that firm and, due to the lack of flexible staff, it could threaten the survival of that company.
Thus, I can strongly claim that I don’t agree with work specialization and I would prefer companies composed by flexible personnel.
People must be interested and they must care about what they are doing but simplifying work task every curiosity will be loose and people will start to working mechanically. ''World is beautiful because it's uneven'', without passion and without hard working einstein would be able to discover the law of relativity? . Work task is indispensable to keep alive people desire to discovery and to work . We must to be dynimic to run the world.
ReplyDeleteI don`t think that the employees would be enthusiastic in their jobs when they are asked to do simple and boring tasks. The employees are not machines but people, nobody likes a monotony life. So if the firm requires them some work more complicated might encourage them to do something innovative. It`s a pity to not use the human mind resources, even if most of times is very hard to control employees, but I think that the creativity is the most important factor that keeps a firm to move on.
ReplyDeleteMan is not made for simple tasks, I think that for simple tasks there are the machinery because they can do these simple works faster and better than a man. Moreover doing too simple task a man can lose his labour dignity and he can go in a bed mood with a consequent lack of productivity. I think that in the middle there is the right path we have to run, the tasks have to be enough easy to increase the productivity of the business entity but not too easy to decrease the employees's satisfaction
ReplyDeleteIt depends on the type of organization, but less are those companies that have a determined job to be performed by employees divided in different tasks. Now days it is required to have employees with different skills, opened to new cultural environments and challenging. This helps the company and employees at the same time. Companies benefits from skilled employees that can be very helpful during the crisis periods, and employees benefit through gaining new skills and knowledge. So, I agree with the saying of researchers
ReplyDeleteIt's depends the company is in which area. to simplify work task is positive : improve the efficiency , the passion of the employee. and the free time is more than before . everyone can do anything they wanted to do. negative: the task is be simplified , if there is a wrong in one process , the next process is also have the wrong.
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree. Because efforts to simplify work tasks can not rise productivity as well as development, expansion of the business plan. Employees may lack of motivation to continue work. Therefore, firms will be able to influenced, and it leads to bad results such as fall productivity and decrease profit, revenue.
ReplyDeleteI agree because it promotes a low labour turnover among workers thus lessening the productivity of goods and services in companies causing the production level to reduce as a result the employees are be paid at a lower rate.
ReplyDeleteno i don't think so.because the company's worker will have the simplest task.it is beneficial that they will have a high enthusiasm in
ReplyDeleteworking.thereby these workers can make more and more profit for company.it has benefit.
i believe there are two ways of looking at this... Simplifying tasks for employers could be a good thing but up to a certain level it becomes boring repetitively, and at the end of the day you realize that employers don't really learn anything new.It is always better when the tasks are challenging because it makes the employer active and brings out all their potential... from these they also gain more knowledge.
ReplyDeleteI think that the work specialization is humiliating for the workers because you have to do always the same thing and they have not the possibility to really understand the meaning of their work and probably they will be bored from what they're doing. So I think that is better to have a much complicated task but that maintain the real human nature able to reason and solve problem. People want to be important for the firm in which they work and the best thing to allow that is to give them important tasks. (Obviously you must recruit skilled people)
ReplyDeleteI think to simplify the task for employees is may be better for short-term. they can enhance the productivity of the product. But it's not good for long term because if employee is bored to do same task with same process then mistakes can be occurred due to carelessness and which can affect your business in a bad way. So, It is important to get full interest and delegations of employees to get efficient and good results.
ReplyDeleteNice discussions on work specialization.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete