Editing Division of labour (section)

== Contemporary theories ==
{{More citations needed section|date=July 2020}}{{tone|section|date=January 2020}}
In the modern world, those specialists most preoccupied in their work with theorising about the division of labour are those involved in [[management]] and [[organization|organisation]].

In general, in [[Capitalism|capitalist economies]], such things are not decided consciously.<ref>{{cite book |last=Smith |first=Adam |date=March 2003 |title=The Wealth of Nations |location=New York, NY, USA |publisher=Bantam Dell |pages=9–27 |isbn=978-0-553-58597-1}}</ref> Different people try different things, and that which is most [[Cost–benefit analysis|effective cost-wise]] (produces the most and best output with the least input) will generally be adopted. Often, techniques that work in one place or time do not work as well in another.

=== Styles of division of labour ===
Two styles of management that are seen in modern organisations are control and commitment:<ref name="autogenerated2007">McAlister-Kizzier, Donna. 2007. "Division of Labor." ''Encyclopedia of Business and Finance'' (2nd ed.). – via [[Encyclopedia.com]]. 1 December 2014</ref>

# [[Control (management)|Control management]], the style of the past, is based on the principles of job specialisation and the division of labour. This is the [[assembly line|assembly-line]] style of job specialisation, where employees are given a very narrow set of tasks or one specific task.
# Commitment division of labour, the style of the future, is oriented on including the employee and building a level of internal commitment towards accomplishing tasks. Tasks include more responsibility and are coordinated based on expertise rather than a formal position.

Job specialisation is advantageous in developing employee [[expert]]ise in a field and boosting organisational production. However, disadvantages of job specialisation included limited employee skill, dependence on entire department fluency, and employee discontent with repetitive tasks.<ref name="autogenerated2007" />

=== Labour hierarchy ===
It is widely accepted among economists and social theorists that the division of labour is, to a great extent, inevitable within capitalist societies, simply because no one can do all tasks at once. Labour [[hierarchy]] is a very common feature of the modern capitalist workplace structure, and the way these hierarchies are structured can be influenced by a variety of different factors, including:<ref name="autogenerated2007" />

* Size: as organisations increase in size, there is a correlation in the rise of the division of labour.
* Cost: cost limits small organisations from dividing their labour responsibilities.
* Development of new technology: technological developments have led to a decrease in the amount of job specialisation in organisations as new technology makes it easier for fewer employees to accomplish a variety of tasks and still enhance production. New technology has also been helpful in the flow of information between departments helping to reduce the feeling of department isolation.

It is often argued that the most equitable principle in allocating people within hierarchies is that of true (or proven) [[Competence (human resources)|competency]] or ability. This concept of [[meritocracy]] could be read as an [[explanation]] or as a justification of why a division of labour is the way it is.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Heuer |first1=Jan-Ocko |last2=Lux |first2=Thomas |last3=Mau |first3=Steffen |last4=Zimmermann |first4=Katharina |date=2020-11-16 |title=Legitimizing Inequality: The Moral Repertoires of Meritocracy in Four Countries |url=https://brill.com/view/journals/coso/19/4-5/article-p542_4.xml |journal=Comparative Sociology |volume=19 |issue=4–5 |pages=542–584 |doi=10.1163/15691330-BJA10017 |issn=1569-1322|doi-access=free }}</ref>

This claim, however, is often disputed by various sources, particularly: 
* [[Marxism|Marxists]]<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Parkin|first=Frank|date=1982|title=Marxism and Class Theory: A Bourgeois Critique|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/40182929|journal=Reis|issue=20|pages=185–187|doi=10.2307/40182929|jstor=40182929|issn=0210-5233}}</ref> claim hierarchy is created to support the power structures in capitalist societies which maintain the [[capitalist class]] as the owner of the labour of workers, in order to exploit it. [[Anarchism|Anarchists]]<ref>{{Cite book|last=Magda|first=Egoumenides|url=http://worldcat.org/oclc/900469099|title=Philosophical anarchism and political obligation|date=2014|publisher=Bloomsbury Academic|isbn=978-1-4411-9357-5|oclc=900469099}}</ref> often add to this analysis by defending that the presence of coercive hierarchy in any form is contrary to the values of liberty and equality.
*[[Anti-imperialism|Anti-imperialists]] see the globalised labour hierarchy between [[first world]] and [[third world]] countries necessitated by companies (through [[unequal exchange]]) that create a [[labour aristocracy]] by exploiting the poverty of workers in the developing world, where wages are much lower. These increased profits enable these companies to pay higher wages and taxes in the developed world (which fund [[welfare spending|welfare]] in first world countries), thus creating a working class satisfied with their standard of living and not inclined to revolution.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Lenin|first=Vladimir Ilʹich|url=http://worldcat.org/oclc/835797169|title=Imperialism: the highest stage of capitalism: a popular outline|date=2010|publisher=Penguin|isbn=978-0-14-119256-7|oclc=835797169}}</ref> This concept is further explored in [[dependency theory]], notably by Samir Amin<ref name=":5" /> and Zak Cope.<ref name=":4" />