The Conceptual Arguments Between Organization and Social Scientists

The advantages of specialization are primarily economic. Both economists and formal theorists emphasize that greater efficiency and productivity are achieved through division of work.

By dividing the work into specialized tasks, a factory could produce thousands of pins per man per day. But if the complete manufacturing process were left to individual workmen, each might produce only a few dozens per day. Similarly, if practicable, the work of each man in the management should be confined to the performance of a single leading function. The approach that divides the work into simple, routine and repetitive tasks utilizes minimum skills and abilities.

But, the effect of specialization on workers has received more study and has generated much heat between organizations and social scientists. The social scientist says that the organization with its emphasis on task specialization, utilizes a narrow range of skills and minimum abilities, and tends to create needs that are not characteristic of healthy, mature individuals.

The administrator and social scientist argue that these criticisms involve value judgments and are not really each one's concern. They ask, does it matter if human resources are not fully utilized and does it matter that employees are apathetic and indifferent as long as the organizational objectives are accomplished efficiently or as long as profits are maximized? The administrator argues further that he is forced to adopt specialization because it promises greater efficiency and productivity. The social scientist points out that as a scientist, he cannot consider values; his concern is limited to means and not ends.

Both the administrator and the scientists accept the position, however that greater utilization of the physical and mental capabilities of the human resource may increase the scope of organizational accomplishment. Perhaps these realities imply even broader organizational objectives than those of maximum efficiency, productivity, and profits. The narrower view of organizations in terms of material achievements, such as profits as the prime goal of business, has permeated the classical as well as the popular versions of organized activity. The fragmentation of work to the point where it loses significance has dire implications, not only to the organization that live by this action, but also for society in general. The organization may suffer because the rewards for submissive compliance produce apathy, indifference, noninvolvement and alienation on the part of workers. The fact that broader organizational goals have responsibilities far beyond those dictated by material achievements have to be totally taken into account of.