Labor Theory: Division of Labor

This article focuses on division of labor. Understanding the role the division of labor plays in society is vital background for all those interested in the sociology of work and the economy. This article explores the sociology of specialized labor practices in three parts: an overview of the main types of division of labor, a discussion of classical labor theory, and an explanation of the debate surrounding division-of-labor practices in modern society. The issues associated with using division-of-labor practices as a means of worker control and domination are also addressed.

Keywords Division of Labor; Efficiency; Gender Division of Labor; Geographic Division of Labor; Industrial Revolution; Scientific Management; Specialization

Work & the Economy > Labor Theory: Division of Labor

Overview

Labor refers to physical, mental, or creative efforts exerted to complete a task or project. Beginning in the 19th century, jobs and labor in factories, production facilities, and households were divided into specialized job tasks. The specialization process, in which the total labor is divided among categories of people, is termed the division of labor. Sociologists study the division of labor that occurs within capitalist societies, between nations, and within households. Types of division of labor include task specialization, geographic division of labor, and gender division of labor. Particular areas of inquiry include the ways in which division of labor and job specialization are related to power, control, and efficiency (Harvey & Saint-Germain, 2001).

This article explores the sociology of specialized labor practices in three parts: an overview of the main types of division of labor, a discussion of classical labor theories, and an explanation of the debate surrounding division-of-labor practices in modern society. The issues associated with using division of labor as a means of control and domination are also addressed. Understanding the role that the division of labor plays in social life is vital background for all those interested in the sociology of work and the economy.

Types of Division of Labor

Sociologists recognize that labor is divided in many different settings and for many different reasons. There are three main types of division of labor:

• Task/work specialization;
• Geographic division of labor;
• Gender division of labor.

Task/Work Specialization

Work specialization refers to the division of work-related responsibilities into wholly different, discrete, and often isolated jobs. Commonly understood as the division of labor, work specialization separates the production process into discrete compartments and tasks. Work specialization produces different levels of profit and competitive trade advantage among the private, public, and military sectors (Mittleman, 1995). Task specialization, which began during the industrial era, increases organizational efficiency and profitability; however, specialized jobs require highly specific training that may or may not be transferable to different professions or industries. Examples of task specialization include medical specialization and assembly line production. Factors that affect task specialization include organizational need, circumstance, gender, class, education, and leadership (Spengler, 1970).

Geographic Division of Labor

Geographic division of labor, also referred to as international division of labor, refers to the tendency of certain nations to be responsible for the production of specific materials. The geographic division of labor is a macroeconomic process that occurs worldwide and differs from regional labor patterns, which refers to the concentration of economic relations into regional blocks. The geographic division of labor depends on the growing trend of economic globalization, the process of economic and cultural integration around the world caused by changes in technology, commerce, and politics. The global economy (an economy characterized by growth of nations, both in population and in output and consumption per capita; interdependence of nations; and international management efforts) and global markets (economic markets of countries and regions open to foreign trade and investment) affect the division of labor. The geographic division of labor has important consequences for research, politics, and economics.

Marxist theorists tend to be particularly interested in the geographic division of labor due to the potential for one nation or region to economically dominate, subjugate, or enslave another region or group. Examples of interest to such theorists would be Brazilian women working on sugar plantations and Asian women working in manufacturing who labor under difficult conditions and for extremely low wages.

There are two main theories of geographic division of labor: dependency theory and regulation theory.

• Dependency theory refers to the idea that the geographic division of labor reflects past colonial links.
• Regulation theory refers to the idea that economic systems result from networks of social relations that lead to successive regimes of accumulation, during which the established networks are shown to be successful. There are five forms of accumulation regimes: competition regimes, international regimes, monetary regimes, state regimes, and wage-relation regimes (Harvey & Saint-Germain, 2001).

Gender Division of Labor

Gender division of labor refers to the practice of directing men and women to perform certain tasks and forbidding them from performing other tasks based on their gender. A gender-based division of labor became common in the 20th century as a result of industrialization and the necessity of paid work outside the home. Factors that affect the gender division of labor include:

• Organizational culture;
• Individual gender;
• Cultural background;
• Ethnicity;
• Education.

The household division of labor, common across classes and Cultures, is one often-studied area of gender-based division of labor. Household labor refers to unpaid work performed to support family members and the home. Emotional support and work is not generally included in conceptualizations of household labor.

In American society, researchers suggest that men, as a group, do between 20 and 30 percent of household labor. Industrialization and labor-saving devices such as vacuums and mass-produced cleaning products, which became common in the 20th century, changed household divisions of labor in modern societies. Researchers study household labor through the use of time diaries and direct questions. Socialist and Marxist feminists argue that the household division of labor is balanced to favor and privilege men and capitalist societies and that men and capitalist societies as a whole control women's labor in the household. However, the women's movement of the 1960s and 1970s helped change the gender division of labor in Western nations (Shelton & John, 1996).

Further Insights: Classical Labor Theories

The concept of work as a practice to be manipulated for increased efficiency was born during the industrial era in Europe. Division of labor became common in industrial settings concerned with worker efficiency (the ratio of total input to effective output). The industrial era, approximately 1750–1900, was a time characterized by the replacement of manual labor with industrialized and mechanized labor and the adoption of the factory system of production. During this period, industry and trade eclipsed farming and agriculture as regional sources of income, and the economic system of capitalism was promoted (Ahmad, 1997). Due to an increased need for workers, this era led to the creation of a new working class, middle class, and consumer class. The factory system of production, with its separation from the domestic setting, created a divide between work and home life. It also reinforced and maintained class relations by establishing a hierarchical and supervised workforce (Mellor, 2003).

During the industrial era, classical social scientists worked to understand the changes they saw happening in the relationships between the individual, government, business, and society. Classical social scientists, particularly in response to the changes in labor and society, made significant contributions to labor theory, organizational theory, and management theory. In particular, Frederick Taylor, Emile Durkheim, Karl Marx, and Max Weber all developed classical labor theories that became the foundation of modern ideas about the division of labor and job specification.

Frederick Taylor

Frederick Winslow Taylor (1856–1915), an engineer, is considered to be the founder of scientific management. Scientific management, or "Taylorism," refers to a theory that uses the scientific method to study the management and efficiency of workers. Taylor's work The Principles of Scientific Management (1911) and his 1907 lecture on management focus on increasing efficiency and loss-control management. Taylor also developed the concept of functional foremanship, which refers to a system for dividing a foreman's job duties into many specialized tasks, each assigned to a different individual. Taylor's theory of functional foremanship had significant influence on the division of labor in organizations. For instance, job duties increasingly became divided into supervisor and worker roles. Skilled craftspeople and apprentices have became scarce work roles over the past century.

As a result of this organization style, Taylor believed that worker efficiency could be increased through job subdivision and specialization. Taylor based his theories of job subdivision and specialization on research conducted in active factories and manufacturing plants. For example, Taylor is well-known for his 1899 study of the pig-iron-loading process at the Bethlehem Iron Company. Taylor recommended that the company adopt a piece-rate system to benefit the company and create more efficient workers. This study became the foundation for job observations, work standards, and the concept of a day's work. Taylor's work on division of labor and job subdivision and specialization has significantly influenced modern organizations and professions. For instance, few modern jobs or professions require or allow a worker to engage in the development of a product or idea from start to finish. In addition, Taylor's notion of a day's work remains prevalent across businesses and industries (Bahnisch, 2000).

Adam Smith

Adam Smith (1723–1790), who is considered to be the father of capitalism, first described the system of capitalism in his work The Wealth of Nations (1776). Smith's work is considered to be the first significant effort to explain the division of labor that began to emerge during the 18th century. Smith recognized the economic advantages of work specialization. He foresaw the connection between the rise of industrialization and the productivity advantage of division of labor and believed that the "invisible hand of competition" was the best regulator of the economy. Industrial production replaced artisans and skilled craftsmen as the productivity of a labor force eclipsed the effort of individual workers in importance. Smith believed that the new division of labor and increased productivity would raise standards of living and compensate for any loss felt by individuals and society at large (Mittelman, 1995).

Emile Durkheim

Emile Durkheim (1855–1917) was a French sociologist concerned with the problem of the individual and society as well as issues of solidarity and social cohesion. Over the course of his life, Durkheim moved from a macro focus on structural processes to a micro focus on social, psychological, and interpersonal processes such as co-presence, ritual, interaction, and emotional arousal. To learn how individuals related to society, he studied the social structure, societal norms, laws, community, groups, and societal roles in French society. In his research, Durkehim looked for the causes and functions of social phenomena. Durkheim's work The Division of Labour in Society (1893) establishes his perspective on labor specialization, society, and social development. Durkheim's argument for division of labor or specialization is based on the notion that individuals have individual capacities that should be developed. According to Durkheim, specialization increases possibilities for Interdependence, and organic solidarity provides opportunity for development of talents and complex social interactions. Durkheim's division of labor is based on moral rather than biological imperatives (Sirianni, 1984). The sociologist intended his theory of the division of labor to be limited to advanced societies (Perrin, 1995).

Karl Marx

Karl Marx (1818–1883), a German philosopher and economist, was one of the first scholars to identify society as a system of social relationships. Marx studied processes of worker alienation and objectification. Marx's theories of worker alienation and objectification contributed to the belief that division of labor and specialization created dissatisfied and angry workers. According to Marx, division of labor caused human workers to take on the anonymous role performed by machines. Marx believed that division of labor should only be used for limited periods of time and when other organizational options are not available. He advocated and promoted full rather than divided production as a means of creating social cohesion and harmony.

Marx made a distinction between technical division of labor and social division. Technical division of labor refers to the sometimes-inevitable division of labor required in the production of materials. In contrast, social division of labor refers to the choice on the part of management or owners to institute division-of-labor practices as a means of social, class, and status control. Marx believed that all division of labor was a social construct and should be understood as such and that economics, capitalism, and production were the major forces of society. Marx argued that the system of capitalism that emerged in the industrial era created societies in which the increasing value of the material world devalues people and society. Marx believed the history of human society was primarily shaped by economic conflict between owners and laborers. He worked to find how the disenfranchised could create social change to improve their social and financial situations. Social change, according to Marx, could only occur through challenges to the power of the dominant classes (Yuill, 2005).

Max Weber

Max Weber (1864–1920), a German politician, historian, economist, and sociologist dedicated to the study of religion, is considered one of the founders of sociology. Weber studied the meanings people attach to their social environments and daily lives. During the 19th century, Germany, Weber's country of birth, underwent extreme sociopolitical change as the country moved from separate states to a unified nation-state. The political turmoil combined with the urbanization, reform, and industrialization that spread across Europe made Germany rich ground for sociological investigation and analysis. Weber chose to study authority and power in German organizations as a means of understanding the social tensions he saw around him. His classical theory of organization focuses on organizational bureaucracy. Weber established a set of rules that define both how an organization should function and who should be a part of the organization. Under Weber's classical theory of organization, his ideal bureaucracy is an organization characterized by specialized division of labor, hierarchy of authority, impersonality, written rules of conduct, promotion based on achievement, and efficiency. Weber warned his country that the owners and bosses of bureaucratic organizations, who were largely self-appointed leaders with great social, political, and economic power, could and would control the quality of life of workers.

In addition to his work on authority and power in organizations, Weber made significant contributions to the field of rural sociology. He studied rural populations and contemporary rural problems, such as labor-landowner relations and the divide between industrial and agricultural workers, to document and understand the change brought about by industrialization and urbanization (Munters, 1972).

Issues

Workers, businesses, academics, and governments debate the effects and purposes of division-of-labor practices. Supporters of these practices argue that work specialization is necessary for economic growth, whether the division of labor occurs in households or internationally. In contrast, critics of division of labor argue that employers use division–of-labor practices to exert control over workers, labor processes, and wages. In many instances, division of labor results in the de-skilling of workers. Business owners and managers may assign certain jobs or tasks to ethnic minorities or women knowing that these groups will accept lower wages. The division between mental and physical labor is believed to exert control over workers by keeping workers ignorant of larger work processes and flow. In addition, the division of labor reduces opportunities for collective action on the part of workers.

Modern organizations are increasingly moving away from the task specialization and division of labor that characterized industrial-era society and work environments. For instance, team models of work relationships and practices became common in the 1990s. Work teams are groups of individuals who work cooperatively to achieve common goals through completion of job tasks that are specific to their team. Teams vary from traditional organizational structures in multiple ways. Work teams represent the organizational change from hierarchical to flat or horizontal organization. They tend to be autonomous, interdisciplinary, non-hierarchical, and cooperative rather than hierarchical and specialized. In modern businesses, such as information-technology firms, self-managed work teams are responsible for managing themselves, assigning jobs, scheduling work and production time, and problem solving (Kirkman et al., 2000).

Critics suggest that those groups, organizations, and nations that continue to engage in highly divided or specialized labor practices rather than adopt new organizational models, such as work teams, may be doing so in part as an attempt to exert control over disenfranchised groups such as women and ethnic minorities. The division of labor within capitalist societies continues to be negotiated between business and government. Examples of business-government relations that facilitate continued division of labor include cartels, networks of firms and industry associations, state industrial policies, selective business taxation, state-owned industries, and trade policies. Critics of division-of-labor practices associate division of labor with capitalist domination, political manipulation, exploitation, control, power, and subjugation (Gough & Eisenschitz, 1997).

Conclusion

In the final analysis, the division of labor, into specialized tasks and between different groups of people, is directly linked to the rise of industrialization and capitalism in modern societies. The division of labor into specialized tasks allows for increased efficiency and profitability. Sociologists explore the ways in which the division of labor may be used as a means of exerting power and control over disenfranchised groups. Understanding the role that the division of labor plays in social life is vital background for all those interested in the sociology of work and the economy.

Terms & Concepts

Division of Labor: An approach to organizational management characterized by specialized job tasks.

Efficiency: The ratio of total input to effective output.

Gender Division of Labor: The practice of directing men and women to perform certain tasks and forbidding them from performing other tasks based on their gender.

Globalization: A process of economic and cultural integration around the world caused by changes in technology, commerce, and politics.

Industrial Revolution: The technical, cultural, and social changes that occurred in the Western world in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Labor: Physical, mental, or creative efforts exerted to complete a task or project.

Power: The ability to control the behavior of another person or thing.

Scientific Management: A theory that uses the scientific method to study the management and efficiency of workers.

Society: A group of individuals united by values, norms, culture, or organizational affiliation.

Sociology: The scientific study of human social behavior, human association, and the results of social activities.

Specialization: The division of work tasks into discrete categories.

Work Teams: Groups of individuals who work cooperatively to achieve common goals through completion of job tasks that are specific to their team.

Bibliography

Ahmad, I. (1997). Emergence of sociology and its relationship with social sciences. Employment News, 22, 1-3.

Bahnisch, M. (2000). Embodied work, divided labour: Subjectivity and the scientific management of the body in Frederick W. Taylor's 1907 "Lecture on management." Body & Society, 6, 51. Retrieved October 11, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=5434915&site=ehost-live

Gaunt, R., & Bouknik, S. (2012). Exploring the division of household labor outside the family context: Utilizing resources for doing gender. Community, Work & Family, 15, 189–208. Retrieved October 29, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=73822884&site=ehost-live

Gough, J., & Eisenschitz, A. (1997). The division of labour, capitalism and socialism: An alternative to Sayer. International Journal of Urban & Regional Research, 21, 23-37. Retrieved October 11, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9708245613&site=ehost-live

Harvey, J., & Saint-Germain, M. (2001). Sporting goods trade, international division of labor, and the unequal hierarchy of nations. Sociology of Sport Journal, 18, 231-246. Retrieved October 15, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=6165474&site=ehost-live

James, T. S. (2009). Whatever happened to regulation theory? The regulation approach and local government revisited. Policy Studies, 30, 181–201. Retrieved October 29, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=37840443&site=ehost-live

Kirkman, B., Jones, R., & Shapiro, D. (2000). Why do employees resist teams? Examining the resistance barriers to work effectives. International Journal of Conflict Management, 11, 74. Retrieved October 11, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=3547794&site=ehost-live

Kirkpatrick, S. (1999). The achievements of 'General Ludd': A brief history of the Luddites. The Ecologist, 29, 310-313.

Mellor, I. (2005). Space, society and the textile mill. Industrial Archaeology Review, 27, 49-56. Retrieved October 11, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=18339195&site=ehost-live

Mittelman, J. (1995). Rethinking the international division of labour in the context of globalisation. Third World Quarterly, 16, 273-295. Retrieved October 10, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9509085479&site=ehost-live

Munters, Q. (1972). Max Weber as rural sociologist. Sociologia Ruralis, 12, 129-147. Retrieved October 11, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=10193035&site=ehost-live

Otero, G., Pechlaner, G., & Gürcan, E. (2013). The political economy of "food security" and trade: Uneven and combined dependency. Rural Sociology, 78, 263–289. Retrieved October 29, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=90055809&site=ehost-live

Parks, V., & Warren, D. T. (2012). Contesting the racial division of labor from below. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 9, 395–417. Retrieved October 29, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=84359605&site=ehost-live

Perrin, R. (1995). Emile Durkheim's division of labor and the shodow of Herbert Soencer. Sociological Quarterly, 36, 791-808. Retrieved October 10, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier.

Shelton, B., & John, D. (1996). The division of household labor. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 299. Retrieved October 10, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9704023930&site=ehost-live

Silver, A. (1990). Friendship in commercial society: Eighteenth-century social theory and modern sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 95, 1474-1505. Retrieved October 11, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=11118630&site=ehost-live

Sirianni, C. (1984). Justice and the division of labour: a reconsideration of Durkheim's Division of Labour in Society. Sociological Review, 32, 449-470. Retrieved October 10, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=5473181&site=ehost-live

Spengler, J. (1970). Cost of specialization in a service economy. Social Science Quarterly (Southwestern Social Sciences Association), 51, 237-262.

Yuill, C. (2005). Marx: Capitalism, alienation and health. Social Theory & Health, 3, 126-143.

Suggested Reading

Lavee, Y., & Katz, R. (2002). Division of labor, perceived fairness, and marital quality: The effect of gender ideology. Journal of Marriage & Family, 64, 27-39. Retrieved October 10, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=6218861&site=ehost-live

Noonan, M. (2013). The impact of social policy on the gendered division of housework. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 5, 124–134. Retrieved October 29, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=87918090&site=ehost-live

Sorokin, P. (1929). Some contrasts of contemporary European and American sociology. Social Forces, 8, 57-62. Retrieved October 11, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=13517466&site=ehost-live

Swingewood, A. (1970). Origins of sociology: The case of the Scottish Enlightenment. British Journal of Sociology, 21, 164-180. Retrieved October 11, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=24258745&site=ehost-live