Seldom is an organization composed of people who all do the same type of work. The typical pattern is for individuals and groups to specialize in one function or activity, leaving other functions to their colleagues in other departments or divisions.
Image Source: 4.bp.blogspot.com
In fact, specialization has become so common in contemporary life that we tend to take it for granted; it has come to be the natural way of doing things.
As a step-child of the classical economic theories and as an after thought of the “division of work principle,” specialization combines the best and the worst of the classical- management school. At best it reflects an optimistic view of human development and monolithic preparation throughout one’s career.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
At worst, it shows a total disregard of the vast complexity of human behaviour and aspirations, which remain forever in an oscillatory way throughout the entire life-time of the individual. At both the best and worst levels, the processes of specialization nevertheless, remain only a partial, prejudiced and incomplete commentary on one’s career planning and development.
The contemporary advocates of this myth are far too numerous and far too spread out to allow us to picture them in anyone area of human learning or administrative discipline. Advocates stressing the far out importance of specialization, the narrowing of fields, and the limiting of one’s perspective are found in almost all professions.
There are narrow specialties even in otherwise well-established special areas of professional information. For example, in the field of management, a specialist claims departments division, functions and restrictive expertise. Deep-seated differences between various professions are cited as a justification for this overspecialization.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The same trend can be noted in the academic environment where managerial education or business administration education is structured around special areas of learning.
As we move down from the top of the organizational pyramid, we find that functions change from one level to the next. The top levels typically denote themselves to broad policy matters. They make the decisions that determine the over-all objectives of the organization.
Lower echelons decide how these goals will be attained and set the appropriate course of action. Below these levels then how is converted into detailed instructions in terms of who, when and where. Finally, at the bottom, are the workers who actually perform the operations.
An effort has been made in this chapter to examine the myth of specialization by analysing the chief assumptions made by the advocates of this doctrine. Seldom is an organization composed of people who all do the same type of work. The typical pattern is for individuals and groups to specialize in one function or activity, leaving other functions to their colleagues in other departments or divisions.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
In fact, specialization has become so common in contemporary life that we tend to take it for granted; it has come to be the natural way of doing things.
As a step-child of the classical economic theories and as an after thought of the “division of work principle,” specialization combines the best and the worst of the classical- management school. At best it reflects an optimistic view of human development and monolithic preparation throughout one’s career.
At worst, it shows a total disregard of the vast complexity of human behaviour and aspirations, which remain forever in an oscillatory way throughout the entire life-time of the individual. At both the best and worst levels, the processes of specialization nevertheless, remain only a partial, prejudiced and incomplete commentary on one’s career planning and development.
The contemporary advocates of this myth are far too numerous and far too spread out to allow us to picture them in anyone area of human learning or administrative discipline. Advocates stressing the far out importance of specialization, the narrowing of fields, and the limiting of one’s perspective are found in almost all professions.
There are narrow specialties even in otherwise well-established special areas of professional information. For example, in the field of management, a specialist claims departments division, functions and restrictive expertise. Deep-seated differences between various professions are cited as a justification for this overspecialization.
The same trend can be noted in the academic environment where managerial education or business administration education is structured around special areas of learning.
As we move down from the top of the organizational pyramid, we find that functions change from one level to the next. The top levels typically denote themselves to broad policy matters. They make the decisions that determine the over-all objectives of the organization.
Lower echelons decide how these goals will be attained and set the appropriate course of action. Below these levels then how is converted into detailed instructions in terms of who, when and where. Finally, at the bottom, are the workers who actually perform the operations.
An effort has been made in this chapter to examine the myth of specialization by analysing the chief assumptions made by the advocates of this doctrine.