Even the peerless physicist Albert Einstein, famous for his independent theorizing, believed that division of labor could be advantageous in many undertakings.17 Several explanations have been offered for the usefulness of division of labor. First, when workers specialize in a particular task, their skill at performing that task tends to increase. Second, workers who have one job and one place in which to do that job do not lose valuable time changing tools or locations. Third, when workers concentrate on performing only one job, they naturally try to make the job easier and more efficient. Lastly, division of labor creates a situation in which workers need to know how to perform only their part of the work task rather than the entire process for producing the end product. The task of understanding their work, therefore, does not become too burdensome.

Arguments against the use of an extreme division of labor have also been presented.18 Essentially, these arguments contend that division of labor focuses solely on efficiency and economic benefit and overlooks the human variable in organizations. Work that is extremely specialized tends to be boring and therefore will eventually cause production rates to go down as workers become resentful of being treated like machines. Clearly, managers need to find a reasonable balance between specialization and human motivation. Finding this balance is an ongoing challenge for organizations and an area of continued study.19

In a division-of-labor situation, the importance of effective coordination of the different individuals doing portions of the task is obvious. Mooney has defined coordination as “the orderly arrangement of group effort to provide unity of action in the pursuit of a common purpose.” In essence, coordination is a means for achieving any and all organizational objectives.20 It involves encouraging the completion of individual portions of a task in a synchronized order that is appropriate for the overall task. Groups cannot maintain their productivity without coordination.21 Part of the synchronized order of assembling an automobile, for example, is that seats are installed only after the floor has been installed; adhering to this order of installation is an example of coordination.

Establishing and maintaining coordination may require close supervision of employees, although managers should try to break away from the idea that coordination can be achieved only in this way.22 They can, instead, establish and maintain coordination through bargaining, formulating a common purpose for the group, or improving on specific solutions so that the group will know what to do when it encounters those problems. Each of these efforts is considered a specific management tool.

Mary Parker Follett provided valuable advice on how managers can establish and maintain coordination within the organization. First, Follett said that coordination can be attained with the least difficulty through direct horizontal relationships and personal communications. In other words, when a coordination problem arises, peer discussion may be the best way to resolve it. Second, Follett suggested that coordination be a discussion topic throughout the planning process. In essence, managers should plan for coordination. Third, maintaining coordination is a continuing process and should be treated as such. Managers cannot assume that just because their management system shows coordination today, it will also show coordination tomorrow.

Follett also noted that coordination can be achieved only through purposeful management action—it cannot be left to chance. Finally, she stressed the importance of the human element and advised that the communication process is an essential consideration in any attempt to encourage coordination. Primary considerations include employee skill levels, employee motivation levels, and the effectiveness of the human communication process used during coordination activities.24