Division of labour

There were good points made by Adam Smith (and the basis of the modern economy nowaydays), and some not that much. But essentially, I think that since all people have certain preferences, talents, skills etc. it is the only acceptable philosophy and organization which results from the division of labour thesis today.

However, I'd think that the specialization should be more general, and not that much being down-to-earth or down-to-manufacture-needs, as it was originally suggested by Adam Smith. Observing how I was not happy with the results of the copywriters' work for my own business to develop, I concluded that the specialization should be placed elsewhere: in general skills and, especially, in abilities and natural talents and tendencies - much more, than the actual skills and maybe even experience.

I expected from the copywriters what they were supposed to do: write texts. I've tried out many so far, both individual freelancers and companies. I wasn't happy with even a single one, and wondered why.

This single observation led me to a kind of revolution in approaching the labour and changing the expectations from the people working for you. My conclusion was that people are lacking in something important: imagination. Division of labour should not apply, therefore, to actual work; it should refer to qualities, preferences and abilities.

Do not expect from e.g. a craftsman to do anything beyond he or she is exactly told to do. Without the imagination ability, people are only able to follow schemes, with possibly small modifications to them. But in general, they need to be told exactly what to do, no much creativity involved. I guess the same applies nowadays to: designers, marketers, sellers, even to many artists. If a person has a natural tendency to do something, he or she would do this anyway, just for fun (like writing blogs or something); if not, even with experience, he or she won't be anything more that a very average (poor, in fact) writer.

I had, however, one graphics designer, who was in my opinion excellent. He loved to be creative; he loved to create graphics. He wanted to have a lot of "space" for him to work. And he produced high quality stuff - much above what I expected. Here lays the difference, in my opinion...

High quality always follows natural tendencies. Everything else can be only average - at best. Leaving too much space for a craftsman, especially when paid by hours, leads only to a disappointment.

Monopoly is really not needed in an economy oriented into this division of labour (and only those who fear - not without a reason - to loose control over the market, tend to create a monopoly) - because the quality itself makes you unique, or creates a niche for your business, provided there is a need for the work you do.

It seems that the real creativity is a very deficient ability in modern times. I can imagine a dozens of businesses that could be built only with this single ability applied practically to a certain areas, particularly in the creative areas.

BTW writing texts is a very difficult taks - more than people think.