DZone
Thanks for visiting DZone today,
Edit Profile
  • Manage Email Subscriptions
  • How to Post to DZone
  • Article Submission Guidelines
Sign Out View Profile
  • Post an Article
  • Manage My Drafts
Over 2 million developers have joined DZone.
Log In / Join
Refcards Trend Reports
Events Video Library
Refcards
Trend Reports

Events

View Events Video Library

Related

  • What SREs Can Learn From Capt. Sully: When To Follow Playbooks
  • Design Patterns for GenAI Creative Systems in Advertising
  • The LLM Selection War Story: Part 1 - Why Your Model Selection Process is Fundamentally Broken
  • Securing AI/ML Workloads in the Cloud: Integrating DevSecOps with MLOps

Trending

  • Mastering Fluent Bit: Beginners' Guide for Contributing to our CNCF Project Docs
  • 8 Major Challenges Faced by Android Application Developers
  • Reproducible Development Environments, One Command Away: Introducing CodingBooth
  • Logging What AI Agents Do in Salesforce: A Simple One-Object Audit Framework
  1. DZone
  2. Coding
  3. Frameworks
  4. Social Evolution

Social Evolution

By 
Matt Ballantine user avatar
Matt Ballantine
·
Jun. 28, 15 · Interview
Likes (0)
Comment
Save
Tweet
Share
863 Views

Join the DZone community and get the full member experience.

Join For Free

As I get older, I get increasingly to a functionalist position on the world around me. That the social structures and constructs that we see around us are there through a process of evolution and serve some sort of positive benefit because otherwise they would have fallen foul of natural selection.

Sometimes this can seem counter-intuitive; crime, for example, has a positive benefit in allowing the vast majority of us to know clearly the boundaries of things that are wrong – a world without law-breaking would probably be a world without laws, not one without crime.

When I look at organisations, I seem to see an inexorable move away from structures based on professional expertise. The boundaries by which we define organisations seem to be caught in a previous age, and their utility is becoming less and less.

I had the privilege yesterday to spend my time working with a group of Market Insight professionals from a very broad set of organisations. The challenges that they are facing seem in many ways to be linked to a sense of purpose: what the heck is “insight”, and why should a single operational part of an organisation have sole responsibility for it?

Organising an organisation by specialism –  sales, marketing, operations, production, HR, Finance, IT, legal and so on – is decreasing in function. If that sounds outlandish, remember that most manufacturing organisation moved from specialism-focus to product-focus at the beginning of the last century with the advent of the production line.

And today, with matrix management and project-centric management the norm rather than the exception, we’ve implicitly acknowledged the passing of professional specialism. The creation of new divisions like “digital” or “innovation” – at their core, multi-disciplinary activities – again implicitly  acknowledges that modern organisations need to have a design based on the things that people are doing, not the skills that they collectively have in common.

With the ways in which we can communicate and collaborate (and the breaking down of 9-5 “in the office” through flexible working patterns) the big benefit of specialist operating divisions, communities of practice, becomes lessened dramatically too. Do I gain more professionally (and does my organisation gain more) by surrounding myself with colleagues who have skills rather than necessarily activity in common?

This isn’t going to happen overnight. Our professional structures are so ingrained, that it will be at an evolutionary rather than revolutionary pace that change will permeate; some of the memes (like matrix management) are already in place; there are some mutations that will probably wither (looking at you, Holocracy).

How to prepare? I’ve heard a lot in recent years about “T-shaped” workers: people with a strong expertise (the down stroke of the T) but with a breadth of knowledge and experience (the horizontal stroke). I personally am hedging more on being “comb-shaped” – many more areas of domain knowledge, and enough understanding to be able to bring in an expert where necessary. The irony that because of follicle challenge I haven’t used a comb in many years isn’t lost…

Production (computer science) Matrix (protocol) Law (stochastic processes) Facing (retail) Construct (game engine) IT Sort (Unix) Irony (framework) Norm (artificial intelligence) Design

Opinions expressed by DZone contributors are their own.

Related

  • What SREs Can Learn From Capt. Sully: When To Follow Playbooks
  • Design Patterns for GenAI Creative Systems in Advertising
  • The LLM Selection War Story: Part 1 - Why Your Model Selection Process is Fundamentally Broken
  • Securing AI/ML Workloads in the Cloud: Integrating DevSecOps with MLOps

Partner Resources

×

Comments

The likes didn't load as expected. Please refresh the page and try again.

  • RSS
  • X
  • Facebook

ABOUT US

  • About DZone
  • Support and feedback
  • Community research

ADVERTISE

  • Advertise with DZone

CONTRIBUTE ON DZONE

  • Article Submission Guidelines
  • Become a Contributor
  • Core Program
  • Visit the Writers' Zone

LEGAL

  • Terms of Service
  • Privacy Policy

CONTACT US

  • 3343 Perimeter Hill Drive
  • Suite 215
  • Nashville, TN 37211
  • [email protected]

Let's be friends:

  • RSS
  • X
  • Facebook