A colleague in my linkedin connections pointed me to an interesting HBR article on
the growing importance of the ‘generalist’ vs. the ‘expert’ to business and
other organizations. I have experienced first hand the ongoing debate between
specialization and generalization since my early introduction to systems
thinking. During my graduate studies I was introduced to ‘systemics’ and the
challenges of designing social systems. The academic side of the challenge was
to avoid the stigma of becoming labeled a dilettante while becoming an‘expert’
in how things were related and connected.
I was warned from the beginning of my studies that there
would be no ‘old boy’ network in place for me to fit into because of my
systemic or non-specialized background. Even with all the talk about the
importance of ‘T’ people in organizations, when it comes time to hire
consultants or employees the choices favor domain or content experts. This
ingrained distrust of anyone who is a generalist—i.e. not specialized in a
field, technology or method works against organizations gaining the necessary
competence to deal with a complex, interconnected and unpredictable world.
While working as a professor of architecture I was embroiled
at one point in a debate on whether to teach students ‘building types’ or to
teach students how to ‘design buildings’. It was a debate between training
experts or educating generalists. The debate went on despite the fact that no one
could clearly state what they meant by expertise vs. a generalist approach. In
other professions the same dual options are opened to those who want to become
a narrowly focused expert or a general practitioner. This either-or debate
obscures a third option or ‘way’—a tertium quid. An option that is full of
potential. This third option can be used to replace all the either-or choices
between the expert and the generalist. So what is this third way? Let’s start
with the idea of ‘expertise’.
The challenge of dealing with the failing nuclear power
plants in Japan after the earthquake-created tsunami, is a prime example of
different kinds of expertise in action or that ought to have been brought into action.
The predominant kind of experts involved in the situation leading up to the
disaster were ‘routine’ experts—professionals whose knowledge is based on the
assumption that there are no changes in any context or environment that would
render their predetermined solutions ineffective. Routine experts put the
conditions in place for a technologic disaster to occur in the first place. However they could not
give guidance for how to respond to the disaster once it happened. A common
refrain was: “We have never faced this sort of situation before.”
What was needed of course were ‘adaptive’ experts who would
be able to make sense of dramatic, even catastrophic, changes by prescribing appropriate,
mitigating action—i.e. those who could recognize newly formed relationships and
make essential connections in unique situations in the way that generalists typically work—by ‘sweeping in’ relevant disparate domains of knowledge and practice into
an inquiry process.
In order to mitigate against future unknown disasters, ‘design’
experts would be needed. Design experts are expert in the third option—the third
way. Most importantly for business and governmental organizations, it is
essential to not only be successful in reacting to change but to be competent in
creating change—desired change—the domain of the design expert. The design
expert is not a generalist or a specialist. Therefore the argument about the value
or primacy of the expert over the generalist or vice versa is irrelevant. The
design expert’s competence is in defining essential relationships and making
essential connections in situations (see figure below). The design expert may
draw on knowledge from specialists and generalists certainly, but the fruits of
this form of expertise are manifested through the compositions and emergent
qualities that are created by making necessary or desired
interrelationships and interconnections among things in the world.
Comments
Post a Comment