There are many examples of inherently competing interests which limit the application of functional specialization.
The increased specialization of countries, firms and functions has provided new net benefits, but it has also begun to generate inherent conflicts.
Greater functional specialization has increased the need for generalists who define and manage processes.
It has increased the need for other individuals to span levels, translating strategy into projects and then into operations.
It has increased the level of personal specialization to deliver more advanced technical skills, thereby increasing the costs of communication and coordination, even within similar disciplines..
It has divided those responsible for short-term and long-term success.
It has resulted in the development of competing financial and quality paradigms to coordinate operations activities.
It has generated work groups with vastly different cognitive and emotional intelligence capabilities.
Greater focus on specialized entry-level capabilities has resulted in ever greater task or people management skills, but less initial screening for situational leadership skills to balance these needs.
Greater functional specialization has made functional areas ever more stereotypical. A given company, functional area or individual is less likely to have complementary skills in long-term/short-term analysis, divergent versus convergent thinking skills, or varied personality profiles.
Ironically, the advance of functional specialization greatly increases the demand for specialized individuals who are generalists, able to knit together the increasing number of functional specialists.
Filed under: Finance, Operations, strategy Tagged: | conflicts, functional specialization, generalists, levels, operations, paradigms, situational leadership, specialists, strategy
