Functional Specialization Conflicts

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.

Functional Specialization Solutions

There are many solutions strategies that can be used to maximize the potential net benefits of functional specialization and overcome the inherent limitations.

First, processes can be defined and optimized to effectively leverage functional talents.  The mechanical and modular paradigms can be refined to incorporate specialists.

Firms can adopt a portfolio strategy whereby the average success ratio largely offsets random failures.

Specialists and generalists can trade positions to increase their effective coordination skills and understanding.

Communications meetings, technologies, experiences and priorities can improve alignment.

Process management can be elevated to a meta-analysis level, with individuals responsible for the success of prospect to customer, concept to product and order to cash processes.

Countries, states and firms can develop long-term partnerships with their suppliers and customers and improve their prospecting, bidding and negotiation skills.

Individuals can improve their situational leadership skills, learning to balance task and people needs.

Firms can greatly improve their means-ends skills, improving staff delegation, board governance and supplier management skills.

In highly diverse and risky product development areas, firms can invest in specialized firms or in competing development teams.

Firms can invest in staff members who are highly skilled in translating strategy into projects and then into operations.

Finally, firms and individuals can increase their understanding of situations where there are two inherently conflicting objectives.  They can learn from the experience of statisticians, researchers and actuaries who routinely manage the alpha risk that a predicted relationship exists when it really doesn’t against the beta risk that a relationship is found to not exist when it really does.

Functional specialization is an incredible driver of incremental value.  Countries, states, firms and individuals will be rewarded for their attention to this factor.  Common tactics can be used to maximize the value of this strategy.