[FRIAM] !RE: A million tech jobs unfilled

[glen ☣]

Eric does a good job of describing a case where polymaths (and/or generalists) may be required and both of you are talking about the "sweet spot" (which can be in a high or low dimensional space).  In particular, perhaps there's some sort of scaling law at work ... perhaps polymaths/generalists are hubs and specialists are leaves, requiring fewer polymaths in any sub-net.

But I'd like to toss some words at your idea of coherence.  First Marcus' distinction would play a role.  Polymaths, as long as they're on board with a specific context, look exactly like specialists.  Generalists would have fewer specific domains into which they could do a deep dive.  So, yes, too many generalists presents a problem for coherence.  But too many polymaths may not.

That discussion probably conflates the organization vs. sub-organization, though.  It seems reasonable to think that a conglomerate (Red Cross or Intel) could have variable coherence depending on the domain of the measure.  I used such an argument recently when trying to think about the disaster response of the Feds vs. the local CERT group (in which Renee' participates).  The coherence of the Feds is fundamentally different from the coherence of the local CERT group.  Either or both could cohere more or less, but even if they both do, the coherence of the super-org is of a higher order than that of the sub-org ...  it's like a coherence of coherences of coherences, etc.

And that argument may simply be a restatement of the idea that large organizations (with many chances to skim slushy money off the top) will be more tolerant of constituents "following their nose" -- choosing what to work on and when to work on it -- or alternatively, simply being able to maintain interest though their interests are wide.  (We don't have to call them "polymaths" or "generalists" ... just people of high variance.)

The "serial entrepreneur" becomes an interesting case, I suppose.  These are people of high variance, but who don't look for a home.  They're like spittle bugs, they abandon their artifacts, move to a new location, and build new artifacts.  But the distinction between a "serial entrepreneur" and a nomadic hippie seems like a very thin distinction to me.  Only people who fetishize power or money would see a difference.  Neither seems employable.  Yet they both cohere by some measure.  And both (probably) contribute to higher order coherence of various super-orgs.


On 03/15/2017 06:34 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> Following your own principle (if I understand you correctly) of diversity, every organization needs a few polymaths, but too many and it is likely to lose coherence?

-- 
☣ glen