Today, I share some reflections on the “skills” and the concepts of the organization “based on skills”, although in many ways, it looks exactly like the right conversation, precisely five years too late.
There are two reasons for this: first, understand how our relationship with Awareness has changed, and secondly, the context of the Genai.
We always use knowledge within our OrganizationsBut our relationship with her, and the flavors in which he enter, are different. Far from the codified, detained, officially validated and controlled, towards more dynamic, distributed, socially co-created, contextualized and fluid. The same can be true for skills: that we find the mastery can change, “what we need and when” can be more fluid. This will probably lead to certain things that leave the organization, and others that are necessary.
In the category of “what leaves”, we can probably include certain learning paths and validation, fleeing collective and social structures. And in the category of “what we need”, it is probably the possibility of connecting and contracting in new structures, as well as the idea of the ‘General practitioner‘, where we build a specific ability to change, instead of holding something forever.
In my own work, this concerns work on Social metacognition (how we think together) and Collective capacity (Social context and emergence).
Genai amplifies both the need to explore this, while abstract or by simultaneously fracturing parts. Our capacity models are more and less utilitarian, while the structures in which our capacity moves are more and more divergent and social.
It is a fairly fractured thought, fragmentaryBut feels fundamental.
The decontextualization of knowledge should inform our expectations of how we will revise our understanding of skills. And Genai will fracture a large part of our experience around skills, while the evolution of social contexts will change the way we engage with them.
At the widest level, he tells me about our organizations and should be.
Historically, they were entities of collectivismTo obtain a large -scale effect. Today, they want to be effective on a large scale, but specific effect mechanisms change at a rapid pace.
So, we need them to be reconfigurable, of “making meaning” and dynamic. Not dogmatic.
