You probably know next to nothing about something: cars, plumbing, electrical wiring, surgery, dentistry.
When you need those services, you pay a premium for someone else's expertise.
Specialization increases my value to the organization. When it comes time for a raise, promotion, or bonus I have an expectation that I will be compensated for it.
If anyone can do what I can do, then the organization needs me less. My value decreases, and it's possible the security of my job becomes threatened.
This is why avoiding silos is hard -- self interest (preservation?) will almost always win out over what's good for the business. Challenging people to go against their basic need for security is never going to work.
If you can find a way to elevate the value of sharing/education so that the value of the individual to the organization is increased by doing it, then the method will matter less. When motivated people will find a way to accomplish the goal.
Avoiding silos is hard, yes, and not everyone will see specialization as a bad thing. I can't force people to learn if they aren't motivated just I was unable to absorb information while having peer knowledge transfer presentations forced upon me at regular intervals.
I would challenge the idea that "specialization" is a value to an organization. I'm not against the notion of subject matter experts on a team, but just because I know more about one kind of technology doesn't mean I want the burden of having ALL tasks related to that technology assigned to me. What is more valuable to an organization, one specialist or a team of capable developers armed with the same knowledge that an expert shared with them? When resources and time are tight, having many capable developers is always better than one person.
Specialists are ok, but why stop at any one subject? If an expert imparts their knowledge to others, it frees them to become proficient in another area.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I think the method question misses the mark.
You probably know next to nothing about something: cars, plumbing, electrical wiring, surgery, dentistry.
When you need those services, you pay a premium for someone else's expertise.
Specialization increases my value to the organization. When it comes time for a raise, promotion, or bonus I have an expectation that I will be compensated for it.
If anyone can do what I can do, then the organization needs me less. My value decreases, and it's possible the security of my job becomes threatened.
This is why avoiding silos is hard -- self interest (preservation?) will almost always win out over what's good for the business. Challenging people to go against their basic need for security is never going to work.
If you can find a way to elevate the value of sharing/education so that the value of the individual to the organization is increased by doing it, then the method will matter less. When motivated people will find a way to accomplish the goal.
Avoiding silos is hard, yes, and not everyone will see specialization as a bad thing. I can't force people to learn if they aren't motivated just I was unable to absorb information while having peer knowledge transfer presentations forced upon me at regular intervals.
I would challenge the idea that "specialization" is a value to an organization. I'm not against the notion of subject matter experts on a team, but just because I know more about one kind of technology doesn't mean I want the burden of having ALL tasks related to that technology assigned to me. What is more valuable to an organization, one specialist or a team of capable developers armed with the same knowledge that an expert shared with them? When resources and time are tight, having many capable developers is always better than one person.
Specialists are ok, but why stop at any one subject? If an expert imparts their knowledge to others, it frees them to become proficient in another area.