Whose job is it anyway? — The cost of silence vol. 1
“True knowledge is when one knows the limitations of one's knowledge.” — Chinese Proverb
If you’ve been following my blog for a while, you might know that I love silence. I am a yogi and have a pretty stable meditation practice, so I learned to appreciate the positive effects of silence. But there is one type of silence that’s not good in a work setting: when we drop the ball, and we all stand there silently watching the ball roll on the floor, and no one picks it up. Today, that’s the silence I’d like to contemplate. Join me!
Holistic craftsmanship → Specialization → Defined roles → Blurring boundaries
Let’s start with a historical journey of how work roles evolved from the Middle Ages to today.
In the Middle Ages, work was characterized by individuals or small groups creating complete products from start to finish. Craftsmen, such as blacksmiths, bakers, and stonemasons, were responsible for every step of their trade — from sourcing materials to delivering the final product. Guilds provided structure and training but did not fragment work into narrowly defined tasks.
The Industrial Revolution marked a seismic shift in labor organization. Factories introduced assembly lines where tasks were broken down into smaller, repetitive actions. Workers became specialists in narrow functions, increasing efficiency but often at the cost of job satisfaction and adaptability.
By the mid-20th century, corporate structures had become more hierarchical and roles had become more rigidly defined. Job descriptions outlined clear responsibilities; employees were expected to stay within these boundaries. This clarity reduced confusion but also created silos, where departments operated in isolation, often leading to inefficiencies in cross-functional collaboration.
Today’s workforce is experiencing a rebalancing act. Startups thrive on generalists who wear multiple hats, while large corporations still rely on specialists but increasingly encourage cross-functional skills (the “T-shaped” model). Technology has also enabled new forms of collaboration across geographies and disciplines, further blurring traditional role boundaries.
Read more on my view of the T-shaped model in tech:
Startups vs. Corporations
When splitting the landscape horizontally and comparing startups and large corporations, we see contrasts that sometimes can remind us of the different models we saw in the vertical (historical) evolution of work roles:
In startups, the roles are often unclear and fluid, and employees wear multiple hats. The gaps between the roles are usually wider, and the paths across those gaps are often undefined and situation-specific — these are typically solved with ad-hoc and informal collaboration. Startups require high adaptability, and employees learn new skills almost every day.
Corporations have clearly defined roles with specific responsibilities, and processes regulate the handoffs between these roles. These companies have smaller gaps between the different functions, but the roles are often prone to silos and the normally tight gaps widen during reorganizations. The motivation for these reorganizations is adaptability: a corporation’s structure is rigid, so it cannot change in an ad-hoc way.
In startups, the lack of clearly defined roles can lead to chaos, but also fosters innovation as employees stretch beyond their comfort zones. In contrast, corporations benefit from stability but may struggle with agility due to rigid structures.
Bridging gaps
As organizations grow or restructure, gaps between roles inevitably shift. Leaders play a crucial role in identifying these gaps and ensuring they do not hinder team performance:
Monitor roles for overlaps, gaps, and walls between teams: Leaders should regularly assess whether responsibilities are clearly understood or if critical tasks fall through the cracks during transitions or reorganizations.
Encourage cross-functional skills: Encouraging a “M-shaped” skill model (where employees have deep knowledge in two or more areas) can help bridge gaps by enabling team members to contribute beyond their core expertise.
Collaborate, collaborate, collaborate: Enforcing collaboration between various functions works against silos and walls between roles. It’s forcing the employees to learn and understand multiple professional languages.
Facilitate communication: Miscommunication or non-communication often arises at role boundaries.
Adapt during restructuring: Organizational changes like mergers, layoffs or even new business directions can create confusion about roles. Provide clarity to minimize disruption.
Hire for an ownership mindset: When seeking new talent, build a selection process that filters for such traits by getting signals via interviews or assignments.
Don’t do it yourself: If you have to do the bridging yourself, the system won’t scale. The key to success is building a team that notices and fills the gaps.
The evolution of work roles reflects humanity’s journey from simplicity to complexity. While specialization has brought efficiency, it has also created challenges in collaboration and adaptability. Startups remind us of the value of flexibility, while large corporations highlight the importance of structure.
For leaders, the key lies in balancing these dynamics according to the company’s needs and structure: monitoring gaps between roles while fostering an environment where individuals can adapt and collaborate effectively. And the ball gets dropped rarely.
Food for thought
What tools do you use to monitor the gaps and the walls between roles and teams? How do you encourage and empower cross-functional collaboration so that the gaps and the walls between teams are eliminated? It’s so easy to get into the trap where the leader (you) always ends up being the bridge. How do you avoid this trap? What are your favorite interview questions when hiring for an ownership mindset?
I would love to hear from your personal experiences.