Honestly, not convinced such non fungible people exist. Partly because the person that is essential to one project may not be such a perfect fit for the next project. And partly from experience. We had people that were considered indispensable. Sooner or later they left anf life just went on. Maybe a feature of being in a very large organisation.
Totally get where you are coming from. In fact, I agree with part of it.
Everyone eventually leaves, and our life goes on.
Even our parents (the very people who literally gave us life) one day leave us, and somehow, we move on.
That is the nature of being human, and it is also the nature of large organizations (made of humans).
They absorb loss and keep moving.
But non-fungible is not the same as irreplaceable in my view.
Non-fungibility is contextual. It means that in this specific situation, with this specific client, team, and problem, your particular mix of skills, trust, domain knowledge, personality and experience cannot be easily swapped for someone else, at least not without some clear degradation (in momentum, impact, quality, fidelity, or confidence).
For example, think of the consultant who understands both the regulations and the client politics, or the analyst who built so much trust with the CFO that she now reviews numbers with them, not for them.
That is non-fungibility. I'm sure you have met many such people throughout your career.
They matter NOT because no one else could ever do their job, but because if they tried, they would bleed where they already know where to step...
That makes sense but in all honesty still pretty rare and niche in my experience. There were definitely a lot of people who were clear best fit for specific jobs. But if they weren’t available, we managed anyway. Like I say, this may be a big firm mentality. The people that were most highly valued from a leadership perspective were adaptable and able to deliver outstanding value across new domains.
Of course we manage anyway... Of course... As I said, life goes on and we move on.....
But don't tell me you didn't have your favorite team members who you would try and bring across projects (or even across firms if you had the chance 😅)??? Come on....
That is true - everyone did - but that was a much about personal fit as specific specialist capability. I do agree though, every partner has their own little tribe of go to individuals!
Exactly! I think I’m messing up the way I explain this (ironic) but yes.
Some occupations can offload that explanation effort to the culture and let others just refer to what they already know about it (lawyers, doctors, butchers, painters, etc) but if you have an uncommon and abstract job, you need to think a bit deeper about this.
For those, the question “what signals am I emitting that make it easier for others to understand what I do” becomes more crucial.
Honestly, not convinced such non fungible people exist. Partly because the person that is essential to one project may not be such a perfect fit for the next project. And partly from experience. We had people that were considered indispensable. Sooner or later they left anf life just went on. Maybe a feature of being in a very large organisation.
Totally get where you are coming from. In fact, I agree with part of it.
Everyone eventually leaves, and our life goes on.
Even our parents (the very people who literally gave us life) one day leave us, and somehow, we move on.
That is the nature of being human, and it is also the nature of large organizations (made of humans).
They absorb loss and keep moving.
But non-fungible is not the same as irreplaceable in my view.
Non-fungibility is contextual. It means that in this specific situation, with this specific client, team, and problem, your particular mix of skills, trust, domain knowledge, personality and experience cannot be easily swapped for someone else, at least not without some clear degradation (in momentum, impact, quality, fidelity, or confidence).
For example, think of the consultant who understands both the regulations and the client politics, or the analyst who built so much trust with the CFO that she now reviews numbers with them, not for them.
That is non-fungibility. I'm sure you have met many such people throughout your career.
They matter NOT because no one else could ever do their job, but because if they tried, they would bleed where they already know where to step...
That makes sense but in all honesty still pretty rare and niche in my experience. There were definitely a lot of people who were clear best fit for specific jobs. But if they weren’t available, we managed anyway. Like I say, this may be a big firm mentality. The people that were most highly valued from a leadership perspective were adaptable and able to deliver outstanding value across new domains.
Of course we manage anyway... Of course... As I said, life goes on and we move on.....
But don't tell me you didn't have your favorite team members who you would try and bring across projects (or even across firms if you had the chance 😅)??? Come on....
That is true - everyone did - but that was a much about personal fit as specific specialist capability. I do agree though, every partner has their own little tribe of go to individuals!
Offering a perspective on this, trying to bridge between post and comment.
No one is indispensable, the difference is the degree to which to are replaceable.
Being non-fungible is about being harder to replace than the competition, which means being more in control of one’s destiny than others are.
The paradox: Non-Fungibility is not really anti-fragile. But it is somewhat in the same family of ideas.
The main issue with Non-Fungibility is legibility.
People who don't get it massively outnumber those with the necessary perspective that can detect and nurture it when necessary.
Never thought about it that way. The comparison with anti-fragility is somehow flattering!
What do you mean the issue is in legibility? Are you referring to the fact that non-fungibility is a hard skill to train?
Legibility as in people being able to correctly read the signs of non-fungibility as signs of skill and not just the costs of “hard to manage”.
“Communication of value” places the focus on the emitter.
“Legibility” focuses on the receiver (over whom the emitter has less effect).
Carpenters are legible
Consultants are less so
Got it. I still assign the responsibility to the consultant, who must be able to communicate value in a way that the receiver can understand.
The onus of communication is on the emitter, not the receiver (something I only understood and truly appreciated after too many mistakes).
Exactly! I think I’m messing up the way I explain this (ironic) but yes.
Some occupations can offload that explanation effort to the culture and let others just refer to what they already know about it (lawyers, doctors, butchers, painters, etc) but if you have an uncommon and abstract job, you need to think a bit deeper about this.
For those, the question “what signals am I emitting that make it easier for others to understand what I do” becomes more crucial.