Organizations increasingly implement systems to categorize experts and map their knowledge, ranging from departmental structures drawn on an organizational chart to algorithmically enabled talent marketplace platforms. But how effective are these systems in achieving their intended outcomes? According to my research published in the Journal of Management Studies, the design and intersection of these systems can either reveal and enhance expertise as well as devalue and conceal it. These dynamics significantly influence experts’ access to resources and organizational strategies for managing human capital. 

Why worry about expertise? 

In today’s economy, expertise or expert knowledge drives innovation, enhances competitive advantage, and enables organizations to adapt to rapid technological and social changes. Consequently, expertise has become a vital resource for organizations aiming to achieve their goals and thrive.  

Yet, hiring top-notch experts is not enough if they are not able to specialize according to workplace demands and mobilize their knowledge to relevant tasks. Translating knowledge and skills into innovations or superior organizational performance entails organizing experts in ways that make their expertise visible, support knowledge sharing, and connect them to organizational operations.  

Organizing expertise in an aeronautical company 

To examine how systems for managing experts work in practice and with what consequences for expert knowledge, I conducted a 15-month, in-depth field study in an aeronautical organization’s engineering department. More specifically, the study leverages data from interviews with dozens of experts among engineers, technicians, and product managers. It examines the systems for organizing experts—placing experts into specific roles, grouping them in departments and projects, and classifying their knowledge within directories listing specialties.  

Managing experts is a critical concern for this aeronautical organization, which depended on specialists from diverse knowledge areas, some of which were highly niche. Experts in some areas were also scarce due to their lengthy development paths and the demand from multiple projects. Therefore, the organization invested significantly in developing and retaining expertise in key knowledge areas through HR and knowledge management policies. These included training courses, mentorship programs, career paths for technical fellows, and communities of practice. The underlying systems used to organize experts served as the infrastructure for these HR and knowledge management policies. 

The (unintended) consequences of organizing expertise 

Generating expertise: As I investigated the systems through which experts were organized in this aeronautical company, I found that these systems not only mapped expertise but also generated it. That is, the systems created by the organization were also the frameworks through which experts defined and communicated their knowledge. The labels and classifications used made certain specializations more or less explicit. Depending on the assigned tasks and projects, experts refine their skills within specific knowledge areas and work contexts. 

Grading expertise: I also found that organizing experts reinforces status hierarchies among specialists, making some more central or peripheral. These systems highlight some elements while downplaying others based on their criteria. For instance, technical knowledge areas were emphasized in the studied organization and served as the baseline criteria for organizing experts around particular product parts and features. Yet, this unintendedly sidelined experts with holistic expertise and overseeing cross-system functions, which fit awkwardly in such an organization. This was unfortunate because holistic expertise is related to an ability to consider a product’s whole life cycle and is becoming increasingly relevant for organizations to design sustainability strategies.  

Ghosting expertise: Finally, my research also revealed that some types of expertise may become invisible or “ghosted” due to misaligned systems. Experts might be recognized in one system but not in another, leading to gaps in visibility. Additionally, the language used in classifications can obscure certain skills. For instance, technical jargon can overshadow administrative knowledge and “soft” skills. The irony is that one of the main challenges of product development—and most organizations today—is around connecting specialists. Yet, the expertise of those who helped in supporting such collaboration was ghosted, given the focus on distinctive specialized domains.  

Takeaways for managers 

This research highlights the (unintended) consequences of the systems used to organize experts. Attending to them is important because these systems actively shape which knowledge is visible and valued. They also support other organizational strategies, such as career pathways and mentoring programs. Therefore, how these systems make expertise more or less visible has downstream consequences for an organization’s ability to develop, retain, and mobilize experts.  

While systems help generate and manage expertise, they can reinforce privileges and invisibilities, hindering some specialist groups from gaining material benefits and obstructing knowledge flows. Hence, when designing systems to manage experts, it is crucial to consider how their criteria and interrelations shape expertise.