What are the obvious differences?
I think a specialist is in a great position for a career. Imagine permission to
focus on one pure thing at a time, for a time.
Specialists also often have more negotiating power with employers and
can afford their own terms. And of course you would
want to employ a specialist to perform quality and specific jobs. For example, would you get a cosmetic surgeon to do your
hip replacement? No thanks.
Could it be that a specialist has more passion for their
chosen expertise, leading to a more engaged job and better outcome? Passion aside if you
are an expert at something specific, whether that is science, art, or law it does put you in a
difficult position to progress to a generalist position. A new manager of a team, that gets catapulted
out of their speciality, needs to step up to be a coach, a planner, and be
accountable for outputs they have not personally handled. More generalist skills might afford better outcomes.
I think a nice way to find an answer to this question is to
look at output. Generalists and
specialists have both done outstanding things over time. If fact to look at design as an example of a
generalist producing amazing things, we could delve into the legacy that
Charles Eames left behind. Most people
know of his greatness for furniture design; however he was also commissioned by large
businesses and the American Government to help overcome huge challenges. An architect by “trade” he continually
engineered new ways to look at problems and was driven to find the best
quality answers to challenges that weren’t easily solvable. The opportunities that ignorance gave Eames
no doubt contributed to some amazing outputs.
So what are you? Jack or Specialist?
Neither… there is a 3rd option… A Renaissance man
ReplyDelete