Ask HN: Is There a Place for Generalists
I am reading through a thread on how to scale a company, and one of the points is replace generalists with specialists. How can a generalist optimise for a long term career.
In tech , how can one thrive as a generalist? https://twitter.com/Codie_Sanchez/status/1526912303890849796
Generally, the answer is yes.
Specifically, the answer is no.
Seriously: smaller shops tend to do better with generalists. Specialisation increases with size. Though at the very largest scales, a synoptic view becomes useful. Usually fairly high on the ladder.
The specialist will always have clear, specific, and cogent arguments against a generalist. The generalist's strength is that of a web or net, not of a sword or bullet.
Another strategy is to develop "M-shaped" talents: breadth and several (and with time, an increasing number) of specialties. You're becoming a generalist, but can sell yourself as a specialist.
As someone running a side project, I definitely agree with this. I built up an array of skills that don’t have much depth, but it allows me to follow along with different topics when they come up.
The “M” strategy will give you a nice foundation in a few core skills, while being able to contribute elsewhere.
This poster's content is frequently clickbait for people who want to play "business" - i.e. garbage advice. Most advice is garbage (but that's an answer to a different question).
"Generalist" and "Specialist" are too broad of terms. In my experience, people who claim to be "generalists" are simply on the verge of competence in a variety of areas. On the other hand, extreme "specialists" require a lot of support to get things done (e.g. machine learning PhDs with little experience in cloud computing, software engineering, etc.).
So, somewhat paradoxically, the best "generalists" are "specialists" – people who are really successful in tech tend to be experts in one very valuable area, and competent in a few others. I can't recall anyone I'd consider "successful" not fitting that mold.
If you specialise you had better hope your specialisation has legs. I have come across several embittered specialists who's toys got discarded. And the CV says "I was a star in this thing when it was a thing".
Apologies for mixed metaphors.
Capital has always favoured specialisation, in part because of this mechanism.
The specialist who has only one leg to stand on, or perhaps, whose key fits only one lock, does well so long as that lock provides access to treasure. Once it no longer does ... both lock and key are discarded.
Specialisation provides efficiencies, but not resilience. That applies both to the firm which specialises (there's a long history of single-technology / one-trick businesses failing once technology moves on, the proverbial buggy-whip manufacturer: Polaroid, Kodak, and Xerox come to mind. As I was entering the workforce, petroleum engineers were fading fast whilst aerospace engineering was the place to be. Since then, the oil industry saw a resurgence, aerospace fell, and computer science, not even really on the radar, exploded.
Within the tech field, I've seen technologies, platforms, and companies come and go: IBM, DEC, SGI, Sun, being just a few (not all failed completely, but most say at the very least major changes in fortune).
> I am reading through a thread on how to scale a company, and one of the points is replace generalists with specialists. How can a generalist optimise for a long term career?
Pick up the management and leadership skills (including things like decisioning on incomplete inputs) and step up the ladder. Generalists are essential in the executive team to have the necessary context, make hard decisions, and own outcomes.
Alternatively, enjoy working in small teams (skunkworks-type product teams in large orgs, startups, or teams that are small by nature of what they do e.g in media and entertainment).
From what I've seen only specialists are moved to management.
I disagree. Although a specialist will often move up one level, and manage a group of specialist that specialize in what the manager specializes in. Often when they have to move up to manage people outside of their specialization they are hampered, if for no other reason they do not enjoy the diversity. They specialized for a reason.
That doesn't match my experience at all.
Could you provide examples?
You don't have to work at places which scale.
Once you have enough general experience, it is easy to move sideways - not every job-hop has to be upwards.
Generalists may struggle early in their career if they are put in a specialist role, but tend to do better higher up the organizational chart as they have more varied experience and therefore perspective that can be applied to different situations.
The trick is to find a good company that puts you in a position to use all of your talents instead of just one specific skill.
Or if not all, then at least several, and with an opportunity to develop more.
Is there a place for a generalist?
There is only a place for a generalist in most roles - being a specialist on X technology is going to pigeon-hole you very rapidly
> In tech, how can one thrive as a generalist?
Start ups need generalists to save money, and large companies want to have fast iteration like start ups... So they need generalists too!
> and one of the points is replace generalists with specialists
This doesn't sound like good advice. Without generalists, you get strange results where certain areas of a product are highly developed, but there seems to be a disconnect between parts of the system, as people are only focusing on their specialisation.
Generalists are also needed in leadership, where you need to know what different specialized teams are doing (at a high level)
Work in an operations department!
You would be surprised how even in the biggest corporation there are still groups of clever problem solvers with rolls of duct tape keeping everything together.
Why would we throw the conventional wisdom of a diverse portfolio out in this instance? Is how we invest money so drastically different from how we invest our time?
I was thinking the same, a generalist looks like an even way to divest ones talents. It's a good perspective that often is talked about in effective altruism, through 80,000 hours, the question is, how should one spend their career time. There are some institutions that seem to celebrate generalist(typically problem driven organisations, philanthropy, venture capital ), while some celebrate specialists (scale driven companies)
Perhaps not tech-stack specific, but I've built my business career being the 'deep generalist'.
From a visual perspective, we often think of the Specialist as Narrow-but-Deep, and the Generalist as Wide-but-Shallow. That's the jack of all trades perhaps, but as most people build a career in reality they're building Width AND Depth.
To really excel as a Specialist, at some point you have to focus on even greater Depth, at the expense (because time is finite) of other skills. The key I see to being a good Deep Generalist is knowing when you have sufficient depth in a skill to go focus more time on building depth in others.
For my founder clients, I will never be the best accountant / web developer / digital marketer / HR guru / recruiter / sales manager they can find. But for the size they are (I work with companies from 12-100 employees) the founders don't have the bandwidth of time or budget to hire 28 different specialists in every area of the business. They themselves are responsible across everything, so they need the generalist advisor who knows enough about enough to keep them moving forward.
Over time, hire people with deeper specialties. But that doesn't negate the value of the generalist - if they're good, they continue to stay near the top of the company hierarchy where all those specialists merge for leadership, management, and direction.
I like Scott Adams's approach - in many fields you have to be in the Top 1% to stand out. Alternatively, pick 3+ complementary skills (like coding, leadership, public speaking) and get into the top 25% for those skills because the 'talent stack' will help you succeed with more likelihood than needing to be the top 1%.
I take a job at a small place. I'm a generalist, but they're cool with that. I'm there for a while, and the place grows. They need specialists. But in that time, I have become more of a specialist - learned more about the company, the environment it operates in, and the particular task(s) I am doing. Maybe I've been doing five things, and now they need to break up that work among five people. Fine, but I'm likely to be the leading candidate for at least one of those five slots. Even if it takes some training for me, that may be cheaper and faster for them than finding someone outside who knows how to do that exact thing.
That may not answer your question. You may be asking: "I want to remain a generalist. How do I do that in a world that keeps trying to drive me to become a specialist?" If that's the question, the answer is to either avoid places that are growing, or to keep switching to jobs that are earlier in this process - to places that need generalists.
That is indeed my question. I want to remain a generalist, mainly due to the fact that its a big part of my character and specialising often doesn't consider whether the technology will be viable in a few years. Generalising means that if a technology is no longer used, they can move into something they already have a general insight into. Also, it looks like there was once a time for example, early 90s when technology was very new, being a generalist web developer would be something valuable, or during the renaissance being a philosopher & mathematician was celebrated, but now it would be hard to balance those. It looks like being in the bleeding edge space would be rewarding for a generalist, because they are always looking for wide-range people.
Generalist is the most sensible option. "Specialist" is essentially merely a bet in favor of the tech you know.
Generalists usually manage things while specialists execute (generally speaking, no pun intended). Generalists are very much needed especially in smaller teams/companies where you need that 1 person to keep things on track while having basic knowledge of things.
Generalists can be a CEO, founder or a manager in a team usually. Someone scrappy enough if needed but can focus on the bigger picture a bit more.
Being a founder myself, I consider myself a Generalist. I do it all. Especially over the years, I have no depth in one thing except trying to build/run a business.
If you want to be a generalist, learn how to work well with people, emotional intelligence, empath,ability to read situations and most important of all, ability to get things done without pointing blame/fingers. Specialists usually like proper environments before they can execute. Good generalists, not so much.
I just learned of the job title "staff engineer". If you look that name up, you may find it matches your personal work experiences. It involves seeing problems from varying levels of detail, understanding business needs, talking to non-technical people, and yet still understanding architecture and programming best practices. A good staff engineer will help make the company more successful while not being an expert at anything.
I'm a generalist, but I joined my company through a specific role and had to find opportunities to be a generalist and leadership that would accept it.
Generalists have a place when it's time to get things up and going, and potentially as leaders of teams as support or floaters between teams filling in as needed. The most ideal situation would be that they are specialized in at least one important thing and all of their generalist skills help to support that and the things and teams that surround it.
The ideal is "T-shaped skills" - having one area of depth and then many broader and shallower areas of knowledge.
companies want generalists but they refuse to interview them like one or pay for them