I agree with your critique to an extent, especially of Big Consulting, but mainly as it applies to job prospecting. However, in terms of actual problem-solving in the real world, I think if anything there are too FEW generalists; many people in STEM (I come from the medical side, with a splash of tech) get so hyper-focused in a narrow area that they cannot think outside their little boxes and become victims of the other damaging syndrome: "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." David Epstein's book "Range" is an excellent exploration of the value of generalists and why we need both people with breadth as well as technical specialists.
Spot on! I wish I had read this 25 years ago. I especially identify with the part where one has to give up options. That’s not just in one’s career, that’s in life. We all have to get better at saying no to some interests that we want to do so that we have the time and focus to become competent at a professional specialty / hobby that we truly want to do. I finally landed in my specialty within the last four years. Well done.
Hi Dan -- loved the essay! Wanted to take the chance to say that I've continued to get a ton of value from your tweets/posts since our interview process a few years back.
Like many consultants/former consultants, this essay and generalist disease strikes a nerve. I still describe myself as a generalist quite often. What I would have been interested to explore more are the different ways that one goes from generalist to specialist. Specialist by industry or by function come to mind, but curious if there are others that you would add.
Yeah, I considered getting into more depth on how to specialize. I think it can take many forms - industry, function, stage of company, etc.
One thing that seems to be true: the outlier success cases are people who become top 1% or 0.1% in their field. But they often get their creatively by becoming top ~10% at multiple things that are not often combined. e.g. top growth marketer for growth stage marketplaces.
Thanks Dan! That reminds me of the "Mastery" framework from Robert Green -- agree that the true Outliers generally are able to combine expertise in a few skills in a way that is unique.
Words can't express how much I love this essay, thanks for writing it! You have literally described my career trajectory so far and the switch I am trying to make towards a path that I would like to specialise on! Hopefully, I will soon be in the same spot you are right now :)
Agreed, great essay. I took a major lateral/downwards step to pivot industry/role and I'm finally starting to reap the rewards in terms of enjoyment and aptitude.
Feeling confident that I'm exiting the low point on the green chart before the big upwards trajectory.
I think specialization in product management means you know the customers and industry extremely well.
In product management it's much harder to hop industries, as oppose to other functions like design or engineering. When you hop industries you have to start over, since you're in a different problem space.
As your career progresses companies are hiring you for your domain expertise in addition to your ability to build successful products.
That being said, you can carve out a specialization for yourself within product management. A great example of this is Elena Verna who specializes in product-led-growth and April Dunford who specializes in positioning.
Ooof as a proud generalist, I wish you'd avoided branding me as someone with a disease. There is not just one path to success in your career, and it's a shame that you couldn't speak more to that.
"Ultimately you must specialize to build real leverage, which requires the exact opposite of increasing optionality." - the leverage I have built throughout my career is because of my generalist skills, not in spite of them.
But these firms provide an excellent MBA for the uninitiated looking to move on eventually to a startup or corporate job. Especially useful for science or engineering PhD looking to transition to corporate.
Ah! Welll said. This reminds me of Chris Dixon's Climbing the Wrong Hill from 2009. Different metaphor, similar message. The smartest of us prioritise short-term gains over long-term rewards.
This is a thought provoking read. Your hypothesis that generalists often solve for optionality feels spot on. Unfortunately this approach can often lead to a paradox of choice (too many options) - lack of conviction, lack of risk-taking, lack of depth, etc.
What does being really good at product Managment mean as in the depth of the field? Or does specialization mean that you know the customers or a domain or a function extremely extremely well?
I agree with your critique to an extent, especially of Big Consulting, but mainly as it applies to job prospecting. However, in terms of actual problem-solving in the real world, I think if anything there are too FEW generalists; many people in STEM (I come from the medical side, with a splash of tech) get so hyper-focused in a narrow area that they cannot think outside their little boxes and become victims of the other damaging syndrome: "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." David Epstein's book "Range" is an excellent exploration of the value of generalists and why we need both people with breadth as well as technical specialists.
My read of Range was that he is making two big points that are actually not very misaligned with this essay:
1. you need to explore early on to find the things that are the best fit for you
2. the winning profile is T-shaped: deep in one or a few areas with breadth in others that makes you more effective
Spot on! I wish I had read this 25 years ago. I especially identify with the part where one has to give up options. That’s not just in one’s career, that’s in life. We all have to get better at saying no to some interests that we want to do so that we have the time and focus to become competent at a professional specialty / hobby that we truly want to do. I finally landed in my specialty within the last four years. Well done.
Well said! It is of course much harder to take this advice than to write it :)
Hi Dan -- loved the essay! Wanted to take the chance to say that I've continued to get a ton of value from your tweets/posts since our interview process a few years back.
Like many consultants/former consultants, this essay and generalist disease strikes a nerve. I still describe myself as a generalist quite often. What I would have been interested to explore more are the different ways that one goes from generalist to specialist. Specialist by industry or by function come to mind, but curious if there are others that you would add.
Thanks Alex! That means a lot.
Yeah, I considered getting into more depth on how to specialize. I think it can take many forms - industry, function, stage of company, etc.
One thing that seems to be true: the outlier success cases are people who become top 1% or 0.1% in their field. But they often get their creatively by becoming top ~10% at multiple things that are not often combined. e.g. top growth marketer for growth stage marketplaces.
Thanks Dan! That reminds me of the "Mastery" framework from Robert Green -- agree that the true Outliers generally are able to combine expertise in a few skills in a way that is unique.
Hope you're doing well -- all the best!
Words can't express how much I love this essay, thanks for writing it! You have literally described my career trajectory so far and the switch I am trying to make towards a path that I would like to specialise on! Hopefully, I will soon be in the same spot you are right now :)
That means so much - thank you Roberta!
Agreed, great essay. I took a major lateral/downwards step to pivot industry/role and I'm finally starting to reap the rewards in terms of enjoyment and aptitude.
Feeling confident that I'm exiting the low point on the green chart before the big upwards trajectory.
Thanks Henry! Congrats on your transition - feels great to be on the upward slope of the green curve :)
I think specialization in product management means you know the customers and industry extremely well.
In product management it's much harder to hop industries, as oppose to other functions like design or engineering. When you hop industries you have to start over, since you're in a different problem space.
As your career progresses companies are hiring you for your domain expertise in addition to your ability to build successful products.
That being said, you can carve out a specialization for yourself within product management. A great example of this is Elena Verna who specializes in product-led-growth and April Dunford who specializes in positioning.
Ooof as a proud generalist, I wish you'd avoided branding me as someone with a disease. There is not just one path to success in your career, and it's a shame that you couldn't speak more to that.
"Ultimately you must specialize to build real leverage, which requires the exact opposite of increasing optionality." - the leverage I have built throughout my career is because of my generalist skills, not in spite of them.
But these firms provide an excellent MBA for the uninitiated looking to move on eventually to a startup or corporate job. Especially useful for science or engineering PhD looking to transition to corporate.
Very much agree - they are great training programs with most of the value packed into the first 2-3 years
Ah! Welll said. This reminds me of Chris Dixon's Climbing the Wrong Hill from 2009. Different metaphor, similar message. The smartest of us prioritise short-term gains over long-term rewards.
This is a thought provoking read. Your hypothesis that generalists often solve for optionality feels spot on. Unfortunately this approach can often lead to a paradox of choice (too many options) - lack of conviction, lack of risk-taking, lack of depth, etc.
What does being really good at product Managment mean as in the depth of the field? Or does specialization mean that you know the customers or a domain or a function extremely extremely well?