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.
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.
I agree, this is a valid point. I think it ultimately comes down to what kind of problems you're working to solve. If it's anything in the real world (ambiguous, multifaceted, complex systems dependent), you need to be a generalist. You simply operate at a higher level. You deal with the so called wicked problems.
I agree with your other point too: using disease to describe generalists is stigmatizing and unfair. I know that's not the intent, maybe we just need a more accurate language.
I'm in Design Ops, which allows me to go both deep and broad across multiple functions and divisions. Prior to this I was in management consulting which was all about learning and connecting across entire orgs...all things generalists excel at!
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.
It is so difficult for high achievers to not look at a transitionary move as a form of 'failure'. The fact they have to likely step back and not continue their 'upward' trajectory. I think it takes a lot of introspective work of being able to optimise to enjoy what you're working on rather than societal pressures or for the badges.
You then also have to grind and show why you are more suitable for the roles than the incumbents!
How did you know Thumbtack was the right option to make the jump?
I didn’t know it was right, which made it pretty scary. But I thought the people who worked there were really smart, and was fortunate to have a few people I knew well from BCG who had already made the leap that could help me validate it.
I built a grant writing business but not really because I liked grant writing but I needed money and I got to learn about a lot of fields and companies. The author recommends only 3 years of that search (took me 5 years) and then diving deep on something. I guess that “deep mastery” for me was our accelerator fund, Kuzana.co
But then the author warns that doing strategy right is not pontificating in an office but getting my hands dirty: I need to be out there “pounding the pavement” to find the next great startup.
I think that most people need more like 5-10 years of exploring (I know that I did). The 3 year recommendation was more around how long to stay at specific kinds of companies. For me, 2.5 years at BCG was enough.
Spot on, and reflects some of my own experience. Besides, the appeal of the elite generalist role is slowly fading when AI will do a lot more of the initial, basic modelling and research.
I agree with this. Especially on the point about consultants are specialists at, well, consulting. They're very good at getting at context, even if the content is.. at times flimsy
I left my consulting firm because it was starting to feel like I wasn't learning anything in depth nor having fundamental understanding of anything we're doing, plus I keep running into walls of rejections after asking for temp-rotations to try out other services 😅
rather than tough it out to chase some (shallow) options, I quit, took a sabbatical and found more meaningful ways exploring my career path.
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.
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.
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.
Do you feel like the implementation of AI will create a greater need for generalists? Since automations can replace many of the specialized, singular functions of a job, we'll need more broadly-trained people who can do a little bit of a lot of things to oversee it, not vice versa.
Hi. I am from India. I founded a social impact consulting firm. For the last six months, I have been thinking of a generalists v. specialists debate. I enjoy what I do. I love it. My role is largely managerial now. I am unable to decide on the path that I should take. It makes me anxious. I am still not sure. I am reading this essay and the comments, it is helping me to some extent. Thanks for writing this!
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
I think a "TTT" shape better fits what people mean nowadays when they want more generalists.
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.
I agree, this is a valid point. I think it ultimately comes down to what kind of problems you're working to solve. If it's anything in the real world (ambiguous, multifaceted, complex systems dependent), you need to be a generalist. You simply operate at a higher level. You deal with the so called wicked problems.
I agree with your other point too: using disease to describe generalists is stigmatizing and unfair. I know that's not the intent, maybe we just need a more accurate language.
Yes! Framing it in terms of problems you’re trying to solve is really helpful. It has made it easier for me
Yes, agreed! It depends on how you define your role as a generalist.
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the relationship of Generalist to RevOps.
(I have to do some more thinking before I say more. But I’d love to read others’ thoughts on this. )
I'm in Design Ops, which allows me to go both deep and broad across multiple functions and divisions. Prior to this I was in management consulting which was all about learning and connecting across entire orgs...all things generalists excel at!
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 :)
Be a generalist in the exploration stage, be an expert in the building stage
It is so difficult for high achievers to not look at a transitionary move as a form of 'failure'. The fact they have to likely step back and not continue their 'upward' trajectory. I think it takes a lot of introspective work of being able to optimise to enjoy what you're working on rather than societal pressures or for the badges.
You then also have to grind and show why you are more suitable for the roles than the incumbents!
How did you know Thumbtack was the right option to make the jump?
I didn’t know it was right, which made it pretty scary. But I thought the people who worked there were really smart, and was fortunate to have a few people I knew well from BCG who had already made the leap that could help me validate it.
This caused an actual fork in my career planning so cheers to that. In other words, it removed the planning.
Love to hear it!
This spoke to me.
I built a grant writing business but not really because I liked grant writing but I needed money and I got to learn about a lot of fields and companies. The author recommends only 3 years of that search (took me 5 years) and then diving deep on something. I guess that “deep mastery” for me was our accelerator fund, Kuzana.co
But then the author warns that doing strategy right is not pontificating in an office but getting my hands dirty: I need to be out there “pounding the pavement” to find the next great startup.
I think that most people need more like 5-10 years of exploring (I know that I did). The 3 year recommendation was more around how long to stay at specific kinds of companies. For me, 2.5 years at BCG was enough.
Great insights especially as a CS student trying to plan my future
So happy to hear it is useful! Took me a long time to learn this lesson.
Spot on, and reflects some of my own experience. Besides, the appeal of the elite generalist role is slowly fading when AI will do a lot more of the initial, basic modelling and research.
Really needed this advice right now!!
So glad to hear it is helpful! How did you hear about this essay?
Was not my "Notes" feed
I agree with this. Especially on the point about consultants are specialists at, well, consulting. They're very good at getting at context, even if the content is.. at times flimsy
I left my consulting firm because it was starting to feel like I wasn't learning anything in depth nor having fundamental understanding of anything we're doing, plus I keep running into walls of rejections after asking for temp-rotations to try out other services 😅
rather than tough it out to chase some (shallow) options, I quit, took a sabbatical and found more meaningful ways exploring my career path.
Love that story. Often it seems that people need time off or a sabbatical to be able to explore deeply enough to make a big change.
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.
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!
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.
Do you feel like the implementation of AI will create a greater need for generalists? Since automations can replace many of the specialized, singular functions of a job, we'll need more broadly-trained people who can do a little bit of a lot of things to oversee it, not vice versa.
Hi. I am from India. I founded a social impact consulting firm. For the last six months, I have been thinking of a generalists v. specialists debate. I enjoy what I do. I love it. My role is largely managerial now. I am unable to decide on the path that I should take. It makes me anxious. I am still not sure. I am reading this essay and the comments, it is helping me to some extent. Thanks for writing this!