I’m a generalist and I would 100% recommend it over being a specialist because you get to see the whole picture. You start to notice patterns across different programming paradigms that make you a better developer. You learn techniques to quickly teach yourself and learn about the problem domain which translate into other parts of your life besides computers. I’ve taught myself how to work on cars using deductive logic when I get stuck and software engineering principles to make decisions when I’m afraid I might break something and I’ve improved my personal finances with data science.
On Being a Generalist
11–20 of 140 posts
Re: On Being a Generalist
#12I've been currently looking for employment and job descriptions nowadays are ridiculous. In one paragraph or section of a job description, they'll specifically state that they want a generalist, and in the very next section, they'll state explicitly that they want a specialist; just crazy.
Also, throughout my job history I've been more of a generalist; sort of like a modern day devops (but much broader in scope/responsibilities), and at least a decade before it was even an accepted term. And, almost for all of my jobs the hiring manager wants a specialist but "agrees to hire me EVEN THOUGH I seem to be more of a generalist" - as if they're doing me a favor...But in almost every job I've ever had, all of my bosses, stakeholders and peers/partners explicitly state that they're so glad that I'm on board (for a project, program, etc.) specifically because of my generalist nature...and they can't possibly have achieved their goals with a specialist, etc. No doubt, there are plenty of areas where specialists are absolutely essential, and really the only ones that could effectively complete what needs to be done. But, in my experience, soooo many, many people (of any seniority level, of any age, background, etc.) in positions of power (or at least positions of decision-making) suck royally at deciding when a good generalist is needed. There is some crazy cognitive dissonance out there.
Re: On Being a Generalist
#13I think the authors scope is way too narrow. If you’re a react developer who also knows vue, and perhaps enough ops to get side projects to run in Azure/AWS then you’re still a specialist. It’s easy to forget, because development is what we do, but it’s actually a rather specialist skill in itself. I say this as someone who has been part of several attempts at implementing things like RPA or even Sharepoint to non-developers, with a full expectation of genuinely smart people being capable of doing very simple drag and drop programming, and see them fail time and time again. Exactly because software development is a specialist field.
A generalist is someone who does software development, but also does project management and implementation (teaching users how to use software). Three distinct specialist fields, and this is where being a generalist can be valuable for your organisation. Because you get things done. But less beneficial to you, because no one wants generalists, and you’re likely doing 1.5 people’s job for 1 persons pay.
Re: On Being a Generalist
#14I see it less as "being a generalist" and more as "being a specialist at learning new things".
Re: On Being a Generalist
#15Google hires tons of generalists. The reasoning here is very flawed.
Hiring specialists is higher variance. They could be amazing for your company or it could be that you need to do something slightly different and they are mostly useless. Generalists are safer but with less upside.
Of course this dichotomy is false anyway. Everyone exists on a spectrum. No one has only a single skill at “max level” and no one has every skill. It’s more a question of where on the spectrum you want to be.
Re: On Being a Generalist
#16I think the authors scope is way too narrow. If you’re a react developer who also knows vue, and perhaps enough ops to get side projects to run in Azure/AWS then you’re still a specialist. It’s easy to forget, because development is what we do, but it’s actually a rather specialist skill in itself. I say this as someone who has been part of several attempts at implementing things like RPA or even Sharepoint to non-de…
> But less beneficial to you, because no one wants generalists, and you’re likely doing 1.5 people’s job for 1 persons pay.
People want generalists, they just don't want to hire them. Or rather it's hard to find a company who has a job description that emphasizes a generalist skill set.
But my experience has been once you are in a small to medium size company, they are happy to have someone who is flexible and adaptable and game to do different tasks.
Re: On Being a Generalist
#17The conversation is missing a dimension: How big can the domain be? One can be a specialist in JavaScript, for example. But you could just as well say you specialize in React or Vue, as the article says. A React developer might say person who does all JavaScript is a generalist; the JavaScript developer could point to a full stack engineer and say "that's an actual generalist".
The opaqueness makes it difficult to discuss the topic further.
Re: On Being a Generalist
#18Google hires tons of generalists. The reasoning here is very flawed. Hiring specialists is higher variance. They could be amazing for your company or it could be that you need to do something slightly different and they are mostly useless. Generalists are safer but with less upside. Of course this dichotomy is false anyway. Everyone exists on a spectrum. No one has only a single skill at “max level” and no one has ev…
Most them are SA-/SW-SREs, SRMs or other technical leads or managers.
Re: On Being a Generalist
#19Tim Ferris has an interesting podcast on subject: https://tim.blog/2007/09/14/the-top-5-reasons-to-be-a-jack-o...
“Jack of all trades, master of many” and “specialization is for insects”
Re: On Being a Generalist
#20Be T-shaped: a jack of all trades, but a master of some.