Live data from Hacker News

On Being a Generalist

flaviocopes.com

61–70 of 140 posts

Re: On Being a Generalist

#61
post #12

I'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/respo…

>...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.

I wouldn't put much weight in the specific wording of job descriptions, they're often an amalgamation of previous similar roles at the company and other companies.

>There is some crazy cognitive dissonance out there.

I agree, the hiring decision process within a company seems so susceptible to one simple narrative like "are they a specialist?" taking way too much importance. I think it has something to do with the fact that most of the decision makers are spending most of their time on other things, don't have time to think deeply about who to hire.

Re: On Being a Generalist

#62

> Some companies only hire specialists. If you’re Google, it makes little sense to hire a generalist, I think. Having been through a Google interview and offer process, this seems exactly backwards: Google selects heavily for generalists, so that they have people who can adapt to and integrate different technologies. (I'm sure they do hire specialists in various areas, but their interview process optimizes for genera…

[deleted]

Re: On Being a Generalist

#63
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, and given the costs to become the very best, it's often a choice like this. Say you need to hire athletes with in experience swimming, running, and gymnastics to design some classes for your school. Would you rather hire: - 3 gold medal Olympians, each of whom have medaled in the 3 areas - 1 bronze medal Olympian who has single-handedly medaled in swimming, running, and gymnastics?

> - 1 bronze medal Olympian who has single-handedly medaled in swimming, running, and gymnastics? Has anyone ever achieved this? It sounds like you're saying you would rather hire 1 person that doesn't exist rather than hire 3 people that do.

Not exactly that, but there's the various combination events-- most especially the pentathlon (fencing, shooting, swimming, riding, cross-country running).

But even look at decathletes -- they usually rarely medal in individual event sports these days, and their personal bests are pretty far off the mark. Asthon Eaton got two decathlon golds, but each of his personal bests would be at the back of the standings of the individual athletic events at the Olympics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashton_Eaton#Outdoor

Or triathletes. Basically no one who is a world-class runner is a world-class swimmer, or vice versa. But you can be confident that a world-class triathlete is a pretty damn good runner, swimmer, and cyclist.

Re: On Being a Generalist

#64
post #30

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 log…

What I understood is this author's definition of a generalist is someone who expands his scope beyond just programming. To things like design, business development, hr management, recruiting, raising funds etc. Generally, it may not be so common to find an individual who's almost equally as passionate about all of these things. In the end we got limited time on this planet and can't learn everything.

That's not how I read the article. Seems to me he tries to do everything that has to do with (Web) software development, but not wider than that.

Re: On Being a Generalist

#65
I'm a fairly capable generalist. For many years I struggled with pretty real imposter syndrome. It's a lot better recently, and it certainly helps to work with people who can remind you it's a strength - but being a young person without a precise specialism in a room with 'specialists' I found very hard, regardless of my abilities or what I could offer.

I guess it's very daunting to be sat across a table with the head of something (a person with a supposed very deep subject knowledge), when you think at any moment they'll say "what are you doing here?" It took a long time to realise that even if my depth of knowledge was not the same as theirs, having an understanding of things outside of what they knew could often change the direction of the conversation and how they (and the business) would approach things.

I'm sure I'm not the only person who's felt this way. If you're there right now - stick with it, everything gets easier!

Re: On Being a Generalist

#66
Practically speaking, as a developer applying to a startup, I'm going to say I'm a generalist and make a giant list of technologies and projects I've worked with. If applying at Bigco, I'm going to list the relevant specialties they're looking for and not confuse the poor person working in HR who has no idea what any of those technologies are. Specializing in all of the technologies the article listed isn't exactly a herculean feat.

If a position requires an actual specialist, a "We're forking Postgres and building a globally distributed database with acid transactions committed to all AWS regions without having to think about the topology of node deployment." kind of specialist, I'm not going to apply, and we've hit the point where you actually need to think about becoming a specialist.

As I get older, I'm learning that understanding technology is just the tip of the iceberg anyway. It doesn't matter how well engineered a solution is when Google Sheets solves 90% of the same problem for free with real time networking functionality. And that doesn't matter either, when ITAR restrictions keep you from using Google Sheets.

Re: On Being a Generalist

#67
post #8

Often we cherish specialists quoting "Jack of all trades, master of none". Curiously enough, the full version of the original has a twist: “A jack of all trades is a master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one." https://www.theodysseyonline.com/7-phrases-youve-been-misquo...

There is another aspect that is relevant, and that is that the effort needed to get to the 99th percentile of some ability is way larger than that to get to the 90th, and often, you can do very well with just being in the 85th. So you can become pretty good at many different (often complementary) things, in ways that likely make you way more effective than that guy who's a guru in a very specific topic. Then again, s…

instaguru = STFW, IRC #thing, scihub/libgen 'thing'.

Re: On Being a Generalist

#68
I'm a generalist I guess.

How did I get to be a generalist. Because I was a very narrow specialist at one point and people asked me to do other things that were outside the specialty and I learned to do them.

I kept doing that and learning different things as I moved between jobs as a bit of necessity.

My original specialty won't get me hired anymore. there isn't enough requirement for it.

I have several skills under my general skill set that I am better at than most specialists in those skills I work with because despite their being specialized inside that one skill I have been doing it longer and deeper than them. But I am a generalist.

I know I'm a generalist because a top consultant recruiting company asked me a couple weeks ago to cut out most of my skills from their database while they were trying to sell me to a client because those skills had nothing to do with the assignment and they made me look like a generalist.

Basically the company wanted a front end developer with React skills. I don't know what they think I've been doing the last 20 years if that's supposed to be my only skill. Being a specialist I suppose.

Re: On Being a Generalist

#69
The word "generalist" tends to be used where "unspecialised" would've been more appropriate.

Junior, unspecialised engineers are exactly that: unspecialised. They haven't had the the time to become good at any one thing.

At the mid-weight range, some engineers start to focus on a particular area and become specialists. Others seek knowledge across the spectrum and become generalists. Finally, others remain unspecialised. The trend continues at the senior level.

I am most definitely a generalist, and don't bring as much depth to the table as my more specialised peers. But, when working on one layer of the stack, I can leverage my knowledge of the adjacent layers to produce something much more coherent. I can bridge the gap between two teams of specialists who don't understand each other and help them reach agreement. I'm pretty decent at helping product people figure out how all their moving pieces map to the various teams we have available.

These are just some of the things that generalists give you that specialists can't. To rebut the article's argument directly — I don't know about Google, but Facebook definitely explicitly hires generalists by the truckload.

Re: On Being a Generalist

#70
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I understood is this author's definition of a generalist is someone who expands his scope beyond just programming. To things like design, business development, hr management, recruiting, raising funds etc. Generally, it may not be so common to find an individual who's almost equally as passionate about all of these things. In the end we got limited time on this planet and can't learn everything.

That's not how I read the article. Seems to me he tries to do everything that has to do with (Web) software development, but not wider than that.

Well in that case the definition of a generalist is much more narrow. Would we call a mathematician who is comfortable with all topics within algebra a generalist?
Post reply on HN