71–80 of 140 posts
Just remember the adage: A specialist will tend to underestimate a generalist's ability to specialize, when they choose to focus on one thing; A generalist will tend to underestimate how deep any given specialty actually extends.
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...
See the research in this thread: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/408782/is-jack-o...
Being a generalist can be tricky as you do not have a differentiating factor making it harder to get hired into highly paid jobs but easier to adapt.
People and communication skills are often more important than any of this but hiring in our industry is sadly keyword driven. As a very broad generalist I found myself in a fairly turbulent corporate environment. It should have been easy to get the jobs I wanted but it did not work so well - what I got were firefighting jobs leading to more firefighting jobs. I adopted now a portfolio of related technology and skills as my core and am marketing them actively. Works much better in getting work I like. It does not change who I am but it helps to get the tasks I want and also give me the platform to say no to things outside of the portfolio.
Being a great specialist commands a premium but can be tricky as niches can evaporate and then you are master of nothing. Being a generalist can be tricky as you do not have a differentiating factor making it harder to get hired into highly paid jobs but easier to adapt. People and communication skills are often more important than any of this but hiring in our industry is sadly keyword driven. As a very broad genera…
Sure, being a "software consultant" is more genral than being a "mobile software consultant" but overall, most people on earth are neither.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, they hire Competitive Programmers - this is a separate specialty, but Google assumes such programmers should be able jump into real world software engineering. They recognize the flaw but so far can't come up with a different way.
> No, they hire Competitive Programmers More specifically, programmers who spend a lot of time learning how to solve algorithm puzzles. This heavily favors single people who have lots of time to devote to studying such things and disadvantages time-constrained people such as developers with a family life at home.
The first stage of the question might be very competition-like, though.
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…
Now, with my second startup, I see how important and impactful specialists are as the complexity and size of our tasks have grown.
It's beneficial to have individuals that have a broad understanding of how complex systems work without necessarily being able to develop all of the components in full themselves; there's equally a requirement for developers who are capable of understanding and implementing all the detailed intricacies of particular fields, like front-end or embedded code. The former are usually able to develop working solutions to a given problem, but they often end up being sub-optimal; the latter can often implement those solutions more effectively, but can struggle to effectively work with a broader system.
This idea is related to Cringely's military analogy about the different kinds of personalities and skillsets needed to build companies – the "commandos", the "infantry", and the "police". The "commandos" can move quickly to build creative or disruptive solutions to complex problems, but can leave unfinished tasks in their wake, and get bored easily. The "infantry" build on top of the work of the "commandos" – refining, improving, and professionalising. But they need more infrastructure, process, and understanding to do this, which can slow them down. And the "police" are there to manage the system when the speed of development slows down – the focus is on maintenance, economy of scale, and more-stable-if-less-exciting work.
It's all a bit of a thin metaphor to be sure, but I've definitely seen these and similar personalities in different companies, all offering different kinds of value. Nobody belongs exclusively to one group, in the same way that nobody is exclusively a generalist or specialist. But I've found that understanding how different personalities and "skill shapes" can contribute is important for building an effective and productive team.
I'm a Googler and a generalist. This is of course just my opinion.
In the two roles I've had, being a generalist is far better than being specialized: as a Product Manager and as a founder on a new project.
A big part of being a PM is being the connective tissue between specialist ICs and silo'd organizational structures. A joke is that we are 'failed engineers' but many of us just got equally interested in UX, entrepreneurship, and business strategy as code. We end up not being the expert in any of these. But we are pretty well qualified to coordinate among them. I.e. our strength is we're generalists. It's a bit like the nervous system that coordinates the heart and lungs and other specialist organs.
I'm now in a part of the company (Area 120) dedicated to funding new projects and businesses. The shape of the talent needs are very much like an external startup. We're headcount limited to 3-5 per project, so we really need people who can design and code, develop sales pipelines and do product management, "full stack" engineers and so forth. These people are super valuable where I am, because they are generalists.
I think anywhere entrepreneurial will need many generalists. I believe think Amazon has this culture too.
This also why I can create a lot more value in a company like this than if I was an individual contractor. I see comments on HN sometimes along the lines of "companies must be underpaying you, because if the value of your labor wasn't greater than your pay, they wouldn't make any profit." This is correct in a very narrow sense but missing the hugely important piece that the value I can produce embedded in a large organization is much, much greater than I can as a singleton (because I'm a generalist). As a rough example, maybe as a contractor I can create $100/hour worth of value and for the sake of argument can capture nearly all of that. Because whatever discrete task I'm hired for I'm Ok but not world class at it. But in a company like Google, I am leveraging huge assets and connecting them. If I identify opportunities and coordinate execution between (for example) specialist orgs like Search and Maps, the value I can create is massive because of the size of the levers. It's nearly unbounded but could easily be worth 1000s of dollars an hour. So if they pay me $200, everyone wins. The pie is grown, by being an embedded generalist, and I'm still doing better off than I would independently (even if my employer captures a bunch of the value I produced – which is fair, since they also provided the levers).