The Generalist vs. Specialist

The greatest risk to pigeon-holing yourself

When I was younger, I wanted to be a specialist. I wanted to be the subject matter expert (SME) because it would show me how great my skills are and deep my knowledge bank was. I wanted to be the go-to person for thing X. I didn’t see a value in being a generalist, when you could be really good at one thing.

But now, I no longer long to be a specialist. I want to be a generalist instead. I see being a specialist with a lot of risk. When you put all your eggs in one basket, you really impose other restrictions upon yourself as well. Whether it be job security, knowledge translation, knowledge need, or overall pigeon-holing yourself, these are all risks that are only associated with being a specialist, not a generalist. The most important argument is – how do I even know whether the subject I chose is what I want to be a SME in? What if I invest all my time and effort into perfecting something, only to find out I hate it and I need to restart all over?

This is why now being a generalist appeals to me. It gives you the flexibility and gives you the ability to go how shallow or deep you want to learn in something. If you don’t think thing A then move on to thing B. You can have a shallow A and a deep B, etc. etc. etc.

Most importantly, while being a generalist in my opinion takes longer to achieve, and being a great generalist takes time to hone – again, it’s a marathon not a sprint. But the prize of this is well worth it. To me, there are much less risks associated with this path than to become a specialist, where the greatest risk is to pigeon-hole yourself.