3 ms·

>"Adding people doesn’t mean there’s less work for the people that are already there. It means that the entire company can do more." I wish the article expande

>"Adding people doesn’t mean there’s less work for the people that are already there. It means that the entire company can do more." I wish the article expanded further on this in the section on firing beyond the mantra of "fire fast." Taking the infamous Netflix presentation as an example, there may be plenty of other jobs that need to be done at the company, but the reality is the generalist wearing multiple may need to be swapped for a specialist wearing one or two. So there may not be any other jobs for that generalist, and it isn't necessarily a critique of their performance. While the article touches briefly on this, it doesn't seem to follow through and connect it with the examples of questions/concerns people voice during phases of growth and team changes. Unfortunately, unless it is deeply ingrained in the culture, it is often not a great approach as a manager to tell a team "well, your concerns are justified and we'll be evaluating whether there's still opportunities that are a good fit for you here." But that is ultimately the candid answer I think a lot of employees might be looking for in response to the sorts of questions the article gives as examples.

hobs 11y ago
As a generalist, my company has got around this issue by having me bushwack new stuff while the specialists come and take over doing all the things I was doing (but better.) I imagine at some point I will no longer be useful and I can leave the company entirely doing some occasional consulting for them. As a generalist, I welcome this day and look forward to another place to whip into shape.
x5n1 11y ago
Your reasons are exactly why I would not get into an early stage startup as a generalist without a lot of equity. Too many "rationalist" managers out there that think the way you suggest. Despite the fact the generalist provided a valuable service, you don't need them any more, fire away.
pbreit 11y ago
It's hard for me to believe that you can't find roles in a growing company for a generalist. My experience has certainly been different.
- eru 11y ago
  Especially since you will be a specialist in the company's chosen technology and processes.
- jMyles 11y ago
  The generalist / specialist dichotomy is toxic on its face.
- marcosdumay 11y ago
  Oh, you can't. That's not because there's no task for a generalist to do, but because the company gets organized in feuds, and any empathy with a different feud (or much worse, doing their job) will mark you as a betrayer to some group.
greggman 11y ago
Is finding people really so easy that you can let a great generalist go so you can afford an specialist? I ask because it's come up before in other contexts that money isn't enough. If someone says here's $26 million, start 4 projects that should supposedly take 2 years each and have them done on time! Assume each of those projects takes 25 people. Somehow you need to find 100 people all on day 1 to meet your deadline. Few companies can find 100 good people quickly. Can you find 1 a day? Well then 5 months until you're fully staffed. 1 a week? It will be 4 years until you have the people. Maybe it works for Netflix but most companies struggle to find people to hire.
- shostack 11y ago
  Just to be clear, I'm not necessarily saying I agree with the approach. I think it might work for Netflix and other companies in certain circumstances. But like all leadership advice, every circumstance is unique to some degree and needs to be handled accordingly. That said, I personally think there is a lot of value in certain types of generalists, but not all (or rather, not in all cases). You see, when a company is very young, they may not have the best and brightest, but rather the people that were willing to shoulder a ton of risk, burn the midnight oil, etc. They may have been lucky to get both, but optimizing for one is not a guarantee of getting the other. So you get to a point where you can afford to hire more experienced individuals, and suddenly you might be faced with the ability to replace your current generalist with a much more experienced generalist, or a generalist that is T-shaped in their skill set. I used to think I was T-shaped (wide range of skills, very deep in one), and then I started becoming more M-shaped because I've gone very deep down multiple paths in my career. That was when I realized the sum of the parts is greater than the whole, and it enabled me to work exceptionally well in cross-functional technical environments. Specifically in my case, I started out in the marketing/advertising world, then went deep in analytics, and have gotten progressively more technical over the course of my career in terms of coding. Turns out that happens to be a valuable generalist combination. But even certain combinations may not be right for a company that wants someone who specialized in X for their entire career, and I respect that. Ultimately, experienced, high-performing generalists will have a relatively easy time finding jobs either elsewhere, or within their current company as it grows. Often times that turns into leadership roles. When it doesn't is when I could see you running into more issues with finding something new to do at the current company if they have fewer generalist individual contributor roles.
dasil003 11y ago
I think there will always be casualties where individuals get left behind in fast growing companies, but I don't think generalist vs specialist is the biggest problem. First of all, because it's extremely reductive. People have different skillsets and potentials across multiple axes. The generalist vs specialist distinction tries to make this binary when it's not even a single continuum. Yes, in practice companies will need more specialists, but the thing about a generalist is they do lots of things, so there's always something else for them to pick up on and dive deeper on. By the end of their tenure they may even find themselves in the specialist bucket! But in any case, this transition doesn't happen overnight anyway. You will always need people to explore new areas, and you will never be able to find the perfect candidate for every role you dream up. In practice you want to hire great people whenever you can get them and help them find their own role.

hobs 11y ago

As a generalist, my company has got around this issue by having me bushwack new stuff while the specialists come and take over doing all the things I was doing (but better.) I imagine at some point I will no longer be useful and I can leave the company entirely doing some occasional consulting for them. As a generalist, I welcome this day and look forward to another place to whip into shape.

x5n1 11y ago

Your reasons are exactly why I would not get into an early stage startup as a generalist without a lot of equity. Too many "rationalist" managers out there that think the way you suggest. Despite the fact the generalist provided a valuable service, you don't need them any more, fire away.

pbreit 11y ago

It's hard for me to believe that you can't find roles in a growing company for a generalist. My experience has certainly been different.

eru 11y ago
Especially since you will be a specialist in the company's chosen technology and processes.
jMyles 11y ago
The generalist / specialist dichotomy is toxic on its face.
marcosdumay 11y ago
Oh, you can't. That's not because there's no task for a generalist to do, but because the company gets organized in feuds, and any empathy with a different feud (or much worse, doing their job) will mark you as a betrayer to some group.

greggman 11y ago

Is finding people really so easy that you can let a great generalist go so you can afford an specialist? I ask because it's come up before in other contexts that money isn't enough. If someone says here's $26 million, start 4 projects that should supposedly take 2 years each and have them done on time! Assume each of those projects takes 25 people. Somehow you need to find 100 people all on day 1 to meet your deadline. Few companies can find 100 good people quickly. Can you find 1 a day? Well then 5 months until you're fully staffed. 1 a week? It will be 4 years until you have the people. Maybe it works for Netflix but most companies struggle to find people to hire.

shostack 11y ago
Just to be clear, I'm not necessarily saying I agree with the approach. I think it might work for Netflix and other companies in certain circumstances. But like all leadership advice, every circumstance is unique to some degree and needs to be handled accordingly. That said, I personally think there is a lot of value in certain types of generalists, but not all (or rather, not in all cases). You see, when a company is very young, they may not have the best and brightest, but rather the people that were willing to shoulder a ton of risk, burn the midnight oil, etc. They may have been lucky to get both, but optimizing for one is not a guarantee of getting the other. So you get to a point where you can afford to hire more experienced individuals, and suddenly you might be faced with the ability to replace your current generalist with a much more experienced generalist, or a generalist that is T-shaped in their skill set. I used to think I was T-shaped (wide range of skills, very deep in one), and then I started becoming more M-shaped because I've gone very deep down multiple paths in my career. That was when I realized the sum of the parts is greater than the whole, and it enabled me to work exceptionally well in cross-functional technical environments. Specifically in my case, I started out in the marketing/advertising world, then went deep in analytics, and have gotten progressively more technical over the course of my career in terms of coding. Turns out that happens to be a valuable generalist combination. But even certain combinations may not be right for a company that wants someone who specialized in X for their entire career, and I respect that. Ultimately, experienced, high-performing generalists will have a relatively easy time finding jobs either elsewhere, or within their current company as it grows. Often times that turns into leadership roles. When it doesn't is when I could see you running into more issues with finding something new to do at the current company if they have fewer generalist individual contributor roles.

dasil003 11y ago

I think there will always be casualties where individuals get left behind in fast growing companies, but I don't think generalist vs specialist is the biggest problem. First of all, because it's extremely reductive. People have different skillsets and potentials across multiple axes. The generalist vs specialist distinction tries to make this binary when it's not even a single continuum. Yes, in practice companies will need more specialists, but the thing about a generalist is they do lots of things, so there's always something else for them to pick up on and dive deeper on. By the end of their tenure they may even find themselves in the specialist bucket! But in any case, this transition doesn't happen overnight anyway. You will always need people to explore new areas, and you will never be able to find the perfect candidate for every role you dream up. In practice you want to hire great people whenever you can get them and help them find their own role.