3 ms·
Disclaimer: I would categorize myself as a generalist so I might be biased here > Unfortunately, this change often means generalists lose jobs in favor of spec
by hobofan 9y ago
Disclaimer: I would categorize myself as a generalist so I might be biased here
> Unfortunately, this change often means generalists lose jobs in favor of specialists as a company grows
> And this is not inherently a bad thing for the company
Yes, it is not _inherently_ a bad thing, but I would say that it is _generally_ a bad thing. Sure, if you are raising a Series C and everything is about optimizing the hell out of your product, there might not be a place for generalists.
However, I would claim that if you throw out generalists, you throw out some of the core/most valuable people who could help the company establish new products and help you grow into a multi-product company (diversifying your portfolio is generally a good thing). If the company is only left with specialists it will slowly transform into another one of those industry giants that struggle with innovation.
- JepZ 9y agoI am not sure if it as bad as described here. Yes, over time the relative part of generalists in a company shrinks. But it does not necessarily mean, that generalists loose their jobs, just because some specialist knocked at the door. I think it is more like an organical transition where newly hired personnel are more likely to be specialists. And that is totally okay, because when you start a company there are about 0% specialists onboard ;-)
- SomeStupidPoint 9y agoLate reply, but I think there's a second harm to throwing out generalists in addition to what you outline: Specialists aren't as good as generalists at integrating the work of specialists across domains (almost by definition). A lack of generalists can then lead to a situation where specialists are all making locally good moves, but the overall direction is negative -- something akin to Simpson's paradox (though, in the other direction).