3 ms·

In economic theory this is well known, and related to S-curves. First innovation (requires integration, which requires generalists/people spanning disciplines),

In economic theory this is well known, and related to S-curves. First innovation (requires integration, which requires generalists/people spanning disciplines), then specialization and price war / commoditization

ignoramous 6y ago
Interesting. So, as the s-curve begins to climb up and systems demand specialists, then, is it the case that they'd be paid more and hired at higher levels than generalists? Which is to say, specialists tend to get hired once stability is achieved but also tend to capture more value / status than the generalists that helped the system navigate the s-curve? Alternatively, are all senior hires at stable systems like FAANGs, specialists? Even if they're generalists, do they get valued less than them: May be hired at Staff level instead of Senior Staff or above?
- AstralStorm 6y ago
  Specialists need to be trained or train themselves. This is only really achieved by on the job training or very in depth courses. So ultimately, you would hire good generalists and get them trained on the job to specialize in the field. Nobody is born a specialist. Universities do produce some but it's research, not the same as development and deployment. And you need generalists as well as multiple field specialists to not get locked in a quibble over comma or a comfortable but overcomplicated and bad solution.
  - bumby 6y ago
    So in this context, do you think generalists are needed to set high level strategy and specialists needed to execute it? If so, would this imply that generalists would be a better fit for senior roles?
- mastazi 6y ago
  > but also tend to capture more value / status than the generalists that helped the system navigate the s-curve? Are you assuming that being a specialist in a mature market always makes you more money than being an early player? I don't think that's always the case, there are many stories in the news of early employees of Silicon Valley companies who are now multi-millionaires just because they were in early. E.g. one of them IIRC is the cook who was in charge of preparing meals for the early Google team.
- irjustin 6y ago
  Generally agreed, but you're looking at stable FAANGs. If you look at startups, for the most part, need lots of senior generalists who have a can-do attitude to 'just figure it out'. Ideally, those generalists get rewarded w/ stock (side stepping the trigger topic on purpose) because they joined close to the ground floor. Most startups don't need and/or can't afford specialists until around Series B. Again ideally, if you needed a specialist early, you've got one on the founding team. Many exceptions to the above statement, but it fits this topic's narrative.

ignoramous 6y ago

Interesting. So, as the s-curve begins to climb up and systems demand specialists, then, is it the case that they'd be paid more and hired at higher levels than generalists? Which is to say, specialists tend to get hired once stability is achieved but also tend to capture more value / status than the generalists that helped the system navigate the s-curve? Alternatively, are all senior hires at stable systems like FAANGs, specialists? Even if they're generalists, do they get valued less than them: May be hired at Staff level instead of Senior Staff or above?

AstralStorm 6y ago
Specialists need to be trained or train themselves. This is only really achieved by on the job training or very in depth courses. So ultimately, you would hire good generalists and get them trained on the job to specialize in the field. Nobody is born a specialist. Universities do produce some but it's research, not the same as development and deployment. And you need generalists as well as multiple field specialists to not get locked in a quibble over comma or a comfortable but overcomplicated and bad solution.
- bumby 6y ago
  So in this context, do you think generalists are needed to set high level strategy and specialists needed to execute it? If so, would this imply that generalists would be a better fit for senior roles?
mastazi 6y ago
> but also tend to capture more value / status than the generalists that helped the system navigate the s-curve? Are you assuming that being a specialist in a mature market always makes you more money than being an early player? I don't think that's always the case, there are many stories in the news of early employees of Silicon Valley companies who are now multi-millionaires just because they were in early. E.g. one of them IIRC is the cook who was in charge of preparing meals for the early Google team.
irjustin 6y ago
Generally agreed, but you're looking at stable FAANGs. If you look at startups, for the most part, need lots of senior generalists who have a can-do attitude to 'just figure it out'. Ideally, those generalists get rewarded w/ stock (side stepping the trigger topic on purpose) because they joined close to the ground floor. Most startups don't need and/or can't afford specialists until around Series B. Again ideally, if you needed a specialist early, you've got one on the founding team. Many exceptions to the above statement, but it fits this topic's narrative.