No one achieves greatness by becoming a generalist. You don’t hone a skill by diluting your attention to its development. The only way to get to the next level is focus. - John C. Maxwell

I remember a piece of advice from a former school teacher of mine who said, “You need to acquire a broad general knowledge. That’s the way.” Good or bad, this take is still generally accepted as a smart attitude or view, at least today. After all, there are numerous books published extolling the virtues of a generalist. But I think that’s unfortunate advice that doesn’t do much good today…. Generally speaking, of course. 😉

The advice to “be a generalist” is, from my point of view, and I am speaking from personal experience, very closely related to “preserve optionality”. It also sounds quite smart and further has its reasonable and plausible parallels in life. Example: You wouldn’t invest all your pension assets in a single share, would you?

But, and now it’s already getting super important, keeping all your options open, be it by not standing by your specialization, or even by running away from the professional “lock-in” in a specialization, has diminishing returns. The consequence is usually missed opportunities. And this only because one wants to preserve optionality. Some of you may have memories from your early youth, when at least some of your colleagues never wanted to commit themselves to a partner, because something else might come along. Same story, different context.

Well… Now it might get a little awkward. Because being a “generalist” in a generic context doesn’t really mean anything. Yes, it could even be seen as a cop-out by people who think they are smart and flexible enough to do almost anything without much prior knowledge or experience. Often such thinking and behavior can be observed when it comes to anything that is highly regarded and associated with appropriate prestige in a community or broader society. If it is “fancy” enough, so to speak.

It is not uncommon for the profile of such people to be supplemented by an MBA or other diploma, which in certain circles is highly regarded (for now). They are looking for responsibility. Of course, what else. Roles they are interested in are somewhere in leadership, corporate strategy, HR, business development or digital transformation. Just about anything that somehow offers room for unfolding.

Because of their training, they tend to be set up in such a way that they don’t necessarily have specific qualifications. But they have received enough confirmation that they are smart in some relative way. They also know that they have a strong emotional intelligence. For instance, they are very empathetic, have deep understanding of their colleagues and their personal situations, and can contribute quickly and easily to big ideas and achievements. Doing simple things or getting their hands dirty is not. It would be a waste of their talents. Rather, they see themselves in the right place, where the big picture is at stake. Where the party really gets going.

I think I can say with a pretty good conscience, we all know people who fit or meet such a description. Maybe even yourself? It certainly did to me.

But just because I have now spoken rather critically and cynically about generalists, you should not think that I doubt their relevance and potential importance. I think we have all witnessed situations where exactly such people have made a decisive difference. Think, for example, of the early beginnings of a company. A mountain full of todos, few people with limited know-how and skills, but still having to do everything that can come up when you build a startup. As you can see, it is precisely in such a situation that it is absolutely crucial to have generalists who are broadly positioned, and can also deliver. Because without execution, nothing works. Especially in a startup. But such people can also be central in large companies. After all, someone has to bring together and maintain the various specializations in a large corporation.

In the first case, the generalist plays the janitor, or sometimes the firefighter (depending on the situation), doing all the unglamorous things that the CEO just can’t or won’t do himself. In the second case, the generalist is more functionally a kind of project manager who is part of the professional management class within the company that ensures that the business works. The former role is then more or less exactly what I did at the beginning when I started working with Alain Veuve (at TREA Ventures and its portfolio companies). Also some sort of project manager role. And to be honest, I actually liked doing it. Kind of. At least for a time. Until I suddenly realized that this just comes with diminishing returns. That is to say, while I pretty quickly saw into a lot of things that happen and need to be done in software startups, and also learned a lot of it hands-on (at least to a certain level), the added values for me personally became increasingly diminishing. But net positive: If I would leave the collaboration and instead of pursuing self-employment I would look for a job somewhere, I would most likely get a “generalist” role. Thins since I have a banking background, can do some corporate finance, have dealt more intensively with marketing, business development and sales, and above all can deliver and invest a lot of time when necessary. Then I can program a bit, even if only to a very limited extent, deal with data and have relatively good communication skills. Furthermore, I would claim that I have a pretty good understanding of people, see things in people that are partly not accessible to others and can therefore quickly navigate through the politics of a group. All these are somehow abilities that can be of general use and yet seem to be somehow specific. And they don’t come from anywhere, but have been built up (or need to be built up) and refined over time.

You may now be a little confused. After all, I’m talking about the golden age of generalists being over. And yet you may have noticed that I see potential in the acquisition of diverse skills. In a specific context. That’s because I differentiate a general knowledge and a general skillset. The latter can be used pragmatically and specifically, and helps in organizations where cross-functional issues are at hand and other people may not have the expertise. So judge your opportunities by your ability to make a difference with what you have, whatever that may be. And if all you have is work ethic and intelligence, take that until you can develop something additional.

If you take anything away from this blog, please focus on somehow developing your own specific capabilities to generate value. Because just being smart and working countless hours is not enough on its own. Assuming otherwise and assuming that people will just recognize your innate brilliance is usually a short road to disappointment. Especially when there is real, unglamorous work to be done.