Building The Kingdom: Generalists and Specialists
We’ve been discussing the mini-series of “Building the Kingdom”, which has been a very insightful time for us to hear from one another on what it takes to build something that is strong, influential and significant. Notice I don’t say successful, which has personal and financial nuances, but rather I say significant, which instead speaks of legacy and making a difference to others.
Today I want to discuss something that came from our church leadership team, and is something that we have been thinking about and working out over the last 9 months.
A Leadership Dilemma
Despite having pioneered a number of successes over the last 7 years that I have been self employed, 6 months ago I found myself again in an all too familiar situation: I hadn’t built team, evidenced by these core symptoms:
- I was doing a lot of the final production work that was being delivered in my areas of responsibility
- I kept attracting people to myself who weren’t team builders themselves
- I wasn’t regularly adding people into my teams
- I wasn’t getting past the issues of scaling my areas, due to a lack of team
- I was the bottleneck for at least 70% of the tasks being done in my areas of responsibility
The diagnosis? I was a perfectionist. Or rather, I was a specialist.
Specialists
If it’s focussing on one particular task or element that you often find yourself doing, tinkering over one cog in a machine almost obsessively, then you may well be a specialist.
Specialists are those who have a perfectionist, often creative, streak and tend to over focus on something in order to master it. They can multi-task, but they find it hard to have too many priorities in general in their life at a time, and often when a few interest or ‘fad’ is found, the old interests are cast aside.
As a result of their ability to focus deeply on one thing, they can produce at a high level of excellence in their interest. This is why I find most academics, creatives, athletes, geniuses and such are specialists.
Generalists
If it is organising multiple parts of a project, having an instinctive ability to put people to task, and bringing an idea to fruition, then you’re likely to be a generalist.
I think most people who are ‘born leaders’, and tend to be the typical number 1, are generalists because they see the bigger picture. If the specialist is obsessing over the function of a single cog, it is the generalist is overseeing the production of the machine – or rather it’s ability to produce.
Generalists tend to think with the end picture and with result, whereas specialists (myself) are more motivated by things being done right and in their perfect order.
Putting Them Together
For team building you need both generalist and specialists, and they need each other to achieve significance. As it’s said, one is too small a number to achieve significance:
- A generalist, the natural team builder, needs the specialists to perform the expert and intricate tasks, in order to achieve an end result
- A specialist needs the generalist to focus their work and link it together with other specialists, in order to achieve an end result
Nature and Nurture
The big question then, coming back to where I found myself 6 months ago, is can you be a specialist and become a genrealist, and vice versas?
Having discussed this concept with our church leadership team 6 months ago, I gained the self-insight that I am a specialist by nature. Every since I was a kid, I’ve had a fascination with order and doing things right, and focussed obsessively on my creative endeavors to make them the best that I could.
However the dilemma was facing me: I wasn’t building team. Through gaining the self-insight into myself, I was able to deduce two things:
- I have influence with people because I have focus, expertise and a good track record
- I can learn anything that I decide to specialise in by obsessing over it
Therefore, I decided that I could turn my obsession onto becoming a team builder, and expand my influence into building my team.
The result? I’d like to discuss that later, actually. What I’d like to discuss now though, is what I’d like your leading thoughts on.
Your Leading Thoughts
- Are you a generalist or a specialist? Why? What’s the evidence for either?
- Can you learn one or the other?
- Are their General Specialists and Special Generalist? If so, what the two axis in this 2×2?
I'm a generalist. No, wait, I have a lot of specialist knowledge. So I'm a specialist then?
I think we need to be careful about putting people in boxes: I see it more as a graph where a more specialist person can have less elements of generalism and vice versa. everyone is somewhere on that line (and everyone has their own line depending on their innate predilection)
you can change your approach to things. I know one project manager – a generalist role – (@kev_bo) who switched to becoming an architect for one project – a specialist role – and then switched seamlessly back again into herding the cats in his other projects.
Thinking about it, I am a generalist: I always aspired to be a polymath. Not that I'll ever manage to become one, but it won't stop me trying
Excellent point, Martin. Labelling people risks stereotypical inferences that can disempower them.
Both skills sets are useful – specialist and generalist.
Practical steps moving forward:
a) understand the key behavioural differences between the two;
b) understand your relative strengths and weaknesses;
c) know how to improve your area of weakness – as and when necessary.
It's just too easy to 'generalize' that “I'm a _____” and then use it as an excuse for certain skill gaps.
Thoughts?
Robin
By virtue of connection, the hand is directed by the arm, which in
turn directs the little finger. Thereby, the finger performs one of the
functions of the hand.
The real question here is one of management.
Who directs whom, and is the little finger as important as the arm?
Robin and Martin – it's interesting to see the way that you see this. I found this 'revelation' quite liberating.
Certainly, your comments both mark that you can be one but function as the other – something like that anyway.
Will talk more about it next week!
Hey Robin
As said above, interesting to get your feedback – your three points are very good, and as I tell my story, I'll illustrate how they must NOT be an excuse, but rather an aid to help you focus.
Will get round to this next week when my head is out of Like MInds admin!
Scott
Hmm – deep thoughts. I will mull over and get back to you next week when I am back from Helsinki
Scott, the issues that you raise resonate with me, but I believe that you need to go further than a division of generalist and specialist in order to be able to act meaningfully on what you see happening.
I've used the approach outlined in Tom Rath's book 'Strengths-based Leadership” with a number of teams in both business and Church settings and it has been helpful.
The ideas behind the approach are that:
- High performance comes from playing to our strengths, not our weaknesses
- We don't need to be well-rounded as individuals and don't need to be good at everything
- A team does need to be well-rounded and should have the necessary strengths somewhere in the team
Rath identifies 34 types of strengths, but then categorises people's strengths into four categories:
- Executing – those who make things happen
- Influencing – those who help the team reach a broader audience
- Relationship Building – the glue that holds a team together
- Strategic Thinking – keeping the team focused on what could be
Taking this approach, I've seen loads of different ways in which teams can be sub-optimal:
- If you're missing one of the groups of strengths, you end up with an 'wonky' team and I've seen teams that are heavily weighted towards Strategy or Executing and end up spending all their time strategising or being really busy doing the wrong things.
- Often teams can be polarised and one part get frustrated with other parts of the team until they appreciate what the others bring.
- I've seen a lot of cases where the team leader isn't the one who is strong at relationship building and so doesn't always see the need to build the team. In this case, I've seen good results in using a different team member to drive the building of the team although this has been much easier in Church teams where the concept of servant leadership is easier to understand (hopefully!).
Mapping this onto your original post, I'd see Specialists as people strong in Executing, and the Generalists as people strong in Strategic Thinking, Relationship Building, and Influencing.
As others in this comment section have pointed out, labels are dangerous but your blog makes a pretty key point.
It's difficult to walk the line between giving people clear concise, actionable instructions & giving them the freedom and creativity to deliver.
Being a complete and utter scatterbrain, I NEED specialists around me. I am painfully generalist, in the sense that I'm quite good at a lot of things, brilliant at very few (other than being good at a lot of things). That in itself does give a unique perspective, once you get past the whole identity crisis. The generalist is more likely to spot gaps in a market, plan or business because they see more of the big picture.
Leadership is about inspiring & empowering. Management is about deadlines & deliverables. Business is flooded with managers who got promoted into leadership without learning the difference.
Mastery is not about how good you are. It's about how many masters you make. By teaching and giving value you create depth of relationship, trust & unleash the potential within teams. Leadership in my humble view is the ability to point at the goal, lay out the actions needed to get there & putting the trust in the team to deliver.
Brilliant post Scott.
I like your distinction between significance and successful.
Seth Godin distinguishes between entrepreneur and free-lancer, which is similar to the generalist and specialist idea — orchestrating the whole vs. mastery of the parts.
Hey Ian
You're right – there is more to be said here. I will have to check out Tom Rath's book. The summary you give to your other points is a fair summary – executing and then strategic thinking.
When I'm back, we'll catch up!
Scott
Hey Sy
You describe the generalist and specialist situation very well with your personal example. This is the upper level way I see it. Sure, there's more to refine, but at the top level, you experience completely describes it.
I am the person who naturally manages detail, but has to become the overall manager too.
We'll discuss this more
Scott
Thanks J.D, really appreciate it
Which do you think you are, generalist or specialist?
Scott
Every kite needs a rock. Every finger movement controlled by the hand and the arm actually needs a brain sending the message to limbs and digits. (Referring to the comment left by Catherine.)
I find that “what I am” is fluid, organic and changes from day to day. Depending upon the needs of the project that I undertake, I can be a specialist or generalist. It's when I refuse to adapt to meet the needs of the challenges facing me that I get stuck.
I've always taken pride in the fact that I can manage the little details if needed and I also can oversee the big picture team. I have no problem moving from logistics and details (specialists) to big picture strategy that generalists often use. If I'm passionate about the topic, I may become a specialist and then I'll step back to become a generalist and invite others to form a team that can become specialists too.
I prefer to see myself as a facilitator. A facilitator of experiences, connections, relationships, learning, education, life.
I certainly see Jeff, like you say, that we can go from one to another. I'm still thinking this through. I get the feeling that there are both macro and micro lens' here.
For me, if someone is naturally a detail person (like I am), but can become a generalist, I wonder if in actual fact I use my specialist thinking to become a generalist…..
… I will explore!
I am a generalist, without question. I've been described by others as “a finance guy”, “a salesperson”, and “an engineer.” But if you ask me to describe myself in similar fashion? I'm usually stymied.
Coming out of the military I had a spate of single-contributor specialist roles in various companies. I'm quite the Excel and Powerpoint jockey, but I've literally gotten myself into hot-water with an insatiable need to understand the big picture. I don't do well with my head down performing a task. I get distracted. I feel cloistered.
I think anyone cal learn leadership, and so I think that anyone can perform as either Specialist or Generalist. However, I suspect people become happier when they find a role that suits their more native inclinations.
Hey Mate
Your example is a common one – many people have had a similar experience. I totally agree that people can learn one or the other – but I do think there is a nature element here – in that you are inclined more towards one or the other.
Still figuring it out!