Comments on: Building The Kingdom: Generalists and Specialists

By: Scott Gould

Scott Gould — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 02:54:17 +0000

Hey MateYour 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!

By: NC Smith

NC Smith — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 20:21:15 +0000

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.

By: Scott Gould

Scott Gould — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 18:27:27 +0000

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!

By: JeffHurt

JeffHurt — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 21:40:36 +0000

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.

By: Scott Gould

Scott Gould — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 02:33:29 +0000

Thanks J.D, really appreciate it Which do you think you are, generalist or specialist?Scott

By: Scott Gould

Scott Gould — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 02:32:54 +0000

Hey SyYou 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

By: Scott Gould

Scott Gould — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 02:22:23 +0000

Hey IanYou'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

By: J.D. Meier

J.D. Meier — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 21:50:20 +0000

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.

By: sytaylor

sytaylor — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 14:22:37 +0000

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.

By: Ian Pettigrew

Ian Pettigrew — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 13:55:09 +0000

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 teamRath 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 beTaking 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.