Specialist or Generalist?

CM colleague Matthew Milan pointed me to this visual from Xplane's Dave Gray.  It's a thought starter, that's for sure.  The visual defines Generalists as being best at defining the problem or goal.  Specialists are best at solving the problem or "executing the plan".  There's probably a lot of truth to the stake that this visual puts in the ground.  It certainly simplifies the differences between Specialist and Generalists.

One problem.

My view on creativity is that it's problem solving at the core.  Innovation, design, communications, invention, all disciplines that depend on both the Generalist and Specialist mindsets working in concert to solve the problem.  On the flip side—Specialists can also be quite good at defining the problem, especially if it falls within their area of expertise.  Do you consider yourself to be a social media expert?  Maybe your knowledge is more specialized than you think.

I think the reality lies somewhere in this:  Generalists can excel at both defining and solving problems but may require the assistance of specialists as they go deeper into execution.  Specialists can excel in defining the problem especially when it falls within their area of expertise.  Are we saying the same thing?  I think the difference is stressing that both can actually function in the other's "role" depending on the individual and context.  And I definitely would expand effectiveness of Generalists in solving problems as opposed to just the definition of them.

Maybe it's the title if the visual.  Change the "or" to "and" and you can look at this from another perspective.

Comments

[Cam Beck]

Any simplification of an issue has its problems. You raised the right questions here. Good post.

[Graham Hill]

David

The question is perhaps more difficult than you think.

The 'Specialist vs Generalist' question not only applies to individuals, but also to project groups with their well-known dynamics (think of the Manhatten Project or the Human Genome Project) and with modern social networking tools, to problem-solving social networks too (think of Eli Lilly's Innocentive or P&G's Connect & Develop).

The question is a very good one. It deserves a very good answer too. Over to your other readers!

Graham Hill
Independent CRM Consultant
Interim CRM Manager

[Jason Falls]

I agree with Cam's original thought. Generalization (of generalists ... odd) is inherent with problems. I've seen several times when the "big picture" folks around the table have been able to identify the problem much quicker than the specialists because they not only see the individual areas, but the connections between. Sometimes the view from 30,000-feet is a better place to start.

[gianandrea facchini]

David, what if we should state that a generalist can be much more strategic while a specialist can be more tactic?
In my experience, generalists have the capability to view a problem from a broader perspective.

[Christine Martell]

I have been thinking a lot about this graphic since I saw it on Dave Gray's site also. I like your idea to add an AND. Just thinking about myself, I know I am a generalist and bring big picture perspective to an engagement. Inside of that tendency, I also have some deep specialist areas.

When entering a problem, especially a group, perhaps it is most helpful to be aware of this range of possibilities and act with consciousness of what voice we are speaking from. As you have noted, we can swing between generalist and specialist in a heartbeat.

[Ike]

Generalist = family doctor
Specialist = surgeon

Think about it - how many of you go to a surgeon to diagnose a pain?

Creativity is needed at all scales. Specialists use it to "break the rules" and bend the norms to find a spiffy solution. Generalists use creativity to find the right analogy to communicate to "the patient", or even a broader audience.

[bender]

I love this graphic...weird, because I was talking to another CD at my agency about this just this morning.

The mistake would be to think of this as a definitive "label".

My take is, as a person, you're not one or the other.

However, in context against a singular problem, you probably fall into one camp versus the other.

This thing feels like it could be really useful as I come up against a problem...it's going to make me ask "Am I trying to define or solve this problem?", and let the answer determine whether I mine my generalist side or specialist side.

Great graphic.

[Dave Gray]

Hi everyone,

I am the creator of the visual and would like to say this: the primary value of a picture such as this is that it gives people something to react to.

I don't make the claim to it being any kind of definitive truth, but "stake in the ground" is I think a good description.

To my surprise it has generated a lot of discussion and feedback that has generated more thoughts for me.

I think of this kind of thing as an iterative process -- a visualization that becomes a living, evolving thing that reflects an ongoing conversation.

Cheers,

Dave

[DA]

Cam, glad you found value in the questions I proposed.

Graham, I think you're correct—this is a complex topic and there ended up being some good comments on this already. It's worth discussion because we all relate to this in some way.

Gianandrea, I think what you said was pretty much what I stated. And Generalists do tend to be effective at big picture thinking—but Christine says it best:

"When entering a problem, especially a group, perhaps it is most helpful to be aware of this range of possibilities and act with consciousness of what voice we are speaking from. As you have noted, we can swing between generalist and specialist in a heartbeat."

Ike, your general practitioner is an interesting metaphor. Is there such thing as a Family Doctor who can also operate on your heart?

Bender "My take is, as a person, you're not one or the other." well said. Maybe this doesn't apply to all of us, but certainly some.

Dave, thanks for coming here and throwing in your 2 cents. I know exactly how you feel as I throw up visuals here all the time and see how the community "reacts". And like I've done with this visuals, mine often get picked up outside of the blog so I get external perspectives too.

Your visual served it's purpose. It got us talking. Thanks for creating it.

[Dwayne Connolly]

I’m wondering how relevant being a generalist or specialist is to creative thinking and defining goals. Both can utilize an integrative thought process, which is one of the keys to problem solving. If someone were a specialist and an integrative thinker, wouldn’t their conflicting ideas eliminate bias?

[John Dodds]

Generalism does not connote lack of depth of understanding nor indeed specialism. The definitions in the diagram are created to make the point that is being posited rather than the other way round.

[Christopher Fahey]

I question the need to divide people into these binary categories. Sure some people tend to be one or the other, but others try to carve out a niche in which they can be both at the same time. Part of the creative process is to think both ways simultaneously -- to alternate between the big picture and the devil-in-the-details. And I mean alternating *frequently*, minute to minute.

Making this separation implies that professionals should choose one or the other as a career path. Perhaps we should simply be conscious of the fact that most of our colleagues tend one way or the other, but we should try to develop both strengths together and avoid going only one way or the other.

[Christopher Fahey]

In other words, I agree with your disagreement with Gray's diagram. :-)

[DA]

LOL!

Thanks for that last comment Christopher. For a moment I thought I might need to do a visual to explain your previous. (kidding of course) ;-)

[David Dalka]

I'd very much agree, too many companies hire specialists who are not looking at the whole picture when executing. The keyword driven hiring scene which is highly damaging to companies has replaced the art of determining expertise and competencies.

[Dave Gray]

People reading this might be interested in some other posts related to the discussion by Brian Frank:
http://thecreativegeneralist.blogspot.com/2007/08/generalism-part-1-generalist-or.html

and Eugene Eric Kim:
http://www.eekim.com/blog/2007/08/20/generalistvsspecialist

There are also some interesting comments on the original Flickr page:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/davegray/1183652252/in/photostream/

[Steve]

Great visual and some really sharp comments here. For those of you interested in this subject, you may wish to check out the "eclectic curiosity" interview series, blog posts, and ChangeThis manifesto ("How Broad Thinking Leads to Big Ideas") at Creative Generalist. Cheers!

http://creativegeneralist.blogspot.com/2007/08/specialists-and-generalists-in-3d.html

[Claudio Vinicio Cotto Arechavala]

Hello everybody,

I'm surprised not just for the blog and the issue, but that after two months from the last comment (Steve, wednesday, august 29), I can still blog with you. Really hope you'll read this.

About the issue, well... the last time I heard of it was back then in 1996 at an ICSID in Toronto. I'm surpirised it's still an issue or at least that it hasn't evolved somehow (excuse my writing as this is not my native language).

As some of the comments stand, both generality and specialist are oneself's parts, but I think is not just a matter of learning when to become one or the other. It also comes related to the knowledge area in wich every one is inmersed as well as the way of design thinking.

I as an Industrial & Graphic Designer have become as we say around here: "An everything apprentice and a nothing maestro" wich means that designers are teach to be generalists by nature. It can be understand otherwise as needed to be generalist in order to visualize the whole picture.

But when it comes to really understand why anythig is what it is, then we become on time sepcialist on the particular experience area we happen to land or to choose if you're luky enough. This because with out the specialization you won't be able to make things work.

This is prety hard to get sometimes as our minds try to fly around instead to focus in just one thing. There are some who just can't understand methods. You even need the right language to get no-designers (should I say no-creatives), to understand you as well as for you to understand them, so you can get things going on.

The trick I believe is that you have to learn how to migrate your "doing" to other areas you might face. Or bring it along with you every time you jump to the next level so you won't start from zero.

Cheers Dave and David, Congratulations!

[ASHLEY]

Bums on seats

[PRECIOUS]

Bling-bling