To Specialise or Generalise, That is The Question
By the time most of us reach mid-career, we’ve heard it all. “Pick a lane.” “Master your craft.” “Become the go-to expert.” The mantra of specialisation — get deep, stay narrow — has long dominated career advice. It’s a compelling narrative: commit to a niche, invest your 10,000 hours, and one day you’ll be recognised as an authority, handsomely rewarded for your rarefied skill set.
But that story, while not wrong, is no longer the only one. In a world where disruption is the norm and agility is the ultimate asset, a different (once-maligned) archetype is now having its day in the sun, that of the generalist. These are the multi-hyphenate workers who roam freely across disciplines, adapting to change not by digging deeper but by zooming out.
So which is it — should you specialise or generalise? The most honest answer, as research increasingly shows, is: it depends.
When Do Generalists Win?
In a landmark study published in Administrative Science Quarterly, Florenta Teodoridis, Michael Bikard and Keyvan Vakili studied more than 4,000 mathematicians across two decades to test this very question. Their findings were nuanced but powerful. When the pace of change was slow, generalists outperformed. When it was fast, specialists surged ahead [1].
The researchers used the collapse of the Soviet Union as a natural experiment. Theoretical fields like integral equations saw a sudden flood of new ideas as Soviet research became accessible to Western scholars. In these rapidly evolving domains, specialists thrived, publishing 83% more citation-weighted papers than generalists in the following decade. Conversely, in slower-moving fields like algebra and geometry, generalists outshone their specialist peers — demonstrating a 22% productivity advantage over time [2].
The takeaway? Context is king. When knowledge is stable and innovation stems from unexpected combinations — like Ford drawing inspiration from meatpacking plants — generalists connect the dots best. But when fields evolve rapidly, as in artificial intelligence or gene editing, deep technical fluency becomes essential.
This mirrors a broader truth in today’s economy: both paths hold value. The trick lies in knowing when, where, and how to walk each.
The Need for Adaptability
Writing in Forbes, Paul Genberg, a self-described “hub of the wheel” who has done everything from ski professionally to launching cookware lines and now leads Studio X, says generalism has been a career superpower. “All knowledge builds on itself,” he says. “And the generalist takes his suitcase packed full of wide-ranging experience with him wherever he goes” [3].
His point is echoed in the rise of multihyphenates — those whose business cards don’t say one title, but three: “strategist-slash-marketer-slash-poet.” This isn’t a phase. It’s a function of a labour market that rewards adaptability over loyalty and problem-solving over pedigree.
Nicole Smartt Serres captures this shift well. “We’ve given specialising too much credit,” she argues. “In fact, it might not even be the best way.” She references David Epstein’s book Range, which Bill Gates listed among his favourite reads, for its defence of broad experience, interdisciplinary thinking and delayed specialisation [4].
That book’s core message is that generalists are better suited to solve complex, novel problems because they can borrow tools from multiple mental toolkits.
This broader worldview isn’t just theory but policy. Major employers like Google, IBM and Salesforce are de-emphasising traditional degrees in favour of shorter, skills-based certifications. These companies are betting that agility matters more than academic depth in a rapidly evolving world. As Kumar Abhishek, VP of S&P Global, notes, “certification pays off faster in the marketplace and is less time-consuming” but the broader, transferable skills of a generalist create long-term resilience [5].
Hybrid Thinkers
Yet it would be a mistake to declare specialisation obsolete. In fast-moving technical environments, deep expertise is a prerequisite. Rajeev Shroff, an ICF Master Coach and former network engineer turned venture consultant, argues that today’s innovation economy demands a blend: specialists with “fair expertise in two or three disciplines” [6].
In his view, this hybrid profile — neither pure generalist nor single-lane specialist — is the future. These individuals offer enough depth to make decisions and enough breadth to spot connections, a balance that prepares them for senior leadership and cross-functional impact.
This middle ground is increasingly vital in global innovation centres, where agility and domain knowledge must coexist. And it’s not just practical but strategic. In her TED Talk on “multipotentialites” writer and artist Emilie Wapnick puts it best: “Innovation happens at the intersections.” Generalists don’t just adapt; they synthesise. They turn ambiguity into opportunity. And when paired with specialists, they drive real breakthroughs [7].
Still, context matters. In technical fields where precision is paramount nobody wants a jack-of-all-trades. Specialisation remains a cornerstone of excellence. But the golden cage of expertise, as Genberg puts it, can also be limiting. “We tell our kids, ‘Find what you’re good at and stick to it,’” he writes. “But what if that industry goes away? What if you realise 10 years later that you hate what you do?” [8]
The ability to pivot, then, becomes essential. Mid-career switches are no longer taboo. Nearly half of surveyed workers have made dramatic career changes, from marketing to engineering, from teaching to finance. Of those, 88% reported feeling happier after the shift [9].
What makes these transitions possible? Generalist traits: transferable skills, strong communication, a willingness to learn.
Who Leads?
This makes generalists particularly well-suited to leadership roles. An HBR study found that 90% of the 17,000 CEOs they analysed had general management experience [10]. Specialists may rise quickly within functions, but the corner office often goes to those who can zoom out, make lateral moves and unify diverse teams. As one executive put it, “CEOs are required to make lateral, unconventional and even risky career moves.”
And yet, the C-suite still makes room for specialists, just not at the top. Chief legal, technology, or finance officers tend to be domain experts. The difference is one of scope: specialists optimise, generalists orchestrate. It’s not a question of superiority but of complementarity.
In fact, the most resilient teams blend both. Specialists deliver depth, accuracy and continuity. Generalists offer agility, vision and synthesis. As Shroff notes, leaders should aim to build teams that include both kinds of minds, as well as some in between. “To create maximum resilience in their teams,” he writes, “global leaders need to find the right mix of specialists with deep expertise in just one topic, specialists with fair expertise in two or three areas and a few generalists” [11].
Start Narrow, Grow Wide
This shift isn’t just organisational. It matters for individuals too. If you’re early in your career, focus matters. As Dr Eric George puts it in Forbes: “Specialisation gives you a professional foothold.” It provides earnings, opportunities and credibility [12].
His own path — first a hand surgeon, then CEO of a hospital, and eventually a successful entrepreneur — traces an hourglass arc: broad beginnings, a period of deep focus, followed by expansive growth. “Specialisation taught me to run a surgical hospital effectively and efficiently,” he writes. “Which proved vital later.”
This hourglass metaphor offers perhaps the best career guidance of all. Start broad. Focus deeply. Then broaden again. Generalisation without skill is shallow. Specialisation without adaptability is brittle. But together, they form a career that is both rooted and resilient.
For organisations, the implications are clear: hire for potential, not just pedigree. Nurture specialists, but cross-train them. Reward depth, but value range. In a knowledge economy, the strongest teams are not those stacked with polymaths or packed with narrow experts. They are the ones that know when to call on which.
For individuals, the message is subtler but just as urgent: your path doesn’t have to be linear to be valid. You can specialise, generalise, shift, return, hybridise. You can be a surgeon who becomes a CEO. A marketer who becomes an engineer. A generalist who learns to master just enough to be indispensable.
Because in the end, the question isn’t whether you should specialise or generalise. It’s whether you can read the room, read the times and read your own skills and desires.
Sources
[1] https://hbr.org/2018/07/when-generalists-are-better-than-specialists-and-vice-versa
[2] https://hbr.org/2018/07/when-generalists-are-better-than-specialists-and-vice-versa
[3] https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbesbusinesscouncil/2021/06/03/the-value-of-being-a-generalist
[8] https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbesbusinesscouncil/2021/06/03/the-value-of-being-a-generalist
About the author
