Why Companies Don't Want Specialists Anymore (And Other Hooey)

Contrary to everything I’ve been saying these past few weeks, it seems companies, corporations—even lawn-cutting services—aren’t interested in specialists anymore. What they really want are multi-talented generalists, people who can use a weedwacker, leaf blower, de-thatcher, mulcher, small combine or harvester without so much as a Home Depot manual. 

No kidding, folks. Forget specializing in today’s marketplace. You’ll be passed over faster than Jessica Simpson at a spelling bee. That’s the latest news coming out of new research cited in The Harvard Business Review . If their numbers are correct—and gosh, they looked at nearly 400 MBA graduates—generalists have it made. In fact, they receive better job offers than specialists and 64% larger signing bonuses .

Man, how could I be so wrong? Here I was, talking about being skilled at your job, a craftsman, an expert, when what companies really want is a jack-of-all-trades. Sure, expertise is important, and certainly these past five to ten years have placed considerable emphasis on “consistent profile in one field.” But try putting “consistency” on your resume and see what happens (you’ll get passed over faster than Jessica Simpson at a spelling bee, that’s what).

As one hiring manager in the study put it: “Someone who has accomplished a lot of things is better than a one-trick pony who just keeps doing the same thing and isn’t taking advantage of what the MBA has to offer.” 

That’s gotta hurt, especially coming from a hiring manager. Aren’t they specialists? They’ve never come across as well-rounded, in my opinion.

Anyway, to be fair, this research only dealt with graduates destined for investment banking. That’s pretty specialized right off the bat, so generalizing probably makes sense. Seriously, I can’t imagine anything worse than having an investment banker who’s only interested in one thing. What will we talk about while we wait for the stock averages report? Jessica Simpson? De-thatching? Possibly a connection between the two?

At the same time, is it fair to take the results of one study and make a generalized statement? Well, according to The Harvard Business Review , sure, why not? Four hundred test cases can’t be wrong, or if they are wrong, they’re only wrong for investment bankers and, based on what the Fed’s have been doing these past few years, being wrong is okay (and apparently not indictable).

Now, admittedly, the researchers weren’t exactly sure why generalists have an advantage. It’s possible MBAs are single-minded by nature, and since corporations have so many specialists, a generalist would make a welcome change—especially around a water cooler where subjects of conversation have been getting pretty staid lately.

Another thought is that leaders tend to be generalists. Having young generalists means you’ve got future leaders (which shows good long-term planning). Except that studies show young recruits only stay an average of 3 years (how that got past hiring managers, I’ll never know).

What really confused me is the concluding paragraph of the HBR article: “Regardless of what industry you work in, perhaps the most important takeaway is to be skeptical of conventional career advice.” 

I thought the article was meant to give career advice, but it seems the author just wanted to muddy my thinking even more.  The first clue is the title: “Science says a common piece of career wisdom may be wrong.” First of all, I thought research stopped being a science. Isn’t it insurance for people who can’t make decisions? 

And, just for the record, if we spent five to ten years telling students to build a “consistency profile in one field,” are we now saying it’s all hooey? Shouldn’t we be giving students a refund if it’s all hooey (Harvard particularly)?

Or maybe we should stop following trends. All we’re doing is giving these hiring managers new questions like: “Do you consider yourself a generalist? List five interests you think reflect your generalist personality?”

Admittedly, it’s better than “Where do you see yourself in five years?” which is a moot point if you’re only staying three years. Then again, the columnist did say to be “skeptical of conventional career advice.”

Now the question is: What’s conventional? And once you know that, is it even relevant if new wisdom flies in the face of old wisdom? Since I don’t have the answer to either, I thought I’d provide my own list for future employment, which flies in the face of practically everything (at least for now):

Choose Something You’re Good At:  Too many employees hate what they do (including investment bankers), so they rely on research. Since research—as we’ve seen above—leaves everyone monstrously confused, I suggest finding something you’re good at (and enjoy). That way, you won’t have to rely on research or the career trends that follow. Besides, if you’re good at something, nobody cares if you’re a specialist or a generalist (you can be a cellist for all they care). 

Hiring Managers Are Sad People:  The reason hiring managers don’t call people back is because they’re sad, miserable, practically catatonic individuals. In your next interview, I suggest you recite the “Life of Brian.” You could be considered a generalist for knowing Monty Python or a specialist for only knowing Monty Python. Either way, you’ll brighten up the hiring manager's otherwise horribly boring day and probably get hired. 

Bring a Water Cooler:  Don’t be afraid to show up with your own props. Setting up a water cooler next to the hiring manager’s desk provides the perfect opportunity to demonstrate your talent for conversation (not to mention being pretty fit if you can lift a water cooler). You’ll be hired the next morning.

Consider a Lawn-Cutting Business:  To be honest, research means diddley where hiring is concerned. Corporations are so bipolar, they could be looking for bronco-busting Buddhists next year. Frankly, you’re better off starting your own business, preferably something that requires a small number of employees. That way you don’t need a hiring manager (I should have mentioned this earlier).

Grow a Pair:  Anyone looking for work knows you need a thick skin. I’ll add to that by saying you need cajones (unisex). If you haven’t grown a pair yet, get some before your next interview. As any baseball player will tell you, once you’ve taken a line drive to the nuts, rejection is a cakewalk.

Pad Your Resume:  Don’t be afraid to throw in a few things that might be considered whimsical (like being a bronco-busting Buddhist). You never know what’s going to capture a hiring manager’s imagination—which is a good thing since very little captures a hiring manager’s attention. You’ll also avoid that “one-trick pony” moniker which is toe jam these days.

Needless to say, this is only the tip of the proverbial hiring iceberg. If you agree, or you’re equally confused (or ashamed) by present practices, let me know at: rcormack@rogers.com

Robert Cormack is a freelance copywriter still looking for projects. To see his work, go to robertcormack.com. His first novel: “You Can Lead a Horse to Water (But You Can’t Make It Scuba Dive) is available online and at most major bookstores. For more details, check out Yucca Publishing or Skyhorse Publishing.