Could we be looking at it all wrong?: Specialists, Generalists & now Versatilists!

It’s an intriguing idea, to break beyond the arbitrary distinction between “specialist” and “generalist”. I’m not sure that the idea of a “versatilist” as described in this article is entirely helpful, though. As I read the article it seems to be suggesting that a “versatilist” must be good at everything all the time. This is a claim which is so broad as to make no real sense. As described the “versatilist” is potentially so powerful that everyone would want to be one, and everyone would want to hire only versatilists.

For this discussion to progress, I suggest that a wider set of options (and potentially a wider set of names) are pursued.

As an example consider the “serial specialist” who becomes very good in one specific area but after a while loses interest or fails to keep up and switches to invest in learning a new area in depth. I encounter quite a lot of these, and the trick is to realise what their real, current skills are rather than assuming that what they have done well in past situations is what they can do well now.

Or perhaps the “facilitator chameleon” who can quickly and successfully adopt the appearance, mannerisms, and jargon of a specialist area but not the actual skills. Such people can be invaluable in managing and facilitating interaction with specialists, but but can rapidly become an uncomfortable liability if confused with the folks who actually have the skills.

Could we be looking at it all wrong?: Specialists, Generalists & now Versatilists!