Generalist or Specialist?

Monday, June 7, 2010

I've always thought that I had no patience. I can't do one thing well like a specialist. But that doesn't mean I don't work hard. In fact, I consider myself a much harder worker than most of my specialist peers.Read more...

The thing is though, if you follow the 80/20 rule (aka The Pareto's Principle), I just don't see why I should take anything beyond a certain level of expertise. If I take the energy I spend in making one thing from 80% good to 90% good or even to 99% good, I could make 5 other things from 10% good to 80% good. And anything that's 80% good is enough to beat the average don't you think? Is that enough for me to survive? Well, so far so good...

Maybe I say this because I'm interested in too many things, but I just don't have the patience nor the talent to take any of them to the level of real expertise. Then again, where do you draw the line between a generalist and a specialist? Does having a PhD or MBA make me a specialist? I don't think so. I simply consider myself a well educated generalist. My titles and languages allow me to speak with scientists and businessmen, but not for me to lead any specific scientific or business project. For that, I need more expertise. I think.

But as I get older, I find that more and more I restrict myself to my three main career assets: my science, business know-how, and my languages. At work, I try to reduce focus on anything that is not pre-clinical science and clinical science. It's a good feeling to see that boundaries of what I want to learn and gain as experience. Finally I don't have to feel obliged to learn everything that comes my way.