It seems that professionals and businesses alike are constantly pulled in two directions, like a rope in a tug of war. On the one hand, intense competition and increased complexity beckons for people and companies to specialize not only in a particular field, but to further specialize within that field to a subspecialty, and perhaps even a niche area within that subspecialty. The specialist is the authority on a given topic, with a depth of knowledge that far exceeds most others. The specialist may know very little about most things but knows practically everything there is to know about one particular thing.
On the other hand, because of the complexity of the world, there is also tremendous pressure to stay current with many different subjects. The generalist has a wide body of knowledge. While the generalist does not have deep expertise about any particular topic or area, he has a rudimentary (and perhaps sometimes even greater) understanding of a great many things. With this broader perspective, the generalist is able to see angles, connections, and big-picture implications that others might not see.
So which is better? This constant battle between specialist or generalist occurs in all businesses and for all types of professionals: accounting, law, finance, real estate sales, lending, finance, etc. What makes the most sense for today’s marketplace? Is it better for a professional to be a Jack-of-all-Trades or a Master-of-One? Should a company try to be all things to all people, or should it zero in on select services or specialties and do only that? There are solid arguments for either position. How does a person or company decide whether to generalize or specialize? Continue reading





