Why Generalized Training Can Be Better Than Specializing

There is an ongoing battle between specialists and generalists in this country. This is a battle that is most commonly seen in sports and applies to other industries. Half of the population seems to be obsessed with specializing in a very specific area of their industry, while others make a point of learning the basic skills in as many different areas of their industry or even other industries as possible.

This is an argument that stems all the way back to 1776 when Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations and talked about how he believed specialization was the key to economic advancement. But was the father of modern economics right? Or was he talking about something that we now know as misguided thinking? 

If you were to look at the U.S. workforce, you would probably think that Smith was right. Generally speaking, the U.S. tends to lean more toward specialization, with post-secondary schools training future workers to hone their skills in a very specific area of their industry. 

While there is no definitive way to tell whether generalizing or specializing is better, since every situation is going to be different, I've observed that most evidence points toward generalizing your skills as a worker being the most beneficial move. Here are some great examples from both past and present events that help to support this belief.

Multi-industry knowledge can lead to outside-the-box thinking.

When someone has spent countless hours honing their skills at completing a very specific set of tasks, you would expect them to be better equipped to come up with problem-solving ideas. However, specialization can sometimes have the opposite effect and lead to the individual developing metaphorical blinders that narrow focus and prevent someone from seeing potential unorthodox solutions. Whereas someone who has generalized training can bring a more worldly point of view to the problem and possibly suggest a more creative solution.

The perfect example of this is when Charles Babbage used his versatile training in both the silk-weaving industry and mathematics to create computational machines powered by punch cards. This provided the basic technology that would later develop into modern computers and is something that was only possible because Babbage possessed a generalized knowledge base.

By fast-forwarding to more than 100 years later, we see another great example that coincided with the Soviet Union's fall. As the Iron Curtain fell, the former Soviet Union mathematicians who were far more generalized than their Western counterparts demonstrated a 22% higher boost in productivity, in areas like algebra and geometry, as compared to American mathematicians. This is likely due to the fact that the generalized Soviet mathematicians were able to bring more viewpoints to the table and think outside of the box, which is something that specialized individuals tend to struggle with.

This is something that I have directly experienced as an architect in New York. At the beginning of my architectural career, I met some key players in the New York footwear industry and took on the task of developing several shoe stores. While this was a great experience, it made my portfolio look like I specialized in designing shoe stores. This made businesses in other industries hesitate about trusting me to design their stores. I would always get the same answer when approaching new clients: "You design shoe stores, so you don't have experience with handbags..." or with clothing or with anything else.

Contrary to this, I believe the key to the best creative work is not specialization. People that specialize in one thing tend to repeat themselves and struggle to find solutions outside of their narrow area of expertise. 

Milton Glaser, the designer behind the iconic “I❤️NY,” once said: "What professionalism means in most cases is diminishing risks ... What is required in our field, more than anything else, is the continuous transgression. Professionalism does not allow for that because transgression has to encompass the possibility of failure, and if you are professional, your instinct is not to fail, it is to repeat success."

In the design world, repeating success is the equivalent of failure because you make something that has been done before, failing to give your client what they need to excel in a highly competitive world. Every brand needs to distinguish itself from the competition, and you can only do that by being unique.

Even in medicine, according to David Epstein in his book Range, a study by cardiologist Rita Redberg proved that patients suffering from a heart attack during a national cardiology conference were more likely to survive in the long run than other patients. You would also think that suffering a heart attack when most cardiologists are away would not be so fortunate, but statistics showed the exact opposite. The reason behind this might be because some doctors tend to look at one specific instance of the problem rather than the whole picture. When a cardiologist is not available, other doctors have to make a decision, and they are probably going to cross-reference other areas of knowledge they possess, resulting in a better diagnosis for the patient.

Generalization helps with understanding causation — not just correlation.

When someone understands how to do something but not why that something happens, it limits their ability to transfer that knowledge onto any situation outside of that specific scenario. So, in other words, it is a circumstantial skill that someone has when they lack the understanding of what causes correlated things to occur. 

When you decide to generalize your knowledge base, it means that you are more likely to understand the "why" of something rather than just the "what" aspect of it since you are bringing many different viewpoints to the table. So if you are interested in obtaining skills that allow you to use your skills in a wide variety of scenarios rather than just one or two very specific scenarios, then generalizing your skill set is the right move to make.

(This article first appeared on Forbes)