Currently, I am reading a great book “Range - Why generalists triumph in a specialized world” by David Epstein.
It is about the ongoing debate between specialization and generalism. For the first, Tiger Woods is used as one of the best examples. And for the latter, Roger Federer is a good example when you look at his career.
A lot of research indicates that having a good amount of range is key in today’s wicked and complex world.
The challenge with the specialization is the following: It works in “kind” environments. A kind environment is a stable environment where repetition is key. Chess, golf and some other disciplines fall into this category.
But when you deviate from the structure, the specialists no longer have an advantage. They even have a disadvantage.
One story: Some world-class chess players were playing on the streets of New York. A truck passed by with a board and pieces on it. The chess players could replicate the position most of the times though they only had a look for a two seconds or so.
But when the truck returned with the other side, there was another set. It was a setting that was not possible in a real game. What happened?
The chess masters could not replicate the setting.
So, they did not have a photographic memory but the chunked the board and replicated the junks. But that only works with settings that are actually possible.
Why is that relevant?
Today’s world is dominated by uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity. Or, as David calls them - wicked problems.
And in these situations, generalists have a much bigger advantage. They draw conclusions from other areas and apply them to the specific situation.
Yes, we still need experts but most of us need to accept that their expertise can be more a hindrance in such a world.
Let me know what you think of this.