Hmm...from your summary this reads as if the author has found a system that works for them, and has assumed that it therefore works (and is appropriate) for everybody. I'd suggest that it all depends on the individual. Considering this in the world of engineering, what I've found in engineering management / leadership over very many years is that some engineers are specialists, some are generalists, a few are generalists turned specialists, and many are specialists turned generalists. But I'd be very wary of saying that any of these is the "correct" or "best" approach.

One of the useful, and often overlooked, aspects of professional engineering is that it is a team activity, which means we can accommodate a range of approaches. If someone wants to start a specialist and stay a specialist then that's fine (albeit assuming their specialism is actually useful!), similarly if someone wants to start a generalist and stay a generalist then that's also fine (we wouldn't have any project mangers otherwise!). And if they want to move between the two that's fine too.

Neurodiversity has an important impact here as well. Very, very, VERY simplistically: aspects of the autism spectrum may make it more comfortable for the person to concentrate on a specialism, aspects of ADHD may make generalism more appealing, and for those (not uncommon) with some of each then all bets are off and it's a case of finding what best suits the individual.

Now a caveat: I am now (towards the end of my career) really appreciating the fact that I did a very generalist pre-degree apprenticeship, something I really didn't appreciate at the time (in fact got quite grumpy about - young adults can often be quite daft) as I wanted to be a specialist. However, what I've realised is that I am actually more naturally a generalist - or more accurately I've described my expertise as comb shaped, it's broad with a number of narrow specialisms. But I'm very well aware that's just me - I greatly appreciate the support of those who've only ever worked in a narrow area but know that area really, really well, much better than I ever would.

What I find more important is respect for those different development styles and outcomes, including an understanding of their benefits and their limitations. Which is what makes me wary of anyone who claims their approach is the "best" - and I'm not just referring to this synopsis here, but any statement of "to be a good / successful engineer your background / training / education / approach must be xxx".

Very interesting topic, thanks for posting,

Andy

Hmm...from your summary this reads as if the author has found a system that works for them, and has assumed that it therefore works (and is appropriate) for everybody. I'd suggest that it all depends on the individual. Considering this in the world of engineering, what I've found in engineering management / leadership over very many years is that some engineers are specialists, some are generalists, a few are generalists turned specialists, and many are specialists turned generalists. But I'd be very wary of saying that any of these is the "correct" or "best" approach.

One of the useful, and often overlooked, aspects of professional engineering is that it is a team activity, which means we can accommodate a range of approaches. If someone wants to start a specialist and stay a specialist then that's fine (albeit assuming their specialism is actually useful!), similarly if someone wants to start a generalist and stay a generalist then that's also fine (we wouldn't have any project mangers otherwise!). And if they want to move between the two that's fine too.

Neurodiversity has an important impact here as well. Very, very, VERY simplistically: aspects of the autism spectrum may make it more comfortable for the person to concentrate on a specialism, aspects of ADHD may make generalism more appealing, and for those (not uncommon) with some of each then all bets are off and it's a case of finding what best suits the individual.

Now a caveat: I am now (towards the end of my career) really appreciating the fact that I did a very generalist pre-degree apprenticeship, something I really didn't appreciate at the time (in fact got quite grumpy about - young adults can often be quite daft) as I wanted to be a specialist. However, what I've realised is that I am actually more naturally a generalist - or more accurately I've described my expertise as comb shaped, it's broad with a number of narrow specialisms. But I'm very well aware that's just me - I greatly appreciate the support of those who've only ever worked in a narrow area but know that area really, really well, much better than I ever would.

What I find more important is respect for those different development styles and outcomes, including an understanding of their benefits and their limitations. Which is what makes me wary of anyone who claims their approach is the "best" - and I'm not just referring to this synopsis here, but any statement of "to be a good / successful engineer your background / training / education / approach must be xxx".

Very interesting topic, thanks for posting,

Andy

Andy thank you very much for such a detailed reply! I find myself agreeing with you. You make a good argument that what we need is a 'range' of both generalists and specialists in an organization. You're right there is no one way to approach anything, let alone skill development. Thank you again for your reply.