IS it better to be a generalist or a specialist?

sizeon

Which makes more money?

Find more posts tagged with

Free for TechExams community: Cybersecurity salary guide

Compare cert salaries and plan your next career move

Button

Comments

paul78

Very much a loaded question... but I'll bite

I characterize myself as a generalist.

With my one and only data-point, I would say that a generalist would have more upside potential. A broad generalist career in various disciplines can lead to a leadership or management IT position with higher overall compensation.

NetworkVeteran

Which makes more money?

CIO or VP of Engineering are the top-paying roles for those with a technical inclination, and I would describe them both as technical generalists.

Maybe I will become a generalist one day. Quad CCIEs, you know?

NetworkVeteran

paul78 wrote: »

A broad generalist career in various disciplines can lead to a leadership or management IT position with higher overall compensation.

Assuming their management skills are strong enough that they can achieve a director-level position, where that higher compensation materializes, have they simply replaced becoming a specialist at tech with becoming a specialist in management?

paul78

I was thinking more in the sense of technical generalist. It could be argued that senior managers like Directors and VPs are management generalist, whereas line-managers and supervisors are management specialist. Do you buy that?

nosoup4u

I don't know the last three fortune 500 companies I've worked for, their VP's and CIO's where all account backgrounds just counting beans tbh.

YFZblu

I think it depends on the employer, and even the part of the world you live in. At my current employer, a mastery of one technology will make you a lot of money. We have dedicated network people, server, security tools, maintenance teams, etc. so having a broad scope of knowledge wouldn't be that helpful.

NotHackingYou

sizeon wrote: »

Which makes more money?

If only it were this simple!

DevilWAH

Start of an a generalist, and develop in to a specialist.

It is true lots of money is made by specialists, but the most money is made by specialist that at one time were generalists and still understand what other people do and that they are not the only people who know any thing.

I say every one should start of a a generalist as a way to find there calling before becoming a specialist.

veritas_libertas

There are several threads that discuss this if you want to search. They go on and on and....

RobertKaucher

DevilWAH wrote: »

Start of an a generalist, and develop in to a specialist.

It is true lots of money is made by specialists, but the most money is made by specialist that at one time were generalists and still understand what other people do and that they are not the only people who know any thing.

I say every one should start of a a generalist as a way to find there calling before becoming a specialist.

I agree with this statement. In the beginning of your career you will benefit most from having a good grasp of multiple technologies as not every company in the world is a Fortune 500 and can employ a staff of 4 Oracle DBAs and 5 SQL Server DBAs. Most companies need a small IT department that can do multiple things. This can allow you to get the feel for where you would like to specialize and progress your knowledge in said skill.

Some people are also able to maintain an advanced level in two or three technologies. But it would be hard to call these individual masters of any one branch. In consulting firms these types can make lots of money because of their flexibility and value to their customers.

RomBUS

I've always looked at a generalist as someone that hasn't found their niche yet in IT, always looking for something new to learn and constantly picking up tidbits here and there. I know some people have successful paths starting off as a generalist and then becoming a specialist once they find a home in IT

drkat

I'd have to disagree. Generalism I think allows someone to work on multiple things, yes they may not be an expert.. but honestly?? how often are we seeing job offerings for experts with expert pay? you might as well write yourself out of the market.

NetworkVeteran

Generalism I think allows someone to work on multiple things, yes they may not be an expert.. but honestly?? how often are we seeing job offerings for experts with expert pay?

As someone who takes on expert-level jobs, I can report that the smaller demand for advanced skills (26 openings in my city today) is more than offset by the smaller supply of candidates who have advanced skills. The last time I searched for a job--earlier this year--multiple companies bid on me. I am certain the specialist market thrives upto $180k.

I was just giving a nod to the sharp-as-tacks tech generalist VPs I know who make $350k, and CIOs who make even more, since they asked which makes more.

I also know generalist salesmen who do very well!

YFZblu

^ This - I think including VP's and CIO's is unfair to this discussion though. I think the spirit of this question is pertaining to technicians/engineers

it_consultant

I am a generalist and it has suited me fairly well. I get nervous when I hear someone say something like "I am going to specialize in Virtualization" knowing darn well that I can do about 95% of what a VMWARE 'specialist' can do while I also can do a host of other things. There is nothing really wrong with being a specialist but it is important to specialize in something that can't be quickly picked up by a generalist like me.

ptilsen

I think there's a lot of gray area between the definitions of generalist and specialist, in this context. Is a highly skilled Windows-centered sysadmin, for example, really a specialist? Compared to someone with broader knowledge of servers and networking, sure, but maybe not compared to an MCM in Directory Services.

Is a security professional focusing on network security a specialist? Maybe compared to that sysadmin again, but probably not compared to a CCIE:S or a GCFW.

In any case, I think there's value in almost any level or area of specialization. Whether it's broad specialization in an "area" such as servers, storage, or networking, or deep specialization in a more specific technology (Cisco Firewalls, MS Exchange, etc.), there are lots of jobs and lots of money to be made. I also think it's valuable for everyone to know at least a little bit about every area. What I don't think is wise, however, is to try to learn everything or to try to only learn little bits of everything. At least pick a general "area" or two and focus there. A true generalist with no specific higher skills will often (usually) get stuck in the SMB segment, which is categorically salary-limiting.

pram

Any senior (even mid-level really) technical position will require some degree of specialization, regardless of what you consider yourself. I find the distinction between 'generalist' and 'specialist' fairly meaningless. Companies hire specific roles like 'network engineer' and 'linux admin' and will be judging your competency based on those skills.

it_consultant

I agree with the above. Most generalists will gravitate to certain things and inevitably know more about it than something else. I gravitate towards exchange and networking which is great. If I only knew those two things I would be very much more limited than I am now.

RobertKaucher

NetworkVeteran wrote: »

As someone who takes on expert-level jobs, I can report that the smaller demand for advanced skills (26 openings in my city today) is more than offset by the smaller supply of candidates who have advanced skills. The last time I searched for a job--earlier this year--multiple companies bid on me. I am certain the specialist market thrives upto $180k.

I think that many people do mot quite understand what expert means. If I were interviewing an expert in SQL Server, for example, I would fully expect them to be able to answer the following question:

"Explain to me how SQL Server puts data, the actual 1s and 0s, onto disk and how is that related to performance topics such as indexes and the physical design of the server?"

I would expect a 20+ minute conversation to be the answer. Your typical DBA would likely get very nervous at being asked that sort of question. An expert would know the answer, not because they memorized some facts about extents and I/O but because they have worked with the product on such a deep level for so long that those ideas are important for them to do their job.

And I certainly do not consider myself an expert. I would be squirming in my chair if asked that question in an interview.

chrisone

sizeon wrote: »

Which makes more money?

specialist.

paul78

CarlSaiyed wrote: »

If only it were this simple!

Right

veritas_libertas wrote:

They go on and on and....

True - but this topic is one of those discussions that seem to always have something new to offer.

YFZblu wrote:

think the spirit of this question is pertaining to technicians/engineers

Fair point - I do agree fall into the same camp as NetworkVeteran. Taking the OP question at face-value however, it would be the IT generalist that would eventually achieve higher total compensation. I suppose I was looking at it from the perspective that most senior managers in IT (VP's CIO's) started off as technicians/engineers in their careers.

it_consultant wrote:

I get nervous when I hear someone say something like "I am going to specialize in Virtualization" knowing darn well that I can do about 95% of what a VMWARE 'specialist' can do while I also can do a host of other things.

Me too. I still wonder about all those COBOL programmers who are very well paid because there's not too many of them but are probably trapped within their environment because there are not too many jobs out there for that specialization.

I'm sure that we can all pontificate about this question and offer our own unique experiences and opinions but for my own self - I've found that being a generalist after a few years as a specialist in Windows C++ development to have a much more lucrative and interesting career path.

networker050184

I think some of you are taking the specialization a bit too far. I think its best to specialize, but by that I mean specialize in a certain area of IT, not a single technology or vendor.

blargoe

networker050184 wrote: »

I think some of you are taking the specialization a bit too far. I think its best to specialize, but by that I mean specialize in a certain area of IT, not a single technology or vendor.

This...

When you're starting out, you might take any work that is thrown your way, and maybe it is better that way. Over time, you gain a better general understanding of each of the pieces fit together in the big picture, and ideally, you will narrow your focus. That might mean you focus on becoming a SQL Server DBA, becoming the end-all be-all Linux sysadmin, specializing in datacenter infrastructure (which you could also consider a generalist depending on your definition).

paul78

blargoe wrote: »

... you could also consider a generalist depending on your definition...

Good point. I suppose I should consider myself an IT specialist -

NetworkVeteran

paul78 wrote: »

Good point. I suppose I should consider myself an IT specialist -

And I, an ISP routing/switching generalist!

jibbajabba

I am a general specialist

apr911

RomBUS wrote: »

I've always looked at a generalist as someone that hasn't found their niche yet in IT, always looking for something new to learn and constantly picking up tidbits here and there. I know some people have successful paths starting off as a generalist and then becoming a specialist once they find a home in IT

I have to disagree with this... IT is one of those fields where finding a niche is often times not a good thing and at least in my experience, the people who Ive seen go furthest are those who dont settle into a purely specialist role. IT is a constantly evolving and changing field so you need to be able to constantly pickup new things and keep abreast of the new technologies around you even if they dont apply to your current specialized role. At one time Novell Admins were a highly specialized and highly paid niche group but you dont see much market for them these days. When you specialize, you may find yourself in a niche that becomes obsolete. You may have made big money while that role was popular but over the long term you'll make less than if you had remained more general.

DevilWAH wrote: »

Start of an a generalist, and develop in to a specialist.

It is true lots of money is made by specialists, but the most money is made by specialist that at one time were generalists and still understand what other people do and that they are not the only people who know any thing.

I say every one should start of a a generalist as a way to find there calling before becoming a specialist.

networker050184 wrote: »

I think some of you are taking the specialization a bit too far. I think its best to specialize, but by that I mean specialize in a certain area of IT, not a single technology or vendor.

I agree wholeheartedly with both statements from DevilWAH and networker. You should start as a generalist so that you understand how to do the other roles as it will help you tremendously not only getting more money but getting work done. If you can speed up the process by doing it yourself or by clearly explaining what you need done to another admin than you can accomplish so much more work with much less headache making you all the more valuable.

When you are ready to specialize, you should specialize in a generalized topic such as security, networking, systems administration, virtualization, etc. Specialization often times does go too far, especially when you focus on specific vendors (see above note on Novell admins) and again its important to always keep the generalist mentality and continue learning and picking up new things even if they dont directly correspond to your specialized role. It will help you be more efficient and do a better job and it will help you in finding employment in the event your specialization becomes obsolete

Bottom line, you can generally make more money as a specialist but watch that you dont specialize too far or focus too much (especially to the detriment of your other skills) on your specialization as it could hurt you more in the long run.

MiikeB

I find the best specialists usually started as generalists then found their passion in the field and pursued it, becoming specialists.

This path seems ideal because it makes you a well rounded person, plus when you have a passion for something learning and getting more involved with it is much more natural.

If you started your career saying "I want to be an Exchange Specialist" you might find out that you consider it a grind and hate it and you will never know if you had a true passion for something like SQL, Web Servers, Virtualization, Storage etc.

RouteMyPacket

sizeon wrote: »

Which makes more money?

I'm not going to answer the "which makes more money" because that depends on each individual.

BUT....

It is my opinion that someone who is a generalist is much more valuable to an organization as he/she brings a wide skill set to the table. You can always bring in a specialist if needed.

I have been a "generalist" my entire career and I rarely run into someone else who has the same skill set. As it is now, I have accepted a specialist role (Cisco) and I like it for the perspective that I already knew Cisco being a generalist but now I have the opportunity to truly focus on it and back that up with Cisco certs.

it_consultant

MiikeB wrote: »

I find the best specialists usually started as generalists then found their passion in the field and pursued it, becoming specialists.

This path seems ideal because it makes you a well rounded person, plus when you have a passion for something learning and getting more involved with it is much more natural.

If you started your career saying "I want to be an Exchange Specialist" you might find out that you consider it a grind and hate it and you will never know if you had a true passion for something like SQL, Web Servers, Virtualization, Storage etc.

Expanding on your Exchange example, you really can't be effective at Exchange if you don't know Active Directory, DNS, and networking.

When I talk about specialists, I think about people who design oracle databases or design ISP networks. Generally, the things people talk about "specializing" in on these boards are things mildly competent generalists can do.