Marty Nemko, a career coach I respect, advises:
Most scanners' careers suffer immensely from their dabbling. Focus, relentless focus, becoming expert at something you care about is key--something you care about that has a reasonable chance of being remunerative.
I believe that the previous sentence may be the most helpful career advice I can give to anyone.
In the comments, I asked him how this relates to the generalist versus specialist debate. He responded this way:
A generalist is someone who, for example, knows a good amount about all aspects of ONE line of work. For example, an art director has good if not superlative hand drawing skills, graphic design skills, management skills, and knowledge of principles of effective art communication and of aesthetics. That's a valuable person.
But even a generalist in many ways is less contributory to the world and feels less good about himself than a real expert say, in used CAD to draw anatomical illustrations in 3D.
Similarly, I have more respect for a career counselor who specializes in a certain type of client, for example, midcareer disenchanted internists than a generalist career counselor.
This idea of narrowness and relentless focus is supported by the deliberate practice meme, which suggests that 10,000 hours of intense practice (with immediate feedback and focus on weaknesses) is the only way to become really good at something. While I accept that, and I accept that excessive dabbling is career-harming, I still wonder whether Marty is advising too narrow a focus.
Scott Adams, another one of my intellectual icons, advises something different: (emphasis added)
Capitalism rewards things that are both rare and valuable. You make yourself rare by combining two or more “pretty goods” until no one else has your mix. ... At least one of the skills in your mixture should involve communication, either written or verbal. And it could be as simple as learning how to sell more effectively than 75% of the world. That’s one. Now add to that whatever your passion is, and you have two, because that’s the thing you’ll easily put enough energy into to reach the top 25%. If you have an aptitude for a third skill, perhaps business or public speaking, develop that too.
It sounds like generic advice, but you’d be hard pressed to find any successful person who didn’t have about three skills in the top 25%.
Marty and Scott's advice is almost identical: Find something that both (1) you are passionate about and (2) is valuable, and get really good at it. The key difference, though, is that Marty suggests focusing your energy on ONE thing, while Scott suggests combining two or three.
Scott Adams again:
If you want an average successful life, it doesn’t take much planning. Just stay out of trouble, go to school, and apply for jobs you might like. But if you want something extraordinary, you have two paths:
1. Become the best at one specific thing.
2. Become very good (top 25%) at two or more things.
The first strategy is difficult to the point of near impossibility. Few people will ever play in the NBA or make a platinum album. I don’t recommend anyone even try.
The second strategy is fairly easy. Everyone has at least a few areas in which they could be in the top 25% with some effort.
To some extent it depends on your goals. Marty, I suspect, could care less how "extraordinary" you are so long as you are productive and valuable. But even with those goals, the idea of combining two or more skills to make you more scarce and consequently more valuable is one I find intuitively appealing.
An example:
A plumber could be exceptionally productive and valuable developing a niche as a commercial sprinkler system installer -- this, I think, is what Marty would advise. But if instead that plumber devoted part of his energy to becoming a good (top 25%) writer, he could be filling a need he did not know existed -- e.g., writing a plumber's manual, or a do-it-yourself web site. You are less apt to be swept up by the black swan effect if your only skills are practical, hands-on ones, which is why I agree with Scott that it is a good plan to have one of your skills be either written or verbal communication skills.
I wonder if the fundamental difference in views comes down to the question of whether one can effectively predict which skills will be valuable. Marty's narrow focus advice assumes you can, while Scott's advice I find much more practical that you make yourself rare through the combination of a few valuable skills, and then ride the waves of randomness.
Expanding on Scott Adams' advice, if your three paths are the following...
(1) Become great (top 2-3%) at one thing.
(2) Become good (top 25%) at two or more things.
(3) Become decent (top 50%) at many things.
...then I tentatively conclude that the best plans are, in order: (2), (1), (3).
---
Earlier:
To specialize or not to specialize
The fourth of four posts on deliberate practice (A series which I still need to finish.)
