A generalist, a specialist or a generalist specialist
Pramod Solanki, Ph. D.
Growth Catalyst for Individuals &Organizations | Leadership Coach | HR Advisor | Consulting CHRO | Honorary Member at Institute of Directors | Founder @ Performance Enablers | Ex - L&T, Sun Pharma, TCS, IIMA and JBIMS
I am writing this more to seek the perspective of fellow professionals than anything else. Particularly, in the context of people like me who are now external service providers.
My premise is that we can be more useful to the client organisations when we connect with them first as a ‘generalist’ and get a fix on what are they (clients) dealing with. It’s like a general physician who basis your briefing / reports forms an overall picture of your health status and then decides on treating you by himself or take the help of a specialist.
When we connect with the client organizations first to understand their aspirations and also the pain points, we are in a much better position to then have A conversation about why and how a certain intervention can help them deal with the issues.
Also, such broad-based, discovery conversation help the clients more easily articulate what they are aspiring for and what they are dealing with. With the benefit of this understanding, when the service provider articulates why and how a certain intervention would help them deal with the issue, the client is able to connect with the solution being proposed more easily and clearly.
Take cross-functional collaboration, one of the common issues in organizations. If the pace of execution / synergy is suboptimal across a few functions, first a conversation (or any other tool you wish to use) to understand how does it manifest, why is it happening and how would you like it to be, would be very useful and also something that a client would readily connect with. With the benefit of this understanding, a service provider would be much better placed to propose to the client whether a) A joint, communication session with the involved groups needs to be conducted or b) Lead/s of the concerned functions have some mindset issue and a coaching intervention may be useful or c) There are capability gaps in the concerned teams and a learning intervention would help or d) There is some work-flow design issue that needs tweaking to make it more efficient, and so on.
Recommended by LinkedIn
Once this alignment with the client is reached, a service providers as a specialist may use the skills to deliver the interventions, or if required, take help of his other specialist associates.
Compare this with a specialist pitching his services to a client highlighting the value his / her service brings. You are actually, leaving the job of connecting the why and how your service would help, to the client. While some client organizations may have the required exposure to be able to make this connection themselves, large majority of them may still not. In any case, our role as a service provider is to help the clients meet their challenges, not to expect them to know how our specialised skills will help them.
This approach has been very useful to me and has helped me expand and deepen the engagement with the clients. I therefore, believe that specialist of any kind would benefit by developing a generalists perspective as well, to the extent of being able to understand a client’s situation in his context, and then present / leverage his specialist skills.
In a nutshell, what I am saying is – being a generalist helps during discovery and design phase. Delivery seems to be best done as a specialist.
What’s been experience?
Founder | HR Advisor | Keynote Speaker | Guest Faculty | Organizational Capability Building Expert | Leadership Development
10moInteresting perspective to delve on …especially in times of rapid changes in Technology advancement and ever changing nature of workforce………the approach has to be more like an ‘ Internal Medicine Specialist ‘ since I come with more than 2 decades of Pharmaceuticals and Healthcare Industry and moreover Dr. Pramod has ticked me with a wonderful comparison on General Physicians …. However, I feel it has become more like an Internal Medicine Physicians who typically treat and specialize in the Prevention, Diagnosis and Management of disease and chronic conditions. Dr. Pramod has beautifully brought out the concept of ‘understanding the aspirations’ of the promoters, every growth may not be healthy, it can be tumorous or cancerous if not checked properly. Another beautiful mention is on cross-functional collaboration, we have heard multiple times that ‘culture eats strategy for breakfast etc’. However, my experience is many a times is not culture……. its execution which plays a spoilsport. Thank you Dr. Pramodji I endorse your views being a generalist during discovery and design phase you will get to know the ‘tenacity’ of the Clients who are supposed to take the ownership.
Board Member & Partner XPM /Senior Advisor (Strategic Initiatives)/Managing Partner & CEO Good People Consulting LLP/Co Founder Asia Coaching Network /Chairman- Executive Recruiters Association (ERA)/Grand Dad of Minti!
10moIn contemporary organizational dynamics, prescriptive solutions dominate primarily due to their accessibility as standardized 'off-the-shelf packages,' rendering them cost-effective albeit suboptimal. This approach often aligns with the imperative of satisfying board-level checkboxes. Conversely, specialist solutions necessitate a meticulous research and analysis process conducted by domain experts, thereby justifying their higher pricing. Organizations frequently grapple with identifying the right expertise source, relying on word of mouth, industry comments, and pedigree considerations. The prevalence of standardized ERP solutions, while ostensibly affordable, frequently falls short of meeting anticipated deliverables, leading to a distortion in the perceived price-value equation. Striking a balance between a generalist's broad perspective and the nuanced understanding inherent in a specialist is an optimal approach for effective guidance, recognizing that these roles may not be interchangeable.
Management Consultant in Energy Sector. J1 - FCC Residual Engg. till startup, VMP, JERP - Concept to Startup, J3-ROGC PM, C2 Complex-EP Contract Manager. Adjunct-Prof @VIMR, Pursuing PhD under Prof. D S Chauhan.
10moVery true Sir. This article helps to understand and clarify the situational requirements of both generalist and specialist which is often confusing. Regards Virendra
Training and Safety Director at G2 Ocean, Singapore
10moNice topic for discussion Pramod. In my opinion, to succeed as a generalist first and specialist as a follow up, you have to be a big firm like the likes of KPMG, Deloitte, etc. If a good sized firm needs outside consulting to narrow down on its goals, they would most likely go to the big generalist consultanting firms rather than an individual. A reason they may need to go outside for such help could be because as a board, they are not able to reach a consensus on the direction they need to take. A smaller sized firm, with lesser number of cooks, would be more focused and may reach out to a specialist because they already have a general idea of the direction they are headed in, but lack the expertise to get there. In either case, an individual consultant is better of as a specialist with a lot if general knowledge. Then the individual could work with/for the big consulting firms or directly with the client.
OD & HR professional, Mentor,Coach,author,Management Teacher ,Consultant
10mo. Either a generalist or a specialist would depend entirely on , Company size and its needs ,the role itself,industry and market dynamics , Individual preferences and strengths and host of such factors.