Do You Want Professionals Or Generalists?

< p > Long Wang is a fanatical basketball fan. He has been thinking about this question for a long time and discussed with his PhD supervisor, Keith Murnighan, an organization and management professor at Kellogg business school.

The two decided to make a survey: we have more preferences for those versatile generalists than those with single skills but high attainments.

< /p >

< p > Wang is now an assistant professor at City University Hong Kong. He put his theory into practice.

In a series of studies, evidence of generalists' popularity has been found.

< /p >

P > strong > the neglected special players < /strong > /p >

< p > in a study, Wang counted the salaries and game data of 300 NBA players, and found that the salaries of the three point experts were not related to their three points, and that they were related to the percentage of their two points. In fact, the three points they had scored had a greater impact on the team's performance.

In other words, these professionals are not like their versatile teammates. Their role in winning the team has not been properly compensated.

< /p >

< p > but this is not entirely NBA, and ordinary fans usually discount the contribution of the three pointer.

In another study, Wang allowed fans to imagine themselves as a general manager of the team, and the team needed to find a good three point pitcher.

Wang shows the participants three players' information and asks which players they will recruit and how much salary each player is willing to pay.

Compared with the three points expert (three points hit rate is exceptionally good, and the total score is below average), participants are more likely to recruit generalists (two points and three points hit above average) and pay salaries.

Because the team clearly needs the three point pitcher, in this case, they also choose generalists, which can be regarded as evidence of generalist preferences.

< /p >

< p > < strong > the harm of direct comparison < /strong > < /p >.

< p > why the three point ball experts will be snubbed - and sometimes even as a special role, they make greater contributions than other generalists.

< /p >

< p > because we naturally compare a class of people with another group of people. When the three point ball experts compare with the comprehensive players, they perform badly.

Do you want 5 excellent players? - or a good three point pitcher with heavy steps and no jumping, plus 4 excellent players - actually 5 of the top players are better than the three pitchers, but if you have one person in your team, you can do something special, and your team may perform better.

< /p >

< p > this trend has also spread to our < a href= "//www.sjfzxm.com/news/index_c.asp" > working environment < /a >.

In another study, Wang found that participants who played recruiters tended to ignore professionals who were more suitable for the job and were more interested in generalists who had more general experience.

Another study looked at job advertisements, and researchers wanted to know how many companies would advertise for a real professional.

As a result, in 36% of the cases, even those advertisements that explicitly recruit professionals will require candidates to have two special skills.

In addition, compared with small organizations, large organizations which have always advertised special talents and unique skills even require their experts to have multiple skills.

< /p >

< p > < strong > managers must learn to command < /strong > /p >

< p > < a href= "//www.sjfzxm.com/news/index_c.asp > > manager < /a > is often short-sighted.

Ideally, the recruiter should be like a band leader, standing on the podium, holding a baton, knowing how many violinist, cellist, trumpet player and so on to play different music.

If you recruit everyone at once, you may be more likely to know what you need.

However, most teams only add one member at a time. For managers, it is even harder to see clearly. When a direct comparison occurs, you can not correctly evaluate the value of a specialist.

< /p >

Another fact of P's Generalist preference may be to avoid risks.

If you are the general manager of the team, it is easy for you to make a decision to recruit a good player, because you can refer to player's < a href= "//www.sjfzxm.com/news/index_c.asp > personal data < /a >.

But considering the synergy of the whole team, rather than a specific individual, the risk of decision-making increases.

Compared with the strategy of high risk and high return, people often choose the latter.

In fact, to some extent, it can explain why large organizations are more inclined to generalists.

< /p >

< p > finally, because management often requires people to play different roles, encourage, performers, organizers and so on, many managers are generalists themselves, and we are just attracted by like-minded people. We are more willing to remake ourselves than "professionals of different colors".

< /p >