So.

I am a self proclaimed generalist. And proud of it.

But … I admit … it’s kind of tough in a world that has become quite enthralled with specialists. Or maybe better said “being really good at one thing.”

Unfortunately for me the one thing I am good at is a combination of a wide variety of things and experience. Some even contradictory things. (that is basically what a generalist is)

The hard thing about being a generalist is even if you give in to the specialist trappings (for example, “ok. ok. This is the one thing I am good at”) you get screwed because you aren’t a specialist. Therefore there will always be someone more of a “specialist” at what you are claiming (because you aren’t really a specialist). Whew. That circular discussion (doom loop) tired even me out.

I find that these are the types of discussions I get trapped in:

What’s the one industry you have the most experience in?

I can’t name one.

So why would we hire you if you don’t have depth of experience in our industry?

Because I am a generalist and I know how to apply learnings from “there” to “here”.

Don’t you think a specialist would be more effective?

I don’t know. I would imagine it depends on the situation and problem to be solved.

How come you never specialized in anything?

I don’t know. I guess I never had to.

Don’t you think specialists know what they want more than a generalist?

I don’t know. I am not a specialist. I would hate to put words in their mouth. But in general (as a generalist) I believe their choice has made them miss a lot in life.

Why would we choose a generalist over a specialist?

Breadth of experience and expertise? (I answer hopefully).

Don’t you feel at a disadvantage not having a specialty?

Well. I actually do have a specialty. That is transferring learning from seemingly unrelated situations to offer solutions to the situation I am posed with. But. I guess my only disadvantage is that no one wants to call that a specialty.

Ok. What is the one thing you are really good at?

(See last answer).

No, really?

Ok. At parties I can pretty much contribute to any conversation I am included in. Oh. And I am not unique … most generalists thrive anywhere they go conversation-wise.

We don’t have parties here.

Ok <note: I need a cocktail … strong one>.

So let me try this. You have worked at a lot of large advertising agencies so would you say your strength is advertising?

Well. That is tricky. I was in account service and strategy groups. We actually didn’t do a lot of advertising (although I do believe I can judge effective advertising) because other people did that. I actually know more about organizational behavior and product development and positioning companies in the marketplace and why people do things that they do than I do about advertising.

So. I guess the short answer is. No. I don’t believe my strength is in advertising.

But you have spent your career in ad agencies?

Yup. That is correct.

Well. I am confused.

Well. Interestingly so am I now. But. Let me tell you what I think.

I think you need a generalist for this role and frankly I think you want a generalist but you only know how to judge specialists.

Uh oh.

Generally speaking I don’t know what to say next.

Oh.

What I do know is whatever you ask me I bet I know enough about it to be able to give you a reasonable answer.

(Note: Unless you ask me why the sky is blue. I have always struggled with that one. But I do believe it has to do with light refracting off the nitrogen in the air or something like that).

So. I sign off for now … a specialist in generalism.

I love all the letters to the editor, the newspaper articles, the discussion & debate and ultimately the fact we are publicly addressing a “broken” national program – the US healthcare system.

Three themes seem to dominate the discussion.

Change is scary.

While I would like to believe there is such heated debate over healthcare because people would like to do what is right, I tend to believe a lot of the rhetoric surrounds fear of change. Within all the discussion there is certainly a strong thread of “I don’t know what it should look like but I know what I don’t want it to look like.”

Sometimes that type of discussion freezes people into inaction.

I am certainly not proposing being hasty or thoughtless (and if anyone truly believes the policy isn’t being discussed seriously and well thought out…well…they are crazy) but at some point we need to stop talking and start doing. The current system is flawed. Any system we end up putting in place will have some flaws (just less than the one we have, one should believe) but…does it have to be perfect? Absolutely not. I realize perfection is impractical (if we want to fix the current state at least within the next millennium).

Profitability.

Senator Jay Rockefeller D-WVa “the insurance companies in my judgment are determined to protect their profits.” I have seen or heard derivations of this thought throughout the healthcare debate – from the public as well as the government. Okay people.

First. They are a business. In a competitive marketplace. Their purpose is to make a profit (or a not for profit company). Unless mandated otherwise they are permitted to make a profit (and people can elect a different choice if they don’t like it). Okay. I know I made a sweeping point with a lot of debatable aspects but since when has a business in a competitive marketplace been restricted on profitability? Second. Anyone who knows anything about healthcare finances and managing “risk to insure everyone receives coverage in the event of a catastrophe” is a tricky proposition. Suffice it to say I would rather they make some money rather than not have enough money if a catastrophe happens.

Third. Re-investing profits back into the business. Interestingly most healthcare companies have excellent programs developed and available. And if people used these programs the company may actually be a little less profitable, charge less and, best of all, there would be a healthier population.