Employee Development: to specialize or generalize?

Historically, the American education system, influenced heavily by John Dewey, has viewed a broader, more liberal educational footprint as the precursor to a well-educated society. To Dewey, education was life (not a preparation for life). Through education, students should have exposure and knowledge on a wide range of subjects in order to be good (as in effective) citizens. Dewey’s contribution to education continues to have an impact today. When a young person heads off to college for example, their liberal arts curriculum is intentionally broad in at least the first two years. It’s normal to have exposure to topics like Asian Political History, Demographics, Art of the Renaissance, or Gender Studies. To the student (and parents), it’s often frustrating to have to take courses that seem to be irrelevant to their major, but these seemingly disparate topics have the net effect of opening a young person’s mind to knowledge that was previously hidden from their worldview. 

This mindset has implications for employee development even today. As we think about the learning investment in employees, the question becomes Is it better to increase or improve an employee’s specialized knowledge or facilitate an employee’s broader organizational and industry knowledge? Because we’ve often been ambiguous about which path makes more sense, we are in effect, leaving this potential competitive edge to chance. 

Specialization. Specialization can be the bright and shiny object that throws us off the trail. Tiger Woods was hyper-focused on golf at age 2. Yo Yo Ma was hyper-focused on playing the cello at age 4. So there are certainly examples where specialization turned people into super-performers as adults. For organizations however, specialization has a dark side. Employees fixated on specialization can mean:  

• doing the same thing over and over, but gaining only incremental improvements,
• focusing too much on one discipline, but failing to see the connection to other    areas (the big picture), 
• becoming irrelevant when technology or society changes, and lastly, 
• identifying solely with the task the employee does best, thereby resisting change  with a vengeance. 

Generalization. On the other side of this dichotomy are those that have a broader range, with exposure to a wide variety of disciplines. David Epstein, in his 2019 book entitled Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World, wrote that generalists are actually stronger than specialists in a variety of ways. 

Generalists think in terms of abstract concepts rather than the constraints of the standard explanation.  Generalized knowledge from working (for example), at several organizations helps the generalist to understand that there are often several ways of doing things, not just one and only one. Long-term employees that have rotated or transferred into several departments are also positioned to make social and cognitive connections about the way the organization works, the many subcultures within the organization, and understand unique and different perspectives, all of which could be accurate at the same time. 

The idea of ‘one way’ just doesn’t resonate with the generalist because they know better. Generalists are not stuck in a traditional way of thinking. They are not threatened by those who challenge the status quo with new ideas. 

When HR and L&D professionals think about developing employees, it is usually left to a conversation between the manager and the employee, focused on short-term development at the expense of broader (organizational) opportunities. I have seldom been in an organization where there was a strategic conversation about the overall purpose of learning and development. L&D was more about the illusion of something, -a gift from the organization. 

Generalization trumps Specialization. This HR/L&D/OD philosophical blindside to generalization and employee learning has downstream consequences. It means:

• we still have a long way to go before we see learning as a strategic differentiator
• we foster a fixed mindset in our employees (this is what I do, what I was meant to do)
• we facilitate a cultural resistance to change, and
• we play into those who would criticize the investment in employee development for adding little, if any value. 

The Passersby

In one of my favorite Twilight Zone episodes, The Passersby, a Confederate Army soldier is walking past a ruined antebellum mansion, where he stops to talk to a recently widowed wife of another Confederate soldier. From the porch, they watch as casualties of the war walk on the road in front of the house, bemoaning the pain of the war. Finally, the last person to walk past the house is president Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln’s passing embodies the end of an era. The country had to let go of whatever we thought we were, and turn our attention to the unknown, uncertain future, -the wilderness. 

The episode could be a metaphor of the pandemic and where organizations are today, our wounds, our efforts to adjust, and the meaning society will make of what we just went through.

Lincoln’s walk is analogous to the last pivot of organizations trying to come to terms with the transformation of organizational life as we knew it. Working long hours, sacrificing time with loved ones, enduring abuse and exploitation are quickly becoming relics of a bygone era. No one wants to go back to that. But where do we go from here?

The emerging question moves toward the Employee Value Proposition (EVP). Every C-Suite and HR/OD professional is asking, How does our organization offer something different or more than our competition that will draw employees to our doorsteps? How do we create a working environment, an inclusive and healthy culture, and a brand that retains employees, not just because we pay more, but because this organization is truly a great place to work? 

Robert Keegan wrote an interesting book a few years ago (An Everyone Culture), where he coined the term, a Deliberately Developmental Organization (DDO). Rather than organizational life taking a business as usual approach, the organizations of the future need to rethink the central role of people development within organizational life. 

“What if a company did everything within its power to create the conditions for individuals to overcome their own internal barriers to change, to take stock of and to transcend their own blind spots, and to see errors and weaknesses as prime opportunities for personal growth? What would it look like to “do work” in a way that enabled organizations and their employees to be partners in each other’s flourishing?”

Putting resources into learning and development is framed as a cost, it undermines the impact it has on the (difficult to quantify) culture, the brand, and attrition, but that might be changing. The question is whether organizations will recognize the remnants of the last era (the Passersby) and realize that a new workplace era is unfolding and waiting to be constructed. 

The Post-Pandemic Supervisor

Is it safe to say that we have now come through the COVID pandemic and things will start to return to the way they were before? Two things jump out at me with this question: first, it is not clear that we are ‘out of the woods’ just yet, and secondly, we may never return to the way things were before.

The pandemic not only changed employees and the way they view their relationship with an employer; it changed the way leaders need to understand their leadership role.

For employees, we hear things like ‘quiet quitting’ and the ‘great resignation’. Companies are scurrying to get employees to stay while attracting new employees to join the team. Compensation has come into the spotlight as it is easy to see one’s market value through a quick online search. Aside from that consideration however, quality of life factors like workload, mental health, recognition, and flexibility are emerging as differentiators for employees.

 

For supervisors, the leaders dealing with these changing employee expectations, a shift in competency requirements is taking place. Many of the fundamental competencies are still relevant, like communication, conflict management, team building, etc. but let’s examine a few changes directly attributable to the pandemic:

• Remote Teams. Leaders are now leading remote teams more than ever. What is the impact on things like communication, inclusion, and recognition? How have your communication patterns, which were often passive and informal changed in the new work era?
• Work/Life Balance: Leaders must acknowledge that employees have re-examined their work-life balance, -and it is no longer a given that employees will willingly work beyond their 8-hour day. This was clearly building up prior to the pandemic, but the last two years certainly precipitated changing attitudes. Have you adjusted your leadership expectations as well?
• Culture Management. When we talked about culture, it was always a given that we were talking about an intact group working together onsite. What does a team culture look like when we are relating to one another through Zoom? How does your team continue to feel like a team? How does the leader instill a cultural identity and uniqueness in a remote environment?
• Development. Whether we are talking about professional development external to the organization or internally-driven learning opportunities, employees increasingly see the imperative of their growth and development. Supervisors need to be advocates of learning and growth for their employees. What is your development commitment and approach with each employee? This is a differentiator in the new era. 
• Technology. Leaders no longer have the luxury of being technologically illiterate. Technology is here, front and center, especially with increasingly remote workforces. Are you technologically competent?
• Onboarding. The post-pandemic onboarding process is no longer your father’s onboarding (or even your onboarding process for that matter). How are you adjusting to provide an inclusive and culturally-relevant remote onboarding experience?
• Humanistic Leadership. Lastly, with the hyper-competition for employees, the leader has to be more attuned to the human needs of the employee. There are children, doctor visits, family issues, and other things that are going on. To be clear, they have always been there, but now it’s a differentiator between the old school leader-follower relationship and the new leader mindset. Where are you on that spectrum?

The post-pandemic employee has many more enticements from employers seeking to lure them to greener pastures. Consequently, the new leadership contract has to evolve as well or they will find themselves watching their intellectual capital drain away.