Okay at Everything, Master of None

Up until a few months ago, I prided myself as a jack of all trades.

I was proud of my ability to be versatile, have the skill set needed for a wide variety of tasks, be able to mold myself into whatever was demanded.

But this sense of pride dissipated once I realized that although I may be capable in a wide variety of skills, I was master of none. And the job market, in my view, didn’t seem interested in people who could do everything. To me, it looked like companies and employers were interested in people who were good at just one thing.

To say I was concerned for my prospects would be an understatement.

Throughout college, I had had a grab bag of experiences and projects, all which made me oddly capable at many things which I had not imagined I’d be able to do.

I was deeply invested in the debating community, and as a result, I had a strong skillset in public speaking and debate coaching. I’d also spent a good portion of a year watching and reviewing over 100 films, so writing, reviewing, and to a certain degree, social media management was also something I’d dabbled in. I also made a podcast, albeit a short-lived one, so podcast recording and producing was also a tool in my belt.

I’d made two films in university, so I had a moderate understanding of videography and editing. I’d also taken some photos here and there, so photography was something I had a bit of a grasp on. And finally, as an Econ student, I had managed to learn how to manage and work with large datasets, although this skill was one I had to learn whether I liked it or not.

The conclusion of my experience? I was capable of a lot of things — but not particularly masterful in any of them.

So is being a jack of all trades truly a bad thing?

The answer to that question came in the form of a book titled “Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World” written by David Epstein. I had stumbled upon a recommendation for the book while working on another personal project of mine, and the premise was intriguing — and also highly relevant to my life.

Right now, I’m about a third of the way into the book. But from what I’ve read, the message has been clear: being a generalist, or a jack of all trades, or a non-specialist, is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, in many cases, it leads to better outcomes in the future.

Anecdotal evidence: Roger Federer played baseball and badminton before settling on tennis. Tom Brady was drafted in a pro baseball team before pivoting to football. George Miller was a physician before turning into a director. The list goes on. The lesson is that the less you specialize earlier on in life, the better you are later on once you choose your focus.

In reality, there may not be many guarantees that success blossoms from a wide range of skills. There are many pieces of evidence to argue that specialization or mastery of one skill trumps an understanding of many skills.

However, there was a second source of my increased confidence in the generalist belief.

Startup culture.

In today’s economy, rooted in rapid growth and fast changing technology, the generalist has had an increasingly important position in corporate culture, both new companies and old. There’s a lot that a generalist should hope to offer — an ability to work between disciplines, and bridging differing perspectives from different fields.

Some point down the road I realized that being a jack of all trades isn’t something useless. That despite the praise for those who commit wholeheartedly to their practice, there is value in learning — and later on combining — many different practices and disciplines.

And so, for those of you who are in a similar situation, I’d like to tell you that being general doesn’t mean that you’re a master of none. On the contrary; you’re the combination of the best parts of all the disciplines you’ve learned.