The banalities of the creative generalist

I discovered this pretty interesting blog posting about the notion of being a creative generalist. He describes the notion that:

Nothing can substitute for depth of analysis, and there's proven value in specialization – it's what education, career paths, scientific research, and technological innovation are built on – but generalism is a secret talent. With so much complex information, fragmented in so many ways and developing faster and faster, it is increasingly important to have generalists around to make sense of it all, of the big picture. People who appreciate diversity, who are in the know about the wider world and who understand how things interact are invaluable observers, matchmakers, and pioneers of the intersectional ideas so vital for success in today’s knowledge economy, conceptual age, and global community.

But what exactly do generalists do? That’s the question most often asked of me and it’s not an easy one to answer. By definition, generalists tend not to focus (actually, they do focus but just not to the extent that specialists do), they don’t often travel in groups (lacking common associations, designations, and unions), and their shape-shifting versatility changes them frequently. But they are definable and there most certainly are essential traits and skills inherent to them.

It's a pretty long post, that's peppered with anecdotes and quotes from famous writers, thinkers, and business people both past and contemporary who have been known to exemplify broad generalist thinking that was done in a very creative manner. One particularly good example, was the inclusion of the writer Frans Johansson, who is the author of the famous book Medici Effect: What Elephants and Epidemics Can Teach Us About Innovation.

A great example from the book, was the French telecom engineer whose passion for entomology led to close observation of ants that suggested algorithms now widely used to route traffic around the Internet. This is certainly a prime example of creative, generalist epiphany at its finest. Though while I'm a believer and a strong advocate for adopting a creative generalist approach to solving business, as well as any problem, I feel there is the danger inherent to this type of thinking and that is if it is pursued unchecked and irrationally, it succumbs to triteness and banalities. Even worse, it can lead to sloppy thinking.

Here's my rationale:

1. The majority of people still do not adopt proper analytical and logical skills to problems. Its no secret that this country suffers from a lack of scientists and engineers, and is why so much of these functions are imported in from other countries or outsourced. But underlying this problems is not such much a shortage of technical skills and education, as bad as that has gotten, but really is a lack on educational institutions teaching of how to think critically, analytically and logically not only in science and technology, but in other disciplines as well. Having people adopt a more holistic, generalist view without proper rigorous analysis is dangerous. In addition, the whole idea of "creativity" if not defined properly become merely intellectual fluff.
2. Like those infamous "team-building" exercises that have become popular in corporate America, where you have employees engage in goofy exercises with each other, in order to spark creativity and teamwork that has now become a source of dread for most employees, the same could happen if you try to artificially induce creative generalist thinking. The example of the French telecom engineer from Johansson's book was no doubt a combination of years of study and passionate pursuit of different fields of study, that converged at some serendipitous point and lead that engineer to his extraordinary discovery. I think if you try to hard to artificially induce such discoveries, you run into the problems of making the process banal and even drudgery much like the team building exercises. Google is a prime example recently of company known for having a creative work environment, yet despite this has had an exodus of key employees recently due to boredom.
   
3. Again, like the example of the French telecom engineer just mentioned, it seems we get enthralled by what seems to be a spontaneous spark of creative genius that leads to such incredible discoveries, and forgot that many such individuals got to that point from years of research and study, and probably toiled for years with painful detail to data and analysis. Like Edison said, its "1% inspiration and 99% perspiration" and I think its important to emphasize the hard work, dedication and attention to details it takes to achieve such insights as well as being more creative and holistic in your thinking.

Nevertheless, the blog was an excellent read and I recommend the site and thought I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments and pursuit of being a creative generalists, I do so with the above caveats in mind. I actually go further then the author and believe that in order to compete in today's competitive and intense global world, that you have to have subject matter expertise in a few areas AND the ability to generalize and think creatively through problems.