I've written before about Karl Weick, a psychologist from The University of Michigan. Karl is one of our most imaginative theorists, and also a gracious person who cares deeply about ideas. I've written about his argument that the right attitude for learning and creativity is to "argue as if you are right and listen as if you are wrong," which strikes me as the right path for developing strong opinions, weakly held, as they advocate at the Institute for the Future.
The reactions that I got to Weick's ideas about arguing and listening reminded me of an exercise that I use in a doctoral class that I teach every few years on "The Craft of Organizational Research." One theme is to help students identify the writings they love most, who their heroes are, who they want to be like when they grow-up -- so they can build a career that will enable them to do good work and to enjoy doing it. As I say to them, my hero is Karl Weick. I pick an excerpt from his 1989 Academy of Management Review article called "Theory Building as Disciplined Imagination" as it weaves together Karl's keen observational powers, knowledge of empirical research, and his uncanny knack for blending diverse ideas in ways that surprise and delight his readers.
First, let me set the stage for his quote. Weick was writing about the notion that good theorists should like new evidence that disconfirms their ideas, as it speeds the process of building interesting theory. But then he goes on to say that this doesn't always happen because, once a theorist has a strong investment in a theory and has well-organized defenses and ideas about that theory, and is planning to spread the theory, new ideas (especially disconfirming evidence) will likely be experienced as upsetting to him or her -- even if they improve the theory -- because such interruptions throw a monkey wrench in current plans, causing the person to go through new cognitive effort and threatening to destroy something that he or she has worked hard to build and defend -- and I would add to often lash and destroy the offending ideas and evidence (and perhaps the person who has them). Then he adds this statement about generalists and specialists:
Generalists, people with moderately strong attachments to many ideas, should be hard to interrupt, and once interrupted, should have weaker, shorter negative negative reactions since they have alternative paths to realize their plans. Specialists, people with stronger attachments to fewer ideas, should be easier to interrupt, and once interrupted, should have stronger,more sustained negative reactions because they have fewer alternative pathways to realize their plans. Generalists should be the the upbeat, positive people in the profession while specialists should be their grouchy, negative counterparts (page 526).
I don't know about the people that you work with, but in my field -- although I won't name any names -- this theory works pretty well. The people who have devoted their lives to developing just one idea or a few seem most grumpy to me. And it makes sense. If you believe in just one idea very strongly, new information either supports it (that is not an interruption, just more signs you are right, so you can hum along), challenges it (so you have to change the one thing you know and love or attack the idea), or it is an irrelevant distraction from the one little would that really matters to you (your one true pet theory, that you have devoted so much effort to building). This logic not only applies to academics, I've heard my wife argue that the grumpiest lawyers are those who are so specialized that "they know almost everything about something that is so narrow and obtuse that it seems like almost nothing," these ultra-specialists often have no interest in other law, client's related business problems, or what other lawyers do. And, like ultra-specialists in other fields, they believe that others are really too naive and stupid to understand their precious, well-developed, but very specialized ideas.
I wonder, does Weick's observation ring true for other occupations? Note this is an untested hypothesis as far as I know, but it sure is interesting.
I wanted to be a specialist, but now I am a generalist.
I am happy being a generalist though, because being a generlist helps me to sort out a lot more problems than would a specialist.
I have also started my own website...
The Generalist's Repository
http://mark-lawton.com
Posted by: Mark Lawton | August 20, 2010 at 02:30 PM
I’m surprised because of the fantastic ideas close to this topic. You did this as the freelance writer , thence, you deserve very prestige price for that, I guess!
Posted by: BDMegan | January 08, 2010 at 11:51 AM
I like Osvaldo's counterexamples. The grumpy-specialist mapping is a massive oversimplification. I'm a generalist in IT, and I'm grumpy.. there are plenty of happy specialists in this craft, too.
Posted by: Doug K | November 29, 2007 at 10:35 AM
The excerpt about attachments / interruptibility / reactions rings true in the software development field, where agile methods tend to appeal to generalists and traditional methods tend to appeal to specialists. The agile approach to a project involves exploring the problem and discovering the solution as you progress, while traditional approaches tend to involve choosing a single path to the solution in advance, and then following that path rigorously. The generalist/specialist personality types seem to fit. The general nature of debates within a team during a project also tend to line up, with generalists on an agile team and specialists on a traditional team behaving as Weick describes when their ideas are challenged.
Posted by: Dave Nicolette | March 08, 2007 at 06:32 AM
I think partly the specialist might be too invested in a given idea, which might compose the person's career. But I think there's another difference: whether people think that their part in the process of idea development is to focus on one aspect or to take a broader responsibility. The specialist works as though the job is entirely trying to fit everything into his or her theory, which becomes one of George Lakoff's frameworks. Either everything fits in or it must be wrong. The specialist becoems incapable of considering anything else.
The generalist, on the other hand, is more involved in trying to find the connections between theories and not on the construction of a single theory. It's as though the specialist wrestles with thesis and anthesis and then freezes, never getting to synthesis.
Posted by: Erik Sherman | February 24, 2007 at 09:32 AM
When I think of the number of judicial misconduct cases, and more importantly; the judges on these governing panels who make rules insisting on preserving Confidentiality regarding the misconduct of a public servant, I worry there is little chance of success working within the State.
But the good news is transparency is key to a good government, so USAjudges.com appears to be dealing effectively with bad judges.
Posted by: Whatstherealnews | February 24, 2007 at 08:18 AM
Mightn't there be two-way causality here?
Granted that increased investment in an idea might increase the tenacity of our emotional bond to it, and thus our grumpiness when it is attacked.
But it may also be true that the specialist became a specialist because of a pre-existing tendency toward monomania. I'm no psychiatrist, but my experience suggests that monomania brings with it an emotional brittleness that may show up well before one's career choice is made.
Posted by: Max Christian Hansen | February 22, 2007 at 05:26 PM
Could that be because generalists happily piss specialists off due to their lack of knowledge on a specific subject?
In business, many managers are/become generalists. In "command & control" companies, managers (generalists) make decisions and specialists execute it. That would explain why the happiness distribution is unbalanced.
I think that in well run & balanced businesses both generalists and specialists are happy.
Furthermore, specialists have a passion for something. Shouldn’t that provide a better chance of being fulfilled and happy?
Osvaldo
P.S. I do not believe in everything I write :-), just trying to take a different perspective and start a root cause analysis.
Posted by: Osvaldo Spadano | February 22, 2007 at 05:02 AM
Weick's observations ring true, but they also bang up against that "Fox and Hedgehog" thing. My experience has been that the people who have been most successful in careers and business and science have mostly been specialists. On the other hand, when I think of who I know that's been successful in life taken whole, the generalists triumph.
Posted by: Wally Bock | February 21, 2007 at 04:29 AM
Bob –
I'd take this one step further. This also happens when a company holds too strongly to a strategy or when a person or team holds too strongly to one potential implementation path (for a tool, a new process, a new product). As soon as someone backs an idea in a political corporate environment - watch out!!! They will likely go to the "grave" defending it - even when all the evidence shows it needs adjustment!!!
Not only that – some might consider the idea of entertaining new information as weakness! That you’re being “wishy-washy” or not sufficiently committed to the path!
Where’s the line between commitment and acknowledging when the emperor is naked?!
Great post!
Ann
PS – I JUST got my copy of The No Asshole Rule from Amazon today!!! I can’t wait to start reading.
Posted by: ann michael | February 20, 2007 at 04:14 PM
It's seems to be prevalent in the sciences. It's full of examples where people are married to their ideas. String Theory and Global Warming are two areas. I've included some links that should prove to be interesting even if you don't agree.
There have been two books published recently about the disagreements on String Theory. Here's a review:
http://www.newyorker.com/critics/atlarge/articles/061002crat_atlarge
Global Warming is a contentious issue. Here are three different links that have interesting information.
Take note of the last couple of paragraphs about searching for evidence. http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
JUNK CONTROVERSY NOT JUNK SCIENCE...
http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html
Publishing that goes against the grain: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece
Posted by: James Hubbard | February 20, 2007 at 02:16 PM