John, the industrial age sold us a specific lie: that hyper-specialization was safety. It told us to become the perfect gear for a machine that would last forever. You are correctly identifying that the machine is changing. The "Specialist" is now a liability—a single point of failure in a volatile system.
I read your piece not just as career analysis, but as a survival manual. As I’ve been writing about the "Great Unlearning", I realized that while the specialist waits for instructions or optimization, the Generalist sees the whole board.
We are moving from an economy of components to an economy of architects. You are effectively giving your readers permission to stop being tools and start being builders.
Thank you for mapping the terrain. The signal is strong.
Thanks so much, Peter! Greatly appreciate your perspective and support. Curious, to what extent do you see the expectation shifting moreso to a place where we are actually becoming specialists across multiple domains, rather than the single variable specialists route we’ve been taught to expect?
The "single-variable specialist" is a fragile construct designed for a world that no longer exists.
It was an optimization strategy. In a stable environment, the most efficient component wins. But we have left the era of stability and entered the era of volatility. In volatility, the hyper-specialized component is just a single point of failure.
I don't view it as "becoming specialists across multiple domains"—that sounds like exhaustion. I view it as reclaiming the architecture.
The machine now owns the Depth (calculation, production, code generation).
The human must own the Width (synthesis, connection, judgment).
The expectation is shifting because the "silo" is now a coffin. The winner of the next decade isn't the best coder or the best financier. It is the person who understands the interface between Code, Finance, and Energy well enough to spot the trap before it snaps.
We are not becoming multi-specialists. We are becoming Systems Integrators of our own survival.
The end of the specialist is here, the era of the neo-polymath who reclaims the architecture is here.
This really clicked for me. What stood out most is how judgment and systems thinking become the real differentiators. If AI handles more execution, the ability to see the whole system, make good calls, and connect domains thoughtfully feels more important than ever.
Thanks John! This is an excellent article and it made think about generalists in a whole new way. The macro view of the strategist combined with the micro view of the builder is how leaders will 10x themselves.
This hits a nerve because it names what so many avoid saying out loud. Generalists aren’t lacking depth. They’re building the maps while everyone else is digging trenches.
The problem isn’t that generalists don’t specialise. It’s that their value doesn’t fit neatly into job specs or org charts.
But in an operating future shaped by complexity, convergence, and constant reinvention -who do you think is holding the centre?
Thanks John, an excellent article as ever. I also think that the reason why future leaders have to be technically competent is that people who report to them have more respect for them, at least from my experience, if they are able to do the things that they require their team to do as well.
John, the industrial age sold us a specific lie: that hyper-specialization was safety. It told us to become the perfect gear for a machine that would last forever. You are correctly identifying that the machine is changing. The "Specialist" is now a liability—a single point of failure in a volatile system.
I read your piece not just as career analysis, but as a survival manual. As I’ve been writing about the "Great Unlearning", I realized that while the specialist waits for instructions or optimization, the Generalist sees the whole board.
We are moving from an economy of components to an economy of architects. You are effectively giving your readers permission to stop being tools and start being builders.
Thank you for mapping the terrain. The signal is strong.
Stay sovereign
Thanks so much, Peter! Greatly appreciate your perspective and support. Curious, to what extent do you see the expectation shifting moreso to a place where we are actually becoming specialists across multiple domains, rather than the single variable specialists route we’ve been taught to expect?
That’s the question I find myself asking.
John,
The "single-variable specialist" is a fragile construct designed for a world that no longer exists.
It was an optimization strategy. In a stable environment, the most efficient component wins. But we have left the era of stability and entered the era of volatility. In volatility, the hyper-specialized component is just a single point of failure.
I don't view it as "becoming specialists across multiple domains"—that sounds like exhaustion. I view it as reclaiming the architecture.
The machine now owns the Depth (calculation, production, code generation).
The human must own the Width (synthesis, connection, judgment).
The expectation is shifting because the "silo" is now a coffin. The winner of the next decade isn't the best coder or the best financier. It is the person who understands the interface between Code, Finance, and Energy well enough to spot the trap before it snaps.
We are not becoming multi-specialists. We are becoming Systems Integrators of our own survival.
The end of the specialist is here, the era of the neo-polymath who reclaims the architecture is here.
This really clicked for me. What stood out most is how judgment and systems thinking become the real differentiators. If AI handles more execution, the ability to see the whole system, make good calls, and connect domains thoughtfully feels more important than ever.
Thanks John! This is an excellent article and it made think about generalists in a whole new way. The macro view of the strategist combined with the micro view of the builder is how leaders will 10x themselves.
I’m glad it shifted how you think about generalists.
Your piece felt like watching someone at a crossroads, holding a map that only shows one path while the landscape actually has many.
Being a generalist isn’t about not choosing it’s about seeing the connections between choices that others miss.
Through the 5 Voices lens, the generalist pattern shows up as strength when teams understand how different voices contribute:
Nurturers bring relational context.
Guardians ground things in detail and reliability.
Creatives spot patterns and possibilities.
Connectors weave meaning and energy between people.
Pioneers push toward clear direction and choice.
Generalists often feel tension because they notice all these threads at once — and then want to help others see them too.
I love that crossroads image, it captures the tension without making it feel like a flaw.
This hits a nerve because it names what so many avoid saying out loud. Generalists aren’t lacking depth. They’re building the maps while everyone else is digging trenches.
The problem isn’t that generalists don’t specialise. It’s that their value doesn’t fit neatly into job specs or org charts.
But in an operating future shaped by complexity, convergence, and constant reinvention -who do you think is holding the centre?
You’re right, job specs struggle with anything that does not sit cleanly in one box.
The tech should be used to not just "do" nut also help learn, and also "do" - better
Tools work best when they make us better, not just faster.
Thanks John, an excellent article as ever. I also think that the reason why future leaders have to be technically competent is that people who report to them have more respect for them, at least from my experience, if they are able to do the things that they require their team to do as well.
That respect point is real… credibility changes when leaders can actually do the work