Why it's better to be a generalist than a specialist

After reading the article, I am not sure if I should agree or not because sometimes I think the people who are specialists are the one more successful. But then, as I evaluate myself, I found out that I am a generalist because aside from my offline job, I have my online job. Then I am pursuing my masteral degree. Then, I am a wedding coordinator and a travel specialist. Thank you for this article. It gives me time to reflect. I know generalist can be successful also, not only in one field but in all aspect.

This is off the cuff and without reading through the article: I'm increasingly persuaded, in my own mind, to be a generalist while marketing oneself as a specialist.

Most specialists I've met aren't all that special. I suppose my comment is targeted at relatively high performers, but within that context I don't see maintaining such a commercial specialty as demanding all of one's available work effort (where one defines what is "available" versus other/personal endeavors including family, hobbies, rest and relaxation, etc.).

With a more general interest and experience, one is often able to conceive of and introduce solutions that lie in part or entirely outside of the typical domain knowledge of the specialty. One can solve problems that others can't, or solve them in a better fashion.

Just ascribe this, in appropriate marketing contexts, to your mastery of the specialty. That one "won the game" by being a generalist, one keeps to oneself when that is the favorable choice.

Plus, it's just more interesting -- for me, at least -- at a personal level.

I've been a generalist who excelled in specialist roles. But when I was seen as a generalist, this tended to mean I got the short end of the stick, despite that success. (Amongst other things, bureaucracies love labels and categories; if you don't fit into the right one, you face enormous cognitive dissonance.)