Is it better to hire specialists or generalists?

ALL organisations will agree that one of their most critical challenges is having the right employees. For companies with limited manpower and resources, having the right employees working in the right jobs makes the difference between success and failure. One of the hotly-debated topics in this area is: Is it better to hire someone who has a broad range of skills and experiences across a range of disciplines? Or someone who is an expert in his/her field?

For the past few decades, many industries and businesses have been showing a preference for specialists. Economic theory and business reality supports higher productivity and competitive advantages resulting from highly-skilled experts manning key departments and roles in the organisation. The benefits of hiring specialists that do not need expensive and lengthy training and can hit the ground running to produce high quality very fast are obvious. A specialist directly contributes to improving your business' ability to earn money.

The situation was quite different in older times. In banking, for example (and this held true for many different industries), management trainees were often hired for their background, their perceived integrity and ability to blend into the culture of the bank. They were then rotated around different departments so that they could master all aspects of banking. Of course, the highly specialised products and complex structured deals of today did not exist then. Today, you will not be able to get a job as a generalist banker - you would need to have specialised in some area of banking.