In a competitive market, we’re looking for high-output generalists – team members that can move projects (and the business) forward, fast and at any moment.
I led an executive search firm for years (not anymore). While I agree with hiring high-output generalists, I disagree with giving them a take-home assignment unless the candidate is paid to do the assignment. Too often, companies use this as a method to get ‘free’ consulting work. I can speak of several instances where an organization used and implemented the candidate's work into its system but never hired the candidate. Take-home assignments are an ideal way to get a sense of the candidate’s abilities, but they are also an excellent way to get free work and to steal from the competition. The best way to overcome this hurdle is to pay for the candidate’s time and work. Otherwise, stick to the old-fashioned way of recruiting and hiring.
On the other side, how would you advise someone who is a highly skilled generalist to best demonstrate this in an interview to ensure the company can see their value add to the company, even if they don’t neatly fit a specific job role? Thanks!
In my experience, you have to take a risk. You need to explain "Here's how I work best and am most effective. How would that fit in this corporate culture? Would that be valued, or would that be seen as a problem?" It also pays to say "I'm strong in X, but will need support in Y. How do you feel about that?" You'll get rejected from some jobs from that, but they're not the jobs you'd thrive in anyway.
I couldn't agree more for the need for high output generalists! Looking to past experience can be misleading. That's why I've been thinking that perhaps it is not just past experience, but the diversity of past experience. How many fields did they work in? This can be a better indicator of general problem-solving capabilities and overall critical thinking(making sense of the unkown fast).
I also like what Sam Owens, the founder of Skool did to hire the software engineers in his company. By interviewing over 300 software engineers, he found that the best predictor to a software devs ability often hinged on this question: who's your biggest influence or what piece of material shaped your approach? It's the ones that went above and beyond to improve their craft that correlated with skill.
And so I think the same can said for high-output generalists: who's your biggest influence/model or materials that shaped your general-capabilities approach ?
If somebody called me a "Swiss army knife" (which has happened before), I'd tell them that I'm not a tool nor an object but a human being with skills but also with basic human needs. If anything, call them "T-shaped professionals" (with broad generalist knowledge and deep, expert knowledge in at least one professional area).
In order to deliver when the stakes are high, you need resilience, as well as psychological safety: the feeling of being accepted, supported and respected.
You can't really probe for that trait in a take home assignment. If anything, this kind of people will have done high impact work before. Ask them in the behavioural and technical interviews about situations in which they've exhibited that trait and what their individual contribution was in relation to the outcome. In fact, take-home assignments would be a red flag for me.
Nobody really *wants* to put in the extra work when the stakes are high, it's more like these people will know that, if they don't do it by themselves, nobody else will do it (or it will be done poorly).
And one more thing: in a complex project you can't do it all by yourself. You need people to support these high output generalists and you need to ensure that everybody are pulling into the same direction.
Great post. As someone who has had to pivot throughout their career, and would associate as a high-output generalist, it's been a constant challenge to find the right approach to explaining my value when applying for roles. Few companies (Section aside) are explicitly adding "High-Output Generalists" to their team even though the need is obvious. It's often only after being in a role and demonstrating generalist skills (and more) that the gotcha moment happens for the hiring manager/company and they recognize the asset they've acquired. I'm okay with being set an assignment as part of the hiring process. As long as the parameters are clearly laid out such that it's not a consulting project by stealth, then it's a valuable exercise for both hiring company and applicant.
Sort of related but really hits home with the idea of T shaped skills. People who are an expert in one domain but also a generalist in many others. Best of both worlds !
High-output generalists are extremely easy to spot. Their career paths are disorderly. They continually reinvent themselves. They don't stay inside their little boxes on the org chart. They're curious about everything. They're not the most organized or the ones you want doing or managing linear tasks. No need to test for it. Tell them what you're looking for and ask if they have a story about that from their career. High-output generalists LIVE to tell those kinds of stories.
Great post. I actually have a different take than other commenters (and I run a recruiting firm myself). While paying candidates for take-home assignments can be a nice touch, I don’t see it as necessary or required. In my experience, the top candidates are those who genuinely invest in the opportunity, e.g. doing the research and immersing themselves in the industry and business long before they even reach the case study. Frankly, if a candidate is overly concerned about doing "free work" during the interview process, it can be a red flag. The candidates who are truly committed and enthusiastic about the role tend to see the case study as an opportunity to demonstrate their capabilities, not as an inconvenience.
"Every team needs at least one high-output generalist – but they’re hard to find"
come chat with us at www.generalist.world :)
I was reading and nodding along with every point you made until the topic of interview assignments. Either pay for the work or trust the process.
I'm a big fan of your work.
I led an executive search firm for years (not anymore). While I agree with hiring high-output generalists, I disagree with giving them a take-home assignment unless the candidate is paid to do the assignment. Too often, companies use this as a method to get ‘free’ consulting work. I can speak of several instances where an organization used and implemented the candidate's work into its system but never hired the candidate. Take-home assignments are an ideal way to get a sense of the candidate’s abilities, but they are also an excellent way to get free work and to steal from the competition. The best way to overcome this hurdle is to pay for the candidate’s time and work. Otherwise, stick to the old-fashioned way of recruiting and hiring.
On the other side, how would you advise someone who is a highly skilled generalist to best demonstrate this in an interview to ensure the company can see their value add to the company, even if they don’t neatly fit a specific job role? Thanks!
In my experience, you have to take a risk. You need to explain "Here's how I work best and am most effective. How would that fit in this corporate culture? Would that be valued, or would that be seen as a problem?" It also pays to say "I'm strong in X, but will need support in Y. How do you feel about that?" You'll get rejected from some jobs from that, but they're not the jobs you'd thrive in anyway.
I agree with you, Michael. When I’m hiring for any role with an assignment, it’s always paid.
wow, no one has actually ever described what i have done and enjoy, and that includes me. thank you for the validation.
I couldn't agree more for the need for high output generalists! Looking to past experience can be misleading. That's why I've been thinking that perhaps it is not just past experience, but the diversity of past experience. How many fields did they work in? This can be a better indicator of general problem-solving capabilities and overall critical thinking(making sense of the unkown fast).
I also like what Sam Owens, the founder of Skool did to hire the software engineers in his company. By interviewing over 300 software engineers, he found that the best predictor to a software devs ability often hinged on this question: who's your biggest influence or what piece of material shaped your approach? It's the ones that went above and beyond to improve their craft that correlated with skill.
And so I think the same can said for high-output generalists: who's your biggest influence/model or materials that shaped your general-capabilities approach ?
I'm one of these "high output generalists".
If somebody called me a "Swiss army knife" (which has happened before), I'd tell them that I'm not a tool nor an object but a human being with skills but also with basic human needs. If anything, call them "T-shaped professionals" (with broad generalist knowledge and deep, expert knowledge in at least one professional area).
In order to deliver when the stakes are high, you need resilience, as well as psychological safety: the feeling of being accepted, supported and respected.
You can't really probe for that trait in a take home assignment. If anything, this kind of people will have done high impact work before. Ask them in the behavioural and technical interviews about situations in which they've exhibited that trait and what their individual contribution was in relation to the outcome. In fact, take-home assignments would be a red flag for me.
Nobody really *wants* to put in the extra work when the stakes are high, it's more like these people will know that, if they don't do it by themselves, nobody else will do it (or it will be done poorly).
And one more thing: in a complex project you can't do it all by yourself. You need people to support these high output generalists and you need to ensure that everybody are pulling into the same direction.
Great post. As someone who has had to pivot throughout their career, and would associate as a high-output generalist, it's been a constant challenge to find the right approach to explaining my value when applying for roles. Few companies (Section aside) are explicitly adding "High-Output Generalists" to their team even though the need is obvious. It's often only after being in a role and demonstrating generalist skills (and more) that the gotcha moment happens for the hiring manager/company and they recognize the asset they've acquired. I'm okay with being set an assignment as part of the hiring process. As long as the parameters are clearly laid out such that it's not a consulting project by stealth, then it's a valuable exercise for both hiring company and applicant.
Sort of related but really hits home with the idea of T shaped skills. People who are an expert in one domain but also a generalist in many others. Best of both worlds !
What's the best way to set expectations with and manage a high output generalist?
When I see these people I try and lure them onto my Product Management Team. The best PMs ARE generalists and meet those criteria.
High-output generalists are extremely easy to spot. Their career paths are disorderly. They continually reinvent themselves. They don't stay inside their little boxes on the org chart. They're curious about everything. They're not the most organized or the ones you want doing or managing linear tasks. No need to test for it. Tell them what you're looking for and ask if they have a story about that from their career. High-output generalists LIVE to tell those kinds of stories.
Great post. I actually have a different take than other commenters (and I run a recruiting firm myself). While paying candidates for take-home assignments can be a nice touch, I don’t see it as necessary or required. In my experience, the top candidates are those who genuinely invest in the opportunity, e.g. doing the research and immersing themselves in the industry and business long before they even reach the case study. Frankly, if a candidate is overly concerned about doing "free work" during the interview process, it can be a red flag. The candidates who are truly committed and enthusiastic about the role tend to see the case study as an opportunity to demonstrate their capabilities, not as an inconvenience.