So this is going to sound mean when I don't mean for it too, but I sort of doubt the reality of being fired for being a generalist. I just don't buy it. I totally believe that's what they /told/ him, I just don't think it's the actual truth.<p>So far I've made a career out of being a generalist. In my experience, companies of any size love having people like that. Specialists are valuable of course, but most of the time managers end up with a broad spectrum of problems and if they can throw problems to you without wondering if you can handle it, and feel confident it's going to get done, they probably don't care that you're only 70% as efficient as the specialist.
One could imagine a company with a young single-digit employee, who is very good at what they do but difficult to slot into a traditional org chart, hiring an older industry veteran for a role which will be very well defined. There might be, hypothetically, political dimensions there: "report to a 25 year old" might be a non-starter for the new VP, who may have connections or gravitas perceived as key to the future growth of the business in strategic directions. Conversely, re-shuffling such that the guy who built things from the ground up ends up reporting to the new guy might also be a bit on the awkward side.<p>I'm not discussing any particular company here, but be aware that this has been known to happen before, and it will probably happen again. I hate to make age a factor [+], but in particular, if one is in one's mid-twenties, one identifies with this guy, one works for a company with enterprise software ambitions, and one's company has recently taken investment and hired the requisite team of industry veteran executives/VPs... well, I hope you're a founder. If you're not, consolation prizes are a) you're in the best hiring market for your skillset in the history of ever and b) you've probably got what it takes to me a founder next time.<p>[+] i.e. This is a description of the world, not the world I would like to be living in.
They did do you a favor, but not only for the reasons you think. They got you off the sinking ship early. Seriously, what kind of bumbling fuckwit fires a highly productive employee for not being a specialist? Broad-based problem solvers are a serious value.
Applaud your can-do attitude, but I don't agree that makes getting fired a good thing. I hope you get to keep your equity.<p>Also, I'm a little skeptical. It's very rare that people get fired while doing a really great job and being well liked. It's not impossible, but it definite smells a little unusual to my bs detector.
"But get this through your head: if you’re not the best at something, you’re replaceable."<p>I disagree. I theory this might be true, but in practice, it's not. I'm often not the best X for a particular job/role/etc, but <i>I'm the best they're going to find</i>.<p>Perhaps especially in software, <i>THE BEST</i> in their field are already turning down work and forging their own paths. THE BEST developer in tech XYZ is not going to close down their startup or leave MS or Google or Amazon to come work for your company's 'agile' team.<p>I feel pretty strong that generalists have the edge in most cases, because they <i>generally</i> have a broader background and can see bigger picture stuff, often can see patterns of how different areas connect (code areas, business areas, etc). You certainly need specialists at some point, but rarely are those specialists <i>the best</i> in their field.<p>I've had a few phone calls with potential clients (and earlier, job negotiations) where people pulled this "we only look for the best XYZ people". At one point during a conversation I told someone (politely, I think) that I happened to know some of 'the best' people in the field they were looking for, and there was no way they were going to move across the country, take an 80% pay cut, and uproot their entire family to come work in some mid-level corporate dev team. On the other hand, I happened to be pretty good and would be interested in stopping by the next day in person to see if I could help solve their problem.<p>Actually, I've used that 'line' (not always the same words, but the same gist) on a few occasions, and in one case got me a foot in the door. It's more about delivery with a bit of humor, catches people off guard I think.
I enjoyed the blog post and your writing style. I don't have any info aside from what you wrote about, but it sounds strange that you were fired when you were doing things like improving conversions by 400%. My gut instinct, which could very well be wrong, is that either there is a "behind the scenes" reason for you being let go, or the company is doing something seriously wrong. If you have any reason to suspect that it might be the former, you should ask your former teammates. It will help you out in the long run. Anyway, best of luck to you!
People are way to literal here,actually believing what comes out of the mouth of people who fire one of the founding team 13 days before christmas out of the blue.
This has nothing to do with generalist/specialist of any of the other assorted lying bullshit they mentioned.<p>I will propose two theories.
The board required a more experienced hire, the directors bent over.
They are growing and got greedy,this is an equity grab.<p>The attitude displayed by Alex is healthy for his own psyche however this is not in anyway a good thing. Effectively he was cheated out of his startup investment.
There's something fishy about this story. Either you're not telling all of it, or...<p>You joined before money was raised, and possibly got an oversized equity stake that is being clawed back. If you were supposed to have more than 1%, I'd consider it possible. If you were supposed to have 5%, I'd consider it a certainty.<p>If my guess is correct, you should talk to a lawyer. You may have options.
>3. I’m a jack of all trades, but a master of none.<p>I have to commend you on the brutal honesty. I thought you weren't going to revisit what they said, but you did.<p>You also mentioned you were fired from another job but didn't provide details... just make sure you examine what happened in each case and there's not a pattern. All I mean is I've seen people have to leave a job for certain behavior, exhibit the same behavior in the next job, and remain in denial about it when confronted.
I really wouldn't put much weight behind what's said at an exit interview. Those things are lawsuit minefields.<p>The important thing is not that what was said, or the firing, the important thing is that he's turning down offers.<p>Offers are what matter and give you leverage through every employment related negotiation.
Why the urgency to get rid of you 12 days before Christmas? You would think that someone that is a valued employee and someone who contributed to the growth of the company would get treated a lot better than that. They could have waited until the New Year, or even given the employee an option to move to a different role. To get him out after 8 months, 12 days before Christmas certainly doesn't sound like someone who was really appreciated.
It sounds like he was laid off and not fired. The CEO did not mention that his performance was subpar, or that he violated some company policy or law. The difference, at least in California, is that collecting unemployment is no problem when you are laid off through no fault of your own, but if you we're fired, EDD will need to check with your employer as to whether you we're fired for just cause, and maybe a hold hearing where both sides present their case.
Like others, i'm equally skeptical, and would love to argue that being a generalist is bad if you are equally good in anything it has tough sustainability.
In working for companies as a dev, this could you in a position of stagnation. It's really tough to keep up with technology these days and making the right choices.<p>Which brings me to the point that you're telling you've built a successful new website, which boosted revenue.
Now that the website is built and launched 2 days before, they are letting you go 14 days before Christmas.<p>I for one would be pretty upset and demand an explanation other than "a generalist". It seems like a rather rude and insensible act.
To do that probably means they did not see anything in your skill set that you would be able to add more value to the company, and so they replaced you with a marketeer...<p>I must therefor conclude that your website was a one-page infograph with a sign-up button.<p>Sorry but the missing bits of information are frustrating, and given that I don't see why you shouldn't be pissed off.
I would most likely lawyer up.
There are some important bits of information missing to be able to make sense of your blog.
I'm a generalist myself. I'm lucky to see this hasn't happened to me. The best possible solution for this according to me is when you have a clue that the company has outgrown you and you are not visible in the big picture, you should choose to opt out & start finding a better opportunity and be very confident that you would get one, being a generalist.
I had a somewhat similar situation, it was new year of 2012 that i had to cope up with a failure of a startup and the CEO handed my cheque with some extra bucks + salary and said "Good bye" and i didn't know what to do, confused but confident. This is no where related to the story above but i was employed one week from the time, that is because i'm a generalist.
But i have now concentrated more onto one area and it utterly sucks being specialist keeping in mind that you were a generalist before and you got many toys to play with and now its only one toy.
But hey,
Cheers! Change is awesome!
Is there any guarantee that your (about to be former) employer tell you the truth about why you're being canned? I don't believe so. They may just be giving you what they think is a safe answer. The real reasons for ending your employment with them could be anything (good, bad, silly, or even non-reasons). Nothing to take personally.
The key is to be jack of all trades, master of <i>some</i>. Go super deep on one topic, then switch to another, then another. Now you are the best at two or three things, while still competent at another dozen or more.<p>I also agree that the generalist/specialist saying from the CEO was in poor form and should not be taken too literally.
> <i>if you’re not the best at something, you’re replaceable</i><p>Bullshit. Maybe this is true for like, an insanely competitive NFL team with limited slots and deep pockets, but for a growing startup, this is simply illogical. I hardly believe there's any expectation for all employees to be <i>the best</i> in their field. Sure, everyone <i>wants</i> the best.. but at the end of the day, they'll settle for pretty good. Especially if they're already hired, on-boarded, well-liked and an integral part of the company (which it sounds like OP was).
That was a very good article. The writing style is very "conversational", like a friend relating a story to you. I have never been fired before but friends always tell me that after being fired a lot more opportunities opened up for them. It's like being fired provides them with more impetus to seek a quick bounce back.
As a high school student looking into the Hacker/Startup scene, I was pretty scared about the nature of unpredictability and instability of startups. But this post really changed the view on the whole idea (failure isn't necessarily bad), now I feel more confident to work on making stuff!
I think being a generalist is somehow better (or safer?) than a specialist.<p>Although you may not be able to find a position in a large company, small companies really need this kind of people. Maybe the salary isn't high, but it's relatively easier for a generalist to find a job. This can be important especially in the technology world where everything changes very fast. Imagine if you were a specialist in Blackberry making the best mobile hardware keyboard in the world ten years ago, you would not expect everyone uses touchscreen now, it would be difficult for you to find another similar job. Even if you are willing to give up on the aspect you are good at, and learn something new to chase the trend, it takes time as well.
I think you can shorten it to "You are expendable" without any qualifiers. Unless, perhaps, you have dug yourself in so deep that nobody else can do your job - not because of lack of expertise but because only you know how it works (bad practices).
When I read this "I ran a viral email campaign that signed up a person a minute for the week preceding launch, and then generated a firestorm of media coverage when the product opened for business. Shit, I had just released a new version of our website two days prior that improved on-site conversions by 400%.", I was wondering if the OP did all these alone? Not giving credit as it is due will definitely cause friction once the team grows.<p>Being a generalist is never an issue, as long as that role contributes value to the team. Taking oneself too seriously, however, will be.
Blog posts like this make me feel concerned that I'm becoming a generalist right now and I'm not sure I can avoid it. I'm on a really small team doing development of both front end (Javascript/HTML/CSS) and backend (PHP for our back end, SQL db, node server for websocket updates and some other stuff). I feel like I don't spend enough time doing any one thing in order to be considered a specialist at any of it, just passable enough to get done whatever needs to be done at the time.
Since you're determined to be a specialist at your next job, what are you planning on specializing in? I always like to hear about skills people are excited about.
a VP of marketing with 25 years experience is a generalist.<p>Its not like a senior marketing person is going to be in the trenches and detailed knowledge of all the marketing disciplines.<p>Sounds a bit fishy to me maybe the incoming marketing guy was best mates with some one eh?
Adding a comment as someone who knows the author: You should hire this guy. Find a way to interview him at least. You won't regret taking the time to get coffee with him, at least.
I am not sure that if you’re not the best at something, you’re replaceable. I think that both specialists and generalist are important at any stage of a company.<p>Am I missing something?