Today’s topic is an interesting one, and depends largely on personal preference. It’s something that comes up for engineers every day: Be decent at many things, or be the absolute end-all-be-all expert in one thing? Some might respond with, “Well, how about being an expert at everything?”
Aside: It sounds funny, but this should probably be the goal for every engineer. I got great advice from my first manager: create a skill matrix. It was essentially an organized goal table consisting of career goals, skills, techniques, subject matter to learn, etc. that I wanted to accomplish. Being an expert in all of them is optimal, but time and job constraints often prove this difficult.
When it comes to the question at hand, many times engineers do not have much choice. Management will often make that choice for the engineer when they prioritize staff time and resources. But, let’s assume that there is a degree of freedom and the engineer can choose which-tech skills and/or design techniques on which he can focus. What should be in the engineer’s best interest for career advancement and job security? There are advantages and disadvantages to a broader skill set vs. a more focused one.
Jack of all Trades
The advantages to being good across many job functions are tied to versatility. Frankly, the company can use you more ways, and this can be very advantageous during times of change at the workplace. There are more subtle advantages, too. With a more broad skill set, the engineer tends to communicate across multiple design groups. The engineer also proves to be more resourceful, finding answers on his own without the help of others. These skills translate VERY well to management. In fact, one could claim that technical managers are the kings of being good at many things (and hopefully experts in a few). Another advantage to working across groups are the personal connections. Knowing more people in the industry, and working on design successes together, always bodes well for future job prospects.
The advantages to being an expert at one job function are tied to indispensability. Engineers in this mode often can not be replaced within the company. This can also be a valuable position to be in during company changes. If no one else has the technical expertise to handle a specific design, the expert skills are invaluable to job security. Often, these engineers have an increased sense of ownership or pride over designs, as their contributions are clearly vital to the success of the company. The increased focus and concentration that the engineer can apply to one section of the design is preferred by some as well. By not switching topics, starting new design flows with other groups, or reviewing others’ work, the engineer can really hone his skills to an expert level. Just as being versatile helps with connections, specific expertise can be an immediate job creator when other companies look for this targeted skill set.
Obviously, engineers would like to be experts across the board. Throughout our careers, I do think we should strive for this. But, with stringent time constraints placed by our corporate bosses to push-to-market and make profit, it often proves difficult to either a) branch out and learn something new, or b) focus as intently on possible on one function and become the expert.
In your experience, which is better: Expert in one thing, or good at many things? Why?
Day to day guide for engineers | Back – Next | What it takes to be an international engineering company: An introductory guide