Generalization VS. Specialization--Who has more job security/satisfaction? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: caffeinatedbard
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2012, 03:03:41 am
content: I have been thinking about job security lately.The two points I am thinking about should be analyzed in the context of the future engineering career.--By specializing in something, you guarantee a small pool of people are able to perform what you do and thus it could be generally agreed on that, higher pay and job security, would not be unrealistic. However, what happens when that niche field becomes obsolete and that's all you know?--By generalizing, you become the cross discipline engineer. You know about a lot of stuff but maybe not in depth across all areas. A lot of people can do what you do, so now you become a commodity for a company-- they could hold leverage against you that there are more people out there that could do your job... less job security, less pay.Now, I know these are hyperbolic cases and might be at the extreme spectrum for any scenario, however this probably will inspire the conversation with such extremes standing at odds with each other.What would be the best strategy for engineers that have to negotiate and compromise on their career choices based on these two scenarios?I would appreciate your thoughts on the matter.-Bard

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 17, 2012, 03:37:45 am
content: IMO, not worthy worrying about, just do what you enjoy.Dave.

author: PeteInTexas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2012, 04:43:51 am
content: Would specializing in two or three things give you peace of mind? No specialty can be so isolated that one can't manage to pick up non-trivial proficiency in at least one other thing. Can anyone think of a electronics related specialty that is just so unique that getting reasonably good at something else is just out of the question?

author: nanofrog
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2012, 05:06:10 am
content: Is there really such a thing as job security these days?Seriously. I'm not sure about outside of the US, but it's questionable here in my experience, due to things such as increased outsourcing, shifting to contract based employment, layoffs of personnel with more experience/years in the company, ... , it seems job security is something of a bygone era.That said, even if you can get job security with a particular degree, I'm still not sure it's the better way to go. I say this, as it's presumable that the job security route/compromise is likely to be something that's not as well liked from the beginning, and as time drags on, could easily become something you hate.Even if you become obsolete with what you initially got a degree in, it should be possible to retrain in another area that's related as PeteInTexas mentions. I've even heard HR managers say that graduates should only expect their skills to be usable for ~5 years or so. Scary thought, but there may not be a choice.

author: PeteInTexas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2012, 06:07:42 am
content: Quote from: nanofrog on February 17, 2012, 05:06:10 amNone in the traditional sense of the same job from graduation to grave.

author: Rerouter
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2012, 06:42:49 am
content: there is only job security where you have no competition for a service thats needed, instrumentation techs are very rare in Sydney, (only about 15 new ones each year via TAFE) and instruments always need to be calibrated, fitted or repairedbut like others have said, follow what you like, it will make you happier, and make your job more secure to your own opinion

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2012, 07:30:30 am
content: Quotethe thing is (imho) when you working with someone else (boss), its not how specialized or generalized you are, your boss will give a shit about it. he only concerns "how much money he can get out of you". you want security, secure your boss, give him good money, and he will give you back your money (security).

author: nanofrog
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2012, 08:24:25 am
content: Quote from: PeteInTexas on February 17, 2012, 06:07:42 amCall me old fashioned, but this is the definition of job security I was raised on. Perhaps it's been different in other parts of the world, but the definition I was raised on doesn't really exist any longer in the US at least. Perhaps it's still the case in other nations.Quote from: Mechatrommer on February 17, 2012, 07:30:30 amI get your point, and it certainly has validity (otherwise the employee could easily gain a false reputation of being useless, when that isn't the case). But from what I've experienced, there's a point that even that doesn't matter.For example, when management's goal is to increase their profit margins, one of the things they quickly look to as a means of accomplishing this, is reduce employee compensation (salary + benefits) as it's something they can do to actually accomplish that goal. So it has become a rather common means of doing this, and they start from the Top Down in terms of compensation amounts. Thus the most senior people are forced to retire if they've sufficient time in the company to get any sort retirement benefit, or just handed a pink slip otherwise (been there done this one on multiple occasions).I've both witnessed and experienced this myself, so above example isn't fantasy stated as fact. It's happened at one of my former employers seemingly like clockwork since I was first hired there back in '91. Laid off. Rehired. Laid off again (still near the bottom of the wage scale as I didn't have a large amount of experience then). Most senior people gone for good each time. 20 years later, and now they claim I'm "over-qualified" which a friend of mine who works in HR has told me is the nice way of saying "too expensive". Go figure.

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2012, 08:49:23 am
content: As long you're not the owner or own majority of the share (aka "The Boss") of the company, job security/satisfaction is an illusion, stop dreaming and wake up.

author: harnon
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2012, 08:57:46 am
content: I suppose it depends as well on what you want to do longer term... I've found (in jobs outside of engineering) that often the specialists get stuck in the same role for their whole career because they are too difficult to replace, whilst the generalists end up running the show.Quote from: BravoV on February 17, 2012, 08:49:23 amJob satisfaction is an illusion? Wow thats a slightly depressing take on life.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2012, 09:10:40 am
content: Job security is not there even if you are your own boss, I know this first hand. As for you making money for your boss very often in the early years especially it is the other way around, employees can take home more than you do.The other problem specialization, Many subjects now are so complicated no one person can hope to understand it all and therefore can only be a small cog in the larger works.

author: Bored@Work
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2012, 10:52:11 am
content: If you want to get an idea of the future read up on what IBM tries to do with the Liquid program. It is essentially firing everyone, making them self-employed "consultants", pinning them against each other and letting them compete worldwide for temp work projects, going with the lowest bidder. Consultants / contractors are, by the way, called "players" in the program. Tells a lot about the rotten mindset of the MBAs behind that idea.

author: nanofrog
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2012, 11:42:01 pm
content: Quote from: BoredAtWork on February 17, 2012, 10:52:11 amI guess I'm not the only one that's recognized or experienced MBA's that see employees as disposable commodities. Whew - seems "my cheese hasn't completely slid off my cracker" afterall.

author: westfw
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2012, 01:16:15 am
content: If you specialize, you run the risk of specializing in something that goes obsolete. If you generalize, you risk not being specialized enough. Of course, being a generalist may make you better suited to becoming a manager... (Sometimes I think that's the only valued career goal :-( ) Satisfaction tends to be related to how much your employer values your particular skills, and how well those skills work at solving problems. That can fall either way...Broader knowledge is more useful at smaller companies. In my last job, I had both an obsolete specialization, and a general knowledge base that the tiny piece of the company I worked for didn't particularly value. Now that I'm retired, I am very much enjoying comparing, contrasting, and fiddling with the low level details of PIC32, ARM, AVR, MSP430, and other micros, but it's sort of obvious that that sort of breadth isn't going to be particularly useful to any one prospective employer...

author: jasonh
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2012, 01:30:44 am
content: As other people have said, what do you want to do?A lot of older guys have gone through career changes at least once for one reason or another and picking your job based on factors not entirely related to what you may like to do is a good way to get in to a job you wish you hadn'tMy experience is that specialists who have been at it for a while either really like what they are doing or they are peeking around to see what other projects they can work on the side to keep their interest levels up.On the other hand I don't remember too many generalists wishing they had gone down a specific route. Sure, many wished they may have more knowledge on a particular topic but most guys I know would feel claustrophobic if they were restricted too much.Remember, not all generalists are the same. There are plenty of guys that have deep knowledge in a lot of areas and they are very valuable to small companies and large ones for that matter who always have 'head count' restrictions where one guy with knowledge can cover for a couple.These excellent guys, in my experience have been involved in and out of work at a hobby level and have a lot more time with the technologies than a similarly experienced colleague.The only time I would want to specialise if it was in some technology that had a broad range of applications that I would be exposed to.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2012, 01:36:24 am
content: In my opinion, when you generalize you don't stay that way for long.After a while you approach 'close enough' to a specialist in both areas. (as long as you do keep working on all your skill sets though hobby projects etc)In most cases one area will overlap another, so experience from one subject will somewhat improve your skills in other areas.Obviously it depends how many areas though, if you generalize in 5 areas it's going to take much longer to approach a specialist in each area than if you generalize with 2. And if you generalize with 10 areas its going to be almost impossible to keep up to date on all of them.