chrisbrogan.com - Latest Comments in Killing Jacks

Re: Killing Jacks

David Kowarsky — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 14:01:01 -0000

Any poker player worth his salt will tell you that Jacks are overvalued.

Additionally, the best advice I give about getting into Harvard is being "well-lopsided." Well rounded is a good start. Be very good-excellent in many things, but be off-the-charts phenomenal in one thing.

Re: Killing Jacks

bre — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 12:24:50 -0000

Article about living a double life: http://www.summerpierre.com...

Re: Killing Jacks

bre — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 12:11:50 -0000

I'm killing a hobby today.

Re: Killing Jacks

Whitney — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 11:18:37 -0000

It's all about choosing the right hammer and right nail for the project at hand.

Some projects require a big picture- use all your talents and all your brain- like organizing PodCamp Philly (Shameless plug- Sept 7, 8 & 9), others require the detailed focus and not being distracted by outside tasks- audio editing my podcast, for example.
Juggling many projects leads to lots of shallow involvement and not enough of the deeper value that means so much more to me.

And in then end, I find that even if I get distracted by the shiny new project over on the side, life keeps giving me subtle hints about going back to the core things that use my strengths and give the most value back to others. You just have to recognize those messages when they are delivered.

Re: Killing Jacks

Michael Bailey — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 08:08:47 -0000

hehe Coarse, off course

Re: Killing Jacks

Michael Bailey — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 08:04:53 -0000

Chris, you need to go back and read a post of yours.

"I operate on a lot of things at the same time, and that I’m good at working tirelessly at a lot of projects simultaneously. "

http://grasshopperfactory.c...

I'm not sure if this post is another "coarse correction" for you or not, but whatever the reason, keep in mind that you are good at what you do. Even if you cannot accurately define what the "what" really is.

I think it's great if you justify putting a few things on the back burner, in order to focus like a laser on a single project.

The time will come that those items left on the back-burner will begin to decay - if they are worthy of your attention, make sure to bring them to the front again, then give them the attention that they deserve.

Re: Killing Jacks

Infomaniac/Ellen — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 07:34:00 -0000

Your post really hit home considering I call myself an Infomaniac, a person who knows a little about a lot of different topics. I've always been a generalist. My jobs in the past always were multi-faceted and my major in college was management. When I have taken career and personality tests I always come out in the middle, never skewed to one side.

So, where does that leave me especially where the Internet has opened up all kinds of new worlds for me? I really don't know. My quest for a long time has been to find that passion, especially one that can make me money while I pursue that endeavor.

You have given me food for thought. I don't know if I want to "kill the jack" but I do want the jack to have one thing she is really good at.

Re: Killing Jacks

Todd Van Hoosear — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 06:40:26 -0000

Oooh, good post! While most everyone at my office considers me the "social media" geeky guy (hence a specialist), I've always considered myself more of a generalist--bridging communications and technology. I like too many different things.

Maybe "social media" is finally the theme that brings these two disparate worlds together. But I still feel more jack than ace...

Re: Killing Jacks

rox — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 06:33:29 -0000

I think this, like most things you write about Chris, is very case-specific. I think it changes throughout the lifecycle of an interest or a person. In certain stages, it is ideal to try on as many outfits as you can as the most efficient way of finding the one that really fits.

I think there is tremendous pressure right now to be both a specialist (and write THE killer app) as well as be a generalist (and know every one of the latest blinking new tech tools, be a member of every group, have an island in SL, etc.)

Last week I declared my social networking dance card to be full; I can only participate in so many groups, and be effective and have fun. Next step is to create some filtering questions, so I don't just fall for the lure of popularity.

Re: Killing Jacks

Derrick Kwa — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 04:10:31 -0000

In response to Justin and Jeff, yes I general education still needs to be well-rounded. But it's a question of to what level. In Singapore, at least, even up to pre-university level, people are encouraged to study a wide range of subjects. For example, in our junior colleges (which is the two years before university), it is compulsory to have at least one "contrasting subject" (ie if you're a science student, you still need to take at least one arts/humanities subject.). I think at that level (A-level standard) well-roundedness shouldn't be required. Also, it's not merely a matter of how the system is set up, but the perception as well. For example, in Singapore a triple science student (who takes all 3 subjects physics, chemistry and biology) is commonly perceived as better than a student who takes only 2 sciences. A student who takes 10 O Level subjects is seen as better than someone who takes 7. Education here is built around the idea that if you're more intelligent, you take more subjects; instead of delving deeper into your current subjects. That said, maybe it might be different in the States, I don't know. If it is, good for you. Haha. Wish I could be there. =).

Re: Killing Jacks

Kfir Pravda — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 03:46:09 -0000

I am always looking for the story - what is the link in all my activities and how they promote each other. focus is crucial - and you can do wonders if you focus on activities that leverage each other. for example, I am gearing toward producing my own web show -> I learn a lot in the process -> I share it in my blog -> I am asked by others how to do it-> I get new customers....

Re: Killing Jacks

Chris Heuer — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 01:48:39 -0000

You hint at it, but let's be clear. It's different for everyone and for everyone it's different. The reasons you present against it are good ones overall, but I am not so sure about hiding behind so many pursuits - I have been engaged in them all in order to get past them. I certainly am one of the ones who has struggled with this issue, but I don't think of it in the same terms as you do here.

Bryan bringing The Dip in is particularly timely - reading excerpts and blog posts about the book is one of the things that helped me let go of SMC really. This jack of all trades discussion is but one perspective on the complexities that goes into those of us who have diverse interests. There are so many other factors, I hardly feel it fair to describe the problem in only this way, though I still agree with your conclusion about focusing.

For me, Now Discover Your Strengths by Marcus Buckingham is one of the most insightful around these sorts of discussions. Focus on what you are really, really good at - where your natural talent is. Focus on something... but what if your focus on that something requires you to do the job of 25 others in order to take that single thing to the next level? What if you are unable to focus as the role player on a team using that unique talent, because you are the only one, or one of a handful, on that team? Then you are required to do all these things and more - you are required to be entrepreneurial in the pursuit of becoming focused and doing that one great thing you are good at. Then you need to prioritize and really focus on those priorities...

Personally, I would love to focus on what I am really, really good at - the vision thing + problem solving + creative + tech understanding + communications + business strategy = innovation

That said, the most important thing to realize in this Chris, is that you would not be able to find a focus, nor would you be able to bring such amazing insight to your chosen area of focus, were it not for the dabbling and the failures - in other words, you would not be the Chris you are were you not first a Jack...

Re: Killing Jacks

Jeff O'Hara — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 00:10:45 -0000

Well some people think we need to alter our education system to "kill jacks". I don't think this is necessary as in order to decide to focus on something you need to have been exposed to lot's of areas. Think about this, the education system is currently setup very general in the lower grades and gradually gains more and more focus until you get to the PHD level where your focus of study is extremely focused. We choose our focus, some people just never seem to do so.

Re: Killing Jacks

Justin Kownacki — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 00:04:41 -0000

I think general education still needs to be well-rounded -- everyone needs the basics of language, math, arts, sports, etc. But, at a certain time, one should be encouraged to delve more deeply into what they're good at.

Of course, you don't always find what you're good at without wandering the countryside a bit...

Re: Killing Jacks

Craig — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:46:00 -0000

yes. makes a $hitload of sense...this idea of being "spread too thin" has been resonating with me for a while....will ruminate further and keep up with your blog. fyi..just found your post thru Twitter....quite interesting....laterz
RadioNed

Re: Killing Jacks

Derrick Kwa — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:44:06 -0000

Couldn't agree more with your post. It's something that I've been trying to do, and something that I've been blogging about a lot. I've been following the idea from following Seth Godin's ideas about the Dip and such.

I think the idea of focus is starting to spread a bit more, seen it on a couple of blogs lately, which I think is really good.

The one problem, I think, is that education doesn't seem to be getting it. I'm not very sure about America, but where I'm from (Singapore), the education system is still focused very much on well-roundedness. Because of that, students are trained in well-roundedness, they are trained to think that well-roundedness is a good ideal that they should strive for. Which means that the general population will still believe in the value of well-roundedness.

If we really want to "Kill Jacks", we need to start from young, from the education system.

Re: Killing Jacks

Connie Reece — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:10:53 -0000

OUCH! OUCH! OUCH! You've stepped on all my toes. But I think when they heal, I'll be a lot better off for it. Very timely advice, I copied and pasted your bulleted list onto a sticky note for my desktop.

Re: Killing Jacks

Rob — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:08:03 -0000

I have spent the last three years leading an agency which serves children and families, but in very diverse ways. Each program has a set of research, organizations, advocacy, regulations, standards of practice and the like. My position therefore has demanded of me to be Jack.

However, circumstances have dictated more and more the areas in which I can and desire to be more focused and "expert" and the areas in which I need to rely upon others to provide the expertise.

I do also identify with your "secret". I wish you hadn't told it though...heck, I'm not sure I even knew it.

Re: Killing Jacks

Eric Rice — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 22:59:16 -0000

Jacks are always asked "What do you actually DO?", to which there is no clear reply. (Aside from "Stuff" heh)

Re: Killing Jacks

mdy — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 22:33:02 -0000

I think a lot depends on context.

In small, lean organizations, folks who are jack of all trades are actually more valuable than people with focused, specialized skills because you can get more things done with less people.

In larger organizations, people are encouraged to become specialists because it's one way of differentiating yourself from everyone else. You also have the luxury of expecting other people to take care of other areas while you focus on your own thing.

A while back I was listening to a podcast by Irene Au. She's currently Google's Director for User Experience, and was at Yahoo and Netscape prior to that. In her talk she said something that really hit home with me.

"I often advocate for hiring T-shaped people; people who have deep expertise in one or more areas, but have broad interests and skills in related areas." - Irene Au

I think the idea of being "T-shaped" applies to the use of our time as well. I agree completely with the need for focus, but it shouldn't be taken to the extent where we become I-shaped rather than T-shaped. :-)

Relevant Links:
- Irene Au on LinkedIn:
http://www.linkedin.com/pub...
- Irene Au's talk on IT Conversations:
http://www.itconversations....
- My notes from her talk:
http://my-flights-of-fancy....

Re: Killing Jacks

Deb Block-Schwenk — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 21:50:18 -0000

Very thought-provoking post, Chris. I feel like I'm in a "Jack" stage now (or a "Jill" stage?), making a career transition that includes a lot of exploration and broadening of my interests. The lack of focus isn't a hindrance yet, but I definitely need to keep your insights in mind.

One other thought: what "focus" means is also very field-specific. One reason I decided not to pursue a career in biology was that I could easily imagine spending decades on the functionality of a single gene or protein. I couldn't commit to that level of focus, but the focus you describe still has lots of variety in it.

Re: Killing Jacks

Steve Brogan — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 21:38:17 -0000

Even at 60, I still have to ponder that very same theme. Especially now as I pursue a new career in pottery.

Good luck. It is never to late to find a focus. I know I am just getting there myself.

Re: Killing Jacks

BryanPerson — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 20:55:00 -0000

I'm still working through this question myself, Chris, particularly after an interview with legendary marketer and author of The Dip, Seth Godin, for my day job at Monster: http://content.monster.com/...

Seth argues in the book, and in the interview, that the lessons drilled into us as kids about being well-rounded were wrong. Instead, he says you should focus on what it is you do better than anyone else and put the other things aside.

So, no Jacks for Seth, either.

As for me, I know that I'm still not very good at putting certain projects aside when I need to. I feel like having multiple balls in the air at once will yield one "winner" in the long run, but in fact, the result is that I'm probably allowing myself to be pulled in too many different directions without that laserlike focus that you talk about, Chris.

Re: Killing Jacks

Lance Weber — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 20:46:34 -0000

I think your hitting the key point here: what are your strengths and are you playing to them?

While I'm not a jack of all trades, I do have a number of interests: systems architecture, gaming, social networks and cooking. They all seem to follow along the same creative axis of "creating really cool things for other people".