Jack of All Trades

I received an email a few weeks back that contained the following statement:

“None of us is master of all. (Jerk of all trades, master of none is NOT a compliment!)”

To put the statement into context, it was part of a plea to become part of a development team.

My first reaction was to wonder if I was supposed to be insulted by this statement. I was not insulted, first because the statement is false and second because I reasoned that the writer had not intended to insult because what would be the point in insulting those you were trying to get to volunteer? I have been called a Jack of all trades on many occasions, and I certainly think of myself in those terms. I have always said that, more often than not, it is the breadth of my knowledge, not the depth, that serves me best.

All of this got me thinking about why I believed that emailed statement to be wrong. After all, there is no sense in me saying, “You are wrong” if I can’t defend that position. I could quote other people to support my position. One of my favorite quotes comes from Adam Savage of the TV show Mythbusters who claims that the full quote actually is, “Jack of all trades, master of none, though often better than a master of one.” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3Viv88ZOFA ) But is quoting really the way I should go here? I mean, you can always find someone to agree with you if you look hard enough, but that doesn’t mean you’re right.

Perhaps a more scientific basis for my defense would be useful. When it comes to building teams, observation of Mother Nature could provide inspiration and direction. Mother Nature abhors a vacuum and isn’t that pleased about a monoculture either. It has been my experience that similar rules apply to good teams. Working in a vacuum rarely gets the best results, and working only with likeminded people may be comfortable but tends not to maximize results. Now, that is not to say that you could randomly throw together anybody and expect great results, either. Try planting bananas and arctic lichen in the same field and see how productive you are.

So why is there value in being a Jack of all trades? I have foundational knowledge in many subjects but no towering structure on any one part of that foundation. But I’m okay with that. After all, if you put a bunch of experts on a team, it can often be difficult to transfer knowledge from one discipline to another. To get a letter from the top of one skyscraper to another, someone needs to carry that letter across a common foundation to get to the next building. A Jack of all trades knows enough to understand at a basic level and can relate that basic knowledge from one subject area to another area of expertise. Jack is the glue that holds the tiles of a mosaic together. Jack is the gravy in a stew… Well, you get the point.

I was listening to a physicist on CBC Radio the other day who said that Barack needs to take a course in basic physics. The interviewer asked why the president would need that knowledge considering that he has a stable full of experts. And, the interviewer asked, would a physicist make a better president? The response was a resounding NO. The president did not need to be a physicist but did need to understand the science behind global warming, green power etc. The president, in essence, needs to be so much more than a physicist; he needs to be a generalist. I would like to suggest that a generalist and a Jack of all trades are not that different.

You need Jack on your team to apply the information from one expert to help solve the problems in the seemingly unrelated field of another expert. Jack is the translator between experts. I am proud to be Jack, and I think every team needs one (but perhaps just one). I do take that designation as a compliment, not an insult. Embrace the Jack in yourself and wear the label proudly.