Comments on: Building success in the future of work: T-shaped, Pi-shaped, and Comb-shaped skills

By: Lawrence Blank-Cook

Lawrence Blank-Cook — Thu, 03 Oct 2013 12:50:00 +0000

Flexible comb-shaped with the adaptability to be Pi-shaped and T-shaped when the situation calls for it. In this hyper-connected world, it is the power of the team, not just an individual contributor that will shape future success. We have to be able to adapt based on the opportunity in front of us and the team around us.

By: Ross Dawson

Ross Dawson — Mon, 08 Apr 2013 01:47:00 +0000

In reply to Pi Shaped. Thanks Pi Shaped - you're a nice example of the phenomenon! Two judiciously chosen, complementary domains of expertise can be enormously valuable.

By: Pi Shaped

Pi Shaped — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 21:10:00 +0000

I think developing into a multi-dimensional person is invaluable, no matter the “shape”, particularly in this economic environment. I am an bio-organic chemist by trade and training, but because I saw the opportunity to differentiate myself from others in the field, I have been working to develop into a Pi-shaped person. I have deep technical expertise in drug discovery, but I’ve been expanding my knowledge about financial analysis and investment strategies. I saw the need to be able to bridge the gap of technical bench science expertise and business acumen.

The ability to communicate across disciplines is often lacking in many management teams, and I think anyone who possesses those types of skills will position themselves to do very well.

I think smaller organizations, particularly startups, can benefit immensely from pi-shaped people, or people who can transition through multiple roles simultaneously. For instance, it would absolutely be invaluable to a startup for you to be able to both perform the technical experiments/coding, but also be able to handle the sales and customer acquisition role. Wearing many hats would enable the startup to be lean, while still getting stuff done.

On the other hand, larger companies would probably prefer the expert specialist and would discriminate for those who can focus on the singular role. So I think it ultimately depends on what type of organization one would like to join.

Great post!

By: Ross Dawson

Ross Dawson — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 23:45:00 +0000

In reply to Geoff Barbaro. Thanks Geoff, good insights. The organizational perspective on the effective use of people with these skills sets is critical. To your final point, absolutely, there is a balance. Too many specializations means ultimately none.

By: Geoff Barbaro

Geoff Barbaro — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 22:17:00 +0000

G’day Ross, I’d suggest that what you are looking at is the very reason to create organisations and teams, so you can create a mixture of these. Unfortunately too often, job ads are aimed at individuals with a very specific skill set to fill what is an apparent gap in an organisation. Little thought is given to whether the organisation can benefit from the introduction of T, Pi or Comb employees while filling that apparent skill gap.

The long-term result – brilliant engineers, great chefs, excellent specialists are prevented from rising higher in their organisations because they don’t have broader management skill sets. Perhaps even worse, many turn to management, which they don’t enjoy and aren’t always good at, because that’s where the money is. It’s the CEO who usually gets the great deal, not the Chief Engineer.

I think the concepts you are discussing can be used to demonstrate to organisations where true value lies, so perhaps salaries reflect true value to the firm – after all, in an engineering company the core business is engineering, not management. Why should the CEO always be the highest paid person in their organisation (writes one who is not the highest paid in my own organisation!).

Having said that, I think the comb should be one of those in travel packs rather than a big one. I don’t think an individual should have too many specialities.

Cheers, geoff