On The Job

In Defense of the Jack-of-All-Trades

 

Diamonds jack

 

Robert Greene is generally regarded as the first person to use the phrase “jack of all trades, master of none” in 1592 as a dismissive reference to the growingly popular William Shakespeare. As far as I’m concerned Greene missed his mark when he offered this “insult.” With a plethora of hilarious Elizabethan insults at his fingertips – seriously people called one another “beetle-headed” and  “flap-eared knaves” – he decided to go with one under the guise of an aphorism. Lame. It’s like going into a candy store and buying Raisinettes; the thin layer of chocolate covering the raisins doesn’t take away from the fact that it’s a fruit and your judgment could have been better.

Greene’s words carried a different weight in Elizabethan England than they do in the 21st Century, but the implication remains largely the same. Calling someone a “jack of all trades, master of none” suggests that the person’s knowledge has a broad scope but narrow breadth: they know a little about a lot, but not a lot about a little.

I had often wondered whether it was better to be the jack of all trades or a master at one. The reality is that each has its merits and disadvantages. Having knowledge about a variety of things is great, so long as your knowledge goes deeper than the surface and it isn’t deemed as useless. Being a master at anything is always good, but not at the expense of your knowledge of other subject matter.

I’m normally a very decisive person, and I’m guilty of having chastised those who are not. Despite my typical disposition, whenever the “jack of all trades” came up in conversation I would assume the role of the Swiss: I didn’t want to choose lest I alienate the opposition. Besides, I generally agreed with both arguments and didn’t want to make up my mind. That is until I was offered a third choice in the matter.

While speaking to a friend about her job I kept getting the feeling that she played the role of the jack at her company. As an account manager at a marketing firm, she mentioned how her role required her to dip her pen into a variety of inks around the office. When I told her that it seemed like she was a jack-of-all-trades (not as an insult), she responded with one of the most valuable pieces of insight I have henceforth received: it’s not about being the jack or the master, it’s about being the master at being the jack.

I was rendered speechless. Her remark got me thinking: could it be that for centuries people have been looking at the dilemma in the wrong way? I’m not trying to compare my friend to a philosopher, but isn’t it possible that she offered an enlightened perspective much the same as an Aristotle?

After being exposed to this perspective on the jack and the master I can say that I’ve fully subscribed to the notion that both the jack and the master can succeed, but it is the person who becomes a master at being the jack that truly strives – especially in the business world. The person whose expertise is a broad range of capabilities and intelligence will get farther than the master or the jack.

For many, becoming a manager or supervisor is the pinnacle of their career. In most cases, though, the manager is the best at doing a lot of things – not the best at each individual thing, but the best at all the things holistically. They’re the ones who are good enough to be noticed, but even better at getting others noticed. Their knowledge and expertise is in doing many things well, and they make everyone working around and with them better in doing so. These are people who set the bar higher by not settling.

The fact of the matter is that being a jack-of-all-trades or a master at one both have their values. As a jack, dive deeper. As a master, reach wider. My friend opened my eyes to the reality that you don’t have to settle for being the master or the jack. The key is striving to be good at being good; the master at being the jack.