Polymath versus Specialist

Working with many different teams, I have concluded that you cannot mathematically or scientifically predict if a team is going to gel and perform. The Tuckman process is a solid one from Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing hold true and if the team can progress through these phases then they will perform. In my elusive search for a predictive way of creating a perfect team I come to a conclusion that you need a mix of Polymath and Specialist and a least one junior person who is looking to learn from the others.

Polymaths are useful because they may see links or shortcuts that the specialist may not see. Doing this sometimes opens up the specialists to appreciating a broader view.

Particularly in the tech world today, a specialism soon becomes dated, so having adaptability and openness to new technology and fresh tools, and ideas may help you stay in the game and even thrive.

Examples of some polymaths are in the table below.

Polymaths Old and New

The fact that these are polymaths doesn’t mean you would immediately want them on your team because these multiple skills do not necessarily mean a collaborative nature. Mark Twain would be good as someone to hold a team together, but Lewis Carroll less so. Richard Feynman would be a great addition to any team, and frequently was. I am not sure Alan Turing was a “clubbable” type.

So in the mix of people, you will need a polymath who can not just bring their skills but who can inspire the others. This teamwork stuff is trickier than it looks.