In Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell asserts that one needs to invest 10,000 hours in an activity in order to become an expert. I take solace in knowing that I am evidently both an expert in Strategic Planning, and overcoming the drama induced by teenage daughters.

The rapid escalation of global competition has brought about a new round of hyper-specialization.  The concept of specialization is nothing new; the division of labor has been a key tenant of economics since the birth of capitalism. Yet sites such as Guru or eLance, have propelled specialization to a new art form, where one can access dozens of specialists from around the world in any conceivable competency in a matter of minutes.

Specialties that do not require any special education (other than what is readily available on the internet) such as graphic arts have quickly commoditized. You can hire a graphic artist online for $15 an hour.  In cases where greater technical aptitude is required, specialists still out-earn generalists. The median Internist in the U.S. earns $176K per year, while Cardiologists earn a median of $403K (some make $800K or more). [i] If you had a heart attack, which would you see?

Perhaps the most common strategic blunder I observe within entrepreneurial companies is a penchant for addressing overly broad targets. Marketers, seeking the largest audience cast too wide a net. In their need to satisfy the largest number of prospects, they become de facto generalists. That is, instead of addressing a niche market with specific solutions, they try to satisfy a larger audience with a multitude of products and services. At some point, the value they can provide suffers from diminishing returns.

The more crowded a space, the more difficult it is to differentiate, and the greater the need for expertise. Before its bankruptcy filing, GM attempted to sell within every segment, from sub-compact to Hummer. GM experienced what is often referred to as the peanut butter effect; the wider you spread something, the thinner it gets. GM’s branding was diluted and ability to control quality constrained.

Many small businesses may employ generalists because of their lack of talent depth. To have one IT professional manage a network, build the company website, select an ERP package and fix all the desktops is an archaic paradigm worthy of recalculation.

The reason that specialists are worth more than generalists is that they have a deeper subject matter expertise that drives:[ii]

Quality-Processes replicated over time promote less deviation, less defects and fewer errors.  The specialist thinks deeply about an area of expertise in which they have experience and are less likely to make mistakes.

Speed- Specialists do not need to reinvent things. Cycle times on proposals and product delivery is faster. If a company offers 50 stock products instead of 500, they can manage less inventory and ship items quicker. For every new project outside the boundaries of a company’s expertise there is resource draining learning curve that costs time and money.

Relationships-As the specialist is highly respected, their opinions are sought after by the media and people who want to know them, hire them and refer them to others.

The realities of outsourcing and off-shoring are driven by these phenomena. It is inherently inefficient to participate in activities that are not within a firm’s core competency and do not directly contribute to the bottom line. Thus, the migration of labor (outsourcing) will rise at a fervent rate.

In fact, the entire concept of the corporation, with its multiple functional departments (such as accounting, sales and marketing, design, operations, engineering, manufacturing, etc.) is under some attack. Social norms around what constitutes a working environment are shifting quickly and enabling greater specialization. Collaboration tools make the world of work far more virtual, which will continue to feed the frenzy.

Think about how to specialize as to optimize your revenue, margin and profit.

The protesters marched on the highway, despondent about rapid inflation.  They shut down the thoroughfare for hours. 1000 miles away, protesters flocked the capital and drove the legislators to safe haven in neighboring territories.

These were fundamentalists in Tunisia or Libya; they were students in California and state workers in Wisconsin.

The impetus for civil unrest in the Middle East is that of the “lost generation” of unemployed misdirected youth.  In some regions of the world, unemployment is 40% or more.  In the U.S. , it is not just the young that face underemployment but generations of workers whose skills have become irrelevant.  The U.S. has the western world’s widest income distribution. The Top 10% make 6 times that of the bottom 10%, compared to 4.2 X for Great Britain and 2.8 X for Sweden[i].  The labor market has hollowed, as wages earned by shop floor workers have actually declined (when adjusted for inflation) over the last two decades.

The labor imbalance in the U.S. has far reaching implications, not only for the unemployed but for our economy as a whole.  The inability of low wage earners to consume is a strain on U.S. growth.

While there is plenty of banter about the need for jobs, there is no systematic solution in place for retraining American workers such as displaced auto and steel workers. President Obama has called on U.S. business leaders to: “generate ideas for creating jobs, sustaining the economic recovery and making America more competitive”[ii].

Of course the notion of “creating jobs” is a little too convenient. Jobs are created when there is a need for them, and Americans get the jobs when they offer the most value. The problem is not that there are not enough jobs; it is that the cost-benefit for the employer often tips towards off-shoring.  If our workers do not offer enough value in the form of specialized knowledge, ability to use technology, etc., jobs will continue to be shipped overseas.

This is not a protectionist rant, and my comments aren’t intended to incite a riot on free trade, or China manipulating currency, etc. I am focused on what we can control.  What our nation needs is a retraining effort. The money we are spending on unemployment and other services would be better spent invested in people so that they can acquire new skill sets that are relevant in an ever changing world.

The question is who will lead, and who will pick up the bill?  To prepare our workers for the future will require collaboration across business and government. Tax and other incentives need to be in place to encourage the retooling of America. So as GE Chairman Jeffery Immelt and the rest of the White House Council of Economic Affairs weighs in on jobs, I hope they emphasize that we need to create opportunities for workers, and provide them will the skill sets required to compete.

Otherwise, the marches may extend to Washington D.C. and a state capital near you.

[ii] Obama wants business world’s best ideas on jobs USA Today

Last year some overzealous Google developers decided it would be OK if the company’s new social networking site (Google Buzz) would automatically select friends for their users based on who they emailed most. The release of “Buzz” created buzz of the worst kind, a backlash on internet security and privacy, which was the pregame for Facebook’s recent missteps. Some scholars are wondering, is privacy dead? 

The constitution does not explicitly protect our privacy (The Fourth Amendment provides “the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures). Yet protecting our homes, families, and information is central to our core values and American’s have an innate expectation of privacy.

The internet is a paradox; it offers us the ability to access powerful information at our fingertips. But access to information comes with a cost. It also offers the ability to track a colleague’s home address, see an aerial view of their property, see pictures of their children and know if they prefer golf, skiing or stamp collecting. It is not very difficult to ascertain ones sexual preference by looking at their Facebook page.

Consider the emerging trends in insurance coverage. The day will come shortly when an insurer will be able to track your medical history, what you had for lunch today, the number of steps you took at the gym this morning, and actuate the cost to insure you. Such modeling could reduce the cost for life and disability insurance.  Yet we see it as an invasion of our privacy. Some are wondering, what are the unintended consequences of having powerful databases which track our movements with such precision?

Clearly, the Federally mandated shift to electronic medical records is going to create shock waves for patients, who are going to need to warm up to their podiatrist seeing the rest of their medical history. But perhaps we need to see the forest through the trees. If our life could be saved by more complete medical information, wouldn’t it be worth the risk of our neighbors knowing a little bit more about us?

We reset our expectations of what is acceptable all the time. In the 50’s, Elvis shaking his hips was viewed by some as vulgar (imagine what Ward Clever would make of Lady Gaga).   It appears that we are on the cusp of resetting our expectations about what is private, and what is not. Companies have demanded since the advent of email that they own the content of the email, and that they have the right to read it at any time. Our work methods are far more public (than they used to be) in a world of common calendars and collaboration work tools.  

It appears to me that we are at a crossroads where we will really not have any choice. The converging forces of media, government, business and social networking are moving us in a direction of accepting less privacy. Organizations should be cognoscente of such concerns and make choices that protect their customers and employees. However, we may need to accept that progress comes with a price.