Manager – looking for an expert or a generalist?

Should a manager be an expert or a generalist? Which brings more added value?

Introduction

In many companies, there is still the expectation that leaders must be deeply rooted in their own field of expertise. The classic notion is: those who want to lead should first be an expert ideally the “highest authority” within the team. Yet this view falls short. Leadership is not just about delegating tasks or managing projects; it requires the ability to understand different perspectives, make strategic decisions, and unlock the potential of employees.

This raises the question: does a leader really need to be on the same technical level as their team members—or is it not more valuable for them to act as a generalist? Generalists bring the ability to oversee multiple disciplines, connect knowledge, and deploy the right experts at the right time. They create space for creativity, encourage autonomous work, and maintain a focus on the bigger picture. In this field of tension between expertise and leadership skills, it becomes clear that the role of the leader should increasingly be defined as that of a generalist who guides the team strategically rather than getting lost in the details.

Argumentation

So, should leaders be experts in their field or rather take a generalist approach? Let us first look at the aspect of promotion.

No company wants to lose its top performers. They balance out low performers, stay longer, implement processes more efficiently, and are therefore able to take on a greater workload. The more responsibility these employees assume, the greater the loss if they leave. There are several possible approaches here; the step most often considered “logical” would be to adjust salaries in correlation with performance, but this usually does not happen—either due to budget constraints or the belief that no adjustment is necessary as long as it is not explicitly requested. Another option is job enlargement or enrichment, which provides the opportunity to enhance a résumé and increase the employee’s market value. If these options are not considered, another solution must be found.

This raises the question of whether a leader is truly required, or whether one can be “created.” Employees often slide into leadership positions out of sheer necessity or because it is administratively convenient for HR. Whether a promotion happens out of concern that someone might leave, or out of the urgent need to fill a gap, the promoted individual must be consciously trained and supported. Otherwise, the risk is that the leader remains stuck in day-to-day operations and neglects the leadership tasks that are expected. The result is often a “senior specialist” who receives an executive salary but continues to perform specialist tasks.

Today’s expectation of leaders is that they act as mentors and coaches to develop their employees. Yet experts, due to their deep subject knowledge, are often not the best teachers—because they struggle to convey what they consider “basic knowledge.” Others try to impose their own success formula on their “students” without considering that, due to differences in personality, this is not always possible or authentic. The desire is, of course, to have a team made up entirely of top performers—and so the employee with the best results is often chosen for leadership, without considering how effective their coaching abilities actually are.

Another important aspect is that, through such decisions, the high performer is removed from operational work—and responsibility shifts to employees who deliver less.

Generalists, on the other hand, have access to a broader range of knowledge. They are more likely to think beyond departmental boundaries, integrate interfaces, and optimize processes while improving collaboration. Their know-how allows them to bring in more perspectives to solve problems with foresight and sustainability. For leaders, it is essential to be able to play across different disciplines and to deploy employees strategically. This enables challenges to be managed smoothly, even in times of crisis.

For these reasons, HR and executives should carefully consider what choice they ultimately make.

Discussion

One of the strongest counterarguments is that leaders with only shallow expertise often appear less authentic and struggle to relate to the work of their employees. To this, it can be said that expertise, in general, can be built up more quickly and easily in order to establish a necessary foundation. For instance, a Head of Marketing is certainly not an expert in print advertising, digital marketing, and SEO all at once, but they know which employees are strong in these areas. They are able to deploy them accordingly, since their role is largely not operational but focused on coordinating resource allocation.

Another argument is that promoting experts into leadership positions secures knowledge and signals appreciation for the effort and value they bring. This may be correct and is often interpreted that way. However, as mentioned in the argumentation, an employee’s effort can be recognized through other means as well. This requires that employees are given the opportunity to express their wishes and indicate in which direction they would like to develop.

Accordingly, measures such as job enrichment or financial compensation can be introduced.

Conclussion

Must a leader be an expert, then? No, this is not a necessity. The arguments presented clearly show that leaders should not be experts, but rather generalists. They need to cover a variety of disciplines, operate on multiple levels, and be able to build networks. With this essay, the author seeks to highlight to key decision-makers the importance of making a well-considered choice when it comes to promotions.