Ask HN: What job can a “jack of all trades” look for?

496 points by programbreeding ↗ HN
tl;dnr: Unhappy at my job after >7 years. Love being a jack of all trades. Love learning new things. Hate being stagnant. Hate being the smartest person in the room. Need something new. What roles out there fit the skill set of someone that is good at a whole lot of things, but doesn't feel like a master/senior in any one of them?

-

I've been at the same small company for over 7 years. I started at the bottom, worked my way to the top after 3 years, and I've been here since. For a couple years I created new positions for myself because I hate being stagnant, but there's nothing else to do here.

I'm proficient in many things and enjoy doing all of them. Development (full stack), server admin, data center management, DevOps, project management, managing teams, VoIP, routing/switching, training, sales... the list goes on.

My issue is I haven't had formal training in a lot of it, and I didn't have any mentors or people above me to teach me more because this company is too small. I just love learning and love moving forward so I kept teaching myself new things, and then using them in the company. I don't actually feel like I have impostor syndrome, but I also feel like someone that is filling these roles at another company probably knows/does it better job than I can. I'm just a big fish in a small pond here.

So finally to my question: what role/job title I should be looking for? All the searching I do points me to one specific roles. PHP Developer. Systems Admin. Network Engineer. Etc. Are there any other "Jack of all trades" out there that can tell me what your job title is, and what I could be looking for?

216 comments

[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 251 ms ] thread
Smaller companies need generalists more than big ones do. You’re likely best off in early stage startups, small agencies, or your own consulting business. There are also incubators and such who can use that skillset to help bootstrap multiple startups per year.
Thank you for the feedback, I appreciate it. I like the idea of working at an incubator. Frankly I didn't realize they had employees in that way (I've never been involved with one). I thought it was more just that they provided a working space and mentoring. I didn't consider that they would employee people to actually help people. I'll look in to that.
It’s less common in accelerators where companies apply from outside. More common in incubators (distinct from accelerators) when a firm wants to foster and spin off ideas. These are commonly run by investment firms or large corporations.
I’m in over my head technologically with an early stage startup (mental health and psychology space) that’s fairly close to revenue. We need help in a variety of roles - AWS lambda, managing a remote dev team, integrating with another software products API, as well as product market fit and all the rest. We should have some money to spend after our next raise. Check my profile and email me if you’d like to talk further.
If you enjoy solving small business problems with SaaS and would consider living in San Antonio, TX -- email me bret@porthcawlholdings.com. We're a holding company that operates / starts new B2B SaaS solving SMB problems. Always in need of folks who can get stuff done.

P.S. We believe it's a marathon, not a sprint. Salaries are market rate, benefits excellent (on par with large tech, i.e. 6% $1/$1 401k match, etc.).

P.P.S. While message is directly to OP, also open to anyone else reading. More background in my profile bio here.

I’ve worked on plenty of teams that are mostly generalists at larger companies. You need a few specialists, then there’s always demand for people who know a little about a lot of subjects, so they can just pick up tasks as needed.

Edit: although the OP is broader in experience than most.

> Smaller companies need generalists more than big ones do

Big companies like Google also seem to hire a lot of generalists who have good programming fundamentals, are smart, and can quickly (i.e. within months) become productive in many kinds of projects.

These generalists then work on a project for 1-3 years. When they lose interest, they move to another Google project or leave the company.

If you really want to work on both engineering and sales, you'd probably want to run your own business or work at a very small company.

I'd have put it the other way around. Small startups can't afford specialists, not in terms of salary, but in terms of output: there's too much stuff to do and the specialist work (whatever it is) isn't a large fraction of the total.

The larger and more mature a company is, the more able it is to afford a job title which specializes in something narrower. It doesn't need to be super large; if the product is very technical, a specialist might be necessary.

The situation can be a bit different in a large company. They might want to hire a Java developer, or a front end developer. These are specialist roles, in that the people in them have chosen a professional specialism. They're commodity specialists though, so common that they're not thought of as special. It's more rare that they want someone who can do devops, UI, JS, RoR, Java and C++ - this is a generalist.

Yup, this is spot on. In our startup one of the challenges to hiring isn't a lack of money or need, but rather that we need people who can bounce around a lot of somewhat specialized topics, while generally no one topic is big enough to justify a full-time specialist.
Care to share in what positions such companies make such hires? I've looked around a few times over the years and have never found the slightest hint that they did such a thing.
I’ve been recruited for these and met people who worked in these roles. Typically it’s called a CTO or Head of Engineering. Sometimes it’s a chief architect or staff/principal engineer title or something like “engineer in residence” or they let people choose their own title.
I wouldn't say Google et al hire a lot of generalists per se, more like they hire generics: people who intellectually know fundamentals to a depth that can be used for anything, vs. generalists, who have experience in a range of things and an amount of big-picture sense. Generics don't need experience to be useful, generalists don't need fundamentals, so to speak. (IMO, rhetorical, not hard-and-fast rules, don't @ me)
Hey. Do you want to work with a startup going through good scaling up growth? Also, want to learn from your experience on VoIP and scaling the infra. Let me know?
Product manager is great for generalist. I was a programmer who enjoyed technical challenge, but I eventually realized if I wanted to guide the direction of projects I would have to join the business side.

The challenge is endless, diverse, and there is no perfect solution to the problem if people. It is a strange domain, but being technical is nice when working with development. Worth a try if you are in to that

Let's say a programmer was looking to make that change. Where would he start? Are there training programs? What kind of company would provide a gentle introduction? Is it easier to navigate the politics of a small company creating their own product compared to a large consulting company that provides staff augmentation services?
One possible path is looking for products where the customers are other engineers.
This is a story about a developer going to project management from developer.

Speaking from the experience of a friend, they started out by talking with their manager that they did not want to be a developer in the long term. Shortly thereafter, the manager announced to the team that the developer was going to start taking on project management tasks (like managing the project using Microsoft Project and leading the scrum daily stand ups). They continued in that capacity until they officially became project manager for another team. Now, years later, they are still managing but managing managers and a much larger team overall.

Grandparent was suggesting Product Management, not Project.
Thanks, I did not make it clear enough that I understood that, yet thought my friend’s experience to transition internally was relevant.
You pretty much have to job hop. Look for opportunities to help sales with customer conversations. if you can be a bridge from engineering to the business then you will have a lot of value in the position. Communication is critical. You have to be able to make people feel your solution is not best. Peoole do not care what is technically best. They want to feel something is the best. And that is a hard but to crack because every customer is different.

There are some technical product management positions. If you are looking for training and feel like that route and MBA will almost certainly set you down that path. Though I did not and got to a PM position. Luck is also involved. Haha

Disagree, many companies have a way for engineers to pivot into product. The hardest part is having a frank conversation with your manager. I’ve seen many engineers become PMs within the same company
Do they, though? Do they have formal management training for engineers who want to become product managers?
I'll share my experiences becoming a PM outside of a formal program like APM. I started out as an intern and now I'm a junior PM.

You're slightly moving the goalpost with your comment, because it's not necessary to go through formal training to be a PM. Engineers are tangentially involved in the product process pretty much always. The transition is essentially about taking more responsibility over the product and spending more time driving product vision as opposed to building. Passing a PRD to your manager if you thought a feature could be done better was encouraged at my last job.

Your manager will often support you doing this. Then, if you've been doing this well, you can speak about making a change to the PM role because you've proved yourself. If your manager does not support you doing this or the company doesn't need another person in a product role, then you might need to make a change.

FYI large companies accept internal applications for their APMs, which is a formal training program, albeit pretty much for junior employees only.

(comment deleted)
If you are in a role where you could be involved in the decision making of the product(s) you work on, getting involved in that [initially informally] is definitely the best way.

Be knowledgeable about metrics/kpis (and help create them if they don't exist), help your teammates grow through coaching, and work your way to be involved in those product discussions.

If you're not in such a position, try looking for a new job. So many companies need product managers and if you come clear on your ambitions, it seems to be easy to get past that initial wall.

One thought is to start doing it. Just start cutting out time to do pm stuff: research competitors. Make a presentation highlighting a competitors feature. Dig into your products analytics and do your own analysis. Attend a usability study. Pilot one if your company doesn’t do them. Brainstorm a new feature, solicit feedback, present the results. Ask existing pms about their jobs, what they need help with. Etc. If you like doing this stuff, you’ll get good at it. At the very least you will be more qualified for the role when you do officially get it.
I’ll second this. About 6 months ago we hired a product manager who had years of experience basically being a jack of all trades. Design, web development, stat analysis, marketing, etc. she’s capable of having conversations with everyone on the team and eager to make an impact on the product vision while understanding she has a lot to learn still. I’m excited to see where she helps us go over the next year.
I've recently felt this as well... not just the direction but architecture on how they are created from the scratch...

Maybe in a few years after I get more experience in the business.

(comment deleted)
I think i love most things product manager except for probably the most important thing, managing people. Yeah, that is not my cup of tea.
a product manager generally does not manage people, they manage what people work on, and project manage.
If you are a “people person” IT consulting, technical sales engineering, and other “field” based technical roles at larger companies require a lot of generalist skills. Consulting and sales engineering are a lot more technical than I expected when I moved over from product engineering. The big downside is they tend to be high travel roles.
I agree, as a consultant I have grown into a generalist over time, and consulting rewards those that do.

As a concrete example, I'm at Red Hat Consulting. We have products that range from RHEL, to Kubernetes/OpenShift, to language runtimes/tools/middleware, and finally to more process focussed transformation. You can specialize, but the more of these you are competent in the more useful you become. I am in more of a leadership role now, and in any one project I am likely involved in all of the above.

The key skills you haven't mentioned are the "Soft" skills: mentoring, client facing leadership, presentation skills, etc. If these are a strength for you, then consulting would be perfect.

Shameless plug at the end, Red Hat is hiring: https://careers-redhat.icims.com/jobs/search?ss=1&searchCate...

Has the IBM acquisition started to affect you guys yet?
Not really. From our perspective, IBM is a partner (we have lots of those) that we just happen to have alignment on both sides to work more with. That means that on the sales side we spend more time trying to find ways to collaborate. Usually there is this long awkward dance with a partner, where you're not sure who is committed and how committed they are. The IBM acquisition cuts a lot of that out, we know that we're tied together so we have to figure out how to partner together, even if we are two separate companies.

On the actual consulting side, 95%+ of consultants have seen no impact. Those that are being impacted are working on projects that have more IBM products involved. For example, some of my team is starting to work with OpenShift on Z.

Couldn't agree more! I love working as a Consultant at Red Hat. I do second the "soft" skills mentioned. If you're not a people person, I would say, consulting might not be for you. But it definitely rewards the generalist, jack of all trades, A.D.D. types (speaking for myself).
I agree with others that a smaller company seems the best fit since they need generalists. Potentially a manager role might be good if you've got the non-technical skills for it. That lets you hire people for areas you no longer want to be hands on with.

As an example, at my current job over the last two years I've done data engineering, devops, sysadmin, security, machine learning, backend api, people management, product management, project management, and probably some things I forgot about.

It does help to have a core set of skills that you are particularly good at and experienced. Mine is data engineering followed by machine learning and devops (devops being a recent addition). I avoid boredom in those areas by building better systems at every company based on past experience and the specific business goals of the company.

Fullstack Developer?

Btw big companies like FAANG interview generalists all the time.

They do, but in my experience most really broad generalists don't sufficiently fit into any given box. (One interview loop at a FAANG I was asked to come back three times for three teams--one systems, one backend, and one mobile--andmy backchannel feedback was "they all worry you'd get bored." Which was probably true.

There are definitely generalists at FAANGs, and they've got license to kill, but it seems like they were hired specifically at a certain rarefied level or they grew into the role over time.

Early to mid career, the “full stack” developer has something going for them: odds are pretty high you have 7 years’ experience rather than “1 year [7] times”.

Something i learned about myself a little bit farther in was that I wasn’t a generalist so much as I was a serial specialist (once you haven’t touched something you used the be good at for seven years, can you still claim to be good at it? Turns out I can’t).

What you list sounds quite a bit like what devops was supposed to be but nobody does it that way. Instead you should probably look at small companies. In a large one the only way to wear that many hats is to stick your nose into other people’s responsibilities. At a small company there are gaps everywhere, and people are just glad when someone can fill them.

If you have any ability to mentor, you might want to look at lead positions as well, or think about what you need to get there. That gets you some management responsibilities but you still get to make things.

>what devops was supposed to be but nobody does it that way.

Can you elaborate on this?

Not OP, but DevOps was supposed to be one pool of people taking care of everything, from infrastructure to networking to coding the whole thing. No handovers (or as few as possible), people who specialize, yes, but can take on a whole range of issues.

If Mark the networking guy is on vacation, Jane the fullstack dev should be able to perform basic networking troubleshooting and implement some fix until Mark returns and possibly fixes it.

Turns out people who can do that are:

- incredibly expensive

- very difficult to find

That's my take. I imagine a kanban board where prioritized issues are taken not by people who specialize in that particular area, but by whoever has the time right now. Again, I've actually never seen that implemented, except maybe for companies that consist of nobody but Jane and Mark :)).

A good start.

In other places, it just means operations people with some basic coding chops. And they’re still a completely separate group, instead of an integrated team solving systems problems.

I will run contrary to many suggestions already here. It seems (from the 3 example titles you give) that you want to stay technical/individual contributor. If that’s the case, you can absolutely take your breadth of skills to a big company, whether an established tech company or a technical team within eg the F500. I personally identify as a generalist also, and I (through complete accident and happenstance) moved into cybersecurity (not appsec to be clear, appsec is a team within cyber). Basically one of the most lucrative niches out of my broader range of experiences. It has worked out well for me.

Tl;dr - figure out which of your experience areas align with an area that’s either lucrative to you or of high interest for you for other reasons, and pursue that at a large company. At higher technical levels, your soft-skill and cross-dept experience will further accelerate your career.

I have a pretty similar story: Worked in enterprise for the last few years and recently I ended up leading and coordinating a "scrum" team in a technical lead position.

I do not spend as much time as I would like contributing to the codebase (the devs in my team do often a better job of it), but rather tend to act as a solution architect. I often bootstrap projects, do a lot of research and development, build proof of concepts, and overall push the team towards best practices.

I am very proud of some of my achievements (we are lucky enough to have freedom in the tech that we use and are currently testing out Elm for a small app, we moved the team from Java to Kotlin..) but I feel like I have lowered my value in the general market.

I would be curious to know in what form you contribute to your current team. I do not feel like my job is done here, but I am also going back and forth on whether I should get back to a more coding-oriented job, rather than doing my coding in my free time just to keep in touch with the craft.

> but I feel like I have lowered my value in the general market

Seeing the quality and technical abilities of scrum masters I've worked with, that statement is probably true.

That said, if you can demonstrate that you're a good scrum master that is actually technically skilled, I'd pay your weight in gold for you... Monthly...

I have worked in scrum for years now and I still have very little clue about what a "good scrum master" really does.

Mine, so far, weren't.

Project managers with technical skills are worth gold in product companies (possibly in other companies as well).

Run a few product implementations at customer side and there will be no monotony.

If you grow older and start appreciating more the routine in your life you can go into product management using the knowledge accumulated on customer side implementations and finally consulting.

Oh shit.

>I've been at the same small company for over 7 years. I started at the bottom, worked my way to the top after 3 years, and I've been here since. For a couple years I created new positions for myself because I hate being stagnant, but there's nothing else to do here.

I've been there and I thrive on it to this day. There are ups and downs with this, but you have something that will serve you very well if you choose to have a change of perspective/attitude.

You can either take this as a blessing or as a curse. Have you thought about going into an executive role and leading the company in a larger capacity, and helping it grow further?

At a certain point you have to drop off all of these duties that you are performing so that you can leverage the people you have around you.

You may think you still enjoy doing all of these things, but this stagnancy is going to haunt you, because there isn't an infinite growth in these areas. People, and companies, like predictability. Your voracious appetite is an anomaly. And you can't keep it up forever, either, because eventually you'll just plain get tired of it.

>I also feel like someone that is filling these roles at another company probably knows/does it better job than I can.

Questionable. There are a lot of muppets in other companies that don't know what they are doing.

Did the company grow over the years that you were there? I'm assuming it's not as "small" now as it was when you started. If so, you grew along with the company and you have a very good grasp of how to introduce and manage things within a company over time as it grows (ie. transitioning/pain points).

>What roles out there fit the skill set of someone that is good at a whole lot of things, but doesn't feel like a master/senior in any one of them?

People here are already playing Startup Bingo bullshit.

I doubt working at a startup will satisfy you, because that shit will feel like Groundhog Day much like how it currently does for you. You'll get to go through all the same nonsense over and over again.

Furthermore, the startup hustle is far riskier (with even less guarantee of a payout) than the position that you are in, because your position is much rarer. Anyone can choose to start a startup. Very few people can choose to be at the top of the food chain in a company that is alive (and healthy, I hope) after 7+ years. You didn't stumble into this position by accident.

You can leverage knowledge you don't know you have to do things that you couldn't do at a startup, all while having financial backing, a solid team and processes in place.

>My issue is I haven't had formal training in a lot of it

Most of what you know that is vital (that you've dismissed, I think) has no formal training. I can get formally trained monkeys to sling code all day if I wanted to, and while it wouldn't be done as well as I would have done it, it would satisfy the larger picture and keep things moving forward. Sacrosanct words for "engineers" who keep themselves busy writing more useless unit tests I'm sure.

>So finally to my question: what role/job title I should be looking for?

Before you jump ship, see what options at the top of the company pyramid are available for you, because if you leave and go elsewhere, and if you market yourself as a "PHP Developer" or "Systems Admin", you'll more than likely just move the clock back by 7 years and have to start all over again, in a different company, doing the same shit you've done for the last 7 years.

While I don’t disagree with the options for generalists others presented, I wholeheartedly agree with the advice to explore your options at your current company before you jump ship. Talk to your supervisor or an exec decision-maker you trust. If they recognize the value you’ve provided, they will bend over backwards to craft a role to keep you. And if they don’t, that will be the time to pursue the other options mentioned here.
Lots of great suggestions in this thread.

Another you might consider is starting your own business.

This path is not for most people. However, being successful as an entrepreneur does require a wide breadth of knowledge, and plenty of new things you'd need to always learn.

If you go this route, keep your (current) full-time job while you start building it on the side. Your one and only test of when you're ready to go solo is your ability to make consistent profit.

I think you will do very well in IT security, those who dabbled in many things can join the dots and appreciate the bigger picture, which is necessary for security due to its "cover all bases" nature
Depends on what you do every day. Revenue is made by doing stupid pen tests. Since you are a revenue-driver, you gotta do them. And most are boring. The cool stuff like hacking hardware, reverse engineering and whatnot doesn't pay money. It's mostly a marketing gag to find new customers. Maybe you're lucky and can fill such a position.
Really appreciate all the suggestions in this thread.

Very similar story. Beyond doing the full stack development of their web properties and internal database, design, IT, networking, I've created a marketing, seo, and advertising role handling all of that to bring in clients. It's a busy day but have automated as much as possible. Currently looking for something that checks all the boxes and that'll have me. Hardest part is remote is a must. Definitely don't have an issue traveling for work but relocation would be tough. Recently bought a house in the midwest with my wife.

Do you have any interest in partnering with someone who will manage all the technical details related to your clients web presence so you can focus on the core of your business?
If you have something in the sciences/engineering that fascinates you enough to consider it, maybe grad school?

I guarantee that none of the IT skills you have acquired will go to waste. Plus -- by choosing a fascinating area -- you might actually NOT BE BORED!

On the other hand, if you are at all hesitant, don't go to grad school. With the wrong adviser, it will chew you up and spit you out in tiny bleeding little pieces.

Just my 2 cents...

... the wrong adviser, it will chew you up and spit you out in tiny bleeding little pieces.

Exactly what happend to me. 4 years in a PhD program with an adviser that could not have cared less about anything I was doing. I gave up after my wife left me because I was spending too much time at "work". Yeah, now I have nothing and can't get a job because 4 years of nothing looks pretty bad. (Thank god I bought Bitcoin).

I feel pretty much the same and have recently applied to a position of Logistician with Doctors Without Borders.

I got really surprised when I first read about the attributions. I had never seen all my interests forming such a harmonic whole before.

This resonates strongly with me. I founded a startup as the technical co founder and now do a mix of product and engineering management. I agree with many of the others here: a small company / startup as an early engineer or a technical product manager sounds like it would fit well. Or, if you have the desire, founding your own company means you get to wear many hats.
Make your own software product. Requires to be a jack of all trades. Coding, marketing, writing, customer support, design. Because it's only you, you don't have to feel like "being the smartest person in the room". Downside: Takes quite some time to take off.
Additional downside: may never take off and leave you financially ruined.
Find an easy job you like and work on your project on your spare time. That's what I do.
Easy salaried job puts you in control of your hourly rate. The less hours you need to put in to stay above board, the higher your effective rate is. Even moreso when you're remote since you don't have the unavoidable cost of commuting & office attendance.
It won’t leave you financially ruined if you treat it as a side hustle and keep your main job as a source of income until you get customers.

And if it never takes off, so what? At least it will be a great learning and self-growth opportunity, which is exactly what the OP is asking for anyway.

Thank you for your comment. I often feel that a part of HN judges jobs only based on income and blames you for not focusing on one or the other and thereby losing out on income or business growth. However I, too, think that it's completely valid to stay at your main job while also working on side projects. Maybe you won't be the richest person in the room or turn your project into a huge success but being able to do stuff you love while not risking your peace of mind is worth something as well.
The former, sure, the later: Not really. Avoid insane risks and keep your skills in shape. You can always call it quits and join the machine again.
Nobody with that skillset in modern labour market can be "ruined" financially. Yes, you may loose all your assets and even get into some debt, but as long as you're capable of working, you won't be really ruined.
Sure that’s easy - all you have to do is get funding, create a product that people want, market it and make money.
DevOps

I had the same issues for many years, but the past 2 positions have been official "DevOps" positions and they more often than not have me doing so many random things that require all sorts of skills. I love it. It keeps things interesting, and it makes me very valuable to the company because I can do whatever they need.

Sure, some places have a very narrow definition of DevOps, but that's usually the large companies/teams. If you can find something a bit smaller, then you'll have more of a jack-of-all-trades role. At least in my opinion.

Agree, but a lot of companies use this title as a CloudOps so basically Ops but on AWS/GCP

At my previous company, I work as one and really enjoyed it. I was a software engineer, but I was also responsible for infrastructure, tests, CD/CI.

Now, I'm looking for a job like this, but most of the companies just want ops people who can code a little bit for automation and support other developers work "thrown over the fence"

Whenever I see DevOps roles advertised they seem to consist of a wall of product names under "must have x years commercial experience of", which is not at all conducive to attracting a true turn-hand-to-anything generalist.
Yeah but when it's "must have x years of experience of $CLOUD_PROVIDER" that's a whole ecosystem of tools to become proficient at. As someone who does DevOps I've learned to take any hard requirements in job descriptions with a grain of salt; companies are desperate for good DevOps talent, most suck at hiring for it, and some are aware of both of those facts and as a result are more flexible on some things than they would like you to believe.
This has been my experience as well. Some companies are strict about requirements, such as the FAANG companies, but many other smaller companies just need someone who has a wide range of experience and can jump on new stuff without any problems. Obviously you have to know basic DevOps terminology, but after that everything is gravy.
Most of the time, those job requirements are flexible.
I was just like this in the laser field. As an engineer, my skills were middling but my physics was good. I hung around the product managers, who were chemistry PhD fraternity boys. In return for understandable answers for the tougher customer questions, they taught me product management.
Smaller company. Master their domain. Streamline all their business processes. CTO role or something like that.
Move into managerial/sales role.