The Return of the Generalist Starts With Knowing What You Solve For

Microsoft is rethinking how a company should be built for AI, and its president has put a name to one of the biggest changes. In Microsoft Recasts Culture Around AI in The Wall Street Journal, Steven Rosenbush reports on Brad Smith's conversation with Alan Murray at Journal House during the United Nations General Assembly. Smith described the return of the generalist.

For decades, he noted, professions have grown narrower because staying expert required so much depth. AI is starting to change that. People can now take on a wider range of problems, take more initiative, apply judgment and have more impact. Microsoft is rotating people through more areas of the company, faster, and Smith sees the moment as a chance to rejuvenate culture and "empower people within clear lanes to go do things better."

The reporting adds detail. According to Microsoft, one organization has cut its layers from 10 or 11 to about five, and managers who once led seven people now act as player-coaches for 15. A nine-person team shipped a new AI product in 35 days.

This is a thoughtful vision, and I believe it is largely right. But it raises two questions leaders will need to answer.

Specialists Had an Identity Built In

For a specialist, identity comes with the job title. You are the tax expert, the database architect, the clinical pharmacist. Your depth tells you, and everyone around you, what you bring.

Generalists do not get that gift. When people rotate through more roles and solve a wider range of problems, the old answer to "What do I do?" stops working. Without a new answer, range can feel less like freedom and more like drift.

That is why the first question I ask any leader is not what they do. It is what they solve for. A strong generalist is not someone who does a little of everything. It is someone who brings the same distinct value to every problem they touch: clarity in chaos, a gift for connecting people, the ability to see opportunity others miss.

In my work on opportunity, I teach four skills: See, Sow, Grow and Share. They describe how people recognize opportunity, plant ideas, develop them and create value with others. They are, in effect, the skills of a great generalist. And they work best when a person knows what they uniquely contribute.

Flatter Teams Make People Harder to See

The second question is about managers. Microsoft's move toward player-coaches leading larger groups reflects a broader trend. According to Gallup, the average number of people reporting to a manager rose from 10.9 in 2024 to 12.1 in 2025, nearly 50% higher than when Gallup first measured in 2013.

Larger spans can work. Gallup's research suggests they work best when managers spend less than 40% of their time on their own individual work and give employees meaningful feedback every week. When employees strongly agree they have received meaningful feedback, about seven in 10 are highly engaged, regardless of team size.

That is a demanding standard for a player-coach who is also expected to ship. In my work on Leadership in the Age of Personalization, one of the five indicator questions is: How do you see them? In a flatter organization, the honest answer can quickly become "as a role on a fast-moving team." Generalists need the opposite. They need leaders who notice what each person brings, so the right person lands on the right problem.

Clear Lanes and Personal Range

Smith's phrase about empowering people within clear lanes captures the balance well. The lanes are standards: shared goals, guardrails and ways of working. Those are assets. The empowerment is personalization: letting each person apply their own judgment and strengths inside those lanes. Standardization and personalization are not opposites. Each modernizes the other.

As I explored in Recompose the Role Around the Person, Not Just the Work, roles designed around who people are earn more commitment than roles designed around tasks alone. And as I wrote in Innovation Happens in Networks, Not in Isolation, the best ideas surface when people with different strengths are connected on purpose.

Three Questions for Leaders Redesigning Around AI

Can each person on the team say what they solve for? If not, rotation will build exposure without building identity.

Do our managers have time to see people? If player-coaches spend most of their week on their own work, larger teams will quietly become less personal.

Are we matching people to problems by strength or by availability? Generalists create the most value when leaders know what each one does best.

The return of the generalist is good news. It invites people to bring more of themselves to their work. The leaders who make it succeed will help every generalist answer one question clearly: what do I solve for?

Want to explore these ideas further? Learn more about my work on leadership, identity and conviction at www.theglennllopis.com.