I dreamt sometime last week that my computer's desktop had been taken over by small windows containing videos encompassing the entirety of other peoples' lives. It was utterly exhausting.
Upon waking, or maybe once I got a cup of coffee in me I realized that I was dreaming very literally about my work life as a holistic financial planner, where I try to help my clients not just make and stay steady with prudent investment decisions but also counsel them vis-a-vis taxes, insurance, college selection and finance, retirement and estate planning, budgeting (so near-term spending decisions, including cars, houses, renovations) and so on and so on, but also inevitably get drawn into divorces, career instability, kids' career stuff. And even, at the edge, health stuff. I am trying to learn more about contiuning care retirement communities because around here people need a long lead time on those.
It's a lot. In truth, I embrace it and try to run with it. But to keep track of the many generalities of possibilities for clients and the specifics of clients' lives as they emerge is a grind. Which brings me back to the age old question of general/specific, universal/particular, which in the professional domain is most often thought of in terms of "generalist/specialist." Organizations think of this in terms of insourcing vs outsourcing. Financial planning guru Michael Kitces points out that some of the most successful firms he has seen are those who have deep specializations, for example the firm that works exclusively with optometrists. I hear that, though it sounds boring.
I suspect that at the age of 59 I am too far down my current generalist path to change and just need to focus on doing my best.
No comments:
Post a Comment