At a dinner party recently the host went round the table describing in 20 seconds what each of us did for a living. It was a sobering moment. Here were our lives, summed up in a few words. Was this really how we would be remembered?

Ever since Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations in 1776, modern societies have focused on the division of labour. We have become ever more specialist in our work – no one wants to be known as a jack of all trades, master of none. Today it is all niches. After all, the sum of human knowledge has expanded exponentially since Leonardo da Vinci’s day, when the concept of a Renaissance man with learning across all fields was valid. Now someone like that would be dismissed as a dilettante.

Yet this narrowing of interest and expertise is not entirely a good thing. For example, the rise of the life-long, professional politician has been bad for government and democracy in this country. Too many MPs have never held a real job outside politics. They lack true exposure to other worlds.

And they spend too long in parliament once they get a seat. There should be term limits at all levels in public appointments. At Channel 4, I have a maximum of six years in the job to make an impact – and then I move on and give someone fresh a go.

A reasonable level of churn is healthy: it allows new talent to rise to the top, and stops office holders becoming complacent and a block to progress. And, ultimately, there must be more to life than one constricting discipline. We have so much more time on earth than those living in the 15th century; our careers can last 50 years or more. I studied medicine partly because I thought doctors can have a varied existence: not only do they treat patients, they can also do research, teach, write – even run healthcare companies. We do not all have to be polymaths, but surely the prejudice against people who do more than one thing is wrong.

When I became chairman of Channel 4, there was criticism that I was a novice in the media world. Yet one of the problems of broadcasting management is that it is insular, with participant businesses historically protected thanks to scarce spectrum.

But with infinite bandwidth, traditional media companies are being leap-frogged by upstarts such as Google – newcomers free from the arrogance and tunnel vision of the specialists.

Surely, none of us really want to be pigeon-holed. It is nice to have a title and a profession – lawyer, chef, programmer – but don’t we all have the capacity to do more than one sort of work over the course of decades?

We each have multiple talents. Climbing to the top in many organisations means long service and focus, probably on one discipline or one sector. Our system means the ambitious may be frightened to diversify if they want to seize the prizes.

Yet jobs for life, final salary pension schemes – these are 20th century constructs, now dead. The future belongs to those who plan a series of consecutive careers, or perhaps simultaneous roles – either part-time, or possibly even moonlighting.

I accept that the concept of the all-conquering generalist manager is flawed. I have hired such figures and they have not proved successful. Instead you need contacts and understanding, which tend to come with years of dedication to a single vocation. But even those with particular skills and qualifications can lead a portfolio life to a degree. Most of us have other existences – family, hobbies, home.

It is oppressive and inefficient to be trapped by corporate ritual and tradition. A chief executive I know has on his card the designation “Founder”, an attractively broad category. Another businessman friend calls himself an impresario – again,
a usefully adaptable word.

Centuries ago, there were no sharp divisions between the state and the private sector, between science and the arts. Bring back that enlightened approach. We should shrug off attempts to keep everyone labelled, and encourage life-long learning and occupations across different callings. Long live Homo Universalis!

lukej@riskcapitalpartners.co.uk