a generalist walks into an interview

...

Jul 10, 2025

you're 7 minutes into the interview. going well.

then they ask the question that
kills generalists every time.

"so what would you say is your core expertise?"

your mind thinks…
you've shipped features. product?
you've run campaigns. marketing?
you've fixed processes. operations?

the pause stretches.
you start explaining how you've worn many hats. but none feel like the answer they want. because they want depth and you've got range. their eyes glaze. you've already lost. that sinking feeling sucks, doesn’t it?

i understand, alright? i can relate.
i’ve gone from webdev to marketing to growth to product to founder. the growthx logo? designed that too. i am a generalist through and through.

but, what if i tell you that…
being a generalist is not the problem. your positioning is. most generalists walk into interviews apologizing for their breadth. explaining why they don't have 10 years in one function. defending their scattered resume.

cause if you keep doing this.
this pattern will cost you more than pride. vague positioning means longer job searches, lower initial offers, and getting slotted into roles below your capability. you become the utility player instead of the franchise player. the "resource" instead of the leader. your comp reflects this confusion. the market discounts what it can't categorize.

here's what changes the game:
stop selling your breadth.
start selling specific outcomes.

let’s dive deeper.
pay attention

here’s my framework
for for a generalist’s positioning.

G R I P
Gap → Result → Input levers → Plan

1/ gap

state the business pain
in a sentence that costs
money or strategic edge.

pick the problem where you want to positioning yourself (duh!)

"enterprise customers signed up but never launched. we burned $2,000 in acquisition cost per ghost account."

show the bleeding or
the strategic importance.

2/ result

give the one metric
that proves the pain is gone.
show before and after.

"day 14 activation: 8% → 15% in one quarter"

one number.
undeniable change.

3/ input levers

isolate the drivers of that
metric. show two to four,
never a grocery list.

input levers come from
breaking down the outcome metric
into its constituent ingredients.

example:
activation had three levers.

time to first value
(how fast they see roi)

internal champion buy in
(user vs buyer conflict)

technical friction
(complexity of setup)

resist listing seven things.
depth is shown from understanding which few levers actually matter.

4/ plan

then walk through,
step by step, how you
moved each ingredient
by working the input levers.

focus on depth of execution.
not breadth. showing range is fine,
but cap it at 20%. resist the urge!

"here's exactly how we moved from 8% to 15%:

lever 1:
time to first value (contributed +6%)**

old way:
14 steps before users saw any benefit

insight:
enterprise users need proof before commitment

change:
built 'preview mode' full product experience with dummy data. no setup required.

result:
73% tried preview mode. of those, 67% completed real setup within 48 hours.

lever 2:
internal champion buy in (contributed +6%)**

old way:
treated all users identically

insight:
the user didn't choose us. their boss did. forced adoption triggers rebellion.

change:
built two paths. 'quick rebel mode' for resistant users. 'complete setup' for willing champions. rebels got celebrated for speed, not completion.

result:
'rebels' had 3x higher week 4 engagement than compliant users.

lever 3:
technical friction (contributed +2%)**

old way:
required it approval, api keys, security review upfront

insight:
technical barriers gave resistant users an excuse to quit

change:
built a sandbox environment. full functionality, no security requirements. migrate to production when ready.

result:
89% started in sandbox. 62% migrated within 30 days."

you see how i spent like 90%
of time on the execution nuance?
i played it to the part where i
want to be positioned.

did i work on monetisation projects? yes. did i talk about it? no.

did i work on engagement bets? yes. did i talk about it? no.

also, ensure you don’t talk about range/generalist stuff you did to solve the problem above. you might be tempted to. but keep it to no more than 20%

summarising GRIP for you.

Gap → the pain
state the business pain in one sentence that costs money or strategic edge.

Result → the outcome
give the one metric that proves you fixed it. show before and after.

Input levers → the solution
isolate what drove that metric. two to four max. never a grocery list.

Plan → execution deepdive
walk through exactly how you moved each lever. focus on execution depth. spend 80% of your story here. go lever by lever.

some more nuances for generalists 👇🏻

1/ applying to a large company

you crack this by narrowing your narrative to one domain.

say you led a cross functional team that touched sales, product, and customer success. the lazy story: "i coordinated across three departments to improve customer satisfaction." empty calories.

the focused story:
"I owned net revenue retention. started at 98 percent, hit 118 percent in 10 months. my main lever was reducing churn through proactive success interventions. built the playbook, trained the team, shipped two product features that surfaced risk signals earlier."

used a micro version of GRIP
you claimed one metric. made it yours.

2/ building a new vertical inside a large company

new markets need generalists
who think like specialists. the company has zero institutional knowledge. no playbook. no obvious comp set. this is your opening.

don't pitch yourself
as someone who can "figure it out." everyone says that. instead, map your pattern recognition onto their specific challenge.

"at my last company, we expanded from SMB to enterprise with no enterprise DNA. I noticed enterprise buyers needed ROI cases before pilots, not after. so I built a value engineering function from scratch. trained sales on economic models. created templates they could customize. win rate jumped from 15 to 27 percent in enterprise deals within four quarters."

you're still a generalist.
but you're a generalist who spots patterns and builds systems. that's different from a generalist who just "wears many hats."

3/ pitching Series Seed/A/B firms

early stage companies need generalists but hire for specific problems. they're drowning in something specific right now. product market fit. sales efficiency. fundraising. your job is to figure out which fire burns hottest and position yourself as the person who puts it out.

the framework:
one burning metric,
one clear plan,
proof you can execute.

"your activation rate is 8 percent. industry standard is 20 plus. based on your user data, i'd focus on three moves in my first 90 days. simplify onboarding. create an early win within 2 minutes of signup. i did this exact playbook at [company], moved activation from 11 to 17 percent."

then you add the range proof:
"i'd also help with early sales hires, and product roadmap. but activation is where i'd spend 80 percent of my time until we fix it."

4/ bonus: ai ai ai

i think that in the age of ai,
generalists will even more of an advantage. ai is already pushing a pm to do > user research, prototype, 0-1 gtms.

a generalist with ai tools can deliver what used to take a small team. that's a story worth telling.

but keep it concrete.
"i use ai to drive a metric" not "I am an AI PM"

summarising market nuances

you should remember

1/ large company

narrow yourself to one domain.
choose a metric, tell how
you’ll drive impact there only.

2/ large company, new vertical

do not pitch yourself who can
"figure it out." everyone says that.

instead, map yourself onto
their specific challenge 80% and 20% mention the range you have.

3/ early stage (seed/series a,b)

early stage companies need generalists but hire for specific problems. they're drowning in something specific.

find their burning metric:
"activation at 8% vs industry 20%+.”
and position yourself there.

4/ ai ai ai

you deliver what used to take a small team. that's the story.

so next time when the interviewer asks