Convergence
With AI absorbing routine production work, five operators argue the high-leverage shape is a generalist with taste who ships across the stack — not a specialist running their slice. The pure-IC archetype (PM-only, designer-only, eng-only) is squeezed; the new archetype is "engineer with product taste," "comb-shape PMM," "designer who codes," "PM who prototypes."
Operators
- Cat Wu — Hire engineers with product taste rather than adding more PMs and Taste is the scarce skill in an AI-native team. Hire engineers with product taste rather than adding more PMs; taste is the scarce skill.
- Anton Osika (Lovable) — In an AI-native team, hire generalists with one deep dimension, not specialists. In an AI-native team, hire generalists with one deep dimension.
- Jenny Wen (Anthropic) — Hire across three archetypes: block-shape generalist, deep specialist, craft new-grad and The design role's time mix shifted from 60% mocking to 30% mocking, 30% pairing, 20% code. Three design archetypes (block-shape generalist, deep specialist, craft new-grad); the design role's pie chart shifted from 60% mocking to 30% mocking + 30% pairing + 20% code.
- Aakash Gupta — PMs who keep outsourcing first artifact will lose to PMs who arrive at design review with a working prototype. PMs who keep outsourcing the first artifact lose to PMs who arrive at design review with a working prototype.
- Amol Avasare — Claude Code multiplies engineers 2–3x; PM and design become the bottleneck. Claude Code multiplies engineers 2-3x; PM and design become the bottleneck unless they ship too.
- Krithika Shankarraman — T-shape PMM is dead; comb-shape (analytical + creative + technical + brand) is the new bar. T-shape PMM is dead; comb-shape (analytical + creative + technical + brand) is the new bar.
Variation
- Cat Wu and Avasare frame it as eng productivity: the eng multiplier creates a PM/design bottleneck that only generalists can release.
- Wen frames it as a role redesign: the time-allocation pie has changed, the hiring archetypes have changed.
- Osika frames it as a team-shape heuristic.
- Gupta frames it as a PM survival move.
- Shankarraman frames it as a PMM skill model.
- Shared: the gate has moved from craft execution to taste + multi-disciplinary judgment.
Implication
Audit your hiring rubric. If you're still scoring "depth in one craft" as the dominant signal, you're hiring for the squeezed role. Add: "ships end-to-end," "prototypes before pitching," "uses AI to extend their range." For PMM specifically, score on the four prongs of the comb, not on T-shape depth.
Sources
- ins_engineers-with-product-taste — Cat Wu
- ins_taste-as-scarce-skill — Cat Wu
- ins_generalists-over-specialists-ai-native — Anton Osika
- ins_three-design-hiring-archetypes — Jenny Wen
- ins_design-pie-chart-shifted — Jenny Wen
- ins_pm-prototype-or-be-bypassed — Aakash Gupta
- ins_squeezed-pm-thesis — Amol Avasare
- ins_comb-shape-pmm — Krithika Shankarraman