“A slant fit” in a specialist job market

David Epstein’s Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World is one of my favorite books, not because it validates my own professional career, but because it does so with a wide range of research and compelling stories that support his counterintuitive (to some) premise. I dogeared a couple dozen pages when I first read it (including all of Chapter 9: Lateral Thinking with Withered Technology), but there are three passages I highlighted that stand out as my current job search has progressed over the summer:

“[T]he more contexts in which something is learned, the more the learner creates abstract models, and the less they rely on any particular example. Learners become better at applying their knowledge to a situation they’ve never seen before, which is the essence of creativity.” (When Less is the Same as More, pg. 77)

And:

“Those who were high in science curiosity bucked that trend. Their foxy hunt for information was like a literal fox’s hunt for prey: roam freely, listen carefully, and consume omnivorously.” (Fooled by Expertise, pg. 229)

And:

“Take your skills to a place that’s not doing the same sort of thing. Take your skills and apply them to a new problem and try completely new skills.” (Deliberate Amateurs, pg. 271)

Although I highly recommend reading it, this isn’t a review of Range, but it’s been helping me wrap my head around an acute challenge I’ve encountered as I’ve been exploring new opportunities for the first time in more than a decade.

“A Slant Fit”

The book world is notoriously myopic when it comes to evaluating experience outside of book publishing, and a couple of years ago a former colleague recommended me for a publisher role, pre-emptively positioning me as “a slant fit” because my resume didn’t obviously line up at first glance. It was her savvy pitch that got me a screening interview with the recruiter, to whom I made a good enough case to get a formal interview, but they ultimately hired someone with a more traditional  book publishing background, which was disappointing but not surprising.

It was an invaluable experience, especially since I wasn’t actively looking at the time, and I adopted “a slant fit” as a professional tagline ever since.

I asked her to elaborate on it recently when I was formally starting my current job search, and her explanation helped crystallize what I’ve always intuitively known about myself.

You’ve had such varied and diverse experiences in publishing and seen it from so many angles that even if you haven’t sat in an acquisitions role or whatever role is being hired for, there’s no question you understand how the business works and what leads to success. You’ve established so many relationships over the years, been exposed to different environments, you’re well informed, and even though I wasn’t managed by you, I know you’ll treat any team you manage very well because you care about the people as much as the job.

I don’t know what drives much hiring these days, but if I were hiring for a position inside publishing, I would be most concerned with whether the person shows an ability to research, understand, and serve the market/audience, and ability to adapt or innovate in regard to audience. And isn’t that everything today? I think you’re the one who turned me on years ago to CLUETRAIN MANIFESTO, which remains as relevant as ever. So you prioritize audience + strategy in a publishing role, and if you don’t know the tactical or process stuff of a particular role at the outset, I’m not sure it matters. You can learn it or have others fill in where you’re still building skills or knowledge.

I thought of you for the [redacted] position because I saw that their values and your values aligned, and that you have an intrinsic interest in the kind of work they’re doing. Everything should start there, shouldn’t it? You know publishing well enough by far to do what they wanted. You would learn and be curious about any parts where you’d need to get up to speed because that’s who you are.

tldr: I’ve got the kind of range people with more traditional backgrounds typically lack. Also, I clearly need a herald!

Generalists vs. Specialists

There’s a terrible LinkedIn-style post I’ve been tempted to write over the years that equates business to soccer, with me as a box-to-box midfielder who operates comfortably at both ends of the pitch. Throughout my career in media, with few exceptions, I’ve either done it, been responsible for it, or been significantly involved in supporting it. As a systems thinker, I can usually see most of the field at any given time, able to anticipate opportunities and threats, and support the offense or defense as needed. I can slow the play down, trigger a counterattack, or make space for others to create opportunities further up the field.

This isn’t that post, but it’s relevant context.

As the media business and marketing channels have fragmented over the past two decades, hyper-specialized roles became the norm. There’s an entire generation of younger professionals with extremely narrow areas of expertise, but they often lack experience in the fundamentals that would help them transfer that expertise to other areas and expand their skillset. There’s also an older generation of senior executives who have come to rely on those specialists so much that they’ve ended up managing silos inside silos, limiting the opportunities for growth across the org chart, and for the business itself.

As a proud generalist with range, I’ve realized my resume has become an obstacle, especially as automated systems with opaque screening algorithms dictate whose resume gets looked at by a human being at all. The things I’m good at aren’t always clearly communicated by the titles I’ve had in the past, partly because I’ve frequently benefitted from job-crafting, either having new roles created explicitly for me, or having my role evolve as I took on responsibilities beyond my title’s presumed scope — because I had the range.

It’s why I’m still an advocate for cover letters — both when I’m the hiring manager and the applicant — and why almost all of the best opportunities I’ve ever had came from prior colleagues in new places, or direct referrals.

In an interview, I can easily align my experience to any role I’m interested in, no matter how specialized, translating “a slant fit” into specific examples that resonate. If I can’t immediately see that from the job description, I’m not even bothering to apply, because I wouldn’t be able to write the cover letter required to potentially get my foot in the door for an interview.

And that’s arguably the biggest challenge in looking for a job in 2026. Most job listings are almost always describing a generalist unicorn under a specialist title, but most screeners (including automated systems) reviewing dozens of applications are typically looking for obvious versions of those titles before reading a cover letter. In that system, I’m highly unlikely to make the cut unless it’s specifically marketing, but being a marketing generalist in 2026 is often considered a weakness in every industry, regardless of how much range I actually have.

What’s Next?

I don’t actually have a conclusion, takeaway, or new ask to make here. It’s part rant, part thinking out loud, part update.

I’m juggling a few small consulting projects with potential to expand in different ways; I’ve had some interesting conversations about a couple of potential full-time roles that are still being fleshed out; and I’ve had two particularly interesting formal interviews for jobs with potential. So. Much. Potential!

One interview was a few months ago, before I officially kicked off my public search. A rare cold application, it would have been a challenging dream job that perfectly aligned with my background, and after three rounds, it came down to me and another candidate. It was the most effort I’ve ever had to put into an interview process, and while I didn’t get the job, it helped me frame “a slant fit” in concrete ways that will improve my approach to future opportunities.

The other interview was a preliminary screening call, thanks to a referral, which immediately required the “a slant fit” context, because my past titles don’t clearly represent my being a perfect fit for the role. Between my cover letter and the courtesy screening interview, I was able to make a compelling case for consideration, but I’m probably still a long shot compared to the specialists who can skip that step and immediately dive into the details.

Overall, things are pretty much where I expected them to be at this point in the summer, although I’ve mostly been disappointed by what’s publicly available on various job boards. LinkedIn’s job listings are 98% useless; half of them are fake, and the other half require fully embracing the “inevitability” of AI, which I’m not ready for yet. The recruiter pitches are lazy keyword-driven automations, and the recommendations for jobs I’d be “a top applicant” are laughably bad, suggesting their implementation of “AI” is half-assed because, despite being on Linked for nearly two decades and paying for Premium, it’s clearly learned nothing useful about me.

If you’ve read this far, thanks!

If you have or know of something that might be a good fit, drop me an email or pass along my LinkedIn profile to anyone you think should know about me. I also wrote a public cover letter of sorts that identifies some of the specific roles I’m interested in.

And if you’re looking for some short-term help for your own needs, check out my consulting options and get in touch.