Strategy / Product Generalist

The problem.

In a firm this size there is a steady supply of problems that are nobody's job and are holding something up: an internal tool that would save a day a week, a diligence pack that has to exist by Thursday, a decision that needs somebody to gather the facts before it can be made. Left alone they land on whoever is least able to refuse.

What you would do.

• Take on whatever is most blocking. Work out what finished looks like. Get there.
• Build the small internal tools that remove recurring manual work, well enough that somebody else can maintain them.
• Prepare the material behind a decision: the options, what is actually known, and what would change the answer.
• Hand each piece over properly, with documentation, so it stops being yours.
• Say when something should not be done at all. That is often the most useful contribution.

What we would want evidence of.

• You have finished things across unrelated domains, and can point at what runs without you now.
• You can write code well enough to build a useful internal tool, without needing to be an engineer.
• You gather facts before forming a view, and change the view when the facts do.
• You have handed work over cleanly rather than becoming the only person who understands it.
• You are comfortable with a remit that changes every quarter.

What would make this a bad fit.

This role is a poor fit if you want a defined speciality and a path within it. This role is the opposite by design.

This role is a poor fit if breadth to you means an overview rather than delivery. The measure here is what is finished.