This is good advice. However, unless it can be rewritten to appeal to a CFO, the important guidance will never reach the people who define the positions and fi

This is good advice. However, unless it can be rewritten to appeal to a CFO, the important guidance will never reach the people who define the positions and filter candidates. Executive management needs to understand WHY fundamental/generalist skills are more valuable than specialized skills (or at least are of comparable value except in rare cases). And the "why" that most executives understand is "because it results in more profit long term". Few executives or hiring managers are technically experienced enough to really know what skills are required to do a certain job. Since they know they don't know, they make effort to be very specific and target the technologies (and frameworks) that the person they are replacing was known to be using. If it's a new position, they have selected a popular stack based on what other people in their industry are using. In the mind of the manager, it makes practical sense to aim for exactly what they believe they need. Successfully delivering this message to the right audience would require a great and charismatic communicator. Unless this leader is already famous, I don't see the advice having a lasting impact. Heck, even if... I still don't expect lasting impact. Companies have been getting by ok (measured by executive compensation and shareholder value) so far, so putting in the extra effort and risk for possibly a better long term result isn't likely to happen. There is a bright side to this situation: some very talented people who don't fit the current hiring process may go off and do something on their own (or with others like them), resulting in great new things. In fact, that's usually how innovation happens.