As someone who identifies with this &quot;platypode&quot; label, I&#x27;m happy to see some dialogue about it. The label is certainly an improvement vs. &quot;jack-of-all-trades&quot;, which often came with the implicit&#x2F;negative &quot;master-of-none&quot;.<p>I&#x27;m blessed that I&#x27;ve been able to settle at multiple companies where I could ultimately flourish platypus-style. My peers&#x2F;supervisors were always quite satisfied, sometimes describing me in hindsight as a &quot;secret weapon&quot;. Alas, it was not always easy getting to that point. I haven&#x27;t found a way to successfully get into such a role other than to exploit close personal networks of people who have seen my skills play out as described in the article and can testify to peers and hiring managers that it&#x27;s for real. Even then, it seems there&#x27;s still a challenge when justifying to a Board of Directors or CEO, since they sign off on hiring plans: &quot;In Q1, we have reqs for a QA person and a Product Marketeer&quot;. That fits nicely onto a PowerPoint slide and easy to check off when it&#x27;s been done successfully. It&#x27;s much tougher to imagine pitching &quot;We&#x27;re going to open a req for a platypus who will bootstrap our IT, handle Agile coaching, do some performance testing to select a back-end database, start some competitive research, and cut our first product videos&quot;, even though that&#x27;s precisely what I did at my last job. Thankfully, since I was working with people who knew me, they got me in the door with a narrow title, then permitted me to start doing all the other stuff. I doubt I&#x27;d have been able to sell that approach to strangers, though I&#x27;d love to hear testimony of anyone else who may have pulled it off.