Designers need to be generalized specialists nowadays—here’s how AI can help
How to answer the question keeping design leaders awake at night.

“Will we all be design engineers by the end of the year?” This question has been surfacing in Slack channels, Twitter threads, and throughout the LinkedIn design community.
But it masks a deeper fear that’s keeping design leaders awake at night: If any product manager can now design with AI assistance, and any designer can now code, do we still need specialists?
After interviewing 15 design leaders across various industries and job titles, I discovered the answer is far more nuanced and optimistic than the doomsday scenarios suggest.
The real question isn’t whether to specialize or generalize. It’s about doing both strategically.
In the age of AI, innovation demands both approaches working in harmony.
Why Both Generalists and Specialists Drive Innovation
David Epstein’s book Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World reveals two distinct innovation patterns that explain why this debate misses the point:
Breakthrough innovation occurs when people connect previously unrelated domains, identify patterns across disciplines, or connect solutions from one field to another. This is what generalists do.
Deep Innovation occurs when someone pushes the boundaries of what’s possible within a specific domain, such as solving complex challenges or optimizing systems. This is where specialists excel.
Neither is inherently superior. The first iPhone was a breakthrough innovation connecting media consumption, computing, and phones.
However, the subsequent years of optimization, which improved battery life and processing speed, required deep specialist expertise.
It used to be that design careers tended towards one side or the other. However, that’s been changing with the advent of AI tools.
The Rise of the Specialized Generalist
“I think that we are seeing a generalization of skills… You know, we’re all sort of T-shaped, right? So we need to have more — the top of the T needs to be thicker, and we have more prongs down than maybe we did in the past. — Carol Rossi, UX Research Consultant
AI is reshaping both generalist and specialist innovation, but not in the way people might think. Why?
When Teams Shrink, Responsibilities Expand
The numbers paint a stark picture. During my interviews, one design leader put it bluntly: “We have one designer trying to support four product managers.”
Another noted: “Design teams are getting smaller, unfortunately, with many of the people that I’ve talked to being on a team of just one or two other designers. As a result, bigger impact designers are going to need to take on more roles.”
The harsh reality? If you’re a researcher who cannot design anything, or a designer who knows nothing about business strategy, you risk being the person teams can’t afford when budgets tighten.
This is where AI is helping a lot of designers: by providing data on demand and helping create insights for organizations, AI is helping overwhelmed designers manage the workload.
But here’s the twist: this doesn’t mean becoming mediocre at everything.
Specialization in a particular domain or problem is valuable
Contrary to popular belief, AI doesn’t eliminate the need for specialization: it changes what specialization means.
AI can generate generic designs quickly, but it cannot:
Understand the nuanced regulations in healthcare software
Navigate the complex stakeholder dynamics in enterprise organizations
Identify the subtle user behavior patterns in financial applications
Bridge the gap between user needs and business constraints in specific industries
“AI will be able to create experiences, but they won’t be able to create those experiences that take it to the next level. They’ll just be able to replicate what already exists, whereas design, good design, creates something new.”-Venessa Bennett, Global UX Director
In other words, the most valuable type of designer will be a generalized specialist: someone who can have both generalized design skills while also bringing specialized knowledge to the table.
Here’s how you can do that.
How to become a generalized specialist
The key skill to become a generalized specialist lies in knowing how to apply both aspects to different business challenges.
Develop Pattern Recognition Across Problem Types:
The best way to start this process is by identifying the current design challenges you encounter and determining whether they require broad exploration or deep optimization.
If you are suffering from poorly defined problems or those without clear business impact, consider if there are any analogies that might exist elsewhere.
For example, are you asked to build a ‘community marketplace’ for a EdTech community? Perhaps there are other domains, like HealthTech, that have tackled that issue.
Don’t just look at their visual solution: break down why they might have made their design decisions.
For a well-defined problem with clear business metrics, practice deep-dive analysis by asking: “What are the hidden constraints and user mental models I haven’t considered?” This develops your specialist precision.
Build Your Switching Methodology:
Generalized specialists have systematic approaches for changing cognitive modes mid-project. Develop triggers that help you recognize when to switch approaches:
Switch to Generalist Mode When: You’ve been working on the same design solution for weeks without any insights, progress, or solutions based on your current problem framing.
Switch to Specialist Mode When: Several potential design solutions need to be narrowed down to the most viable option, technical constraints limit solutions, or there are specific usability issues that require deep domain knowledge.
Create Learning Feedback Loops with your team:
Track the business outcomes of your design decisions and correlate them with the thinking approach you used. Did that broad market research lead to a successful product expansion? Did that deep user workflow analysis actually improve conversion rates?
Recognize that being a generalized specialist often means knowing when to bring in deeper expertise. Develop relationships with your business stakeholders who can tell you if your design approach is aligning iwth business needs.
Innovating as a designer requires generalist and specialist skills
The generalist versus specialist debate misframes the real challenge.
To innovate as a designer nowadays requires both approaches, applied strategically based on the type of problem you’re solving.
Generalists spot the opportunities and make the unexpected connections.
Specialists make those connections work in practice and push them to their limits. The magic happens when both approaches are applied thoughtfully to the right problems at the right times.
In 2025 and beyond, the question isn’t whether you should be a generalist or a specialist. It’s about becoming a generalized specialist. The ability to do this, to tackle any challenge, will make you an irreplaceable and strategic part of any team.
Kai Wong is a Senior Product Designer and Data and Design newsletter Author. He teaches a course, Data Informed Design: How to Show The Strategic Impact of Design Work, which helps designers communicate their value and get buy-in for ideas.



Kai, the "specialized generalist" framing is exactly right. I'm experiencing this shift firsthand – I'm no longer just operating as a specialist. With AI assistance, I'm handling tasks across multiple domains: drafting better emails, writing and debugging code, analyzing designs. The use cases feel endless.
Your point about AI redefining (not eliminating) specialization really resonates. AI can generate designs, but it can't understand the nuanced regulations, stakeholder dynamics, or domain-specific constraints that specialists bring. For me, AI has become the tool that lets me expand my capabilities while still applying my specialized judgment to the outputs.
Quick question: did the design leaders you interviewed mention how they're building these "switching triggers" into their processes, or is it mostly individual designers figuring it out on their own?
Great piece – thanks for bringing actual nuance to a debate that usually devolves into hot takes.