I think there's an intermediate size where being a generalist is bad. I'm a generalist, and I experienced a similar situation -- I was extremely useful at the beginning because I could do a fair job of the responsibilities of three or four specialists, but after a year and a half, there were three or four specialists who could collectively do a far better job than me. The amount of tasks which made sense for me to take on dwindled, and I wasn't really needed anymore. I don't regret it or hold a grudge, it was my intent to help build a team that was better than me alone, and I succeeded in that professional goal. I trained most of them to be able to do my job, and am proud of that accomplishment. But I suspect that once the company is at 100 people instead of 20, the budget and flexibility of positions will be such to allow generalists to be more practical again.
Does that make sense? I think for a 10 person team, generalists are very useful, and for a 1000 person team, generalists can be tolerated and be very versatile members who can quickly switch between roles. But I think there is an intermediate point where the company goals are still very narrow but the team is big enough that generalists are only useful in a high level management role.
Does that make sense? I think for a 10 person team, generalists are very useful, and for a 1000 person team, generalists can be tolerated and be very versatile members who can quickly switch between roles. But I think there is an intermediate point where the company goals are still very narrow but the team is big enough that generalists are only useful in a high level management role.