The elephant in the room for almost every management-type article you ever read is that they're all correct: you just don't have the space in your head or the minutes in your day to implement five hundred different good ways of doing things.
That, and resources. Every company would like to have a top tier dev team, and a top tier sales team, and competent managers at every level, and a hundred other things. But those things cost tons and tons of money, if they can be found at all.
A thing have changed starting from few years ago: while before people prize specialization as the best route for anyone now some start prizing generic vast knowledge.
This shift is so far limited but important, it means some have realized too many have lost the big picture and we need it to keep anything working well...
Any reasonably large organisation probably needs both types of person. There’ll be the deep problems that require a true specialist to deal with (Netflix blogs about optimising network transfer spring to mind here), and people with broad experience who can bring that to bear on new problems, put together prototypes, and understand which specialisms to involve as it develops.
There’s huge value in understanding the entire stack in the early stages of development so you’re not having to rope in five different departments just to get something live, but you also need to know when you’re out of your depth and it’s time to call in the people who do nothing but deal with a small subset every day.
That's sure, but I mean the "general adage", most current narrative is "specialized is good, cool, the way to go, nobody want to be generic, ..." while actually all rulers, broad leaders etc need to be generic.
To seems like keep crying "do not be rich! It's bad!" and now I see something I call a small reversing trends where more and more sources start stating "we need more generic/wildcard/T-shaped/$choose-a-label-not-to-say-generic-directly". I call it "a bit late, but still good".
