True, but if you hire a generalist and they are consistently under-performing specifically in the subject matter where you are an expert, it may behoove you to take the rest of their work with a grain of salt as well.
The key is to understand what someone is actually good at, rather than lump them into some amorphous "generalist" category. Along with (presumptively) broad experience, a generalist is just a specialist at various things which often feel obtuse or reductive to delineate — e.g. "I'm a specialist at rapidly narrowing vague failures into specific causes, assessing scalability trade-offs, understanding edge-cases at the intersection of two programming languages, and optimising cache invalidation."
Perhaps the best generalist skill when working in teams of specilists is "a reasonably accurate bullshit detector."
The key is to understand what someone is actually good at, rather than lump them into some amorphous "generalist" category. Along with (presumptively) broad experience, a generalist is just a specialist at various things which often feel obtuse or reductive to delineate — e.g. "I'm a specialist at rapidly narrowing vague failures into specific causes, assessing scalability trade-offs, understanding edge-cases at the intersection of two programming languages, and optimising cache invalidation."
Perhaps the best generalist skill when working in teams of specilists is "a reasonably accurate bullshit detector."