I think that the premise here is wrong. Working with a group of generalists is about managing employee skillsets and professional growth.
Whether you have people with deep, focused expertise or generalists with broad expertise, that doesn't change the fundamentals of managing an organization. The company is a machine... you take labor, knowledge and machines and produce a work output more valuable than the cost of those parts individually.
You don't generalize accountability. You don't breed chaos.
The beauty of small teams is that roles don't need to be fixed (vs. large companies that breed teams with tightly defined scopes). The downside of small teams is that you don't have the time to give non-core functions the focus they might demand elsewhere. You may be accountable for sysadmin tasks today, but not next month. The key secret to being successful (which is much easier in small organizations) is to effectively communicate.
Whether you have people with deep, focused expertise or generalists with broad expertise, that doesn't change the fundamentals of managing an organization. The company is a machine... you take labor, knowledge and machines and produce a work output more valuable than the cost of those parts individually.
You don't generalize accountability. You don't breed chaos.
The beauty of small teams is that roles don't need to be fixed (vs. large companies that breed teams with tightly defined scopes). The downside of small teams is that you don't have the time to give non-core functions the focus they might demand elsewhere. You may be accountable for sysadmin tasks today, but not next month. The key secret to being successful (which is much easier in small organizations) is to effectively communicate.