I've been doing some self-evaluation recently, mainly as a consequence of talking with some very smart people about coming onboard with me on a new venture. I realised that I am very much a generalist potential CEO - I know a reasonable amount about marketing, sales, technology, finance, operations, business law and contract law - but can offer no deep, astonishingly insightful commentary on any of these.
What I seem to be able to do is tie these functions together coherently, run a team of smart people and get them pushing hard in a given direction and communicate a vision, or a strategy, or an idea, or a requirement in terms which appeal to the person on which I am focusing my attention.
But is that enough? What does the broader community think? Would my soon-to-be-real company be better served by having a specialist (Ops, Technical, Marketing) in the CEO chair? Is there a natural lifespan before either the generalist or specialist founding CEO needs to step aside?
I think you want to be "angular", which (not surprisingly) is what the Ivy's are looking for too.
Angular means having a few elements of true specialization and mastery, but being a reasonable generalist everywhere else.