The flip side of this is that you need to pick a problem where this is actually an advantage. If you're solving the same problem that your competitors are but they have 100 highly-specialized employees but you have one generalist, you're going to lose. Big. But if you identify the problem that they're not solving because nobody in their organization has the relevant expertise or job description, you can get a solid foothold, then use that to hire the expertise that you were missing in the first place.
i agree, but this is begging the question of actually being able to do a good job at any of it. i'm not saying it's impossible, i'm saying most can't.
This is probably the most counterintuitive part of founding a startup that I've observed so far: if you're doing it right, you'll suck at everything you do. Why? Because if you don't suck at something, it's time to seek funding, hire people, and train them to do it. The founder's job is to seek out problems where everyone else sucks more and yet people still want it, which itself is quite a challenging task.
But there's always a point at the beginning where a company doesn't have a ton of money laying around, and at that stage, I think your advice is bad. It's better to have those jobs getting done poorly than to have them not being done at all.
these are 'business side' things, and are basically the most common reason companies fail.
i think companies that raise or make money quickly are able to actually dedicate people to very, very, very critical shit, and will have an astronomically higher chance of success for this reason alone.