The author of the HBR article works in a subject where literally nobody can be a specialist of the type he needs unless they work at his company. He's basically saying "this is the kind of data scientist I need; someone flexible enough to learn about my weird problem." He's also requesting a DS which can do everything from soup to nuts. That doesn't mean it's good for a DS to be a generalist.
FWIIW I am a generalist DS type (arguably just generalist: database engines, blockchain, ML, DSLs, etc), but it's almost entirely because I'm easily bored. From an optimization of my paycheck and hours worked point of view, going deep in one area nets much larger paychecks and a nicer (aka fewer hours) lifestyle.
FWIIW I am a generalist DS type (arguably just generalist: database engines, blockchain, ML, DSLs, etc), but it's almost entirely because I'm easily bored. From an optimization of my paycheck and hours worked point of view, going deep in one area nets much larger paychecks and a nicer (aka fewer hours) lifestyle.