As a contributor, you have to be an expert, but you're really not on the hook.
As a decider, you can be a generalist, but you're on the hook.
The traditional mid-life transition is from contributor to decider, into management or starting your own company.
In my lifetime, the value of contributors has diminished while the value of deciders has exploded, largely due to the pace of change and the leverage of capital. Contributor skills get stale fast, but deciders making the right decision at the right time is a gold mine, waiting to be tapped by capital leveraging the latest tech/policy.
Also, I think people mature more as deciders. It grows confidence and effectiveness. Contributors grow to become defensive and stuck, i.e., dependent on being specifically useful.
It's tempting to look for nearby opportunities, but it may be more transformative to ask what kind of person you want to be in 10 years (and what will the world be like). If you operate from that perspective, you're leveraging world change and relatively immune to personal difficulty. People respect that, and you can be proud of making your way instead of just fitting in.
Becoming a principal rather than an agent is something (like meditation) that applies at all fractal scales of life, so you can re-orient while in current roles.
And don't worry too much about realistic. Focus more on delivering value, and the principle of least action will arrange things for you.