Do Hedgehogs Still Prevail?

I awoke this morning with thoughts of foxes and hedgehogs.

I know. What can I say?

In 1953, Oxford scholar Isiah Berlin wrote an essay about Tolstoy's view of history entitled, "The Hedgehog and The Fox." It begins with a quote from the Greek poet, Archilochus:

The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.

In his 2001 book, Good To Great, Jim Collins says that the secret of those great companies which have endured is their "hedgehogginess." If I understand him correctly, Collins was saying that the single-minded pursuit of a differentiating idea was the factor that most clearly marked the great from the good.

For his part, Berlin also says individuals can be sorted into these two groups. Apologies for the lengthiness of this quote, but I think it helps frame the issue more clearly:

...there exists a great chasm between those, on the one side, who relate everything to a single central vision, one system, less or more coherent or articulate, in terms of which they understand, think and feel—a single, universal, organising principle in terms of which alone all that they are and say has significance—and, on the other side, those who pursue many ends, often unrelated and even contradictory, connected, if at all, only in some de facto way, for some psychological or physiological cause, related by no moral or aesthetic principle. These last lead lives, perform acts and entertain  ideas that are centrifugal rather than centripetal....

[Snip]

The first kind of intellectual and artistic personality belongs to the hedgehogs, the second to the foxes....

OK. Hedgehogs: single-mindedly focused on an overriding systematic sense-making system; Foxes: wide-ranging, experimental, exploratory approach to their world.

My question: Is Collins still correct? Do hedgehogs still prevail in a world characterized by unprecedented dynamism? Is the model of success in the present and the future the same as it was in the past? Surely, Collins makes hedgehogginess sound very attractive:

[hedgehogs] have a piercing insight that allows them to see through complexity and discern underlying patterns. Hedgehogs see what is essential, and ignore the rest.

Isn't this the holy grail so many of us are seeking today?; the ability to see through (better, "ignore") the clutter of dynamic, disruptive events and see essential underlying patterns.

He further says:

Foxes pursue many ends at the same time and see the world in all its complexity. They are “scattered or diffused, moving on many levels,” says Berlin, never integrating their thinking into one overall concept or unifying vision. Hedgehogs, on the other hand, simplify a complex world into a single organizing idea, a basic principle or concept that unifies and guides everything. It doesn’t matter how complex the world, a hedgehog reduces all challenges and dilemmas to simple—indeed almost simplistic—hedgehog ideas. For a hedgehog, anything that does not somehow relate to the hedgehog idea holds no relevance.

But, is this still desirable (possible?) today? Can any of us claim with confidence that we can see through the clutter based on the insight yielded by a single pre-determined system, the "hedgehog idea?"

Do hedgehogs still prevail?

Comments

[niti bhan]

Hi Tom,

Interesting early morning thoughts you have but I'll refrain from comment :) However, what I note from your post, particularly the quotes from Collins, is that there seems to be an "Either/Or" state between hedgehog and fox which, imho, doesn't make sense.

1. the hedgehog comes across as limited within a box thinking type yet focused with a singular shiny bright target - i.e. everything he sees must fit into his worldview "Hedgehogs see what is essential, and ignore the rest."

2. however, the hedgehog also has "have a piercing insight that allows them to see through complexity and discern underlying patterns. "

Whereas, without belaboring the point, the fox is the opposite of this. IMHO, one can have the 'piercing insight...' and see the patterns but with the large scale world view of the fox, that is, being able to connect disparate and seemingly unrelated dots. Wouldn't you then say that that quality is what leads to those who have truly innovative ideas? Who are able to digest wide swathes of data and information and yet see trends adn patterns in them that allow them to shape concepts and strategies?

So, my point would be, before I could even answer the question at the end of your post, whether the model itself is valid or not? I can't see the hedgehog persona, with the willingness to evaluate everything against one singular vision or framework, be someone who simultaneously could take the leaps of imagination required to perceive patterns as described.

[niti bhan]

Correction : Collins refers to companies not individuals - in which case, I wholly agree that it is the hedgehog that must prevail not the fox.

mea culpa :)

[Tom Guarriello]

Hi Niti. Yes, Berlin's model is, indeed, binary; either/or. And he applied it to individuals. That means, of course, that it must draw arbitrary distinctions, which he acknowledges. Collins, for his part regarding companies, concurs with this being a binary model. For arguments sake, let's take binariness (?) as a given.

One might say that it's a heck of a hedgehog that's capable of both keeping its nose to the grindstone of its hedgehog-idea (H-I) AND seeing through the clutter. But, on further thought, it's not so tough to imagine.

Take Freud, for example. The unconscious structure of the personality (id, ego, superego) was his H-I. He singlemindedly explored its implications throughout his life. Any H-I worth its salt (don't hedgehogs like salt, kinda like deer?) has to serve as a massive organizing principle. It provides meaning; that's its purpose. In Freud's case, no matter what behavioral or cultural clutter (dynamism) he encountered, the H-I lens always revealed the true pattern lurking within: it was all REALLY about unconscious motivation.

Same thing for a company. If, "it's all about quality" is the H-I, then all problems, opportunities, dynamic market conditions, etc. become problems, opportunities and market conditions ABOUT QUALITY. But, what if quality becomes a given? What if it's no longer the adaptive edge that it was earlier?

That was the basis for the post, and my question.

[Niti Bhan]

Interesting - now in the context of what you've just articulated, let's look at Dell and their unyieldingly single minded focus on the bottomline i.e. cost, cost, cost. Everything they did and had done was wholly and totally focused on paring cost down to the minimum. Now however, as they need to evolve and change in order to compete in a market that has changed it's metrics for success away from paring cost to adding value, we can see the troubles they've been having in adapting to a new mindset.

maybe the hedgehog had best stay under it's hedge if this is the implication of this approach. I'm sure you can see more such similar examples.

[Tom Guarriello]

Niti, I think we have the stuff of another podcast here.

I think the Dell example is a perfect one. I'm not saying Collins was incorrect at the time he did his research. I'm just questioning the effect of the current dynamic context.

Wanna do a show?

[niti bhan]

Sure! Tomorrow or day after?