Don’t Make a Hedgehog Out of a Fox
The 1953 philosophical essay The Hedgehog and the Fox was, according to its author Isaiah Berlin, never meant to be taken seriously, but rather as an intellectual game of sorts. In short, it divides people into two categories: hedgehogs, who view the world through the lens of a single defining idea, and foxes, who draw on a myriad of experiences. Although the hedgehog can be defined as having an inherent binarity, the perhaps more interesting result was that readers were quick to declare either foxes or hedgehogs as winners of Berlin’s game. As it turns out, we humans are prone to either/or thinking — it is why “the seventh day of holy Sabbath” has always been easier to implement than the 35-hour workweek and why traffic lights are more effective than speed limits.
Similarly, when I recently took an objective look at brand purpose, some people interpreted my criticisms as “one should not do brand purpose”. Ostensibly, they came to the conclusion because it either confirmed their own view or diametrically opposed it — though I did not write that one must or must not do brand purpose. My point was merely that, based on the evidence, one should not expect companies with a purpose to do better or worse, nor, as importantly, should one make the best the enemy of the good. There is nothing wrong with working for a brand that “only” pays its taxes and treats its stakeholders well.
The response illustrates a larger problem in business discourse though, namely what Phil Rosenzweig calls The Delusion of the Wrong End of the Stick. Because we are rationalizing beings more so than rational beings, we are attracted by simple explanations that seem to make sense in retrospect — the sun rotates around the earth — even though there may be little evidence to support the claim. This is what is called a halo effect. For example, it makes sense to us that satisfied employees drive performance, but we are basing the assumption on intuition, not fact. Measuring it would mean relying on dependent variables — outcome — not independent ones. It is equally possible, if not more, that performance drives employee satisfaction. Nobody wants to work for a loser.
Many successful companies are considered hedgehogs because it fits the narrative. By all accounts, they have narrow focuses, stick to their core ideas and aim to achieve singular greatness. Consequently, people argue that companies ought to act like hedgehogs. Business analyses come to this conclusion constantly — company A did this one thing B and, lo and behold, it led to great results, therefore it is a recipe for success. However, not only is this a halo effect, it also carries a lot of risk, if nothing else due to the survivor bias in the data. Focusing on one thing means betting all your money on one horse. If you win, you win big. But you also carry a considerably higher risk of going home broke.
Binary, hedgehog-like thinking such as the notion that all brands must have a purpose is dangerous. We gravitate towards it because of a perpetual chase for plausible enough explanations to satisfy personal insecurities, not an endless quest for truth.
The reality of business is inherently complex and the success of companies is never a result of any one thing. Not all companies must have a brand purpose. However, importantly, it does not follow that no company should either. If you believe in a cause enough to invest in it, by all means, let that run through your business. But don’t claim it’s a prerequisite for success. You are making a hedgehog out of a fox and although it could end up on the greener pasture on the other side of the road, it may also end up as roadkill.
