I was reading Jim Collins’ page the other day (author of Good to Great… you’ve seen this on the bestseller shelves the last time you were at Borders or Barnes & Noble, or other bookseller), and came across a section of his site where he talks about what he calls the "Hedgehog" concept.
The very basic idea is a contrast between the fox and the hedgehog, with the nub being that the fox knows a bit about a lot of things, but the hedgehog knows a lot about one thing. The postulate is made that huge successes, great successes, come from "Hedgehog" types of leaders.
What I found most interesting was his discussion (here) of what he calls the three circles of the "hedgehog concept" — these being:
- What you can be the best in the world at
- What drives your economic engine
- What you are deeply passionate about
Jim argues that all three of these are necessary for "greatness".
One reason I found this especially interesting is that I’ve been thinking a little about this for the last few days. I have a fairly broad range of interests, but I’ve been coming to the conclusion on my own that if I try to concurrently pursue all these interests, I’ll basically be shooting myself in the foot — that is, I’ll wind up knowing a little about a lot of things, but not knowing a lot about any one thing.
The idea of using these concepts as a help when choosing what to focus on really resonates with the way I think. After all, why choose to focus on something which you know you can never truly excel at, and spend the rest of your career fighting an uphill battle? Why choose something you have no passion for, and be really great at a thing you don’t enjoy? And lastly, what sense does it make to be excellent and passionate about something which will ultimately be of no value to anyone, particularly yourself?
I suppose some psuedo-artistic types would argue the last point, that the economics or the "saleability" of something should not be a factor. That’s a bunch of nonsense. Creating something with the idea that it has worth, or that you would like to make money from it, is not intrinsically evil, bad, or dishonest. Anyways, we aren’t speaking exclusively of art, here, but of anything that would fit. Just a thought.
How about the readers, out there; does your "big picture" fit with Jim’s "three circles" — and is it important?
