The Fox and Hedgehog Work Styles
The metaphor of the fox and the hedgehog is as helpful as the Type A vs. Type B personality: it’s a rather reductionist approach to help give a sense of one’s personality, but not necessarily the full picture. It’s easy to describe me as a Guardian, Integrator, detail-oriented, Lovers/Doers, Wallflower, Supporter, or ISFJ, yet these characterizations neglect the nuances behind human behavior. It’s rather simplistic because the way we perceive and react to different situations are complex and context-dependent. It can also be problematic because you unconsciously put yourself in a box and convince yourself that one approach is the only right way to do things, when oftentimes you have to be flexible. It also neglects the doubt that, I believe, happens more times than not during the decision-making process. It’s like betting on roulettes. One day, a certain style might win and convince ourselves that the approach is the best one to make, but the next day that style can seem impractical to use.
The Fast Company explains that leaders need to balance out their team and assign roles based on strengths. While I believe having a diverse set of working styles can be beneficial, I think it can also be counterproductive in that you might feel pigeonholed to a certain role. I believe it’s okay (and smart) to lean on each other’s strengths and weaknesses, but it shouldn’t disregard the fact that being able to adapt to situations which you aren’t naturally comfortable with makes you a more well-rounded and versatile individual in the future. They claim “Lovers can suck at follow through and more detail-oriented work.” Characterizations like these perpetuate stereotypes such as emotional people are oftentimes illogical, vice versa. For me personally, I believe that I am highly tied to my emotions but also understand when logic is necessary and beneficial.
My working style employs both strategies, but the fox-style is rather dominant. I tend to be all over the place with my thoughts and try to attack many things at once. I take comfort in the details and am meticulous with the process. It’s always been a double-edged sword: while it has helped me stay organized and less fallible, sometimes I lose sight of the bigger picture and the purpose behind the steps I’m taking. In group projects, I remind others to focus on the main goals yet also feel responsible for recognizing the details and correcting the group when they don’t see the nuances. I feel like great leaders masterfully employ these strategies during the correct moments. I feel like people could have a problem with this since they might find it too stressful and burdensome to be so “structured.” That’s why I usually bottle up the chaotic energy and stress in my own head. In a group setting, my role is usually one that manages the progress of the group, questions the details of the approach agreed upon, and brings awareness of contradicting challenges that arise (sort of a Devil’s advocate).
Comments
This is a tremendous response! This is what we're looking for when we propose certain resources- a way to engage on a set of materials with nuance, a developed argument and some personal reflection. There is never an obligation to agree- but to substantiate your own perspective on the discussion...this is intrinsic to creating a dialogue. THANK YOU SIR - this was a pleasure to read (and it seems like you had a fair amount to say about the subject matter too). My question is this: Well- to be fair - it is two separate questions...or maybe three- let's see...
How do you think universities take into account different working styles? To what extent does the work you do at uni prepare you for a professional environment? Or does it? Is that a problem?
How do you cope? How do you learn? What I am trying to get a feel for is: How do you refine your abilities to work on/through personal challenges you listed to be an effective team mate or work colleague? How does one (you) explain that process?
So I understand the critique of the poem/fable (fox and hedgehog) and personality type A vs B etc...but this is a model (right?) and models are necessarily incomplete- they suggest/propose/theorize and -sometimes- predict. Why do models exist? What purpose do they serve if they aren't 100% accurate? Is it a case that our language hasn't caught up with the complexity of defining the human condition (largely) but also the nuanced ways we socialize our work?
Some food for thought, looking forward to your response. - Kate Abney
I think universities tend to "punish" those who have more hedgehog style than fox ones. From my experiences, the most important factor in getting the grades that you want in university I feel is to be organized (minimum). This is because if you aren't organized or don't pay attention to the details of how the class grading is structured, you might easily lose points that add up over time. Other than, again if you follow the fox-style and pay attention to how the class is doing, more likely than not you will do much better. I think not a lot of classes in college really award you based on taking risks and maybe being able to go outside of the box and think unconventionally, which is kind of sad because not all of us have that working style of being meticulous to the process and rules already in place.
I would say the key to learning is to just take the risk and do it. If you don't know something, definitely ask around and be proactive in your search for the answer. Not all of us can employ these styles naturally, but if you observe others who might not think the same way as you (no matter the challenges and conflicts that might create), you might not only learn a thing or two from them but at the very least be able to work with others (who are bound to have differences).
This one is a rather hard one to answer for me. While I see the imperfections in these models, it also doesn't make me all that mad that they exist because some of the things said in these models are accurate and can be helpful precursors in learning about a random stranger. They serve as ways to categorize like-minded people and allow you to see the other sides as well. I guess it's helpful in that you are able to see the different ways people think and gain an appreciation of the diversity that is our human mind and human interaction. - Josh
Hi Josh!
You gave a really interesting response. I am an INFJ so I can definitely understand that array of labels and stereotyped faults of being an introvert. I think this is why I agree with your stance so much. There is a large presence of work style, just as there are personality types, astrology signs, and anything else one can think of to conveniently categorize us into boxes. I also spoke in my response to the restrictions of these boxes and how it prevents necessary growth from happening, especially if we only focus on showing our strengths. Even though you seem to stand against the categories, have you ever found it helpful or interesting to look at sources suggesting how you should act or what you should excel in? Going a little further off-topic, do you think it is helpful that some high schools assess work style and suggest suitable professions? - Samantha Nardella
Hi Samantha! I totally agree with you. Although these categorizations are interesting to look at, it’s highly simplistic and inaccurate at times. We, as consumers of them, fall into the trap of confirmation bias and it can be dangerous if we try too hard to emulate these categorizations and mold it into our everyday lives, since we are much more complex than that. I think you’re absolutely right about the lack of growth when we pigeonhole ourselves in these categorizations. We should recognize that it’s not one or the other all the time and that we can combine these different aspects from each to improve ourselves and learn from others. Again, at times I have found these sources interesting or helpful since it can help explain some certain tendencies that I have and highlight how my brain operates (which is always an interesting thing for me). I also like how you can compare it with your friends and how you can find people who think alike (though you should never exclude those who don’t). I think it’s a good source in order for you to reflect on yourself, but you should be aware as a consumer not to be defined by the categorizations. Instead, you should use these tools to remind yourself to reflect on your strengths and weaknesses and for you to brainstorm on your own how you can improve.
I think that high schools shouldn’t suggest suitable professions based on these work-styles or predictive models. Our interests and mind are so complex that it wouldn’t be fair to simplify such an important decision by predictive modeling and data, because ultimately those are not the only factors. We are motivated by so many different factors and it doesn’t help to make suggestions from an external source. At least in my opinion, I feel like counselors in high school should always let the students decide their own course of action and minimize the amount of suggestions they make. As a crisis counselor, we are not supposed to give advice, rather encourage the texter themselves to brainstorm some ways to feel better. I feel like we can use this same strategy to guide high schoolers to picking something that they’d like to do and allow them to flourish in their own way. That way, you give them the control and confidence to proceed on their own (which is what they need to do). - Josh
Hey Josh,
I loved your response! It reminded me of my own response to this prompt. We both think like foxes primarily, and can fit into the categories of guardian, doer, etc. I especially agree with the part of your response towards the beginning where you mentioned that these labels neglect to discuss the nuance of human character and emotion. Like I get how it could be a helpful tool to analyze group dynamics, but I think it’s mostly reductive and harmful.
You mentioned that it’s counterproductive to have a diverse set of working styles present all in one group. I’m curious about this, as I’ve worked in plenty of group projects where there are lots of different working styles, but a majority of them functioned just fine. Is the group you’re working with this summer like that, and if so are you seeing counterproductive results? - Charlie Ray
Hi Charlie,
I think you got it right on point with it being a potentially helpful tool to analyze group dynamics, but it can also be a negative thing if you take it the wrong way. It can identify potential problems within certain personality types or working styles, and that’s where it can be interpreted differently. Again these tools should be taken with a grain of salt, you should never take it personally. Just because the model says you might have conflicts with those in category X, it’s only cautionary and might not happen. You should never judge someone by their categorizations and instead try to understand and learn from them.
I don’t think I said it was counterproductive to have a diverse set of working styles in a group, more that if you take shortcuts (aka if you divvy up the responsibilities continuously based on strengths, you’ll only be able to do things to your strengths but when faced with a weakness you’ll feel stuck). I think it’s totally fine to be diverse in the working styles and it can actually help with the balance of the overall group. That, however, relies on collaboration. You must continue to communicate with each other, give your critical opinions, and learn from each other so that you all become well-rounded and not dependent on one another. I would say my summer virtual internship group was sort of diverse in our working styles but since we were able to establish some consensus and give each other suggestions and criticisms (especially once we warmed up to each other), it was pretty smooth. - Josh
コメント