Frogs, Birds, Hedgehogs, Foxes and Gameboys

"Are you a hedgehog or a fox?" In strategy, this question from Isaiah Berlin's 1947 essay seems to really cut to the heart of modern business and education thinking. While hedgehogs excel through focused expertise, foxes thrive on connecting disparate ideas. As I explored in a not-so-recent piece on spectrum thinking, this tension shapes how organisations approach innovation and growth. I was reminded of Berlin's analogy when reading Range: How Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World by David Epstein and a good chunk of what I am writing about today is heavily influenced by this book. You can probably guess from the title of the book thathe advocates more in the 'broad' rather than 'deep' camp. What is very interesting is that Epstein has become friends with Malcolm Gladwell who advocated drilling down deep in his 10000 hours hypothesis!

To be fair, I am at a bit of a crossroads in my thinking and I will try and outline why! I think niche and specialism sets people apart - being really good at one thing and drilling down hard into The One Thing (another good book!) seems like good advice. Don't do things superficially and all that. Focus on the little things in your sector. However, with the rise of automation and AI, it seems that there are fewer and fewer sectors where these specialists (or hedgehogs) can survive let alone thrive. That being said, the generalist is often a jack of all trades and master of none. We see so many people who dip their toes in loads of stuff and end up looking like a kids' plate from a birthday party - cake, chocolate fingers, ham sandwich, a few cheese balls and some jelly - a mishmash of unrelated nonsense! So, I feel torn: should we be hedgehogs or foxes?

It might be worth considering how this plays out in the real world. Take Ocado. They started flogging groceries online but spotted something bigger - their automated warehouses could be a product in themselves. That's proper fox thinking - seeing connections others miss. We Brits love our specialists, don't we? Our whole education system pushes people to pick their lane early. A-levels, specialist degrees, professional qualifications - it's all about drilling down deep. And fair enough, it worked brilliantly when markets were stable and careers were predictable. But now? Not so much.

Yet look at some of our biggest innovation success stories. James Dyson didn't just wake up one morning and decide to build a better vacuum. He nicked the idea of cyclone separation from sawmills and thought "hang on a minute..." ARM didn't just build chips - they completely rewrote the rules about how a tech company could operate by licensing their designs.

Freeman Dyson (no relation to James!) had a brilliant take on this. He talked about frogs and birds in science. Frogs get right down in the mud of a specific problem, while birds soar above, spotting patterns. The trick is knowing when to be which. The pandemic really drove this home. Remember when BrewDog started making hand sanitiser? They could do that because they understood both their manufacturing kit AND how to pivot quickly. It wasn't just about being good at making beer.

So maybe we're asking the wrong question. It's not about choosing between being a specialist or generalist. It's about knowing when to dig deep and when to look up and around. In today's interconnected world, you need both skills in your toolkit.

The Case for Range

“Modern work demands knowledge transfer: the ability to apply knowledge to new situations and different domains. Our most fundamental thought processes have changed to accommodate increasing complexity and the need to derive new patterns rather than rely only on familiar ones. Our conceptual classification schemes provide a scaffolding for connecting knowledge, making it accessible and flexible.” David Epstein

Let's talk about where breadth really shines. The most exciting stuff happening right now is in the gaps between traditional fields. Look at our fintech scene - Monzo and Revolut aren't just banks with fancy apps. They're mixing financial knowledge with psychology, design, and tech. It's proper mad scientist stuff, but it works.

DeepMind is another brilliant example. They're not just hiring coders - they've got philosophers working with neuroscientists and mathematicians. When they cracked protein folding with AlphaFold, it wasn't just about computer science. They needed people who understood biology too. If you haven't heard this story, please take the 8 minutes it will take to watch this video about it - it's mindblowing.

There's some interesting research from London Business School showing that executives who've bounced around different roles tend to make better decisions. Makes sense, doesn't it? If you've seen problems from different angles, you're more likely to spot both opportunities and threats coming. Epstein cites tons of examples of those who looked outside of their immediate field to find better answers.

Even our universities are catching on. UCL's got this Arts and Sciences degree that deliberately mashes up different subjects, as does London Interdisciplinary School, who I interviewed on the Edufuturists podcast. And big firms like Deloitte are actively hunting for graduates with broad degrees. They've twigged that adaptable thinkers are worth their weight in gold.

“In a wicked world, relying upon experience from a single domain is not only limiting, it can be disastrous.” David Epstein

Even the NHS is an interesting one. Yes, you need your heart specialists and brain surgeons, but they're putting more emphasis on doctors who can see the bigger picture. Your GP might not know every detail about every condition, but they're brilliant at spotting patterns that specialists might miss. And with the advent of more of this AI shizz that will do the hard yards of processing and spotting patterns - the 'general' practitioner will likely reign supreme.

Here's the thing about being a generalist though - it's not about being rubbish at lots of things. The key is having enough depth to make those connections meaningful. As Alan Kay (proper clever computer science bloke) said,

"Point of view is worth 80 IQ points." Alan Kay

It's about combining perspectives to solve problems in new ways.

The Value of Depth

Here's where my interest in psychology kicks in. We know from cognitive psychology that true expertise - the kind where patterns become second nature - takes serious time to develop. That 10,000 hours thing Malcolm Gladwell in Outliers: The Story of Success talks about isn't just a neat number; it's backed by research into how our brains build expert mental models. Epstein does a job discussing this research and compares Tiger Woods to Roger Federer in terms of how they both did serious amounts of practice but Tiger was all-in on golf whereas Roger was more rounded.

"ten thousand hours is the magic number of greatness" Malcolm Gladwell

Think about how a chess grandmaster can glance at a board and instantly spot patterns that would take us ages to work out. Or how an experienced therapist picks up on subtle client cues that most people would miss. That's what deep expertise gives you - a level of pattern recognition that can't be faked or rushed. What Epstein suggests is that fewer people are as specialist as we are led to believe.

The pharmaceutical industry shows why this matters. When AstraZeneca was developing their COVID vaccine, they needed people who understood the minutiae of immunology. You can't just wing that kind of thing with surface knowledge. Yes BrewDog did the pivot on hand sanitiser but we couldn't do that with vaccines. I know there are still lots of questions about this (not one for debate today!) but the specialism of immunologists is important.

We can also look at the City of London - their success in financial services isn't just about following market trends. When Barclays pioneered some of the first credit default swaps, they needed people who properly understood both financial markets and complex risk mathematics. But - and here's the interesting bit - modern expertise looks different from the old-school "ivory tower" specialist. Robert Kegan, a developmental psychologist I really rate, talks about "self-transforming minds" - experts who can dive deep but also pop up for air and see the bigger picture. It's like being able to zoom in and out on a problem.

“All transitions involve leaving a consolidated self behind before any new self can take its place...this means abandoning - or somehow operating without reliance upon - the form, the group, standard, or convention...Every transition involves to some extent the killing off of the old self.” Robert Kegan

This maps perfectly onto what neuroscience tells us about expert brains - they don't just store more information, they organise it differently. They build richer mental models that help them spot patterns and solve problems more effectively than someone with broader but shallower knowledge.

T-Shaped Expertise

There is, I think, a third way somewhere between specialist and generalist. It's what people call the 'T'. Before I dive in, I should probably explain where this T-shaped idea came from. McKinsey started using it back in the 80s, but it was IDEO, the design thinking bunch, who really made it famous. Tim Brown, their CEO, described T-shaped people as having a deep vertical spike of expertise in one area, plus a horizontal bar of knowledge across other fields. Think of it like having a superpower, but also being pretty handy at lots of other things!

"T-shaped people have two kinds of characteristics, hence the use of the letter “T” to describe them. The vertical stroke of the “T” is a depth of skill that allows them to contribute to the creative process. That can be from any number of different fields: an industrial designer, an architect, a social scientist, a business specialist or a mechanical engineer. The horizontal stroke of the “T” is the disposition for collaboration across disciplines. It is composed of two things. First, empathy. It’s important because it allows people to imagine the problem from another perspective- to stand in somebody else’s shoes. Second, they tend to get very enthusiastic about other people’s disciplines, to the point that they may actually start to practice them. Tshaped people have both depth and breadth in their skills." Tim Brown

It's funny - when I first heard about T-shaped skills, I thought it was just another bit of consulting waffle. But the more I've worked with different organisations, the more I've seen how spot-on it is. It's exactly what I needed in teaching - deep knowledge of my subject, sure, but also understanding of psychology, technology, and how to manage a room full of teenagers without losing my mind!

The whole T-shaped idea is brilliant in its simplicity - deep knowledge in your specialist area (the vertical bar) combined with broader understanding across related fields (the horizontal bar). It's like being a Swiss Army knife, but with one really sharp blade!

The BBC's transformation is a cracking example. Their tech specialists aren't just coding wizards anymore - they need to understand user experience, content strategy, and how people actually consume media these days. It's like being a specialist and a translator at the same time. Presenters like Clare Balding epitomise that - depth in a a few sports but lots of breadth and awareness across multiple disciplines.

I'm seeing this in education too. Imperial College's Innovation Design Engineering programme (run with the Royal College of Art) is fascinating. They're basically saying "Look, being a brilliant engineer isn't enough anymore - you need to understand design thinking, user needs, and business viability too." It's proper 21st-century stuff. Tesla is a brilliant example from industry too. Their engineers aren't just mechanical specialists - they need to understand software, environmental impact, and user interface design. Elon Musk (love him or hate him) insists on this cross-disciplinary approach. It's why their cars feel more like iPads on wheels than traditional vehicles. It's that blend of deep technical expertise with broader understanding that sets them apart.

It reminds me of what we know about expertise from psychology. The old model was about becoming increasingly specialised - like a funnel getting narrower and narrower. But cognitive psychologists like Howard Gardner have shown that the most effective problem-solvers can move between different types of thinking. They can go deep when needed but also step back to see the bigger picture. The multiple intelligences model might not be perfect but it makes lots of sense.

How To Build a Model-T

So how do you actually grow these renaissance professionals? This isn't about ticking boxes on a training matrix or sending people to fancy conferences (though who doesn't love a free lunch?).

I keep coming back to Gunpei Yokoi, the bloke who invented the Game Boy at Nintendo who Epstein hails as a great example of a T. His whole philosophy was "lateral thinking with withered technology" - basically taking mature, well-understood tech and finding new ways to use it. He wasn't the deepest technical expert at Nintendo, but he knew enough about technology, psychology, and user experience to create something revolutionary. That's T-shaped thinking in action - deep enough to understand the tech, broad enough to see new possibilities.

I've heard about some brilliant approaches in action. There's this gaming company in Sweden that treats skill development like levelling up in an RPG. You've got your main character class - your specialist expertise - but you're constantly picking up side quests in different domains. Sometimes these random side missions end up being game-changers for your main quest.

One of my favourite examples is how LEGO approaches product development. Their designers need to be absolute ninjas in their core skill (whether that's engineering, digital design, or traditional LEGO brick design), but they also spend time studying how kids play, understanding manufacturing, even getting into sustainability. It's proper end-to-end thinking.

The key seems to be creating environments where curiosity isn't just allowed - it's rewarded. It's about building cultures where asking "stupid" questions about other departments is seen as smart, not nosy. Where taking a weird sideways step in your career is considered growth, not distraction.

As artificial intelligence increasingly handles specialist tasks, the ability to integrate knowledge across domains becomes more valuable. Organisations must prepare for a future where technical expertise remains important but must be complemented by broader understanding and integrative thinking.

The challenge lies in maintaining this balance as technology and markets evolve. Successful implementation requires sustained commitment to both depth and breadth, with regular adaptation of development approaches to match changing needs.

What Lies Ahead

The convergence of specialisation and range will reshape how we work and learn. McKinsey's latest research suggests that by 2030, up to 375 million workers globally will need to switch occupational categories. In the UK, this transition is already visible in traditional sectors like finance, where quantum computing specialists now work alongside behavioural economists. The rise of AI amplifies this trend, as I keep harking on about. While AI excels at specialist tasks, it struggles with the kind of contextual understanding and novel connections that T-shaped experts provide (for now at least). As the Bank of England's research into AI in financial services shows, the most effective implementations combine deep technical expertise with broad business understanding.

Three key trends will likely shape this evolution:

First, the boundaries between disciplines will continue to blur. Fields like synthetic biology, which combines genetics, computing, and engineering, show how innovation increasingly happens at intersections.

Second, continuous learning will become non-negotiable. The half-life of skills continues to shrink, requiring both specialists and generalists to constantly update their knowledge.

Third, organisations will need new structures supporting both deep expertise and broad collaboration. Traditional hierarchies may give way to more fluid arrangements that facilitate knowledge sharing while preserving specialist excellence.

So, let's wrap this up with some practical nuggets:

1. Don't Fall for the False Choice

Being a specialist or generalist isn't an either/or thing. It's about being deep enough to be credible, broad enough to be valuable. Think Game Boy, not PlayStation 5 - sometimes the best innovations come from mastering the basics and seeing new connections.

2. Start Deep, Then Go Wide (Probably)

Build your core expertise first - that's your anchor. But then start exploring the edges of your field. It's like having a home base for your adventures. The best T-shaped folks I know are rock-solid in their specialism but endlessly curious about everything else. (By the way, I added 'probably' here because I don't know for sure if the specialist degree or even narrow subject options is the right way! It seems to make sense to go deep in something before adding some breadth...)

3. Chase Connections, Not Credentials

The magic happens at the intersections. Look for ways your expertise connects with other fields. Sometimes the most valuable insights come from the most unlikely places - just ask James Dyson about sawmills! My friend, Gavin McCormack from Upschool used the phrase 'connection before curriculum' when it comes to teaching and learning. I think he is bang on - and not just for education either.

4. Create Space for Curiosity

Whether you're running a team or building your own career, make time for exploration. The next big breakthrough probably won't come from doing what you've always done, just faster. I keep talking about having a curious disposition; I have written numerous times about it. The intentionality needs to be in creating space for it: read a book from a new genre, visit an art exhibition if you've never been, watch a documentary in a novel field.

5. Stay Human

I'm not sure we have a choice with this (!) but as AI gets better at deep specialist tasks, our uniquely human ability to connect ideas and see the bigger picture becomes more valuable. Tomorrow's winners will be those who combine deep expertise with broad understanding. The goal isn't to know everything about everything - it's about knowing enough about enough to make your expertise matter. In a world that's increasingly complex and connected, that's not just smart strategy - it's survival.

The debate between specialisation and range misses the point in my opinion (and I think that's what Epstein concludes too). Success in our complex world requires both deep expertise and broad understanding. The challenge lies not in choosing between them, but in developing both effectively. As technology reshapes work and society faces increasingly complex challenges, T-shaped expertise offers a framework for building careers and organisations that can thrive amid change.

This isn't just about individual success - it's about creating more resilient and innovative organisations, better equipped to tackle the challenges ahead. The future belongs not to foxes, hedgehogs, birds or frogs, but to those who can effectively combine depth and breadth. We will leave the man to have the final word:

“The challenge we all face is how to maintain the benefits of breadth, diverse experience, interdisciplinary thinking, and delayed concentration in a world that increasingly incentivises, even demands, hyperspecialisation” David Epstein

‍