Managing Leadership^®

There has been a lot of talk over the past several years about the need for Americans to embrace the “village” culture. It presumably embodies a rejection of the sort of every man for himself individualism that produces both supersuccessful winners and the misery of those who, unable to compete, simply drop out of notice. In the place of this, it promotes a mutual interest and regard of society‘s members, one for another, with everyone cooperating for the success of the collective whole, and extending caring hands to raise up those who stumble.

The validity of this characterization can be debated. So can the implication inherent in its promotion of the idea that contemporary American culture is essentially self-centered and dismissive of those who can’t keep up. That debate will likely take place to some degree in the upcoming presidential elections in the United States, so we’ll stick here to this representation of the village culture.

As depicted, it seems quaintly idyllic to many Americans; in particular, the spirit of altruism inherent in it is attractive. But there remains a fundamental misunderstanding of what a village really is, and what the culture it represents actually entails. We tend to think of it as standing for little more than a small town, with the sort of neighborly concern, and even busybody attitude, that residents of such close communities are known for.

But that’s not the half of it. It really has its origins in the age of the feudal system (in Europe and elsewhere), during which time villages clustered around a nobleman’s castle providing him and his retinue subsistence and manpower in exchange for protection. With time a vastly complex psychic relationship developed between the two elements in this system, the villages orbiting, for their very lives, the preeminent royal lord.

When you hear the “village” culture praised today, don’t be fooled by images of charming cobblestoned paths and unpretentious, caring folk – inevitably there will be found a stone keep looming nearby, casting its baleful influence over this dolefully picturesque scene. It has real implications that you will want to consider before you fall into its ambit.

The legacy of this village culture has left its mark among all the peoples it has touched. Some it has invested with a deep skepticism – almost a wisdom – about both individual and collective power and politics. Others have escaped much of its worst ravages, only to be left, perhaps, insufficiently inoculated against the form those dangers to individual liberty and freedom can take. This week’s Economist has a telling piece about the effects of this on cultural propensities regarding risk management; please take a moment to see it.

Whether you, in today’s modern world of organizations, are manager or managed, keep your distance from the village – and from the castle.

—

Today’s tips: Please see this excellent discussion at Tim Ferriss‘s blog about how certain types of entrepreneurs can find themselves “working for a lunatic” (thanks to Michael Wade, at Execupundit, for the tip). After that, you will want to see this piece by Phred Dvorak in the WSJ, about how some entrepreneurs use advisory boards to avoid this problem.

—

We appreciate your visits here very much, and would love to have you as a regular reader. Please take a moment to subscribe, either by email or via an RSS reader, using the options available just below or at the upper right. And welcome aboard!

Technorati Tags: American, individualism, society, culture, United States, altruism, village, Europe, village culture, power, politics, liberty, freedom, Economist, risk management, organization, manager, Tim Ferriss, Michael Wade, Phred Dvorak, WSJ, entrepreneur