I've heard it said that the East is more community oriented, and that the West is all about individualism.
I'm Western enough that, for the most part, I prefer individualism. That Eastern orientation sounds a little bit - creepy. Like the caricature of a 'perfect' woman, the one who is always giving for the sake of the family, and who is doing it by suppressing their own needs and desires. It makes you wonder when the dam is going to burst, and when they're finally going to crack. Plus that communal orientation sounds like individuals have a big incentive to stay quiet and support the consensus, even when the consensus is wrong. That means groupthink would be a huuuuuuuuuuuuuge problem, since who is going to rock the boat? After all, sometimes boats need rocked.
Of course, I also know that we all seem to need some sort of community. Nothing gives a sense of well-being and fulfilment like being part of one. So many people today seem nostalgic for that small town environment for exactly those reasons.
But I didn't actually want to get into all of that today.
I wanted to talk about some of the flaws, though I love it so, in our individualistic society.
We have these archetype stories. Like the person who "pulls themselves up by their own bootstrap", a "self-made man" who managed to succeed all by him or herself. We glorify them, put them on pedestals. We look at the Bill Gates of the world, or the Steve Jobs. We lay credit (or blame) on individuals like David Petraeus or George W Bush. Or Barack Obama.
And, to be fair, sometimes one key individual can make all the difference. But as Good to Great and other such works show, the individuals who make that difference are rarely the ones who are creating hype about themselves. The ones that really do lead well, or create a lasting success, are often the ones who work hard to build other people up. To make the whole stronger than the sum of its parts.
And that's part of what bothers me about 'selling myself' for my career. It's not all about me. It's about creating the work environment and giving my people the tools for them to succeed. I don't want to be judged on my ability to create metrics. Especially when metrics can be so misleading, and have little or nothing to do with how good of a work environment I create. (Though there should be SOME correlation. Good work environments should make more productive employees. Just saying toxic work environments can appear to have good metrics as well.)
The military teaches this rather well, I think. It takes a company, a battalion, a brigade...and an army. If you had an army full of generals, you would probably lose the war. You still need privates and sergeants, lieutenants and captains.
Yes, a general is important. And can make a decisive difference. But so can people at all sorts of levels within the organization.
I'm Western enough that, for the most part, I prefer individualism. That Eastern orientation sounds a little bit - creepy. Like the caricature of a 'perfect' woman, the one who is always giving for the sake of the family, and who is doing it by suppressing their own needs and desires. It makes you wonder when the dam is going to burst, and when they're finally going to crack. Plus that communal orientation sounds like individuals have a big incentive to stay quiet and support the consensus, even when the consensus is wrong. That means groupthink would be a huuuuuuuuuuuuuge problem, since who is going to rock the boat? After all, sometimes boats need rocked.
Of course, I also know that we all seem to need some sort of community. Nothing gives a sense of well-being and fulfilment like being part of one. So many people today seem nostalgic for that small town environment for exactly those reasons.
But I didn't actually want to get into all of that today.
I wanted to talk about some of the flaws, though I love it so, in our individualistic society.
We have these archetype stories. Like the person who "pulls themselves up by their own bootstrap", a "self-made man" who managed to succeed all by him or herself. We glorify them, put them on pedestals. We look at the Bill Gates of the world, or the Steve Jobs. We lay credit (or blame) on individuals like David Petraeus or George W Bush. Or Barack Obama.
And, to be fair, sometimes one key individual can make all the difference. But as Good to Great and other such works show, the individuals who make that difference are rarely the ones who are creating hype about themselves. The ones that really do lead well, or create a lasting success, are often the ones who work hard to build other people up. To make the whole stronger than the sum of its parts.
And that's part of what bothers me about 'selling myself' for my career. It's not all about me. It's about creating the work environment and giving my people the tools for them to succeed. I don't want to be judged on my ability to create metrics. Especially when metrics can be so misleading, and have little or nothing to do with how good of a work environment I create. (Though there should be SOME correlation. Good work environments should make more productive employees. Just saying toxic work environments can appear to have good metrics as well.)
The military teaches this rather well, I think. It takes a company, a battalion, a brigade...and an army. If you had an army full of generals, you would probably lose the war. You still need privates and sergeants, lieutenants and captains.
Yes, a general is important. And can make a decisive difference. But so can people at all sorts of levels within the organization.
No comments:
Post a Comment