Читать книгу Agile 2 - Adrian Lander - Страница 25

There is a cultural struggle in human societies pertaining to focus on the individual versus the group—the collective. It might stem from a difference of values, in terms of whether a culture generally prioritizes equality over individual liberty (freedom) or individual liberty over equality.

During the mid-1900s, Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus were fast friends. Both were socialists, as were most people among the intellectual community at that time in France. However, over time the two philosophers realized that they disagreed at a fundamental level: while both valued equality and liberty, Camus found that he valued liberty more than equality, while Sartre realized that he valued equality more than liberty.

The two could not reconcile their difference of opinion, because it was deeply rooted in their respective values; and since their opinions defined them as philosophers, they had a famous falling out.⁸

Most modern cultures place a high value on equality and the importance of the group, and also most place a high value on individual liberty. However, some value one over the other.

For example, North American culture tends to value individual freedom and liberty more than equality. The importance of liberty traces to the founding of the Americas by people who were searching for a land where they could practice their religion their own way. The subsequent settling of the Americas by pioneers reinforced the importance of the hardy individual and self-reliance.

In contrast, many European cultures place a higher value on the community than the individual. Perhaps that is why so many European countries have strong social safety nets, and in many European countries, it is commonplace for union representatives to sit on corporate boards.

Central and South Asian countries have cultural patterns as well pertaining to individualism and the group. In many Southeast Asian cultures, the group is valued more than the individual, and age and seniority are considered extremely important. These values are in conflict to some extent with the tradition of Agile, which advocates an “everyone is equal” and “anyone can work on anything” mindset.

Which is better? Is it better to value the individual or the group? It depends on your value system. It is also impossible to say, in a strict technical sense.

Visionaries usually call upon us to follow them on a path that is atypical and that experts advise against. That requires a great deal of trust, and that is why visionaries need a source of influence: either they have a powerful and persuasive personality or they have great resources in their name.

Is it better to let visionaries dictate our path or to block would-be visionaries and always compel their subordination to a group of experts who presumably know better?

Given the emphasis on the individual that one finds in North America, it is no surprise that North America has so many startup companies. In North America, the individual is the star: Jeff Bezos, Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison. The list goes on and on—they are visionaries who are celebrated.

But what about Elizabeth Holmes? What about Bernie Madoff? Michael Milken? Kenneth Lay?—antiheroes who could have been heroes if their efforts had panned out in a positive way.

How does one know that a person is a visionary? Can one know ahead of time? How does one know if one should trust the experts or trust the visionary?

There is no way to know. Most wannabe visionaries are often wrong, perhaps usually wrong. However, it is visionaries who change the paradigm. Given enough time, the paradigm would probably shift, but visionaries make it shift now. It was visionaries who gave us the iPhone and its copycats, electric cars, and relativity (which was stridently mocked and refuted by many scientists of the time).

So, do you follow a visionary or follow the group consensus? There is no way to know, and it also depends on your value system.