Someone on the radio was talking about knowledge in relation to rank. I believe the discussion topic pertained to the employee/employer relationship. In this relationship, there exists an underlying, and rarely challenged, hierarchy that permeates all aspects of business operations.

It is very similar to the landlord/peasant relationship, even today. In fact, modern political and business leaders do refer to citizens and subordinates as “peasants”. The term is even used in legal documents, as in “peasant clause”.

The speaker gave the example of the current crisis in Montreal hospitals. Emergency waiting rooms are crowded far beyond capacity. Administrators ponder possible solutions behind closed doors. “Has anyone ever thought of asking the janitor’s opinion?” asked the speaker, indicating that this person might be able to express a totally different point of view, and may in fact have the ability and intellect to recommend brilliant solutions based on first hand observations. Leaders are rarely first hand observers.

The discussion continued and evolved into a sort of nostalgia for “old ways”. The speaker reminded the radio host that in the context of early tribe there was no such hierarchy or injustice. Everyone discovered the world together and shared their experience and findings with equal authority. If a child had become sick after eating berries from a certain tree, on the edge of the settlement, he might share this with fellow tribesmen at mealtime, thereby providing essential information that was immediately available to everyone. Everyone could now avoid the berry in question.

As someone who has a great love and interest for tribal culture, I easily agreed with the speaker for a moment, until I realized the unlikelihood of repeating a similar scenario of cohesion over time. The reason is simple, or at least this is what became clear to me as I imagined being a member of a tribe, in the early times of civilization, and discovering the intricacies of taming the world along with my tribes-mates.

The moment one individual shares feedback about a plant, the relationship of the entire tribe toward this plant changes, permanently. This, in turn, inevitably affects the relationship of tribesmen within the tribe. For instance, if I convey that I was able to extract a root with a stick far better than with my fingers, the entire tribe will begin to use a stick. This one modification to our original behavior has at least two consequences: Some will likely develop better root digging skills and some will instinctively begin to understand that by further modifying the digging tool it is possible to obtain more roots, faster, thus satisfying the very basic instinct to secure nutriments.

Already at that point, the original innocence of the tribe is forever “lost”. There can still be wonder and amazement at further developments and discoveries, but the brain is very quick at making analogies and using compound knowledge to adapt and to assess new situations. Thus, individual innocence is gone and so is the original shared innocence. Some will grow in understanding and knowledge faster than others, or with more ease. Some will lend a hand when they are more skilled at a task, thus becoming experts. Some will lead and some will follow. Some will be lazy while others will work hard and provide for them. The more skilled and able will feed the weak. This chain of events is inevitable. It is what has lead to today’s technologies and cultures.

I no longer believe in the dream of returning to the innocence of the tribe, nor is it necessary. Nor does it mean we are doomed or mislead, as I used to think. We simply need to understand that the notion of unity and cohesion still exists in the ways in which we relate to each other, outside and away from the tribe.

In every tribe, there are elders. Elders do not lead from a stance of superiority or rank; they lead because they have acquired the ability to look out for the well-being of every member of the tribe, without prejudice. They are the mediators, who seek information and knowledge from every member and guide the entire tribe into adopting new strategies or territories based on core knowledge. It is the sense of moving as one that is at the heart of the tribe model, not the leader. Everyone is a peasant in this model, even the leader.

The problem is not that we no longer behave as a tribe; it is that we do not think as a tribe, as one body. What makes sense for business does not necessarily serve the people.

Slainte!