Flattening World

Part of the cover art for Thomas Friedman's book.

I think that we're living in an interesting time today.  It wasn't long ago that much was being made about the word "postmodern" and how dramatic the cultural shift was that had happened moving from the "modern" age to the "postmodern" age somewhere in the 80s and 90s.  Everyone wanted to define postmodernism as something, and as one myself, I generally laughed at the generalizations and simplifications.  A few wisely pointed out that you can't define something when it's in the midst of happening, and that we'd have to wait until the transition was complete to really understand what had happened.  Then I began to wonder...with all the rapid acceleration of just about everything, the exponential growth of just about everything...will the transition really ever end?  Will "postmodernism" ever actually coalesce into something understandable, or will it continually be giving way to the next thing?  In such a world, can we made generalizations and definitions?  I believe the answer to that has to be a qualified no.  We can't define it, but we can understand it (how's that for a postmodern statement!).  We can think about the individual dimensions of shift as they happen, and be the wiser for it.

One is the worldwide cultural phenomenon of flattening.  Hierarchies are being pulled down.  I suppose it started in the Western world, where Hofstede's measure of "power distance" (the perceived gulf between a leader and subjects) is already reasonably low.  The US has a score of 40 on the index, and I think the relative closeness shows.  We already want our leaders to be servant leaders, on the same playing field as us.  I think, however, that the postmodern shift has begun to bring that measure even more down.  Some made much of the Occupy movement, others thought it was a passing fad, but it definitely was a sign that power distance is decreasing.  The White House responded with a petition feature on their own website.  The people have begun to demand the power back from the leaders they put over themselves.  They demand that all information be open and available.  It's not just in government and business, it's in civil society too.  Church leaders can see it in their congregations, as the members demand a say in what happens and aren't afraid to criticize their pastors and church leaders.

It's not resting just in the developed, Western world either.  Egypt, with a Power Distance index of 80, recently pulled down their own government and replaced it.  The highest-scoring country on the index, Malaysia (with a 104), is currently experiencing protests about perceived inequities in a recent election.  The people are not at rest, and they are questioning what their leaders are doing.  In this type of environment, leaders must beware.  They can't expect their actions to remain unquestioned, or to hope for secrecy in decision-making.  Leaders ought to be willing to embrace openness and equality and allow the people to satiate their appetite for information and a sense of equality.  And we ought to be aware of these shifts and study them.  Hofstede's measures are not static.  It's time for a re-evaluation of them, particularly in how Power Distance has shifted since Hofstede first published his findings in 1980!