Indaba and Wabi-Sabi? It is the kind of question that admits of two answers — a quick one and a true one. The quick answer is that Indaba means the community council. a method of inclusive decision-making where every voice shapes the outcome and the decision actually sticks. The true answer takes longer, because Indaba is not really a concept; it is a way of seeing.
What Indaba Actually Means
Translators usually settle on something like: Indaba is a Zulu and Xhosa word for a council meeting — historically of elders, today of any group that needs to make a decision worth keeping. The form has been borrowed by international climate negotiators, corporate boards, and community organisations because of one quality: it produces decisions that hold. It does this by refusing the Western meeting model — the loudest voice, the rushed vote, the unread minutes — in favour of structured listening, ritualised speech, and visible consensus. It is a defensible translation. But translation is the surface. Indaba carries underneath it a set of assumptions — about what a person is, what owes what to whom, and what success even means — that the English sentence cannot deliver.
When elders speak, children grow.Zulu
The Question This Post Is About
Two beauty-philosophies — one from Southern Africa, one from Japan — with surprising agreements. The question is worth taking seriously, because Indaba is one of those concepts that loses its shape when handled carelessly — and recovers it as soon as the reader is willing to slow down and listen.
If you take Indaba seriously at work, the first thing that has to change is the meeting. Not its agenda — its shape. Western meetings are optimised for speed and for the loudest contributor. Indaba is optimised for something else: for the quality of decisions that hold. No decision of consequence is made in a meeting under one hour, and no one speaks twice before everyone has spoken once. The trade-off is real. Meetings under Indaba take longer. The decisions also unstick less often.
A Second Angle
The comparison is not symmetric. Indaba did not develop in dialogue with the Western frameworks it now sits beside on a bookshelf. It developed inside Zulu / Xhosa life, answering questions that Zulu / Xhosa life kept posing. To ask whether Indaba is "better than" individualism, or stoicism, or productivity culture, is to ask the wrong question. The right question is narrower and more useful: what does Indaba see clearly that the framework I currently use does not? No decision of consequence is made in a meeting under one hour, and no one speaks twice before everyone has spoken once.
Where the Concept Resists
There is also the question of authority. Who gets to speak for Indaba? The traditions in which it lives are old, plural, sometimes in disagreement with each other. Anyone — including the writer of this essay — who claims a definitive reading is overreaching. The careful reader treats every restatement of Indaba, including this one, as one voice among many.
What to Do With This
If you are new to Indaba, the most useful place to start is not with a study or a course but with a question, asked of yourself, at the end of an ordinary day: who held me up today, and whom did I hold? Sit with the answer. Do not improve it yet. The concept will deepen on its own, repeated, over weeks. This is how Indaba actually enters a life.
The full philosophy, as a book
How to run meetings where everyone is heard — and the decisions you make actually stick.
Read on Amazon