Most of what is written about Ubuntu in English is wrong. Not maliciously — usually it is wrong because Ubuntu resists translation, because the concept does not match neatly onto Western categories, because the writers are working with a sentence-long summary instead of a tradition. Ubuntu and the Difficult Manager? This essay is one attempt at a more careful answer.
What Ubuntu Actually Means
Translators usually settle on something like: Ubuntu, in its most cited form, is captured in the Nguni phrase 'umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu' — a person is a person through other people. It names a worldview in which the self is not a fortress but a node in a network, and in which dignity, identity, and success are inherited from and accountable to community. It has shaped post-apartheid South Africa, modern leadership theory, and increasingly the way thoughtful organisations think about teams. It is a defensible translation. But translation is the surface. Ubuntu 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.
Sticks in a bundle are unbreakable.Bondei
The Question This Post Is About
A composite case: the manager whose problem Ubuntu would diagnose differently. The question is worth taking seriously, because Ubuntu 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.
Take a small, ordinary case. A team of nine. A project that was supposed to take a quarter is now in its second. The manager has the option to find a single person to assign blame to and to move on. The Ubuntu reading offers a different question: what did we, as a team, fail to make possible for the person carrying this work? Hiring decisions are made by the team the new person will work in, not the manager alone. The case is not unusual. The reading of it, in the spirit of Ubuntu, is.
A Second Angle
Notice what the case is not asking. It is not asking who is to blame. It is not asking how to make the situation more efficient. It is asking what Ubuntu would have us do here, with these particular people, in this particular knot. Hiring decisions are made by the team the new person will work in, not the manager alone. The discipline of asking the Ubuntu question — instead of the efficiency question, or the blame question — is what changes a working life over years.
Where the Concept Resists
It would be dishonest to pretend Ubuntu is uncomplicated. The concept can be — and has been — used to suppress dissent in the name of harmony, to extract unpaid labour from women in the name of community, and to soften criticism that should have been sharper. Any serious reading of Ubuntu has to hold these uses in view. The concept survives the criticism. But it is not innocent.
What to Do With This
What can you do with this? Begin small. Choose one place — one meeting, one relationship, one daily ritual — and run it through Ubuntu for a month. Not as a project. As a quiet experiment. Notice what changes. Ubuntu is not learned by reading; it is learned by repetition.
The full philosophy, as a book
The full philosophy of shared success — across leadership, conflict, accountability, and the digital age.
Read on Amazon