I want to begin with a memory that is not mine but has been told to me many times. A dispute between two families has dragged on for a year. The elders call an indaba. They sit in a circle from morning until dusk. The elders speak last. By nightfall, the dispute is resolved — not because anyone won, but because everyone has been heard. Whether or not it ever happened, the memory teaches what Indaba is — better than any definition does. Indaba and the Long-Standing Conflict? The story is the answer.
What Indaba Actually Means
Let me give the canonical definition first, then try to do a little better. 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. The canonical version is correct but tame. The full version of Indaba is less polite, more demanding, and more interesting. It does not flatter the reader who has just discovered it.
When elders speak, children grow.Zulu
The Question This Post Is About
Two colleagues, ten years, one persistent disagreement. What Indaba does. 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.
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 Indaba reading offers a different question: what did we, as a team, fail to make possible for the person carrying this work? Meetings end with the convener summarising what was decided and asking each person whether they recognise the summary. The case is not unusual. The reading of it, in the spirit of Indaba, 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 Indaba would have us do here, with these particular people, in this particular knot. Meetings end with the convener summarising what was decided and asking each person whether they recognise the summary. The discipline of asking the Indaba question — instead of the efficiency question, or the blame question — is what changes a working life over years.
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