¨   Informed Participation.   When dealing with these issues in the United States, we should not forget that our culture was founded on the belief that governance gains its authority from the consent of the governed.  This explains our cultural focus on individualism and fair process, which is evident in our heavy reliance on courts to protect individual rights and settle disputes, and in our expectation that free markets and full disclosure will generally provide financial justice.  This focus on individualism and fair process needs to be considered in fashioning a governance plan in the U.S. for private wealth.  A plan is more likely to fail in the long run if it is based entirely on command and control from the founders or management group.  The plan is more vulnerable if it presumes consent and satisfaction without communication, or if it completely divorces ownership from control, or discourages informed participation.  Such a plan is more likely to provoke resort to open conflict, lead to atrophy through lack of interest, and eventually end in failure.

¨    Dialogue.   If management produces good results, this outcome will be meaningless unless the “ owners ” who are not involved in management understand the good result.  At the same time, a shared understanding of risks and rewards, and successes and failures, will be harder to achieve as the circle of owners expands.  Quite naturally, as the ownership group grows larger and more diverse, management and control will become more centralized, and the common ground of shared experience and knowledge will shrink.  Regular, deliberate, and active communication, evidenced by dialogue rather than reports, can help rebalance this trend