The Power of Dialogue
Jack Yan made a recent post on his blog that really hits the nail on the head about the power of dialogue. Here is a clip from the post, which is about his recent visit with a Chinese official, but I encourage you to visit his site to read the whole article. (Jack was discussing the relationship between his decision to wear, or not to wear a Kuomintang lapel pin during his visit with the Chinese official to the recent Danish political cartoon publishing scandal):
“The decision to publish or not to publish is the same as the decision to wear or not to wear.
“The thought process should have been akin to this: (a) this gentleman might get offended; (b) I don’t know his political views, but it’s best to play it safe so we can have a dialogue; (c) not all Chinese agree with what the Politburo does; (d) I might as well take it off, because I stand to gain more when we are chatting on friendly terms. This man is not my enemy. He is a potential friend. He approached me for a business deal. Our personal politics do not come in to it.
“I’d rather effect change through personal cooperation. Nothing would be gained by angering him—it would only piss me off, too. As it so happened, we had a very good and open chat about business. I voiced my concerns about press freedoms in Red China.”
In my younger years, I tended to be very vocal, confrontational and stubborn, often about fairly controversial subjects, yet with infrequent success. I can still be quite fiery, but I have started to learn and adopt some of the subtlety that Jack mentions above. Nurturing positive change on a macro or micro level requires a great deal of sensitivity, strategy and thoughtfulness, none of which can happen if you try to force your ideology down your counterpart’s throat before the introductions are even made.
TAGS: Ethics | China | Change | Politics
This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 21st, 2006 at 8:54 pm and is filed under Business Strategy, China. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
February 22nd, 2006 at 10:43 am
“He approached me for a business deal. Our personal politics do not come in to it.”
So as long as I stand to make a buck, I don’t care if he’s god-damned Nazi (etc. etc. etc.)
Of course our “personal politics” come into it. Herein lies the problem with “ethical capitalism”, it’s a bit of a paradox. When profit motive drives the transaction, then profit motive becomes our personal politics.
Back to Starbucks: Last night I was getting coffee before the basketball game. (I was using a gift card I got from a student, so crazy prices notwithstanding). They’re selling donuts at the Starbucks around here now, FOR 17 BUCKS A DOZEN.
Good Lord.
(Go check out Jeremy’s kid at luckylab.net, if you haven’t already)
Ok
Enough.
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:37 am
Good point, John, but the money we are talking about is so tiny and the ROI so far off, even that didn’t come in to it. This is about something that can help the Chinese people. Specifically, it is a publication. Now, the minute the Politburo start dictating what I can and can’t do with this, then I’m outta there.
Profit does not come into it—especially when you consider the sort of outlay the government forces you to put by way of a licence in order to publish. As someone totally sceptical about Red Chinese growth figures, there is nothing to be made in the mainland—at least not yet.
In China, we have an interesting situation: people who represent a government that they might not agree with themselves. It’s best to stay open to the possibilities, which is the approach I took. Besides, if you don’t go, you don’t get to find out if your hunches are right or not. You can separate personal politics from this dialogue, as long as you know where your line is drawn. That is what should be borne in mind.
As a footnote, and in my own defence: you won’t know from a single post, but I’ve a very good track record on “ethical capitalism”. I’ve managed to avoid dealing with crooks or anyone who would exhibit the sort of behaviour that Naomi Klein speaks about. If profit were my religion, believe me, with my connections, I’d have been in Red China 20 years ago, helping rip off American businesses with fake deals.
February 24th, 2006 at 2:38 am
I must back track a little and apologize to John for the tone of my last paragraph above. On re-reading his post, I see that he meant his comments generally, and not at me.
February 24th, 2006 at 9:13 am
I’ve been really sick the past few days otherwise I would have chimed in sooner…
I don’t think you need to apologize for anything Jack! John is a tough cookie (and one of my best friends from college) who speaks his mind and doesn’t tiptoe around subjects. It’s a quality that I respect a lot in him and a characteristic that makes him one of the individuals in my life that I know I can completely trust.
While I agree that John was making a more general statement than you may have originally interpreted, I don’t think your response was out of line or inappropriate. On the contrary, I thought it was very level and non-confrontational.
As far as John’s original comment is concerned, I think he is correct and incorrect. I definitely think “ethical capitalism” is possible! If I didn’t, I would be holed up in some mountain cabin eating turnips by the bucket. The trouble is, and I think this is what John was referring to, everyone to a varying degree has to give up some of their integrity in order to participate in a capitalistic society (unless they are 100% purely motivated by profit, but I highly doubt anyone fits that extreme). I think many people make that compromise on a very frequent basis while others try to do it as little as often. Are you preaching ethical capitalism if you choose to profit off of your services in order to fulfill a need in the market? It depends on the context, your motives, and a whole host of other things. But there is a clear and recognizable difference between individuals and businesses that are solely interested in maximizing profits and those that are highly focused on using their capabilities and infrastructure to better the world around them, in spite of the profits they may make.
Yes, if you want to view the world as black and white, then what I have just said is a bunch of hot air (it sounded nice though, didn’t it?). But the world isn’t black and white, and that is why there is hope — without those intermittent shades, I doubt society would be able to gain any kind of traction toward a more utopian norm.
February 24th, 2006 at 6:31 pm
Peter, Jack-
Send turnips, I’m down to my last dozen.
Thanks,
John.
February 24th, 2006 at 8:37 pm
You nut John.
What’s going on with the school search? Didn’t you say something about Montana being your top choice? There are a lot of turnips to be had in them there hills…
February 26th, 2006 at 2:11 am
Interesting you should ask. Montana became my top choice when my confidence had ebbed at its lowest level. They only recently re-established their Ph.D program for history. At the time I figured it might be the only school where I’d get accepted.
After finishing the process for all the schools (Montana just got sent this weekend), I have had phases of much greater confidence and I’d be lying if I said anywhere other than Davis was my top choice. Notre Dame would be cool and Washington has a great program, but something about Davis has my full attention.
I had a quick trip to Salem this weekend (just got back) and I had myself convinced that I’d return to find an envelope from at least one of my schools. But I didn’t. By all rights it should be any day now when I hear from Davis and Notre Dame. Then will come word from UW and then Montana.
The confidence takes a hit with each day spent waiting.
This is the biggest risk I’ve taken since jumping off the front porch when I was two (I broke my leg). I hope I don’t break anything this time.
February 28th, 2006 at 8:19 pm
In fairness to Peter and Jack, I offer this:
One walks a fine line in any endeavor when one begins to use the term “nazi” (or insert “xxxx” offensive generalization here) to describe anyone.
It’s absolutey true, as Peter says, that I’m both right and wrong in regards to my previous post. It is also absolutely true that in business, as in life, there is a spectrum. On one side is the “profit as god” outlook and on the other is the “eating turnips by the bucket” outlook.
The key is finding balance. And balance comes from fighting the good fight; putting your finger in the damn of runaway capitalistic greed even when windfall profits are just a slight ethical adjustment from your grasp.
The fear I have, and consequently, the catalyst for my tendency to shoot from the proverbial hip surrounds the fact that we find ourselves entrenched in the 21st century, the divide between rich and poor is growing. Wealth is increasingly concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people.
Celebrities nominated for acadmey awards will find themselves the recipients of gift baskets worth upwards of $100,000. That’s just the tip of the iceberg. All the while “children are starving in China” and elsewhere.
I read recently (and forgive for forgetting where) that capitalism, as a system has become a caricature of itself. It is no longer rooted in reality, the stock market has become disconnected from any tangible “capital” in any real sense. Look no further than Enron (on the negative side) and Google (on the less negative side) in order to understand.
Perhaps the problem lies in the inability of modern society to deal with delayed gratification.
Then again, perhaps I should begin searching for my mountain cabin at once.
March 2nd, 2006 at 8:52 am
Sorry to take so long to respond John – I ended up getting pneumonia last week and it has been more or less kicking my butt ever since.
I know exactly what you mean about your ‘confidence taking a hit’ – if you ask me, the postal system has a special waiting area for acceptance letters to be delivered. Something about making the process that much more stressful for you so you appreciate the whole thing…or something like that. I remember you talking about the program at Davis before, so I hope you get in there. Fate may have it that you move to California the week I uproot my family to the East Coast. We’ll have to see how that one plays out.
Thanks for sending the link to see photos of Jeremy and Lindsay’s baby – she’s very cute! Ten years have disappeared as if I took a short nap or something. Wild.
“The fear I have, and consequently, the catalyst for my tendency to shoot from the proverbial hip surrounds the fact that we find ourselves entrenched in the 21st century, the divide between rich and poor is growing. Wealth is increasingly concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people.”
Interestingly enough, I’ve had a few people tell me just the opposite recently. In fact, it seems that many people feel that globalization is fantastic and that it is helping to even out wealth and privilege. I think someone also told me that habañeros weren’t hot either, that their oils are really good for your skin, and that you should eat them raw…
March 4th, 2006 at 10:40 pm
Peter, thanks to this blog John and I have corresponded a bit off-list. He’s one great guy—with exceptional taste in automobiles, I might add. We seem to have found the happy middle ground quickly as to where our comments were actually directed, and he is right that we can’t totally divorce political feelings from business—though we can try to find that balance.
I want to pick up on a point of John’s where he wrote: ‘capitalism, as a system has become a caricature of itself. It is no longer rooted in reality, the stock market has become disconnected from any tangible “capital” in any real sense. Look no further than Enron (on the negative side) and Google (on the less negative side) in order to understand.
‘Perhaps the problem lies in the inability of modern society to deal with delayed gratification.’
I can agree with this with some passion. Ever since we got taken off the Gold Standard, a lot of the “wealth” nations supposedly have seem rooted in fiction; and the ever-rising Dow figures (with the occasional hit caused by the likes of 9-11) are much the same. I’m no economist, but I kind of like things rooted in reality.
When I registered my companies under the Companies Act 1994 here in New Zealand, it appeared I could say anything I liked for paid-up capital—that didn’t need to be backed up with anything, either.
The instant gratification does seem to be a part of modern society, too. We no longer excuse someone for being late to an appointment by five minutes because we expect a text message or cellphone call—being stuck in traffic or being unable to find a car park is no longer appropriate as ex post facto excuses.
On these fronts, not only is the system a parody of capitalism, but humans seem to be graduating into parodies, too, showing indignation at those late arrivals when our true spiritual selves don’t know the meaning of anger. On that note, the system is representing the players within it worryingly well.
March 7th, 2006 at 9:14 am
Jack: That is great to hear that you and John have connected and have also kept the dialogue going about politics and business!
As far as the continuation of the capitalism, globalization, societal-effect conversation goes, I am becoming progressively more unhappy with the current system of commerce through which the world functions. I like the point you made that ’things [should be] rooted in reality’ and wholeheartedly agree.
I also struggle with the purpose of the overall “game” and wonder (a bit too often, perhaps) what society would be like if more utopian ideals were embraced by everyone, in concert with their efforts to engage in global commerce. On the one hand, I think there are quite a few examples of companies and powerful individuals that are trying to do just that. On the other, I can’t help but notice that the priorities and motivations of the people I see around me are becoming progressively more material and money-focused at the explicit expense of a higher purpose, and occasionally, ethical considerations. And as far as examples of large corporations caring only about the bottom line and nothing else, I think all one has to do is sneeze and they can find an example or two…
“When I registered my companies under the Companies Act 1994 here in New Zealand, it appeared I could say anything I liked for paid-up capital—that didn’t need to be backed up with anything, either.” Wow. That’s actually kind of scary if you think about it. Do you get the sense that a lot of companies abused that?
“On these fronts, not only is the system a parody of capitalism, but humans seem to be graduating into parodies, too, showing indignation at those late arrivals when our true spiritual selves don’t know the meaning of anger. On that note, the system is representing the players within it worryingly well.” Very insightful. I struggle with the ‘chicken and the egg’ dilemma though — is the system representing the players, or are the players molding the system? Or is it the latter, but carried out through a few, but very powerful individuals, and the result is that the system then serves to mold the masses?
As a side note, and in the spirit of connecting people across the globe, if you ever have a chance to cross paths with Tony Stewart or Jason Boa (I believe both are based in Christchurch), I guarantee that five minutes and a cup of coffee or tea with them would be quite enjoyable. Both are New Zealand-based photographers that my wife and I had the pleasure of spending time with in the past few years when they visited California (separately). I think we talked about photography for five minutes, perhaps out of a social obligation, but the majority of the time we spent together was dominated by very enjoyable (my perspective) conversations about life, purpose, politics, society, etc.