LETS TALK

Recently, on the topic of conversation, the programme made some points which might be useful to our own industry. In this month’s PS, David Appleton of APL calls upon us all – shippers, carriers, port authorities, terminal operators, governments and the trade press – to join in the port capacity debate. Through talking we will find the common ground we need to get things done.

Tully’s programme makes the point that conversation is about listening as well as talking. It enables us to explore people’s ideas as well as put forward our own, but we need courage to listen because it can mean challenging our own long-held beliefs and exposing ourselves to challenges from others.

Trying to resolve something through the power of your argument rather than seeking understanding has become a characteristic of conversation. We tend to discuss and argue to achieve conquest over one another’s thoughts rather than trying to listen in an attentive way which would allow us to enrich our own knowledge, understanding and perspective.

We should have a way of relating that allows us to explore the perspectives of one another without letting go of the things that we hold most strongly. Surely we can disagree in a creative way that allows us to go further.

The programme went on to suggest that when you talk about something you often clarify your own thinking as well. So there’s an element of exploration in learning about yourself and from others. That willingness to be changed by what you might subsequently discover as you journey together, seems critical to the benefits of conversation.

If you come into a conversation with a sense of closure about your own perspective or ideas, then you haven’t really entered the conversation. You have simply set out a defensive posture for a combat zone and you miss that sense of ‘Where can we go together, how can we learn from each other?’ Nobody is carrying all the answers.

Tully cites as a classic example, the week-long conversation Richard Nixon had with the Chinese leadership in the early Seventies which ended the menacing silence between the world’s richest and the world’s most populous nations.

Hans Kung, in his book Global Responsibility, says it is when there is no dialogue that war breaks out. “Capacity for dialogue is ultimately a virtue of capacity for peace. Precisely in that respect it is deeply human because it is aware of the history of its failure. Where dialogues were broken off wars broke out, in private and in public. Where dialogue failed repression began. Those who carry on dialogue do not shoot.

Those who engage in dialogue must have the inner power and strength to sustain dialogue and where necessary to respect the standpoint of others. For one thing is certain, that impatience with dissent, which is constantly breaking out all over the world, has no understanding of the virtue of a capacity for dialogue. And yet on this the whole of our spiritual and physical survival will depend.”

This might seem a bit profound when talking about port capacity.

A great deal of time is spent talking and listening – some would say far too much. We refer to many dialogues in our industry disparagingly as “just another talking shop” implying they are a waste of time because nothing will ever come of them. And indeed they may be viewed this way if no useful action results.

Perhaps we can learn from the Japanese with their consensus style of management. The Japanese share information widely, in informal conversations. These are usually the first step in any decision-making process. Such conversations are known as nemawashi (meaning prior consultation or originally, to smooth the soil around the roots before planting). Decision-making is almost always slower in Japan because the Japanese involve and inform more people; the ideas and views of all involved in the issue are taken, including junior staff and workers; then the boss takes a decision. It all takes time but once done then by and large, everyone accepts it and gets on with implementing it.