A house divided

No disrespect, but when Kuseni Dlamini of Richard Bay Coal Terminal walked into the seminar room, someone should have warned us that we were on a serious collision path… or better still, sounded a war-cry. This eloquent speaker provoked us, challenged us, and quite frankly, I was taken aback by some of the unexamined views and positions I hold on various global issues.

We discussed globalisation and its impact on business. We also talked about value-driven corporate culture and the need for organisations to unlearn outdated ways of doing business and learn new competitive ways if they plan to thrive in the dynamic global business environment. We agreed that the changing global landscape presented opportunities for business… look at how the Chinese have fong-konged the world.

Anyway, what started out as a discussion on the challenges facing leaders in a rapidly changing business environment turned out to be a heated debate on ‘self interest’ at both the national and personal level.

Of course, no discussion on national self interest can be complete without discussing good ol’ U.S of A. Most of the class wondered in whose name and national interest the U.S had attacked Iraq. We (there I go exposing my biases) felt that the U.S was behaving like a school yard bully controlling the world with an iron fist (and a few bombs).

Two schools of thought emerged in the room. On the one hand, there was the Machiavellian camp who thought that for God and Country, there was no limit to what one could do in the name of national interest. Then there was the ‘other’ (my) group, who thought that if left untamed, self or national interest mutated itself into corruption, exploitation and domination of the weaker by the stronger.

Even though I still hold my position that self interest should not be realised at any price, the thought-provoking discussion forced me to re-examine some of the ideas and assumptions that I peddle around.