I am reminded of a pilot preparing for his final approach to land, lining up with the runway and descending for landing. He contacts air traffic control and the air traffic controller asks whether the pilot has a clear sight of the runway. “Yes, I do,” the pilot responds, adding: “It’s short, but so wide.”

Life is all about perspective, objectivity and reality. Adding to our frustration is that we believe ourselves to be objective in our own subjectivity. It is all quite confusing. Have you ever had a view on something, only for someone else to have an opposing view? Next time you are faced with such a situation, consider the observation by Wayne Dyer, an American philosopher: “If you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change.”

If you consider this to be revolutionary thinking . . . well, sadly, it is not. There is a habit, a fifth habit – yes, one of the seven habits of highly effective people – that Stephen Covey, an American educator, described in his 1989 book. According to Covey, you have to switch sides, and the other person has to listen to you. Habit 5 simply states: “Seek first to understand, then to be understood.”

In Covey’s own words: “Communication is the most important skill in life. You spend years learning how to read and write, and years learning how to speak. But what about listening? If you’re like most people, you probably seek first to be understood; you want to get your point across. And, in doing so, you may ignore the other person completely, pretend that you’re listening, selectively hear only certain parts of the conversation or attentively focus on only the words being said, but miss the meaning entirely. Because you so often listen autobiographically, you tend to respond in one of four ways: evaluating – you judge and then either agree or disagree; probing – you ask questions from your own frame of reference; advising – you give counsel, advice and solutions to problems; interpreting – you analyse others’ motives and behaviours based on your own experiences.”

I came across this anonymous nursery rhyme; yes, a nursery rhyme: “A wise old owl lived in an oak. The more he saw, the less he spoke. The less he spoke, the more he heard. Why can’t we all be like that wise old bird?”

In similar vein, my father was not one to give much career advice. He did, however, tell me one thing at the start of my career that has served me well: “You have two ears and one mouth. Use them in that proportion.”

While still on this topic, I leave you with two further quotes that might serve you well in your career. The first quote is from Ernest Hemmingway, who says: “Before you act, listen. Before you react, think. Before you spend, earn. Before you criticise, wait. Before you pray, forgive. Before you quit, try.” Then there is this anonymous quote: “Don’t try to understand everything. Because sometimes it’s not meant to be understood, but to be accepted.”

This brings me to April 19, when Naspers, founded in 1915 as Nasionale Pers (National Press), a publisher and printer of a single newspaper, announced that it would change the presentation currency in its financial statements from the South African rand to the US dollar. If ever there was a South African success story, then Naspers would be a prime candidate. Its fortunes are, in large part, attributable to its investment in Tencent Holdings – a Chinese investment holding company whose subsidiaries provide media, entertainment, Internet and mobile phone value- added services and operate online advertising services – which has seen the Naspers stock skyrocket by more than 500% since 2010.

According to www.sharenet.co.za, Naspers is fourth on the list of South Africa’s top 100 companies by market capitalisation, with R884 598 632 300, after top-placed Anheuser-Busch InBev, with R2 978 963 027 980, British American Tobacco, with R1 726 383 732 167 and SABMiller, with R1 455 728 595 637.

In its announcement, Naspers stated: “Over the past 100 years, the group has evolved from a single- country newspaper business and early investor in pay television to a video entertainment leader and global Internet and ecommerce group with operations in over 130 countries. Today, more than 70% of its revenue measured on an economic interest basis (which includes the group’s proportionate share of the revenue of associates and joint ventures) is sourced from outside South Africa.” It further stated that, as a consequence of its shareholder base largely comprising foreign investors, financial reporting in rand “is of limited relevance”. Apparently, its board bases its performance evaluation and many investment decisions on dollar-based financial information. However, Naspers did indicate that it would continue to declare dividends in rands, with the relevant exchange rate announced at the time of the dividend payment.

On April 21, Business Day reported that some analysts were of the view that switching to dollar- based reporting posed a great risk for Naspers’ operations. They argued that, should the yuan weaken sharply, assets priced in dollars would benefit in much the same way as when the rand weakens. They further argued that the dollar’s strength was not assured and that, despite its foreign investments, most of Naspers’ shareholders were South African. Although dollar- based reporting might not appear to be a major change now, it could in the future, considering the rand’s substantial fluctuation – remember the 33% depreciation against the dollar in 2015? Much would, off course, depend on the currency fluctuations mainly from the People’s Republic of China, where Naspers’ 34% stake in Tencent Holdings could have an effect on future results. Since the Chinese government pegs the yuan to the dollar, it would also depend on how the Chinese authorities continue to manage this.

Some analysts have questioned whether Naspers was, through its actions, contemplating a foreign listing, in a similar way to what Alibaba, an online marketplace company, did in the US.

Just to put such a foreign listing into perspective – sizewise, that is – if Naspers should decide to have its primary listing in the US, its $65- billion market capitalisation would be significantly smaller than Alibaba’s, which was $251- billion on its US listing in 2014.