On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Mark Michaels wrote Re: Visionsssss
Mark,
Sorry for the delay, I have been on the road for five days.
Thanks for the comments. Pls consider the embedded thoughts below.
>
>First, the only "should" that I had was meant to be that we should drop the
>notion of vision altogether, and find something else.
Well, I think the act of envisioning and the role of a vision are very
important -- as long as they are not misused. So I am not wanting to find
something else.
>
>I like your use of the word "envision" because that can be applied to the
>here and now instead of the future. I frequently talk about envisioning the
>behavior of a system, for instance.
Great observation. Envisioning is something we do. A vision is something
we have. A vision, like a strategy, is not a long range plan. It is an
"attractor" that affects, and effects, the "now" as well as the future.
>Also, I like your thoughts that there can be multiple visions in one group,
>because that breaks down one of the biggest problems with vision - the
>development of alignment at the expense of diversity. Diversity, it appears,
>is critical to having the capacity to adapt. But multiple visions also seems
>to break down the basic application of vision, which is to create alignment.
>(I don't want to be understood on alignment as though it is a black and
>white issue. I recognize some greys here, and also recognize the emergence
>of natural alignment in groups which offsets the need for fabricating
>alignment associated with visioning.) If fabricated alignment is problematic
>(and I think that to a large extent it is), then dropping the need for
>alignment negats the need for vision.
To me, the role of a vision is to create a community of like minded
individuals. The degree of alignment that it should create depends on the
uncertainty the community faces. A vision of a drug-free school or
neighborhood may require high degree of homogeneity of action whereas a
vision for a lawyer-free society may require a variety of exploratory
efforts.
>Yesterday I read that Digital Equipment Co was being bought out by Compaq. I
>was not surprised, having identified that DEC was not going to make it about
>7 - 8 years ago. Did a little work as a consultant there at the time. I
>recognized that their biggest problem was the vision thing. Ken Olsen's
>vision about what was the appropriate type of computer, followed by the
>troops being closed out from communication with other computer companies,
>made it so that the company did not have the capacity to adapt in the fast
>environment.
>
>On the other hand, if you look at the companies that de Geus writes about in
>"The Living Organization" you'll see that their ability to survive so long
>(up to 600 years for 1 company) is linked to their adaptability rather than
>visionary leadership.
Maybe not. Maybe the visionary leadership (at Shell, for instance) simply
foresaw that Adaptability was the characteristic of survival.
Let me explain what I mean. For years customers have demanded
predictability of their suppliers. Accordingly, we have trained managers
to stamp out variance, to standardize, to regulate toward homeostasis, to
organize by function (acutally by behavior values and learning styles).
Then, as the marketplace has grown more chaotic, we tell these managers
that they are striving in the wrong direction, that they need to become
Leaders who create ideas, visions, hubris, etc. But we do not tell them how
to do this.
Underlying this is a system principle. You can design for efficiency or
maneuverability but can't have both. We have encouraged managers to strive
for efficiency. Now they need to strive for maneuverability (also called
agility) so their organzations will be more adaptable (actually more
quickly adaptable).
In fact, managers or leaders must learn both to lead and to adapt. These
are not mutually exclusive. And systems theory tells us you can have both
depending on the type of control that is employed throughout the business.
The probable preferred type of control is highly distributed or autonomous
but that requires that all the little controllers have some common purpose.
One way of installing common purpose in all of those little controllers
(one per belly button) is spelled vision(sss).
We are no longer in the era of herding sheep. Modern managers must learn
to herd a mixture of butterflies and wildcats.
Get my vison?
Jack Ring
32712 N. 70th St.
Scottsdale, AZ 85262-7143
602-488-4615