Ivan, I hope my responses to you are not seen as picking on you. I choose
my responses based on three criteria. One is that the subject has rich
potential for my intentions (organisations that nurture people and provide
benefit to the planet), for their challenge to my own thinking and
development, and for the richness of the thinking and experience that is
being expressed - in this case by you. So I thank you for the work that
you've done and are doing and for your sharing that with us.
Ivan acknowledges my work on deconstruction applied to the area of "vision"
and then demonstrates the nature of metanarrative and the difficulty of
deconstruction. Ivan, I take your question, "Is this making any sense?" as
an invitation to continue.
> Mike McMaster, I appreciate your explanation of deconstruction and the
> metanarratives of business. You have made me realize that we get in to
> bad habits more often than not. We always talk about "-a-" vision, when
> in fact there might be as many visions as members in an organization.
The challenge revealed is that, despite my intentions and my pointing to
"vision" as a metanarrative in its uses in organisational conversations,
Ivan still has assumed the existence, nature and validity of vision. He
argues against certain uses and for other uses. But nowhere does he
question vision itself nor does he show how it is valid as a basis for
thinking. So the flaws that exist continue in his arguments. Even while
he contributes something useful. That particular contribution is to remove
the solidity and singularity of "-a-" vision. If this line is purused far
enough so that we arrive at multiple visions (more than one per person
might occur) which vary according to time, place and circumstances - that
is by the time we arrive at the full range of possibility of vision as an
individual and community phenomenon - then we will have taken away the
full meaning and usefulness of the way "shared vision" is used in
organisational theory today.
That will be useful. In the end, we may even have returned "vision
quests" - to borrow from the Native Americans - to a vibrant and living
part of our organisational practices and cultures. If we do, we will no
longer be engaged in attachment to particular visions nor even "shared"
ones except in the sense that a public display or a conversation is shared
by the very fact of being public. That is, it does not imply any
agreement or common understanding.
> I
> think that the term used this way really refers to the "official vision
> statement of the organization," is it is possible to use the ter in this
> context. This official vision statement may or may not guide people
> within the organization, this depends on many other factors. But, I think
> that the vision statement, the "managerial mind" of each individual member
> on the organization, contribute to the members' thinking of what the
> organization is, where the organziation is going (even if it is just
> speculative), etc. I believe that the dialogues may contribute to the
> "alignment" of more (as opposed to less) members' own conception of the
> organization.
Can you see the mechanistic and reductionist psychology here? We must put
something outside of our individual and whole selves - that is, something
mental or emotional - as a motivator ("source of action").
One of the view than Im an continuing to try and makes sensible is one
which reveals vision as an emrgent phenomenon. That will take is out of
the management domain, out of the domain of a tool for motivation, out of
the domain of (subtle) command and control, and return it to that of the
rich interplay of individual with community and environment. I suggest
that vision is something that emerges before words from the background o
social understanding in its particular unique expression of both a culture
and the individual in it. So there is no "is vision" but constantly
moving images of sense-making activity that are the preverbal source of
wisdom. Visions are an emergent integration. Taken from there to an
external and specific tool for alignment or motivation, they lose the
precious nature and become both trivialised and the source of mischief.
This useage of vision does not preclude the possibility of organisational
vision - given my assumption that an organisation itself is an intelligent
entity which has emerged from intelligent sources. An organisational
vision, however, is also emergent and is not located in any particular
place nor limited to any particular specifics or form. It is to be found
in the network of conversations and to interpreted by each
observer/participant as they will.
Another view that I am continuing to try and make sensible is one which
does not require any of commonly accepted psychology but only
explanation resting on what is available to sensory awareness.
Conversations can be heard by anyone (or seen if written) and they are not
mysterious in nature. From this point of view, the conversations about
vision, for vision, around vision, can be participated in and become
publicly available without any need for having _one_ or even for there
being any stability or explicitness to them. I suggest that the power is in
the dialogue itself. Throw away the "result" - or at least ignore it.
What will occur, if it is "wanting to happen", is that an alignment will
form aroung what _is_ already existing in the culture and that the
possibilities in that existing organisation will continue to be developed
and enriched as long as the conversation is alive. Also, the conversation
as alive will contribute to the internal imagery, internal states and
possibilities of understanding as long as it is alive. In this state of
being an active dialogue, information will continue to be generated. In
the state of being _a_ corporate vision, information will disappear and
life will disappear with it.
I also suggest that you investigate where "vision" exists in your life and
where it doesn't, what you mean by that, and how it actually functions.
Also, investigate the same presence or absence in others. I promise that
you will find at least in others that there are many instances of
remarkable behaviour where vision does not exist - at least if you are
able to get beyond vision as a metanarrative and explanatory principle.
--
Mike McMaster <Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk>
"Postmodern society is the society of computers, information, scientific
knowledge, advanced technology, and rapid change due to new advances in
science and technology." Postmodern Theory, Best & Kellner