[snip of lots of interesting stuff .]
>
>> collectively observed some "tough spots" and would appreciate your
>> thoughts on why they happens and especially, what to do to remedy of avoid
>> them.
>>
>> Experiences include:
>>
>> - Visioning takes so long that we lose interest
>
>A proposition such as this is _prima facie_ evidence that this activity
>you have named "visioning" is not truly vision.
In my experience, like "reengineering" or "innovation" or any of a host of
other ideas, it's very easy for folks to have "the words, but not the
music:" to miss the essence of what's needed and enact instead only the
form. Here's a case in point: "visioning" efforts that are not visionary,
with those involved not really connecting up to create a genuine shared
understanding of what their joint future might hold, and how to get there.
>>
>> Some thought provoking questions that emerged were:
>>
>> Why does this vision stuff drive us nuts?
>> If we write a vision, so what? What happens next?
>> Why does it get watered down?
>> Why don't things happen?
>> Why is the final written copy the LEAST amount than everyone agrees to?
[snip]>
>> Is it really the right thing to do? (When and when not?)
>> How SHARED does it have to be?
>> Why VISION instead of PURPOSE?
>> How do we know if we are really DOING it? (measurement)
IMHO traditional, usual practice is so far from vision and genuine
sharing that it is very tough to name the dimensions of change, or to
generate really different behaviors in those surrounded by societal cues
that encourage people to "play the same tape" of past (non-sharing,
not-vision-based) behaviors from the past. The questions that are raised
by these tough spots are real, and can be seen as a serious effort to
understand a whole new way of comprehending people in organizations.
Try cognition as an alternative to manipulation (and the naming
thread IS relevant, but I think perhaps insufficient). The central notion
is that people in a group can develop together a better understanding of
what they face than any one of them can. In an organization, an example
would be the obviously practical experiences of, say, Ford's Team Taurus
in improving quality notably by including manufacturing engineers early in
the design process, so that the car was designed to be manufacturABLE -
easy to do right the first time. Bringing the manufacturing people in
early, instead of telling them"Just do it," paid real dividends.
Perhaps the first order of business might be to udnerstand what
theis cognitive view implies, perhaps by exploring why the group needs to
become a team? What costs if not, what benefits if it does? The dimensions
LOOK similar to "regular organizations" and teams, but from a cognitive
perspective, a wholly different set of approaches to achieving goals
emerges. Note this hooks up with ideas of shared corporate or
organizational culture, having a (good) attitude, and investing in people
(because you have no alternative).
This kind of "learning organization" is pervaded with
unhierarchical assumptions, information-based and expertise mediated
"status," and common focus on achieving what all embrace as a goal worth
achieving. There's real urgency in developing better ways to think and
communicate with one another about organizations like this, because the
extant alternatives are generally so unsatisfactory.
Sam
MXJELI@MAIL.WM.EDU
Mariann Jelinek
Richard C. Kraemer Professor of Business
Graduate School of Business,
College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA 23185
Tel. (804) 221-2882 FAX: (804) 229-6135