>>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?
Structure determines behaviour!
In my experience when all of the above are developed/created within a
hierarchical functional structure they are "doomed to failure" (W. Edwards
Deming). The hierarchical-functional/power structure already has an
intrinsic "vision"-- "I am the boss! You will do as you are told to serve
me (my vision) and the shareholders." (The shareholders are often added
to give some sort of higher authority.)
Any "lesser vision" will be overshadowed by the "vision" intrinsic to the
power structure.
I often wondered about this when I worked for IBM. We went through the
motions of developing a local/shared vison for our department/group within
the framework of the IBM Vision (Market Driven Quality), but it was never
sustainable. As soon as there was any conflict of "vision" we were
instructed to do as we were told.
That's how it gets watered down.
>>Why VISION instead of PURPOSE?
A good question. Vision is "somewhere over the rainbow" -- very fuzzy. It
has a specifc meaning for each person. e.g. "GO WELL, GO SHELL."
Purpose is very specific and very clear - "What is our purpose?!; My
purpose is . . . ." We can measure our achievement of a purpose. It is
not easy to measure our achievement of a vision, because of its long-term
"fuzzy" nature.
In order to overcome these problems, (IMO) organisations must adopt a
system's or process view. Vision/purpose etc etc can then be developed in
the context of "how the work gets done" and continuously refined; rather
than be subordinate to the "vison" in a power -based structure.
Bryan Frew | 24 Marinna Road
bfrew@interconnect.com.au | Elanora Heights NSW 2101
Global Strategies Australia | AUSTRALIA
Telephone: +61 2 970-7566 | Facsimlie: +61 2 970-7510