Hurrah for Dave!! He's written about vision and I'm for everything that
he says. What happened here? While he uses a language that is only a
partial match for mine, what is clear is that the language is based in
operational definitions, rigorous thinking and integrity of action (which
I'd translate into _practices_). He also names the conditions that, if
not addressed, will make whatever is attempted run into all of those
things which are pointed at by change, resistance, manipulation, etc.
> Are the values lived and breathed daily by
> all managers (especially the exec's) in the organization?
> When these same folk come along to make ME change with
> the fadish vision (I know they won't live it) or change management
> statement, how can I trust them?
> They won't even live their values.
Dave then leads into:
> Do the
> people in the organization know what they are supposed to be doing/making
> and what PURPOSE IT SERVES for the person who receives the output?
If individual intelligence is wanted - let alone organisational
intelligence - how can we expect it if the individuals do not _powerfully_
understand what they are doing and how it relates to the whole?
> Last is the vision, strategy, and plans.
Now, whatever happens in the name of these has a chance of making a
difference.
I think that one of the important areas that is usually neglected is the
language that we use to generate what we are seeking. The phrase
"LEARN-IN" that Dave has generated is one that will transform existing
thinking. It can catch on. I'm going to use it. (Thanks Dave!) If an
individual (or an organisation) is viewed as an integrated and complex
network of information/knowledge, then for a vision or any of the things
that Dave is referring to can be expected to survive let alone succeed it
will need to be integrated into that whole information/knowledge network.
> time for LEARN-IN, and MANAGMENT WORKING on the change daily seems to
> overcome lots of resistance problems at lower levels.
It is here that practices will make the difference. That is, working on a
change daily means doing things regularly and visibly that will interrupt
the old ways and begin to develop the new.
>
> Anyone else experienced lack of clarity or benign neglect by management
> causing some of the resistance to change? If so, what did you do?
>
I have experienced all of these. The single most important part - after
initial education and dialogue - is _being_ a support structure for the
practices that need to be designed and continually exercised.
The way that I approach the challenge of vision or purpose conversations
(and I find it important to distinguish any statement about these from the
dialogue which generates and keeps them alive) is to develop operational
definitions as you alluded to. Then, I continue to facilitate dialogue
until all of the standard organisational vocabulary has disappeared from
the conversation and people are talking about what they care about in
language that is natural and appropriate to what they care about. So far
I've never found it to be particularly immediately relevant to business.
For example, one group went through all the standard things such as "being
the best", "increasing profits by x%", "being a learning organisation",
"satisfying customers", etc. until someone said, "We've got this location
on a navigable river near the ocean. Someone can always use this location
for successful commerce. What I really care about is that this site is
providing livelihood for our families and community and continue to
utilise the skills that we've developed as far as we can see."
My final coaching was, "Don't now print this or even run out and tell
others that its the new company 'vision'." Live with it, _be_ with it,
have open conversations where you share what you want and listen to what
they want. And then, after you've had enough dialogue and living to have
"learned it in", see what is appropriate. Dave suggests involving others
in the creation of expression. I suggest doing that mainly in informal
dialogue rather than a formal setting. These kinds of settings make
everybody a little weird.
The caution that I have is the use of "clarity". Getting something clear
usually means linear, rationalist and concretised. The nature of what we
are dealing with will not lend itself to that sort of clarity. I
recommend "shared understanding" or "shared knowledge". This keeps
everything in process and allows it to be in continuous dialogue and
interpretation rather than becoming fixed. Those who are inclined to the
Cartesian rational will tend to take "clarity" to the point of removing
life.
Thanks for sharing.
--
Mike McMaster <Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk>
"Intelligence is an underlying organisational principle
of the universe. The 'logos principle' is hidden and
perceptible only to the intelligence." Heraclitus