On Sun, 22 Oct 1995, Michael McMaster wrote:
[skip]
> "Successful change" and "learning" are a tautology for me.
I can see what you are saying here, Michael, but I wonder if it is a true
tautology in the strictest sense. If we turn it around, does it mean the
same thing--are learning and successful change always connected? I can
imagine that much learning has occured in organizations when successful
change was not the outcome... Perhaps this is taking it further than you
intended or that this is a "one-way" proposition.
> For example, I know many who believe that "arriving at a common
> vision" is important. And many of these point to some experience
> that they had of doing this and things got better - at least
> personally and at least for a while.
>
> Few of these, because they live in a culture which creates an
> unchallengeable aura around shared vision, are able to even consider
> that the positive experience and even lasting gain may have nothing
> to do with the intention or the result (shared vision) but can be
> solely attributed to the event of people talking together about what
> mattered to them - about their intentions and aspirations and values.
Here again, I think this is important. To me the important thing is not
the *vision*, as much as it is the fact that it is *shared*--that, as a
result of the process through which it was arrived at or the resonance of
the vision with those who respond to it, there is ownership or buy-in or
commitment or whatever you want to call it. Many visions have become
"shared" and have been very "effective" for a time even when they were
morally horrifying to others. Others have had little on the surface to
recommend them, but have produced incredible results...
Is this along the lines you were intending?
-- Tobin quereau@austin.cc.tx.us