Michael McMaster wrote:
> The "new sciences" as I understand them do not require nor even suggest
> "vision".
>
> They particularly do not suggest ones that can be measured.
>
> Emergence and complex adaptive systems and natural phenomena have general
> intentions but not specific vision. More, any such thing will not be
> achieved in the way natural phenomena emerge and evolve.
>
> In my book, vision to be worthy of the name points to a field of
> possibility. Such an approach does not allow for measurement in any
> meaningful business sense of the word.
Yep, I agree. In the latest issue of Fast Company, there's a great article
(interview) with Chris Turner, of XBS (Xerox Business Services). She
describes vision this way, "To me, a vision is an ongoing conversation.
It's the way we think, individually and collectively, about the community
we're creating. It's the principles of the people in the organization.
What's important to us. How we want to be with each other. It's never
frozen, it's never set. It's energy -- or spirit."
Perfect! I agree with Mike and with Chris, both of which recognize that a
vision is not something "specific," but rather something that is
continually evolving.
-- Ben Compton The Accidental Learning Group Work: (801) 222-6178 Improving Business through Science and Art bcompton@geocities.com http://www.e-ad.com/ben/BEN.HTMLearning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>