Re: Shared Vision Tough Spots LO639

Jim Michmerhuizen (jamzen@world.std.com)
Sat, 1 Apr 1995 13:30:04 +0001 (EST)

Replying to LO611 --

The tough spots you allude to I find particularly poignant. I've been
there often enough to have spent some time thinking about it. Some
details of your language suggest that maybe what you are calling "vision"
isn't. I've annotated your posting to identify those details and comment
on them. You may find my comments excruciatingly picky; I apologize for
that in advance.

Regards
jamzen@world.std.com
-----------------------------------------------------^---------------------
. . . . . . . . . . Actions speak louder than words . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . but not as clearly . . . . . . . . . .

On Thu, 30 Mar 1995 Bernou11i@aol.com wrote:

> I participate in a dialogue study group in my organization. At least
> that's what it started out to be. We have expanded to other areas, one of
> which is shared vision. All of the participants have had lots of
> experience with visioning in high and low level group settings. We have

"visioning"? What's "visioning"? Sure, we coin expressions and usages on
the spot, and I'll concede that this curious usage most likely originated
that way; but what's going on here? Is a new coinage really necessary?
Why would you go out of your way to avoid a simpler expression? What real
activities and interactions do you refer to as "visioning"? What counts
as "visioning experience" that these participants have done a lot of?

> 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. This touches on that
naming thread I've been pursuing with Mike McMasters. For that reason,
it would be dangerous for me to say anything more with mere words. In
general, when you suspect that you may be the victim of bad names, you
need to go out and get some good OSTENSIVE definition: direct experience
of people of vision and of people in the process of arriving at a vision.

There are fundamental ostensive definitions in my life and I think in
everyone's. The raw perceptions and intuitions that we keep coming back
to as paradigms: "if this isn't vision, then nothing is", "if this isn't
love, then nothing is". Some other participants in this group call
these simply "paradigm cases".

> - There are so many different individual visions that we
> lose a lot of them in the blending

I don't know what to call the result of "blending" individual visions; but
I *do* know that I would not call that result a "shared vision".

> - After we have the vision, it's nice but then we get back
> to work (ignoring it)

Once again, if the vision is something that has to be set aside in order
to work, it isn't a vision at all. Further evidence of misnaming.

>
> 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?

"agrees to"? The groups I've seen that had a shared vision did not reach
it by a process of negotiating.

> 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)
>
> I think we have a pretty good understanding as to the theory behind shared
> visioning (reasons why & approach), but would appreciate other thoughts,

"Theory behind shared visioning"? Here I think major surgery is required.
There is no theory operating behind the scenes. If I may speak personally
for a moment, it sounds as though your participants have burdened themselves
with way too much theory. Isn't the reality much simpler than what your
words suggest? Some groups work well together, some don't. Of those that
do, we find many exhibit a syndrome of high-spirited behaviors that we decide
to label, on reflection, "shared vision". We take this message to the groups
that don't work well together, and attempt to provoke them to similar high
spirits. Where, in all of this, is there any theory? What works works, and
what doesn't doesn't, and one is always improvising anyway.

> especially around best practices to address the above issues.

I suppose the single most horrifying dilemma that one in your position
could face would be working with a client group - say executives in a
single company - and working through some process in eventually complete
candor, to understanding that there was _in fact_ no slightest shared
vision among the group. Bleak vision: "now what shall we do"?

Some groups aren't groups; some teams aren't teams; and some visions are
blind.

Thanks for your question. The scenario you describe is, on the face of
it, bleak; I'm sure we all wish it were less common than it is, and abhor
the feeling of powerlessness that can come over us when we're fall into
one. I hope you get lots of additional responses.