The Vision Problem
Comment On This Audio
See All Comments (1)
By Rama, Nebbiolo at May 19, 2010 21:39 PM
So where is it...the vision? ;-) Seriously, I think you're perfectly right in the sense that not many clear and attractive visions have been presented to people so far (from any political organization by the way).
We're often ending up in complaining about the current situation, trying to solve the details and discussing different means but never touches the vision.
It's not that the details are not important but as long as we're not having a clear and attractive purpose/mission and vision I believe we're making it hard for ourselves when dealing with the details or taking decisions in general.
In commercial companies (in the sense of organizations) it has been well known for quite some time now (even if not many succeeds implementing) that to be truly successful there needs to be a shared vision (shared by all in the organization). When companies fail being efficient it's very often because of internal political struggles instead of working synchronously towards a shared vision.
I believe that this is even more important for organizations wanting to change and improve the society. At least I need it and I believe I'm not alone.
Reply this comment
By Albert, Michael at May 20, 2010 12:35 PM
Well, we agree, except on one point, perhaps.
In your analogy to companies, they are ruled top down - and any dissent is considered a waste because the will of those at the top will dominate, so why waste time, just accept.
In an organization to work on changing society, you are right that there must be broad shared agreements about ultimate aims, leading in turn to shared program, etc. Yes.
But, there are two complicating factors. Part of the goal is participation, self management, etc. for its own worth. And, as well, there is no reason to think one accepted approach is, in fact, the best, or even nearly the best, or only worthy approach, etc.
So the trick is to have shared basic aims, etc. and to develop shared program, etc. - yet to simultaneously embody other options, explore them, respect their advocates, refine views in light of insights from the minority perspectives, etc. etc.
This is part of why many leftists reject the idea of having shared vision. They think, or intuit, that if you seek that you will inexorably become regimented, hand over decision making to a few best expositors and implementors or advocates of the shared aims - etc. They don't see that they can have their cake - flexibility and self management, etc. - and eat it too - shared vision and program.
But both priorities must be met, not one or the other...