A vision is a coherent and
dynamic set of relevant and realistic beliefs
about a certain part of reality.
Strong intelligence is needed to develop a
solid vision. Depending on the complexity of the piece of reality about
which you want to develop a vision, a “level 4”
intelligence will usually be required. To make them useful
for an organization (or society), “level 5” will also be necessary.
Level 1 : factual knowledge . This is something that
people with a good memory have, provided they have filled their memory with
enough relevant and reliable information.
Level 2 : seeing cause-effect
relationships . This requires experience
with practical situations in the field in which the vision
must be formed, and logical thinking . The latter is a
difficult point. Many people who ‘associate’, think they
reason. Associating is making connections on an intuitive basis, where
emotions often determine which relationship is made. In reasoning, the
reliability of the relationship established becomes crucial.
Level 3 : seeing dynamics in the
whole . This requires a selection of the relevant facts and the
relevant relationships; with due attention to
the completeness of the relationships involved in constructing the
dynamics. The added value at this level is clearly that all relationships
play at the same time, and that their mutual relationship, in strength,
timing, effects, ... forms a dynamic overall picture.
Level 4 : seeing the relative dynamics and bringing them
together in a relevant whole, with a goal or assignment in
mind . Here a selection is made between what is primary and
important, and ancillary parts of the dynamics that do not have sufficient
importance to be included. Relativizing capacity will determine the final
quality here.
Level 5 : be inspiring . The vision can only be useful
if it can be shared with the people who want and can do something with
it. This means that the acquired insights can be formulated and
communicated as a whole in such a way that people who are interested
in these objectives (mission) are motivated and inspired for their
contribution.
An organization requires two visions: an
external and an internal one.
The external one relates to the 'playing
field' of the organization, the working environment. Here legal ,
technological and economic aspects are important, but also competition and
the position, interests, visions, strategies ... of all the players
in the game. This external vision will determine the development of an
external strategy for the organization concerned. That means it makes it
possible to make all the feasible strategic choices (external focus) that are
needed for the mission.
The internal one has to do with a coherent
insight into the type of organization that is needed to realize the
mission. This is sometimes included in the term 'corporate strategy '. It
refers to the choices that are made to realize an organizational operation that
must realize the chosen strategy. The 7- S model from
McKinsey (1) is still a useful framework for studying and
determining the relevant aspects. For the sake of clarity: the elements
that must be described here are, in addition to the external strategy, the
structure, the systems and processes, the style of leadership, the knowledge,
the people and the organizational culture. The main challenge in shaping this
vision is to forge loose beliefs into a coherent whole. A great
dynamic coherence will have to be developed here, just as with the development
of the external vision.
In practice, a 'mission - vision' exercise
is often used to give direction to the development of an organization. The
mission is usually tackled in a fairly clear manner. However, the vision
often needs some more precision. It often happens that the description of
the vision leads to a repetition of the mission and contains nothing
new. To keep the two apart, the two guiding questions are often used:
"What do we go for?" And "What do we stand for?". But
these questions apparently do not help to arrive at a clear vision,
neither internally nor externally.
A SWOT analysis also attempts to
capture both dimensions. However, it is a static approach, an analysis of
what "is". The "SW" refers to the strengths and
weaknesses of the organization, the internal focus. The
"OT" refers to the opportunities and threats, the external focus.
The SW analysis, however, is floating,
because there is no connection with the goal or mission. You are always
strong or weak in function of an assignment. In itself, strengths and
weaknesses are interesting, but not relevant. The OT analysis is about
relevant issues, but the dynamic connection to make it a vision is usually
absent. An attempt to capture the dynamic can lead to a scenario
analysis. That means trying to imagine the direction in which reality
might evolve, depending on a few crucial factors that could move in one
direction or another An attempt is then made to properly assess the
consequences for the organization, so that people can prepare
themselves, for example with investments, systems to be built, etc. This
way we are clearly already taking a big step in the right direction, at least
with regard to this part of the challenge. To really do the homework in a
professional way, all aspects of the organization (7- S
model ) should receive a ' design plan'. That is more
than an analysis! It is a concept of an organization that guides the
decision-making process to create the operational architecture of the organization towards success (mission
and strategy).
The conclusion is once again that the
sloppy use of terms often indicates a lack of insight.
"Ce que l’on conçoit bien , s’énonce clairement "
– (Nicolas Boileau) (What one understands well, one can also explain
well. So if one cannot explain it well, one probably does not have a clear
understanding.)
Two additional
reflections:
People who do not have level 5 or level 4
intelligence, regardless of whether it is caused by brain capacity, personality
or lack of familiarity with the work field, have a problem. They cannot
oversee the complexity with which they are confronted. They would rather prefer
the relative certainty of the solutions of the past and become
conservative. They have no credible answer in mind that can work better
than the past. A strong control drive then becomes likely when they step
into a leadership role. Conversely, people with this condition who are not
leaders will also suffer from complexity and will be conservative. The
greater the chaos in man's perception, the more he calls for authoritarian
leadership to bring order to chaos. Control-driven people then get the
wind in their sails to take on leadership. Political reality seems to
become more and more conservative or 'right', and it could be an expectable evolution in actual
turbulent times.
More and more research shows that softer
forms of autism are also caused by a relative lack of control of the
(slow) pre-frontal cortex of the brain over the impulses of the
(rapid) reflex brain. (2) People with autism can be very good at
level 1 intelligence (facts accumulate in memory), but gradually have more
difficulty with higher forms of intelligence. They cannot handle
complexity. (3) It makes you think about the political
change. It becomes completely dubious when we know that emotional
pressure during education has an inhibitory influence on the development of
the pre-frontal cortex and a stimulating effect on the emotionally
driven reflex brain. ( 4) Being
constantly on-line with modern interactive media has a similar
effect. It stimulates the development of the reflex brain, down to the
point of addiction, and leaves little or no room for the development
of pre-frontal thinking. (5) Did you know
that app developers for smartphones specialize in the mechanisms
that make an app addictive?
Hugo Der Kinderen
(1) Tom Peters, Robert Waterman, In search of
excellence, Harper & Row, New York, 1983
(2) Daniel Kahneman , Thinking fast and
slow, Penguin Books, 2012
(3) Temple
Grandin, Catherine Johnson, Animals in translation, Bloomsbury,
London, 2005
(4) Walter Mischel , The Marshmallow
test, Little Brown & Cy, New York, 2014
(5) Theo Compernolle ,
Ontketen je brein, Lannoo , Tielt, 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment