|
||
|
Vision In the group’s consideration of this topic a number of issues were explored - foresight versus insight vision (insight into the current state) and the efficiency/inefficiency of a "good enough" vision. In organizations we have traditionally been concerned about foresight, or a vision of the future. One of the paradoxes in complexity is that when a system is far-from-equilibrium it is adaptable but unpredictable. What makes it adaptable though is the increased capacity for "sight", or understanding of the current context. Vision in a complexity context becomes something like a belief in the underlying order of the process, requiring a rethinking of vision from seeing to believing. A member of the group expressed it this way - "It seems to me I've given up the hope of having foresight. The most I have is the ongoing confidence that the people I work with, and me with them, will choose the best place to put our foot down next as we wander around the wilderness of organizational living… Making the best of each place requires a kind of collective consciousness that I feel more than see. Also in this conversation was an examination of the concept of "good enough" vision and whether its use was inefficient. "Good enough" recognizes that you cannot have a clear and explicit vision for the future in an inherently unpredictable system. The best you can do is "good enough" and then to get moving, acting, and watching for patterns and direction to emerge. Reference was made to the similarity of this conception of vision to the "semi-coherent strategy" advanced by Brown and Eisenhardt in their new book Competing on the Edge. The conclusion of the discussion was that following the "good enough" vision approach was, in the long-run as efficient as one could expect to be in uncertain times. And definitely more efficient than wasting time trying to predict the unknowable.
|
||
|
Copyright
© 2000, VHA Inc. Permission |