Envisioning Exercise

Once in a while, established institutions decide that they want to reinvent themselves. It's interesting to look at the reasons why they want to do it, the way they go about it, and the kinds of outcomes they expect or manufacture.

Why do they do it?

The most obvious reason is boredom or staleness. Having done the same thing for so long, and perhaps never ever having come close to their previous idea of a Promised Land, they have decided to change things around. Instead of some great and powerful vision, they want something easier, lighter, or more accessible; most of all, it must be different. It's a sort of itchy-backside syndrome, symptomatic of this modern age in which attention span lapses easily and people want to be entertained rather than think about how to do things right.

The second most common reason is relevance. Somehow, they feel they are not as relevant to the times as they ought to be. So they look at present-day trends and near-future trends in a very scientific-looking way and say, "Hey these are trends which we should be targeting our envisioning processes at!" or some such guff. It's guff because a vision is independent of relevance. For example, if a school has the vision, "Every Atlantean a superior being!" then the means of getting there can be tailored to be relevant but the vision need not be changed. A good vision is always relevant.

The third reason is that various rubrics for measuring institutional capability and institutional excellence seem to require it. "Hey we need an envisioning exercise so that the quality-control inspectors will see that we actually have a process for perverting distorting prostituting enhancing our original vision, mission, and philosophy!" Never mind that doing so probably means that you are altering the objectives of your five-year plan every three years and hence never achieving anything serious. But it maintains cash-flow, cynically speaking.

How do they do it?

The obvious method is the eponymous 'envisioning exercise' (or EE for short). A good EE starts with nice music, a fanfare, a keynote address. It is held in some place which feels prestigious (if meant to be a public display) or pleasantly conspiratorial (if meant to be an inner-circle bonding exercise). It continues by posing irrelevant questions (see previous section for some hints as to what these might be) and the mass dropping of keywords like some sort of cluster bombing. It has an all-encompassing theme, like "Envisioning the Role of the Ministry of Education Security Services [insert Name here] in the New Millennium".

Occasionally, this exercise is outsourced to a think-tank, what Churchill might have referred to as, "Boffins on tap, but not on top." This is surprisingly sometimes better with regard to the outcomes, since an external think-tank is less subject to groupthink relative to the original group. But this is a bit like saying, "I can't see clearly, so why don't you describe to me what I'm supposed to be seeing?"

In detail, what happens is this:

• the Boss (or boss-proxy) will call the cluster-bombing meeting or conference to attention and stress the great importance of this congregation to the future of the institution, the nation, and the world (not always in this order);
• a keynote address or opening statement will be given, that subtly (or not so subtly) incorporates all the buzzwords, terms, and propaganda required ideals;
• there may be secondary speakers, shouts of "Hear, hear!" and other sounds of agreement and support;
• time will be given for discussion (although it is often quite clear what outcomes are desired from the keynote speech or opening statement);
• break-out groups (not to be confused with break-dancing) will be formed to give the sense that everyone is involved in an intense search for grand unifying theories or overarching ideas or some such;
• the conclave will be reassembled and a quest for the holy grail meeting will be reconvened to give the Boss an opportunity to 'synthesize' a vision that he will emphasize is the product of much effort on the part of the participants.

It is all rather exciting for some people.

What are the expected outcomes?

To be blunt, the main outcome is what might be called the construction of a 'professionally relevant concept'. a sentence of modern (hence 'relevant') jargon (hence 'professional') which is sufficiently structured but indefinite (hence 'concept') as to look visionary. It is often hard to differentiate the truly visionary from the delusional; in this case, it is easy because the people playing at 'envisioning exercises' tend not to be delusional but cynical.

I've had my share of envisioning exercises over the years. You can find my thoughts on 'holistic education' by searching this blog, for example; I raise that particular phrase because it is one of the targets of modern envisioning in educational circles.

For me, I don't expect much from envisioning exercises. It strikes me that to be powerful and moving and relevant for all times and all ages, a vision must be obvious and yet ineffable. When we say 'grand endeavour' it is something a lot more than 'lots of work' or 'helluva job'. When we say 'signs of a better age', we aren't saying 'ads promising a good time'. Similarly, "Each man a shelter from the wind and a refuge from the storm" sounds a lot better than "Each man a scholar, officer and gentleman."

Of course, your mileage (and vision) may vary.