|
Overview
John Rollwagen
and Verne C. Johnson
reflect on the need for vision and planning in both private and public
sectors and consider whether lessons learned in private sector
planning may be applied to the public sector. The need for a state
vision is discussed, as are ideas about how to arrive at one.
For the complete
interview summary see:
http://bit.ly/Peyz1I
Response Summary:
Readers have been asked to rate, on a scale of (0) most disagreement,
to (5) neutral, to (10) most agreement, the following points discussed
by
Rollwagen and Johnson. Average response ratings shown below are simply
the mean of all readers’ zero-to-ten responses to the ideas proposed
and should not be considered an accurate reflection of a
scientifically structured poll.
1. Vision of
future is necessary.
(8.7
average response)
Minnesotans need
a concise statement of what they aspire their state to be, expressed
in a way people can understand and support. A vision is a conception
of the future, not a statement of where the state is today.
2. Start with
basic questions.
(8.1
average response)
To achieve a
mutually desirable end, visioning in Minnesota should start with
questions such as: What does it mean to live in Minnesota? What’s the
state all about? What should it be about? Why do I want to live here?
3. Rigid
disagreement yields gridlock.
(8.2
average response)
However,
fundamental disagreement is present on the direction of the state, and
until that is resolved there will be gridlock.
4. Public/private
approaches differ.
(8.6
average response)
Preparing a
vision in the private sector is fundamentally different from the
public sector. In the private sector those who don't buy in to a
vision can leave or be made to leave. But in the public sector all are
included and all are affected by the state's vision or lack thereof.
Decision-making in the public sector must incorporate a panoply of
interests.
5. Governor
should lead effort.
(7.3
average response)
The Governor
could play a key role by appointing a broadly representative
commission to develop a vision for the state.
6. Competing
visions inevitable.
(4.5
average response)
One vision for
the state isn't realistic. There'll always be competing visions
because of political differences.
|
Response
Distribution: |
Strongly
disagree |
Moderately
disagree |
Neutral |
Moderately
agree |
Strongly agree |
Total
Responses |
|
1. Vision of
future is necessary. |
5% |
5% |
0% |
16% |
74% |
19 |
|
2. Start with
basic questions. |
0% |
0% |
16% |
42% |
42% |
19 |
|
3. Rigid
disagreement yields gridlock. |
0% |
11% |
0% |
47% |
42% |
19 |
|
4.
Public/private approaches differ. |
0% |
5% |
16% |
16% |
63% |
19 |
|
5. Governor
should lead effort. |
11% |
16% |
0% |
26% |
47% |
19 |
|
6. Competing
visions inevitable. |
11% |
42% |
16% |
16% |
16% |
19 |
Individual
Responses:
R. C.
Angevine (7.5) (7.5) (10) (5) (7.5) (7.5)
4. Public/private
approaches differ.
I think this is a bit over simplified. If you don't like it where you
live you can also leave (not easily maybe but then finding a new job
isn't easy either). I would agree that since the public sector, at
the state level, is generally much larger than most companies and the
range of interests is bound to be bigger.
5. Governor should
lead effort.
On the other hand, getting a "broadly-representative" group in today's
partisan environment to agree on anything is problematic at best.
James
Kielkopf (0) (7.5) (10) (10) (0) (10)
1. Vision of
future is necessary.
If such a statement were possible, it would be the outcome of a
contested political process, which is no different than that which the
current process allows for. With each election of a new governor, the
candidates essentially craft a vision statement and take it to voters
every four years. What could another contested vision statement
possibly add to that?
2. Start with
basic questions.
These are the questions that candidates for public office in Minnesota
should be asking during each election.
3. Rigid
disagreement yields gridlock.
This is not insightful.
5. Governor should
lead effort.
This would be a political game. It might be helpful for gaining a
greater consensus than what was obtained during the last election, but
it would be just another form of that game.
Ray
Ayotte (10) (10) (7.5) (10) (10) (0)
Scott
Halstead (10) (7.5) (10) (10) (10) (7.5)
6. Competing
visions inevitable.
Perhaps the vision should come from the citizens, and the citizens
measure how the governor and legislature perform on attaining the
vision.
Don
Anderson (10) (10) (7.5) (10) (10) (7.5)
1. Vision of
future is necessary.
Unless we have a vision of the future, how can we realistically set
goals for the present?
3. Rigid
disagreement yields gridlock.
How can we plan for the future when we have the present system of
political election funding with its goals for the present?
4. Public/private
approaches differ.
However the private sector has the advantage because the funding and
results are for that private enterprise, not (for) the diverse public
sector factions.
6. Competing
visions inevitable.
That's the problem. Diverse political funding leads to multiple
visions.
Anonymous (10) (7.5) (7.5) (5) (10) (2.5)
Bruce
Ahlgren (10) (10) (10) (10) (10) (2.5)
3. Rigid
disagreement yields gridlock.
We need both parties to work for the people first and the party
second, not the other way around.
4. Public/private
approaches differ.
In the private sector you can choose your own destiny at anytime. In
the public sector if you stay there so long and do not move on, the
golden handcuffs keep you there to the end, especially if you are a
dedicated public servant.
5. Governor should
lead effort.
I believe the governor does just that. The governor appointed me to
the Tax Reform/LGA committee that is comprised of Democrat,
Independent and Republican Mayors. Not that we have to declare, but
it is represented by all minds.
6. Competing
visions inevitable.
We need to elect people who want to work for the people not just the
party. There is so much work that should be done for the good of the
state and people; the party should come some where down the line.
Josh
D. Ondich (7.5) (7.5) (7.5) (10) (7.5) (2.5)
Dave
Broden (10) (10) (7.5) (10) (2.5) (0)
1. Vision of
future is necessary.
A branding message rather than a concise statement is perhaps a better
way to express what is needed. Citizen understanding and buy-in to the
message is what is needed.
2. Start with
basic questions.
Question asks the fundamental first question in establishing a vision
of a company or organization. To achieve this answer will require
input from all parts and demographics of the state not just a small
group, handpicked and considered experience wonks. This must be built
by all the people.
3. Rigid
disagreement yields gridlock.
It is not clear if the disagreement is on the direction of the state
or some of the paths to achieve the objective. Many of the people
working to do legislation do not understand the difference between a
vision and state objectives/message and paths forward, so they focus
on the path not the objective. It will take leadership and a
well-defined process to get to the point.
4. Public/private
approaches differ.
This simply stated says that leadership and buy-in must be the first
objective before doing the vision. People across the state must
recognize that someone cares about the future, and all must join in.
Then all interest groups will be there.
5. Governor should
lead effort.
We and others place far too much focus on the governor as the answer
to the state vision and future. The people are the future. The citizen
leaders across the state are the future. Citizen groups recognizing
the need and working together, as is happening across the state, is
the answer. We cannot ignore the work that is in process; we must use
this work and move ahead not waiting for a governor to say he is in
charge.
6. Competing
visions inevitable.
This question again gets to the understanding of vision vs. the
actions to get there. Difference will and should exist regarding the
path, but a singular vision or a short list of vision messages common
across the political spectrum is needed and can be done with good
understanding of the process.
David
Dillon (10) (10) (10) (10) (0) (5)
5. Governor should
lead effort.
Maybe a governor but not this governor, nor likely any governor
elected out of the current system that starts with the most polarized
(the tiny minority that goes to the caucuses) and selects candidates
that appeal to (those) from the extremes.
6. Competing
visions inevitable.
Maybe so, but a good vision, well articulated, can gather enough
support to be sufficient to govern.
Dennis L. Johnson (2.5) (5) (10) (5) (2.5) (10)
1. Vision of
future is necessary.
I don't think one will ever find a consensus among residents of the
state, and it is not necessary that there be one. Any vision will be
ephemeral, since leadership is in a constant state of change.
2. Start with
basic questions.
These questions are useful to get people thinking, but I think there
will be as many answers as there are people expressing an opinion. For
some it is jobs, for some it is recreation, for some it is education,
for some it is inertia, for some it is family, etc.
3. Rigid
disagreement yields gridlock.
Minnesota must first choose between being a nanny state or an
opportunity state. It is now deeply divided, and leaning toward the
nanny state option. This choice is even more vital than trying to
create a vision, which could possibly then ensue if a choice is ever
made.
4. Public/private
approaches differ.
For that reason, there is little chance of a consensus on a vision in
the public sector.
5. Governor should
lead effort.
I doubt it. What is to say that a succeeding governor will adopt the
vision of his or her predecessor?
6. Competing
visions inevitable.
Very true
Malcolm McDonald (10) (10) (10) (10) (10) (10)
All 10's because
they are all so true. What we need also is to identify what is
working well and how to have more of it. Much of what we now are
forced to do comes from not focusing, and we can so focus, on having
each and every 2 to 3 year old looking forward to and actually
attending a high quality pre-school tied to local kindergartens and
funded (by) the income from the investments provided by the Permanent
School Trust Fund
Chuck
Lutz (10) (10) (8) (8) (9) (3)
Al
Quie (10) (5) (10) (10) (10) (1)
Rollwagen and
Johnson are a couple of the most thoughtful and capable people to
speak on this subject, and their recommendations are excellent.
However, I have some additional thoughts on the matter. I think we
should start with values before the vision, and of course vision is
different from planning. The leader articulates the vision and the
organizations carry it out, but the leader must live, demonstrate and
occasionally articulate the values. The three most important values
are rigid, complete integrity; aggressive, courageous collaboration;
and no excuses. It could be expressed in the three words, truth, grace
and transparency. Grace without truth can be deceptive. Truth without
grace can be debilitating. The people are intellectual enough and
emotionally strong enough to know the truth.
Donald Mark Ritchie (na) (na) (na) (na) (na) (na)
Great piece - I am
anxious to see who picks up on these ideas and suggestions.
Wayne
Jennings (10) (10) (3) (8) (9) (2)
Exciting
discussion. I would have liked some examples of state visions or a
trial statement from the participants. Making an all encompassing
vision for the state may be too amorphous to be more than a slogan,
e.g. something about the “good life” or “first” or “marching in the
future.”
I would hope not. I can see something like the phrase, “giving all
citizens the means for a democratic, just and sustainable lives” but
any statement leads to very different interpretations.
I can more easily see vision statements for each of major divisions of
state government such as education (preparing students for success),
labor (ensuring Minnesota's work and living environments are
equitable, healthy and safe), transportation (your destination, our
priority). Maybe it starts there.
Mission statements must then guide every action. Every word of the
mission must be parsed for its meaning and implications. The best
example I know of is the Chugach School District in Alaska which over
eight years totally reversed its awful outcomes and in the process won
the Malcolm Baldrige award, the first school district to do so
(http://www.nist.gov/baldrige/chugach.cfm). I recall a speaker
describing how staff spent three days just examining every word of
their mission for its meeting and implications and (whether) every
staff member really subscribed to the mission. From the mission, they
built a unique program. It took time but the district accomplishes
outstanding results despite a very high-needs population.
Thank you Civic Caucus for your stimulating discussions of pressing
issues.
Tom
Spitznagle (10) (8) (7) (9) (10) (2)
Stephen Bosacker (10) (8) (4) (4) (3) (3)
When people or
groups think they can win over other groups in conversations about
vision and direction, trust is degraded and openness to further
conversations erodes. Minnesota politics have degraded to a stance of
one side winning and therefore "deeming" that our state vision is
their vision. This is a false vision. Because of the highly divided
rhetoric in political settings, real conversations about dreams,
vision and desires for the future of MN are naturally hindered.
Private and public discussions that are converted to win-lose
propositions do not create genuine agreement. As soon as groups play
the power game everyone retreats into their corners to fight.
However, it is proven that large citywide discussions produce
meaningful decisions. This can be expanded to counties and the state.
Rod Collins (wiki-management.com) developed a practice called Work
Thru's. This practice works when specific rules are followed in
conversations and discussions. The rules forbid tactics that
politicize the discussion (one group wins over another). While
developed in a private setting, these principles and practices can be
adapted to larger scale public conversations. Small and large group
conversations are accomplished every month. See St. Louis Park's
visioning for the next 10 years (2009, www.mobiusmodel.com/). While
St. Louis Park did not get 100% participation, the events represented
a significant portion of the city and contributed to large scale, long
term plans for the city.
For Minnesotans to agree on a shared vision there needs to be a guided
and open series of conversations in multiple directions between many
different groups. The participants need to enforce the rules of
conversation to keep things from getting politicized. Focusing on
personal values and aspirations for their lives is an important
starting point. Most groups need help to guide them to positive and
agreeable conclusions. Trained facilitators can help with this.
I believe political leaders must demonstrate to the state that
respectful and non-power-oriented conversations can be done and result
in meaningful agreement. Then they can encourage everyone else to have
similar conversations. Alternatively, the people at the grass roots
can just start without the political leaders and eventually override
the political power plays. The issues and complexities of our issues
are too important for us to play the same old political games.
Compromise or domination will not create the solutions we need.
Similarly, if the governor creates a commission to develop a vision
for MN, it will backfire due to the distrust and power plays
politically motivated people use to win.
Carolyn Ring (8) (6) (9) (10) (8) (5)
In question 5 the
emphasis should be on "broad based."
George Pillsbury (10) (5) (8) (10) (10) (5) |
