Wow! This is a difficult essentiality for me.
But I wish to share two thoughts which popped into my brain when I was
reading this lesson:
I found the 2+2=4 joke instructive.
2+2=4.
But 1+3=4 as well.
Who is right? Of course both.
But you cannot compromise: 1+2 is not 4, neither is 2+3=4 or 1+2+2+3....
This reminds me of the question: Which religion is the right one? Or in
the terminology of this essentiality: How can one be sure of ones own
ground, if other ground claims for its right as well? You must and must
not judge!!(?).
I also like the process of analysis and synthesis as a metaphor for
sureness. I recognised, that our strategic process is exactly this
(strategic analysis - strategic design). It is always impaired when one
cannot stop analysing or when one tries to design a strategy without
"solid ground". And what is the purpose of strategy? Of course to provide
sureness to the actions of the company!
May be, this essentiality is so difficult for me, because it is so close
to the "red wire" in my life (dealing with safety products - vehicle
braking systems, and strategy).
Best regrards,
Winfried
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>