Striking Balance: Vision, Mission and Coherence

In the last couple of weeks I've read some articles and listened to interviews with  Judith Curry and Steven Pinker.  Their areas of expertise are different from one another's and they have different ways of looking at things, but it struck me that in their own, very different ways they both question the prudence of basing policies on what ifs.  That's an interesting question for a start-up organization to consider. Should it set its agenda based on the state of things as they are, or on the state of things as the organization projects that they will be at some point in the future?  For an on-going concern on the other hand, the answer should be apparent from its bold vision, clear mission and thoughtful strategic plan.   

That question, however, led me to its cousin:  live for the moment? plan for tomorrow? While most people prefer to plan for the future, it turns out that people who live in the moment tend to be happier.  In fact, a wandering mind often is the cause, rather than merely a consequence, of unhappiness. Since, as humans, our goal is to be both happy and prepared, I think we can reconcile these two axioms. But how do you strike the right balance for a mission-driven organization?

As an organization the right balance is decidedly unbalanced. Plan for the future. Resist the temptation to apply for grants and accept funding that is available in the moment, but distracts the organization from its core purpose and strengths. Make the difficult decision to temporarily trim programs, rather than to spend down reserves to an unreasonable level. In the end, the goal of an organization is to get results. So for the sake of sustainability and results (and so the living beings that the organization ultimately serves will be happy) remain coherent and committed to your core purpose. 

Interconnected

I have an uncanny and sometimes useless ability to see connections between almost everything.

It's why I am a proponent of multi-disciplinary collaboration. It's why I am at once fascinated  by brain-based teaching and at the same time baffled by the notion that it is new. How could it ever have been otherwise?  How could education possibly be disconnected from cognition and neuroscience?

Recently I was interviewed for a donor profile.  The profile talks about why I support GreenLaw. In addition to questions that circled around the reasons I invest time and money in Greenlaw's work, I was also asked why I always discuss the environment in the context of health and education. The truth is, it never occurs to me to think about it in any other way. We know that our environment substantially impacts our health; sickness impacts our ability to learn, and we cannot succeed, whatever that means, if we do not learn. 

So today I am thinking about interconnectedness and trying to understand whether there is value in considering issues in a disconnected way. Some topics fueling my consideration are learning for the sake of learning, art for art's sake, Silent Spring, selfless philanthropy.