into.
This vision should not only be a stated goal – or a hard objective. It has to also be a moral statement or a position that is recognised at the very least as neutral regarding the basic beliefs that underlie all human religious activity – patience, hope, understanding, humility, civilised conduct and co-operation. The vision cannot come into conflict, at least not with people who have some ethical construction – with these basic ideals. This is very true in an integrated world. Despite the many horrors of human history and the swings in the pendulum of human morality, one can point to the gradual emergence of more sophisticated ways of thinking in the areas of morality and civility.
Leaders are also evolving their morale themes — Jean Monnet, Churchill and Gandhi would be examples since they developed in their constituencies a more complex way of thinking; in effect they communicated a vision with a meaning. Many leaders fail the vision test since their stated goals are material and ignore the ethical. As Freud expressed; “the voice of the intellect is a soft one, but it does not rest until it has gained a hearing. Ultimately, after endlessly repeated rebuffs, it succeeds. This is one of the few points in which one may be optimistic about the future of mankind.” The intellect is concerned not only with achievement but also with emotional needs.
People need spiritual as well as material meaning. The vision then has to conform to many different pressures and levels of expectation. It must be pure in ethics, strategies, and philosophy to garner complete and unchanging support from those involved. The handling of this vision and its changing character or adaptation to a changing environment, and in