The Vision Think, and Its Limits
by Robert B. Denhardt
Director of Leadership Programs, Price School of Public Policy
University of Southern California
University of Southern California
“Life
is what happens while you are busy making other plans.” – John
Lennon
Many years ago, President George H. W. Bush made a
now-famous remark about “the vision thing.” Since that time, though
probably not because of that comment, the vision thing has become an essential
part of the lexicon of leadership. When people are asked what constitutes
leadership, they will almost always say something about vision – that the
leader is the one with the vision and the one with the power to move the
organization toward that vision.
For most organizations today, the process of
setting a vision is usually done through some sort of strategic planning
process, sometimes a formal process involving many different stakeholders, but
often an informal process in which the organization’s founders or those at the
top simply create and send out their vision for the organization. In either
case, the vision is a long term statement of a desired future, and is typically
elaborated by a statement of mission, which explains the rationale of the
organization and the means of achieving the vision. Based on the mission
statement, more specific objectives are then developed.
I’ve recently become skeptical of the vision thing,
especially as a definition of leadership. At a practical level, many
groups and organizations create (or unveil) a new statement of vision, mission,
and objectives, experience about three weeks of buzz, then ignore the stated
vision, etc. and go on their merry way. There are several reasons for this.
Some plans are simply not implementable – they bear little relevance to the
actual work “on the ground.” Others are almost immediately outdated, simply
because things change so quickly. You can’t plan for every eventuality.
To quote Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos - “Any plan won't survive its first encounter
with reality. The reality will always be different. It will never be the
plan." And when this happens the plan becomes irrelevant and simply takes
up shelf-space.
Second, and even worse, is the opposite effect -
groups and organizations become so tied to their vision that it acts as a
straightjacket, preventing members of the group from recognizing emerging
trends and responding to those new circumstances. Many start-ups fail precisely
because their founders are so tied to the their vision, so psychologically
committed, that they fail to see that what they hope to accomplish is
unachievable or has already been done by someone else, preempting the
market. And often just a slight deviation from the vision would have saved
the company.
Certainly groups and organizations need a direction
or a path to start out on, but they also must recognize when they need to move
in a new direction or take a new path. More than tunnel vision, they need peripheral
vision, the ability to see the big picture, including emerging threats and
opportunities. And they need agility, the capacity to learn and to change
directions in both a nimble and sophisticated way. Indeed, I would say
that the capacity for agility and adaptability trumps vision and plan every
time.
Third, in my view, the vision thing is simply not
essential to leadership. Leadership is about energizing a group, an
organization, or a society. Certainly a group may be energized by the
beauty and elegance of a vision – think, “I have a dream” – but there are many
others ways that groups can be energized as well. A group may be energized in
reaction to a disaster; a group may be energized by an attack from outside; a
group may be energized by someone modeling excellence in performance.
The role of the leader is not to create the vision,
but to develop and articulate a direction and purpose for the group or
organization. The opposite - having a vision or mission imposed by the
leader - may generate early excitement, but over the long term will likely suck
energy away from the group or organization. And, as we noted before, visions
and plans quickly encounter “contrary realities” and lose their relevance to a
rapidly changing “real world.” Frequently, those “on the ground” will
recognize those contrary realities more quickly than those at the top and active
resistance may occur.
A vision, in such cases, quickly turns into
fantasy. Just as many other “positives” carry with them the seeds of their
“negatives,” so it is with vision. Merriam-Webster cites the following synonyms
for “vision”: chimera, conceit, daydream, delusion, fancy, figment,
hallucination, illusion, phantasm, pipe dream, unreality, fantasy. How
many visions have you seen that ultimately turn into delusion, etc.?
Finally, since leadership must appeal to both the
head and especially the heart. In contrast to real acts of leadership, most
strategic planning processes implicitly seek to rationalize the organization’s
vision through statements of mission and objectives that drain the vision of
whatever emotive power it may have held at the outset. In implementation,
vision dissolves into technique.
What are the alternatives to “the vision thing,” as
it is currently constructed. I would suggest three correctives.
First, the idea of a vision as an “end state” should be replaced by the idea of
vision as a “direction” and a set of accompanying “principles” guiding movement
in that direction. Most vision statements today tell employees little
about what they should do today or tomorrow. It’s only when the vision is
rationalized that specific steps emerge, and, as we saw earlier, that process
drains the vision of its energy and turns it into uninspiring technique.
But statements of direction and principles speak more directly to the present
and the question of how we start.
General David Patraeus, recently speaking to a
class in the USC Executive Master of Leadership program, said that the role of
the strategic leader is not to set a vision. Indeed, he said, “Forget your
vision – tear it up.” Instead, the leader should set a tone for the organization,
providing example, direction and insight. In contrast to a vision,
Patraeus told the class that the leader should first come up with “Big Ideas,”
that will guide the organization. For example, going into Iraq, Patreaus
promoted the big idea of capturing “human terrain” rather than geographical
terrain. The notion was to secure the people, then move to reconciliation.
One of Fast Company’s “Generation Flux” exemplars,
Angela Blanchard, CEO of the Houston Neighborhood Centers, told me that direction
and purpose are more compelling than vision. “Values and purpose sustain
as we navigate chaotic climates. What keeps me clear is a set of beliefs
about people and the world we live in. The “how” changes constantly as
learning occurs, as new information comes to us, as experimentation pays
off. What doesn’t change is the “why” of our work.”
Second, a sense of direction and purpose can
retain the inspirational or emotive power leadership requires, but also bring
clarity concerning key issues facing the organization. An alternative to
encasing the vision thing in a rational planning process is what my friend
Ralph Kerle calls “envisioning.” He writes: “Skillful envisioning uses
imagination instead of problem solving to direct the creative flow in an
organization articulating purpose in a manner that has the power to bring
employees, stakeholders, and customers together to create meaningful
futures.” In contrast to a strictly rational planning process,
Kerle is describing an aesthetic process for setting the group’s direction and
purpose, something far more likely to retain the energizing power of
leadership.
The process must also emphasize clarity and meaning. One
of the very most important capabilities of a leader is the capacity to take
complex material and boil it down to the essence – to be able to state what is
really important in a short but meaningful and memorable fashion. One corporate
CEO told me, “Managers make things complex, leaders make things simple.” To state one’s direction and purpose in terms that are clear and meaningful is
an essential aspect of leadership.
Again, Angela Blanchard suggested that you should
be able to articulate your direction in ten words or less beginning with the
phrase, “We exist to . . . .” Robert Safian of Fast Company
replied, slightly exceeding the ten word limit, that “At Fast Company, we believe
that business is the primary vehicle for progress in our world. We exist
to encourage business to live up to that responsibility, to be the best version
of itself.” Blanchard herself, on behalf of Neighborhood Centers,
offered, “We exist to... keep our region a place of opportunity for
everyone.”
A third element that comes into play in setting
direction and purpose is flexibility and reflexivity. Once more from
Angela Blanchard: “You must move through this chaotic, fast-changing world with
an eye for an opportunity – focusing on what works and what is strong, using
what’s available to build something better, faster, more effective. It is
not about choosing to be either flexible or consistent; it’s about being
flexible and consistent at the same time.”
Danah Boyd, Chief Researcher at Microsoft, agrees:
“I don't think it makes sense to use a North Star metaphor to think about
vision. Yes, a long-term vision has inspirational value, but it should not
be static. What is static in my mind are core values. I view my
values as my North Star and am acutely aware of how my practices and vision
changes over time, even when my core values do not.” The key to aligning
ones actions with one’s values is reflexivity, the capacity for self-reflection
and self-critique. Reflexivity, at both the personal and organizational
level, is what makes real, meaningful, and enduring change possible.
And General Patraeus points out that “Big Ideas”
are not born fully grown. Developing Big Ideas is a process that takes time and
discussion, and one that often needs to involve many different people, both
inside the organization and outside. “Big ideas don’t hit you at once; you get
a little kernel at a time.” Big Ideas evolve over time – as they should.
Ultimately, what the leader needs to do is to
clarify the ideas and principles that will guide the work of the organization,
while at the same time building a capacity for reflexive learning and energizing
the group or organization. That work, incompletely captured by the
simplistic idea of the “vision thing,” is really the essence of
leadership.
No comments:
Post a Comment