By Dr. Sablone and Dr. Brodbeck.
A powerful vision must be developed individually for the respective company and should be free of platitudes in communication. The article illuminates the elementary core ideas that should be considered when developing a vision.
The idea that organisations, companies and even entire countries need a vision of the future that guides their development far beyond day-to-day operations became very popular in the 1980s. There were famous opponents such as former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt – his quote is unforgettable: “Anyone who has visions should go to the doctor” – and hapless advocates such as Edzard Reuter, who, as Chairman of the Board of Management, wanted to develop what was then Daimler-Benz AG into an “integrated technology group” through diversification .
Visions as a tool
Nevertheless, visions were able to establish themselves and become an integral part of the business tools. So what originally emerged from isolated brilliant minds or intrepid souls – think Henry Ford, Estée Lauder, Steve Jobs and Elon Musk in business or Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King in politics – is now expected of every organization. Managing directors of SMEs are therefore faced with the challenge of providing a statement about the long-term future of the organization as to whether such a venture suits them or not. How should they best go about doing this?
Four core ideas
In the following, we focus on four core ideas that should be considered when developing a vision.
1. The danger of interchangeable platitudes
In its original meaning, vision has to do with imagination, with creative power, with the intuitive side of thinking. However, the development of a creative idea for a vision “at the push of a button” is extremely demanding, so the temptation to take the path of least resistance is tempting. This typically manifests itself in three forms:
Use proven “classics”: Statements such as: “The market leader in selected segments”, “The number one or two in the industry” sound good. After all, such leadership-oriented visions were also groundbreaking for well-known companies. General Electric became famous for this under the leadership of the charismatic Jack Welch, but Walmart and Heinz also followed this logic.
It becomes problematic when there is no serious intention behind the statement. If you just want to set a distant goal that doesn’t bother you too much in your day-to-day life, the length of time can become a constant excuse for not getting there. When this becomes clear in the organization, cynicism sets in, the killer of all intrinsic motivation.
Formulate the obvious in a neat way: When a bank announces that it “satisfies the financial needs of its customers innovatively and sustainably” or wants to be “the promising hub for financial transactions”, it formulates the vision from the customer’s point of view as a matter of course. What else was she supposed to do? Design your offer as backward and short-lived? Or what other customer needs should it satisfy other than financial ones? It’s just a bank! The same applies to numerous organizations, such as the chemical group BASF, which states: “We are ‘The Chemical Company’ and work successfully in all important markets”, or pharmaceutical companies that promise to improve the quality of life of patients: They all address basic requirements, which we as customers simply expect and which we would be at most disappointed if we didn’t meet them.
The task of “developing a vision statement” is thus completed, but its effect remains modest: these formulations do not create any radiance – neither for customers nor for the company’s own employees.
Declaring laudable intentions: Visions such as “The best service – for customers, retailers, employees” (Rewe) express good intentions, but offer little guidance for the day-to-day activities of the company. Such statements can still be relevant and meaningful if they initiate a clear change in the company’s basic orientation, for example away from the pure profit-maximizing shareholder to a comprehensive stakeholder orientation.
2. The misguided urge for broad participation
All visions are united by the intention to bundle the strengths of as many employees as possible – ideally all of them – in order to ignite the energy that is required to achieve a particularly demanding goal. How can such a suction effect be created? A school of thought of organizational development pushes in the direction of a grassroots-democratic elaboration of the vision. This is based on the assumption that “ownership” also generates a corresponding “commitment”.
However, finding consensus in groups is difficult – and the level of difficulty increases disproportionately as the number of participants increases. The initial level of knowledge, the competences, the skills, the interests and the ways of thinking of those involved are too different. In addition, there are personalities of different strengths and the unavoidable influence of existing power imbalances. The task is often formulated so openly that some are (too) strongly oriented towards current reality, while others completely ignore the initial situation and thus quickly find themselves in the realm of the utopian. The risk of not finding a consensus increases.
To ensure that a result is still available at the end of these exercises, which usually take place under time pressure, two different behavior patterns can be observed:
Agreeing on the lowest common denominator: The group agrees on the lowest common denominator. Consequence: The resulting vision has far too little charisma: it doesn’t “disturb” but doesn’t motivate anyone either. Gunter Dueck describes this phenomenon very impressively in his bestseller “Schwarmdumm”.
Assertion of a minority: A person or a sub-group prevails against the resistance of the other participants, whereby the well-intentioned grassroots democratic process has exactly the opposite effect: the vision is not accepted by the “losers” and in the worst case even torpedoed.
3. Four characteristics of a vision with bite
What characterizes a vision that is worth significantly more than the paper it is written on? We distinguish four core properties:
The vision is trend-setting, relevant and meaningful. It is intended to convey briefly and concisely to both employees and external partners the direction in which the organization wants to develop. The question to be answered is “why”, not “what” and “how”.
The vision has a decision-supporting effect and guides action. Whenever there are several options for action or room for development, the vision should at least make a decision significantly easier. This applies to strategic decisions (e.g. when defining focus areas for the innovation process) as well as to the everyday behavior of employees. Starbucks’ vision is: “We are the third location between work and home.” It quickly becomes clear why the restaurants are furnished with sofas and why the staff doesn’t bother us several hours after we’ve ordered the first espresso while we’re working on our laptop.
The vision is motivating. With every vision, the question arises as to why it is worth achieving it, what will change if we work together as an organization to implement it. This requires that the desired state is not only formulated objectively, but is also emotionally charged at the same time. The German statutory accident insurance provides a good example: “Our Vision Zero: A world in which work is safe and healthy. A world without fatal and serious accidents at work.»
The vision is easy to communicate. A vision is well formulated when it passes the “grandmother test”: it has to be explained and understood in 30 seconds. Sonova provides a good example: “Our vision is simple: a world in which there is a solution for every hearing loss and in which everyone can experience the joy of hearing equally.”
4. Joint development versus joint implementation
The desire for a change, for the realization of an undertaking that has never been attempted before, usually comes from a few, often even individual people. In contrast, the effective implementation of the vision requires that as many members of the organization as possible are responsible for it. Two components make the creative imagination less of a rousing movement for everyone: firstly, the attraction of the vision itself, which arouses the desire to implement it, and secondly, the charisma of the people who embody the vision and become role models for many.
Being a role model is an obligation: Executives cannot afford to make decisions and actions that are contrary to the vision – otherwise they would lose their credibility, which would also mean that employees’ obligation to implement the vision would become obsolete.
On the other hand, when implementing the vision, employees need sufficient scope for experimentation and innovation. This requires management mechanisms that go beyond control and process descriptions: clear goals, but freedom in choosing the ways to achieve goals.
Conclusion
A powerful vision draws an inspiring, identity-forming picture of the future, tailored to the respective company. The frequently encountered interchangeable platitudes are ineffective or even smiled at with slight cynicism. When developing the vision, one should free oneself from the claim of an approach that is as broadly supported as possible. On the other hand, a broad assumption of responsibility for their implementation is crucial to success.
In addition, visions usually have a half-life and need to be revised because they are either achieved or lose their meaning due to changed external circumstances. A Japanese proverb sums up the benefit of visions:
«Vision without action is a daydream. Action without vision is a nightmare.”
Authors:
Prof. Dr. Andrea L. Sablone
Dr. Harald Brodbeck
Source: Swiss Distance University of Applied Sciences