From Personal Visions to Shared Visions

FROM PERSONAL VISIONS TO SHARED VISIONS

How do individual visions join to create shared visions? A useful metaphor is the hologram, the three-dimensional image created by interacting light sources.

If you cut a photograph in half, each part shows only part of the whole image. But if you divide a hologram, each part shows the whole image intact. Smaller pieces can also retain information about the whole image, though dividing the hologram reduces the quality and viewing range available from each piece. Likewise, when a group of people come to share a vision for an organization, each person sees his own picture of the organization at its best. Each shares responsibility for the whole, not just for his piece. But the component “pieces” of the hologram are not identical. Each represents the whole image from a different point of view. It’s as if you were to look through holes poked in a window shade; each hole would offer a unique angle for viewing the whole image. So, too, is each individual’s vision of the whole unique. We each have our own way of seeing the larger vision.

When you add up the pieces of a hologram, the image of the whole does not change fundamentally. After all, it was there in each piece. Rather the image becomes more intense, more lifelike. When more people come to share a common vision, the vision may not change fundamentally. But it becomes more alive, more real in the sense of a mental reality that people can truly imagine achieving. They now have partners, “cocreators”; the vision no longer rests on their shoulders alone. Early on, when they are nurturing an individual vision, people may say it is “my vision.” But as the shared vision develops, it becomes both “my vision” and “our vision.”

The first step in mastering the discipline of building shared visions is to give up traditional notions that visions are always announced from “on high” or come from an organization’s institutionalized planning processes.

In the traditional hierarchical organization, no one questioned that the vision emanated from the top. Often, the big picture guiding the firm wasn’t even shared—all people needed to know were their “marching orders,” so that they could carry out their tasks in support of the larger vision.

That traditional top-down vision is not much different from a process that has become popular in recent years. Top management goes off to write its vision statement, often with the help of consultants. This may be done to solve the problem of low morale or lack of strategic direction. Sometimes the process is primarily reflective. Sometimes it incorporates extensive analysis of a firm’s competitors, market setting, and organizational strengths and weaknesses. Regardless, the results are often disappointing for several reasons.

First, such a vision is often a one-shot vision, a single effort at providing overarching direction and meaning to the firm’s strategy. Once it’s written, management assumes that they have now discharged their visionary duties. Recently, one of my Innovation Associates colleagues was explaining to two managers how our group works with vision. Before he could get far, one of the managers interrupted. “We’ve done that,” he said. “We’ve already written our vision statement.” “That’s very interesting,” my colleague responded. “What did you come up with?” The one manager turned to the other and asked, “Joe, where is that vision statement anyhow?” Writing a vision statement can be a first step in building shared vision but, alone, it rarely makes a vision come alive within an organization.

The second problem with top management going off to write their vision statement is that the resulting vision does not build on people’s personal visions. Often, personal visions are ignored altogether in the search for a strategic vision. Or the official vision reflects only the personal vision of one or two people. There is little opportunity for inquiry and testing at every level so that people feel they understand and own the vision. As a result, the new official vision also fails to foster energy and commitment. It simply does not inspire people. In fact, sometimes, it even generates little passion among the top management team who created it.

Lastly, vision is not a solution to a problem. If it is seen in that light, when the “problem” of low morale or unclear strategic direction goes away, the energy behind the vision will go away also. Building shared vision must be seen as a central element of the daily work of leaders. It is ongoing and never-ending. It is actually part of a larger leadership activity: designing and nurturing “governing ideas” of the enterprise—not only its vision per se, but its purpose and core values as well.

Sometimes, managers expect shared visions to emerge from a firm’s strategic planning process. But for all the same reasons that most top-down visioning processes fail, most strategic planning also fails to nurture genuine vision. According to Hamel and Prahalad:

Creative strategies seldom emerge from the annual planning ritual. The starting point for next year’s strategy is almost always this year’s strategy. Improvements are incremental. The company sticks to the segments and territories it knows, even though the real opportunities may be elsewhere. The impetus for Canon’s pioneering entry into the personal copier business came from an overseas sales subsidiary—not from planners in Japan.8

This is not to say that visions cannot emanate from the top. Often, they do. But sometimes they emanate from personal visions of individuals who are not in positions of authority. Sometimes they just “bubble up” from people interacting at many levels. The origin of the vision is less important than the process whereby it comes to be shared. It is not truly a “shared vision” until it connects with the personal visions of people throughout the organization.

For those in leadership positions, what is most important is to remember that their visions are still personal visions. Just because they occupy a position of leadership does not mean that their personal visions are automatically “the organization’s vision.” When I hear leaders say “our vision” and I know they are really describing “my vision,” I recall Mark Twain’s words that the official “we” should be reserved for “kings and people with tapeworm.”

Ultimately, leaders intent on building shared visions must be willing to continually share their personal visions. They must also be prepared to ask, “Will you follow me?” This can be difficult. For a person who has been setting goals all through his career and simply announcing them, asking for support can feel very vulnerable.

John Kryster was the president of a large division of a leading home products company who had a vision that his division should be preeminent in its industry. This vision required not only excellent products but that the company supply the product to their “customer” (retail grocers), in a more efficient and effective manner than anyone else. He envisioned a unique worldwide distribution system that would get product to the customer in half the time and at a fraction of the cost in wastage and reshipments. He began to talk with other managers, production workers, distribution people, and grocers. Everyone seemed enthusiastic, but pointed out that many of his ideas could not be achieved because they contradicted so many traditional policies of the corporate parent.

In particular, Kryster needed the support of the head of product distribution, Harriet Sullivan, who—while technically Kryster’s peer in the firm’s matrix organization—had fifteen years more experience. Kryster prepared an elaborate presentation for Sullivan to show her the merits of his new distribution ideas. But for every piece of supporting data he offered, Sullivan had a countering criticism. Kryster left the meeting thinking that the doubters were probably right.

Then he conceived of a way to test the new system out in only one geographic market. The risk would be less, and he could gain the support of the local grocery chain which had been especially enthusiastic about the concept. But what should he do about Harriet Sullivan? His instincts were just not to tell her. After all, he had the authority to undertake the experiment himself, using his own distribution people. Yet, he also valued Sullivan’s experience and judgment.

After a week of mulling it over, Kryster went back to ask for Sullivan’s support. This time, though, he left his charts and data at home. He just told her why he believed in the idea, how it could forge a new partnership with customers, and how its merits could be tested with low risk. To his surprise, the crusty distribution chief started to offer help in designing the experiment. “When you came to me last week,” she said, “you were trying to convince me. Now, you’re willing to test your idea. I still think it’s wrongheaded, but I can see you care a great deal. So, who knows, maybe we’ll learn something.”

Senge reports that Kryster’s distribution system subsequently spread to most of the corporation’s divisions worldwide, reducing costs and contributing to strategic alliances with retail chains.

When visions start in the middle of an organization the process of sharing and listening is essentially the same as when they originate at the top. But it may take longer, especially if the vision has implications for the entire organization.

Organizational consultant Charlie Kiefer says that, “Despite the excitement that a vision generates, the process of building shared vision is not always glamorous. Managers who are skilled at building shared visions talk about the process in ordinary terms. ‘Talking about our vision’ just gets woven into day-to-day life. Most artists don’t get very excited about the process of creating art. They get excited about the results.” Or, as Bill O’Brien puts it, “Being a visionary leader is not about giving speeches and inspiring the troops. How I spend my day is pretty much the same as how any executive spends his day. Being a visionary leader is about solving day-to-day problems with my vision in mind.”

Visions that are truly shared take time to emerge. They grow as a by-product of interactions of individual visions. Experience suggests that visions that are genuinely shared require ongoing conversation where individuals not only feel free to express their dreams, but learn how to listen to each others’ dreams. Out of this listening, new insights into what is possible gradually emerge.

Listening is often more difficult than talking, especially for strong-willed managers with definite ideas of what is needed. It requires extraordinary openness and willingness to entertain a diversity of ideas. This does not imply that we must sacrifice our vision “for the larger cause.” Rather, we must allow multiple visions to coexist, listening for the right course of action that transcends and unifies all our individual visions. As one highly successful CEO expressed it: “My job, fundamentally, is listening to what the organization is trying to say, and them making sure that it is forcefully articulated.”