Discussion Your textbook describes three different debates on the link between vision and organizational change. After reading these three debates (p. 195-200), explain whether you agree or disagree

Palmer, I., Dunford, R., & Akin, G. (2016). Managing Organizational Change: A Multiple Perspectives Approach (3rd ed.). McGraw Hill Education.

PAGE 195-200

Linking Vision to Change: Three Debates

In this section, we explore three debates concerning the links between vision and organizational change. First, we ask if vision is a driver of change, or if vision emerges through the change process. Second, we ask whether vision helps or hinders change. Third, we assess whether vision is better attributed to heroic, charismatic leaders, or is better understood as an organizational attribute.

Page 195

Debate One—Vision: Driving Change or Emerging during Change?

Vision Drives Change

The change management approaches and frameworks described in chapter 10 give vision a prominent role in underpinning and implementing organizational change.

For Kanter et al. (1992), establishing a vision is the first step toward change. Without a vision, changes may seem arbitrary and unnecessary. Vision provides clarity about the goals of change, avoiding the perception that this is just another cost-cutting exercise. The vision can motivate staff to embrace change, engaging in what may seem to be daunting or risky actions.

For Pendlebury et al. (1998), vision determines the scope, depth, and time frame of change, and the areas that will be affected. Having a vision at the start of change is needed for both transformational change (outlining the broader strategic intent to which all actions are directed) and incremental or adaptive change (where the vision can be more specific in terms of specifying change objectives and procedures).

The need for vision at the start of change is also embedded in the strategy literature, where the term strategic intent is often used to represent vision. This is usually associated with the work of Gary Hamel and C. K. Prahalad (1989, p. 4), who argue that “strategic intent envisions a desired leadership position and establishes the criterion the organization will use to chart its progress.” They point to Komatsu’s “Encircle Caterpillar” and Canon’s “Beat Xerox” as visionary statements that capture strategic intent. The strategic intent behind such statements was long term and encompassed a number of different change programs and actions over the short and medium terms that were designed to work toward the longer-term vision. The strategic intent expressed the desired end result without specifying or prescribing the necessary steps for achieving it.

Vision Emerges during Change

Although important, it may not be possible to articulate a clear vision at an early stage during transformational or discontinuous change. Robert Shaw (1995) argues that organizational structures and management processes may require fundamental change. It may not be possible to develop a vision until after the process has begun to unfold because the relevant information may not be available in the current configuration (customer expectations, competition). In other words, discontinuous change has to be under way to make that information available to inform the development of vision. Those who are leading the change are surrounded by the presenting problems and are able to make real-time adjustments in the context of the results of their ongoing efforts. Quinn (1996, p. 83) describes this as “building the bridge as you walk it.”

Is “the vision thing” overrated in terms of driving change? It is possible to argue that effective business planning leads to successful change, and not vision, or visionary leaders. Is “vision rhetoric” used just to make management decisions appear to be more acceptable?

Page 196

Debate Two—Vision: Help Change or Hinder Change?

Vision Helps Change

Lipton (1996) identifies five tangible benefits that skillful visions can bring to an organization:

Enhance performance. The studies by Collins and Porras (1991; 1996; 2005) found that companies labelled as visionary were likely, over time, to deliver a greater dividend to shareholders compared to others.

Facilitate change. Visions provide road maps, which assist the transition process.

Enable sound strategic planning. Plans that have embedded within them imagery of the future are more likely to inspire people to action.

Recruit talent. This applies particularly to the Generation Xers who want to maximize their incomes while feeling that they are engaging in challenges greater than simply making a profit.

Focus on decision making. Vision helps to identify competencies that characterize an organization.

Emmanuel Metais (2000) supports this position arguing that “strategic vision” helps to produce stretch in an organization by creating a sense of incompetence resulting from the gap between the future and the current reality. This perceived incompetence encourages creativity and the search for new ways of acquiring and using resources. At the same time, vision can also help to leverage these resources by stimulating innovative ways of using them. Stretch and leverage combined, Metais argues, can be used to identify new strategies for achieving the vision, including actions such as:

Flanking. Exploiting a weakness in a dominant competitor

Encircling competitors. Gaining greater control of the market

Destabilizing the market. Changing the competitive rules

Paul Schoemaker (1992) also links strategic vision with helping to decide the products that an organization should make and the markets in which it should operate. Performance appraisals and incentive systems can then be managed so that they align with the vision.

Vision Hinders Change

Vision can impede the process of organizational change when visionary or charismatic leaders use emotional appeal as the basis for engagement and neglect the operational details needed to make change work. A related problem is that vision focuses on the future, diverting attention from current problems (see the box “Lou Gerstner on Vision”). One example is the failure of the UK Internet company Boo.com, which raised $135 million to deliver its vision which was to have a global presence in online clothes shopping (Lissack and Roos, 2001). It launched operations in 17 different countries but had problems with slow software, which frustrated potential buyers:

Boo’s vision called for a broadband world of cool kids with large budgets. Boo’s reality consisted of 56k modems, fussy buyers, and tight budgets. Boo was consistent with its vision but out of sync with its present landscape. (Lissack and Roos, 2001, p. 61)

Page 197

Vision can thus be a drawback when the wrong vision drives the change, when leaders exaggerate perceptions of crisis, and when the vision fails to deliver on its promise and followers become disillusioned and lose confidence in both the leader and the organization. Further problems will arise when there is a significant gap between the vision and the organizational capabilities that would be required to realize it.

Lou Gerstner on Vision

Louis V. Gerstner Jr., chief executive of IBM, argued in a press conference in the mid-1990s that “the last thing IBM needs right now is a vision.” He later wrote that this was “the most quotable statement I ever made.” This statement has often been cited as evidence that he downplayed or even dismissed the role of vision in organizational change. For example, Raynor (1998, p. 368) argues, “For a good many critics Gerstner’s comment was greeted with a heartfelt “it’s about time”—that is, it is about time that a senior executive had the courage to speak up and put all that rhetoric about visions and missions in its place.”

Gerstner argues, however, that those who have portrayed this view of him have misinterpreted (or even misquoted) him, often failing to pay attention to the “right now” part of the statement. He maintains that IBM had a number of vision statements. It was now time to implement these, rather than engage in further visioning exercises because by that time “fixing IBM was all about execution.”

Based on Gerstner (2003).

Vision development approaches that do not involve the people who will be affected are thought to have negative consequences for producing successful organizational change. For example, Harvey Robbins and Michael Finley (1997, p. 175) point out:

Where organizations go wrong is in assuming that the vision is some precious grail-like object that only the organizational priests are privy to—that it appears in a dream to the executive team, who then hold it up high for the rank and file to ooh and ahh over. The problem with the priestly approach to vision-and-mission is that the resulting vision is often a lot of garbage. The outcome, instead of being a useful reminder to keep to the change track, is a paragraph held to be so sacred that no one dares change it.

Vision can further hinder change where, once developed, senior management becomes so committed to it that they are unwilling to reevaluate and test its ongoing utility and relevance. To do this could challenge the assumptions that the top team is truly in control, that they have better foresight than anyone else, and that they do indeed have a clear and compelling vision of the organization’s future. Senior management may feel uncomfortable questioning those issues.

Visions can hinder organizations when they have been developed using sense-making processes that are linked to current or past practices. Lissack and Roos (2001) argue that this approach is flawed, because predicting the future on this basis reifies the desired outcome without enabling future changes to be built into it. Vision is based on the world in the future being stable and predictable. Outcomes are locked in and goals are set. The problem is that the vision may prevent the organization pursuing new, unanticipated opportunities that may emerge.

Page 198

For Lissack and Roos (2001), the concept of vision is limited by other assumptions. One assumption is that organizational boundaries are well defined: staff, customers, suppliers. In a world of fuzzy organizational networks, this assumption is questionable. A second assumption is that the identity of the organization is fixed, with the vision built around that identity. We think of Lego, for example, as a toy company. However, corporate identity—what the organization does—is constantly changing; as we saw in chapter 5, Lego is also now an online games company. Lissack and Roos (2001, p. 61) prefer the term “coherence” to vision. Coherence involves, “acting in a manner consistent with who you are given your present spot in the business landscape.” An interesting argument, but it is unlikely that the term coherence, emphasizing debates around boundaries and organizational identity, will replace the concept of vision, which is deeply embedded in change management thinking.

How does vision impact individual rather than organizational identity, and can this propel or impede change? This issue has generated debate. Landau et al. (2006) note that staff may identify strongly with an organization’s original vision and with the underlying beliefs and assumptions. However, when an attempt is made to inject a new vision, this is likely to be resisted if it disrupts individual images and self-definitions. The new vision will therefore hinder change. This problem can be addressed if it is possible to ensure that new objectives and goals remain consistent with the values and beliefs that underpinned the original vision.

Jeffrey Ford and William Pasmore (2006) question this position for two reasons. First, it is not clear that vision does directly affect individual identity-forming processes. This is an empirical question that needs to be examined and is likely to vary across organizations. Second, even if we accept that there is a direct relationship between individual identity and vision, the problem lies with staff members who are deeply committed to an existing identity, which they are reluctant to change, despite the need for a new vision (and perhaps, therefore, a new identity)—even if the new vision is necessary to secure the organization’s survival. They note, “People should be entitled to their identities, but at the same time, organizations do need people who are committed to a viable, sustainable vision to survive” (p. 176). This argument reminds us that changes in vision may challenge individual identities, thereby producing resistance to change. When developing a new vision, therefore, it is important to assess, first, whether this will enable or disable identity-forming processes, and second, whether this will encourage or discourage those affected to become involved in the change.

Debate Three—Vision: An Attribute of Heroic Leaders or Heroic Organizations?

Vision Is an Attribute of Heroic Leaders

Some commentators argue that successful organizational change depends on effective leadership. For Nadler and Shaw (1995, p. 219), “heroic leaders” energize and support their followers and provide them with a vision that “provides a vehicle for people to develop commitment, a common goal around which people can rally, and a way for people to feel successful.” As we have already noted, the vision has to be clear, compelling, challenging, and credible, but it must also be reflected in the expressions and actions of the leader who is articulating it. Nadler (1998, p. 276) points to visionary leaders such as Jamie Houghton at the U.S. technology company Corning who painted “an engrossing picture of a culture in which Corning would be one of the most competent, profitable, and respected corporations in the entire world.” He also identifies Scott McNealy of Sun Microsystems (now partPage 199 of Oracle) as envisioning “an information world where people would be free to choose from a range of vendors rather than held captive by a single, all-powerful mega-corporation.” Ironically, some of those who are cited as visionary leaders do not see themselves as visionary or heroic and have challenged the significance of vision:

Robert Eaton, when he was CEO of Chrysler, downplayed vision in favor of measurable short-term results.

Bill Gates, one of the founders of Microsoft, once declared that “Being visionary is trivial.” (Lipton, 1996, p. 86)

Nevertheless, those leaders are often praised for articulating clear, appealing, challenging images of the future of their organizations—the hallmarks of effective visions.

Gardner and Avolio (1998) argue that effective charismatic, visionary leaders create “identity images” that are valued and desired by others, incorporating trustworthiness, credibility, morality, innovativeness, esteem, and power. Drawing on a dramaturgical perspective, they argue that charismatic leaders enact (or perform) their visions through four processes:

Framing. The art of managing meaning, influencing others to accept the leader’s interpretation of the vision, by stressing its importance, and aligning it with their values

Scripting. The process of coordinating and integrating more specific sets of ideas and actions including:

casting of the appropriate key roles

dialogue, using various rhetorical devices, such as metaphors and stories, to increase the appeal of the message

providing direction, using verbal and nonverbal behavior and emotional displays

Staging. The selection of symbols, artifacts, props, and settings to reinforce the vision

Performing. Enacting the vision by personally demonstrating the behaviors required to achieve the vision

It is important to note that, although having a vision is considered by many commentators to be a prerequisite for successful change leadership, others disagree. Vision may be a necessary component of inspirational leadership, but it may not be sufficient. Robert Goffee and Gareth Jones (2000) argue that, to complement energy and vision, other qualities are necessary including:

revealing personal weaknesses to followers to gain their trust

sensing how things are in the organization and the wider environment, picking up and interpreting subtle cues and signals

showing “tough empathy,” passionate, caring, but realistic, focusing on what others need rather than what they want

daring to be different, signalling and maintaining their uniqueness, while maintaining social distance

It has also been argued that visionary leaders are needed at an everyday level throughout the organization, and not just at the top. Such individuals provide what Rogers (2007) calls “supervision,” using interactions, conversations, and role modelling to demonstrate:

Perspective. Concerning the challenges facing the organization

Purpose. Both personal and organizational

Page 200

Processes. Respond more effectively to customers

Possibilities. Challenge current constraints

Potential. Concerning personal contributions

Passion. Channel energies in meaningful ways

In this perspective, therefore, to maintain engagement and motivation, providing vision must be a day-to-day activity involving many leaders across the organization, and not an occasional process led by a single senior figure or a small top team.

Vision Is an Attribute of Heroic Organizations

Collins and Porras (2005) argue that visionary leaders are not necessary to create visionary companies, claiming that the role of charisma in setting vision has been exaggerated. A charismatic leader may even be an impediment to the creation of a visionary organization; sustained organizational effectiveness depends on embedded visions, values, and ideologies, rather than on pronouncements from one senior figure. The leader’s role is to act as a catalyst, facilitating the development of, and commitment to, the vision. This is a process that can be achieved through a variety of leadership and management styles. It is more important to create an organization with a vision than to have a charismatic chief executive with a personal vision.

In this perspective, vision incorporates core ideology, which is unchanging, and defines what the organization stands for and why it exists. An envisioned future is what the organization aspires to and changes toward over time. Ideology comprises core values and core purpose. Core values are durable guiding principles: “the HP Way,” Walt Disney Company’s “imagination and wholesomeness,” Procter & Gamble’s “product excellence,” and Nordstrom’s “customer service.” Collins and Porras (2005) note that most companies have only three to five shared core values. Core purpose on the other hand defines the reason for the organization’s existence.

Core purpose should be durable (designed to last a century, perhaps) and differs from goals and business strategies, which change constantly over time. The purpose may not change, but it should inspire change, development, and progress. The envisioned future, in contrast, consists of “BHAGs”—Big, Hairy, Audacious Goals, or daunting challenges with specified timelines that can involve:

Common enemy logic. Philip Morris in the 1950s wanted to “knock off RJR as the number one tobacco company in the world”; Nike in the 1960s aimed to “crush Adidas.”

Role model logic. Stanford University in the 1940s wanted to become “the Harvard of the West.”

Internal transformation logic. The goal for GE in the 1980s was to “become number one or number two in every market we serve, and revolutionize this company to have the strengths of a big company combined with the leanness and agility of a small company”; Rockwell in 1995 wanted to “transform this company from a defense contractor into the best diversified high-technology company in the world.”

A further component of envisioned future, vivid descriptions, consists of vibrant, passionate, and engaging descriptions of what it will be like in the future when goals are achieved. Envisioning the future is a creative process, engaging staff across the organization.