Responsibilities and involvement

Two different approaches have been identified when it comes to involvement and responsibilities for the visioning process. First there is the ‘top-down’ approach where the leader or the leaders especially in the top of the organisation develop the vision. Second, there is the cross-sectional approach where a variety of people are involved in the process, and sometimes people are brought in from outside the organisation; such as customers and suppliers.

According to O'Brien and Meadows (2000: 42) one possible explanation for using different methodologies to describe who is responsible of the visioning could be found in the surrounding culture, where "who is involved in vision development could be influenced by the organisational culture. Therefore in our culture the model of a single person development is more likely to occur. On the other hand, it is possible that more open cultures encourage wider participation in vision development." However, culture may not be the only reason behind the different approaches. It could also be that the approaches are adopted depending on the faced environments.

If seen as separate, vision and shared vision could help to explain some of those differences. A vision as described earlier may be seen as a future picture of an organisation, which may or may not be shared. To have an influence on the performance of an organisation, it must get implemented. Those in favour of the bottom-up or cross-sectional approach, tend to have the opinion that people need to be part of the creation process to implement the vision. Furthermore, to be able to create an appropriate vision in line with the environment, it is necessary to bring in different opinions and knowledge from inside and sometimes outside the organisation.

Another reason behind different opinions in findings about who develops the vision is as Senge (1990) points out that although vision as a concept is familiar in the leadership literature, under closer scrutiny ‘you find that most visions are one persons, or one groups (vision imposed on an organisation) and those, he argues, do not bring commitment’. The differences might also originate from the parallel origin of the concept of vision in the leadership and the mission literature as described in the introduction. O'Brien and Meadows (2000) constructed a survey of 400 big companies in the UK in which they asked who was responsible or was involved, amongst other things, in the development of visions inside big companies. The questionnaire was sent to people

responsible for strategic planning. The result showed that inside the 91 companies that responded, there was a big variety in who was involved in the visioning process. Most often it was found that vision was created by a small select group of people. However, for some companies the vision was developed by a single person, while others had a wider involvement. See table 2.4. The following theoretical discussion contrasts the empirical study below.

Who develops the vision

Single Small Wider Total Approach mentioned person team involvement responses

No formal method 4 10 - 14

Integrated into strategic 1 7 - 8

Planning process

Discussion 3 20 - 23

Workshop - 5 1 6

‘Process’ briefly described 4 6 15 25

Other 2 6 - 8

No response given - 7 - 7

Total responses 14 61 16 91

• Single person - (MD, CEO, strategic planning manager)

• Small team – Small select group – (Board (23), senior management team (12), cross- section of staff (26))

• Wider involvement – Large group of managers, members of board plus cross section of staff

Table 2.4. How are visions developed by different types of groups (Adopted from O’Brien F., Meadows M. 2000)

Top management

Vision is often developed by the top management, which is in line with Druckers (1973: 78) statement "what is our business is the first responsibility of top management. It is only them that can make sure that the question gets the attention it deserves and that the answer makes sense and enables the business to plot its course and set its objectives". Coulson-Thomas (1992), argues that the commitment starts at the board when they develop the vision, determine the purpose of the organisation, articulate a vision that can be communicated and further set objectives derived from that vision and formulate strategies for its achievement. However, in the top-down approach where the board

develops the vision, sets the vision, sets the objectives and formulates the strategies, lower management and the workers are typically ’portrayed as remote to the process and sceptical of the meaning of its output to their own responsibilities‘ (O'Brien and Meadows, 2000).

In a survey conducted by Klemm, Sanderson and Luffman in (1998) who developed the mission statements was examined. The data showed that 60% were drawn up by the management team. The importance of the top management is well reckoned, but Bart and Beats (1998) examined the performance related to the development of mission statements and found that the middle management involvement in the firm’s mission development process had a specific influence on performance.

The role of the leader

Many of the publications concerning vision come from the leadership literature (for example Bennis, 1989, Westley and Mintzberg, 1989, Nanus, 1992, Kouzes and Posner, 1994,). The concept of vision evolved earlier in the leadership literature than in the mission or strategy area. The idea of vision has been covered both in popular and academic work, for example by Bennis and Nanus (1985), Bennis (1989), Westley and Mintzberg (1989), Kotter (1990), Nanus (1992), Kouzes and Posner (1994), Aldag and Joseph (2000). The literature describes the leader as one that is able to develop and state visions of organisations. This may be obvious as the leader’s role is to guide organisations into the future. This was further exemplified in a survey of 1500 senior leaders, where they were asked to state the key traits or talents a CEO would need or should have by the year 2000. A strong sense of vision and the ability to formulate strategy to achieve a vision was the most important skill for now and in the year 2000. Although participants recognised the importance of both formulating, creating and implementing a vision, 90% reported a lack of confidence in their own skills and ability to conceive a vision for their organisations (Lipton, 1996).

Bennis and Nanus (1985) examined leaders in detail. They found that visions did not always originate from the leaders him/herself, but rather from others around them. It has been reckoned that the leader must therefore be a good sensitizer and listener who brings up and coordinates ideas in the organisation.

Another concept in the leadership literature is that of the charismatic leader. Wilson (1992) writes that ’intuitively, we can see that a charismatic leader is most likely to arrive at an articulate personal vision of where he or she wants to lead the company. This approach has the advantage of simplicity, at least in the formative stage, and promotes a forcefulness and consistency, given that only one person drives the

process‘. He argues that one person very seldom has enough inside knowledge of all parts of an organisation to create a vision that is consistently relevant. Even where that is the case, he asserts that the leader must still bring a consensus and implement the vision. The notion of a charismatic leader who sets an organisation moving and brings tremendous change is emphasised by various authors, e.g. Senge (1990, 1994), who states that a leader for a learning organisation must bring the organisation together and foster a shared vision or a purpose. In their work on visionary companies Collin and Porras (1990, 1998) found that companies with a strong vision and purpose did not or at least not for the moment, rely on such a thing such as a charismatic leader, although they may at one stage in some cases have had. The driving force behind those companies was BHAG, a vision which had a life of its own (Collins and Porras, 1990: 107). As noted by O'Brien and Meadows (2000), the vision most commonly was developed by the board or senior management, and although sometimes a combination of individuals had the development responsibility, there were few organisations where a single person developed the vision, typically the MD, CEO or strategic planning manager.

Cross-sectional- participative process

The argument for a cross-sectional approach to visioning is twofold. Firstly, it brings in different views and opinions, which may help develop a robust and knowledge-based vision. The other argument is that a vision developed by a cross-sectioned approach is more in line with an organisation and the people inside it and therefore should get implemented more easily. It has further been reasoned that people get more motivated and have more ownership of visions, which they have helped to create.

As Helling (1998) writes, visioning usually implies a commitment to collaboration, also called consensus building. In this respect it is fundamentally different from previous planning approaches. ’Collaboration is a process through which parties who see different aspects of a problem can constructively explore their differences and search for solutions that go beyond their own limited vision of what is possible‘. Employees can not only can see visions, but according to Carrol (1992), they actively ’want to see visions in which they star... they want speaking parts. They don’t care about visions in which they do not or can not, have a role’. The importance of employees as an audience is, as argued by Lipton (1996) that they are the most important audience of visions. Stewart (1993) writes that it is surprisingly often that the visioning or strategic planning is delegated. He claims that such visions or plans seldom change things much. People are motivated by visions they helped to create, therefore it is important, as he put it, for the key opinion leaders in the organisation be directly involved in the visioning process. Otherwise, they will

put little stock in the outcome, perhaps even if it is a very good outcome. They may even obstruct the pursuit of the vision. This view is supported by Ackoff (1993), who noted that people developed stronger commitment to ideas when they had a hand in formulating than to those they had not. This again stresses the importance of bringing in others into the process apart from just the leader as expressed by many authors in the leadership literature, e.g. Nanus (1992), Bennis (1989). Lipton (1996) writes that ’successful leaders follow an experimental, largely political process for building a consensus rather than quickly locking themselves into irreversible commitment if managers tell the vision they may elicit compliance but lower the probability for commitment’.

Stakeholders

Stakeholders are individuals or groups inside or outside organisation which have a stake in its fortunes. Nanus (1992) writes that a stakeholder is anyone who has the power to exert an influence on an organisation or who is strongly influenced by the organisation in some significant way.

External stakeholders (groups or individuals) are customers, suppliers, shareholders, investors, and communities. Internal stakeholder groups may include individual departments, workers of particular grade or skill, trade unions and professional bodies (Klemm, Sanderson, Luffman and 1998). All these stakeholders may influence and should be influenced in the vision process, either as forces needed to be considered or as individuals needed to be included in the process. Stewart (1993) argues that especially the people within organisations are among the most important stakeholders. Researchers and authors in the area of vision have appealed for more consideration of different stakeholders. Some argue that you should bring suppliers and customers, investors, local communities, unions etc. into the visioning process (e.g. Nanus, 1992). Others are more concerned with the people inside the organisation (e.g. Stewart, 1993) as they are the ones that need to be guided and motivated by a vision.

Facilitator

Flores and Fadden (2000) describes three types of facilitators in the context of strategic meetings, first there are the internals who because of political agendas could bring bias into the process. Second, there are professionals with a background in human science who might have expertise in facilitate a smooth

process. Thirdly, there is the facilitator with a background in strategic management, who they argue are a better choice because of their understanding of the whole process, from the strategic process to implementation. As noted by Schoemaker (1992) the role of a facilitator in the visioning process could be to add some experience to the group developing the visions if it is lacking the necessary resources or competencies. A facilitator may also help to keep the conversation open and help the participants to go through the development as well as keep the dialogue and discussion going throughout the process. He or she may also help people inside the organisation to acquire or maintain ownership of the process and its outcomes (Senge, 1992).

The logic of bringing in expertise is to keep up a dialogue and to focus on relevant issues is tempting and obvious, especially if it has been noted that the dialogue or process could be painful and hard (Lipton, 1996). It could further help to bring up and get through the difficulties and to overcome the different views and arguments that arise during the process of vision development. There has been arguments for the role of a facilitator, but little empirical evidence exists with a few exceptions from those provided by case studies in the literature, for example (Bertodo, 1990, Schoemaker, 1992).