Change Analysis

2

CHANGE ANALYSIS

Chapter 6

Vision and the Direction of Change

Learning objectives

By the end of this chapter you should be able to:

LO 6.1Explain the arguments for and against the concept of vision, and how approaches to this issue depend on the image held of managing organizational change.

LO 6.2Identify the characteristics of effective visions.

LO 6.3Assess how the context in which a vision is developed affects its meaning.

LO 6.4Apply different methods and processes for developing vision.

LO 6.5Explain why some visions fail.

LO 6.6Explain the arguments concerning the relationship of vision to organizational change.

www.CartoonStock.com

171

The Coca-Cola Company Vision

Our vision serves as the framework for our Roadmap and guides every aspect of our business by describing what we need to accomplish in order to continue achieving sustainable, quality growth.

People: Be a great place to work where people are inspired to be the best they can be.

Portfolio: Bring to the world a portfolio of quality beverage brands that anticipate and satisfy people’s desires and needs.

Partners: Nurture a winning network of customers and suppliers, together we create mutual, enduring value.

Planet: Be a responsible citizen that makes a difference by helping build and support sustainable communities.

Profit: Maximize long-term return to shareowners while being mindful of our overall responsibilities.

Productivity: Be a highly effective, lean and fast-moving organization.

Source: From http://www.coca-colacompany.com/our-company/mission-vision-values (accessed November 3, 2014).

LO 6.1Vision: Fundamental or Fad?

Mission: This relates to goals, and refers to the overriding purpose of the organization. It is sometimes described in terms of the apparently simple but challenging question: “what business are we in?” The mission statement helps keep managers focused on what is central to their strategy.

Vision: This too relates to goals, and refers to the desired future state of the organization. It is an aspiration which can help mobilize the energy and passion of organizational members. The vision statement, therefore, should answer the question: “what do we want to achieve?”

(Johnson et al., 2011, p. 8)

There is understandable confusion between the terms “mission” and “vision.” Mission emphasizes purpose and outcomes. Vision, in contrast, focuses on future aspirations and can thus be a key driver of organizational change. This helps to explain why most of the change management perspectives explained in chapter 10 emphasize the importance of a clear and meaningful vision, without which direction and motivation will be weak or absent. There is, however, debate over whether vision is truly fundamental to change and effectiveness, or whether this is just a management consultancy fad.

Highlighting the importance of vision and direction, Paul Victor and Anton Franckeiss (2002, p. 41) argue, “It is imperative that change is aligned with a clear vision and business strategy and that subsequent activities and interventions are coordinated and consistent.” Hans Hinterhuber and Wolfgang Popp (1992, p. 106) argue that vision underpins successful entrepreneurial activities and corporate change programs, defining vision as “an orientation point that guides a company’s movement in a specific direction. If the vision is realistic and appeals both to the emotions and the intelligence of employees,172it can integrate and direct a company.” Effective visions, they add, can be expressed clearly—and are thus easily communicated—in just a few words (e.g., “Our vision is to achieve price leadership and good design at the same time”).

Visions are thus linked to strategy and competitive advantage, enhancing organizational performance and sustaining growth. Clear visions enable boards to determine how well organizational leaders are performing and to identify gaps in current practices. Visions help staff identify with the organization, and inspire the motivation to achieve personal and corporate objectives. Organizations preparing for transformational change often undertake “revisioning” exercises to guide them into the future. The visioning process itself can enhance the self-esteem of those who are involved, because they can see the outcomes of their efforts. Jeffrey Pfeffer (2010, p. 92) argues that vision is a source of influence: “Make the vision compelling. It’s easier to exercise power when you are aligned with a compelling, socially valuable objective.” Opponents will struggle to challenge such an agenda.

A lack of vision, on the other hand, is associated with organizational decline and failure. Graham Beaver (2000, p. 205) argues, “Unless companies have clear vision about how they are going to be distinctly different and unique in adding and satisfying their customers, then they are likely to be the corporate failure statistics of tomorrow.” The absence of a clear and compelling vision may explain why some companies fail to exploit their core competencies despite having access to adequate resources. Business strategies lacking in visionary substance may fail to identify when organizational change is required. Lack of an adequate process for translating shared vision into collective action may be associated with the failure to produce transformational organizational change.

The concept of vision is powerful. However, it remains controversial, and invites cynicism when every organization expresses a bland vision that includes “excellence,” “corporate responsibility,” “empowered employees,” and “delighted customers.” However, there has been little research in this area, and there is disagreement on how to define and measure the term. As with change management in general, there is a lot of advice on how to develop a vision, with little or no consensus on effective approaches. Some commentators have argued that the preoccupation with vision has meant that the term has been overused and trivialized (Beaver, 2000) and is thus in danger of losing any value.

Debates around appropriate definition and substance do not necessarily invalidate the value of vision in clarifying an organization’s purpose and direction. The challenge for the organization in general, and the change manager in particular, is to avoid an abstract statement of vision accompanied with platitudes and grandiose statements that provide little detail about what the future should look like. On the other hand, a vision that is too specific, focusing on short-term targets and goals, and encouraging only incremental improvement is also of limited value. Visions become useful when they are midway between these two extremes, setting out an engaging picture of the future, with sufficient meaningful detail to which those involved can relate (Belgard and Rayner, 2004).

These arguments reflect a deeper question. The link between vision and organizational change depends on the image of change management in use. Table 6.1 illustrates how each of the six different images expresses a different understanding of this link. We invite the reader to use this table to identify how different images focus attention on some issues and approaches, and not others.

TABLE 6.1

Change Management Image and Vision: Links and Focus

Image	Vision-Change Link	Focusing Attention On
Director	Vision is essential to successful change, and must be articulated at an early stage by leaders	Need for clear vision to drive change linked to strategy and goals Analytical and benchmarking processes used How context affects the impact of the vision Top-down responsibility to tell/sell the vision
Navigator	Vision is important, but can be compromised by competing visions of different stakeholders	Vision is the product of debate The change manager has to handle “vision collision” when competing groups disagree
Caretaker	External forces shape the change process, and vision rarely has a major influence	Visionary or charismatic leaders have limited impact when vision is not related to the events driven by those external forces
Coach	Vision emerges through the leader’s facilitation skills, shaping agendas and desired futures	Vision emerges through consultation and co-creation Vision will fail without participation
Interpreter	Vision articulates the core values and ideology that underpin the organization’s identity	Visions are developed intuitively through imagery and imagination, using framing, scripting, and staging techniques Vision is the “inner voice,” the “system core” Vision emerges through change
Nurturer	Visions are always temporary, emerging from the clash of shifting and unpredictable forces for change	Visionary change leaders cannot predict accurately the outcome of systemic forces Vision is an organizational property, not an individual product, and can survive chaos

We begin by showing that the development of a meaningful vision depends on three features. The first concerns the content or attributes of the vision: what it is and says. The173second concerns the context in which the vision is used: where it is used and by whom. The third concerns the process by which the vision is developed: how it emerges and who has contributed.

Following this we identify why visions can fail to produce their intended effects. Finally, we focus on three contentious issues relating to the role of vision in organizational change: whether vision initiates and drives change, or rather emerges as change unfolds; whether vision helps or hinders change; and whether vision is best understood as an attribute of heroic leaders, or of heroic organizations.

LO 6.2The Characteristics of Effective Visions

John Kotter (2006) argues that visions must be focused yet flexible. While this may sound relatively straightforward, the attributes that make visions “visionary” and useful have provoked debate. Some commentators focus on the content of vision statements, while others explore the context in which visions are used. The roles of leaders in articulating visions and the process by which visions are developed have also attracted attention. Here, we will consider the content of visions, including their style and other174attributes, and also explain how the concept of vision is distinguished from the related concepts of organizational mission and values.

What Makes an Effective Vision?

How do you build a vision? Many people assume that vision-building should resemble long-term planning: design, organize, implement. But defining a vision of the future does not happen according to a timetable or flowchart. It is more emotional than rational. It demands a tolerance for messiness, ambiguity, and setbacks. The half-step back usually accompanies every step forward. Day-to-day demands pull people in different directions. Having a shared vision does not eliminate tension, but it does help people make trade-offs. The alternative is to bog down in I-win, you-lose fights. Leaders must convey a vision of the future that is clear, appealing to stakeholders, ambitious yet attainable. Effective visions are focused enough to guide decision-making yet are flexible enough to accommodate individual initiative and changing circumstances. (Kotter, 2006, p. 14)

Vision Attributes

Table 6.2 shows several definitions of organizational vision. Most refer to a future or to an ideal to which organizational change should be directed. The vision itself is presented as a picture or image that serves as a guide to that future ideal. Visions can thus be inspiring, motivational, emotional, or analytical, depending on whose definition we are using.

TABLE 6.2

Vision Definitions

Definitions	Sources
A statement of purpose determined by management based on the organization’s core values and beliefs that defines the organization’s identity and combines an ideal manifestation of its direction together with a tangible prescription for realizing its goals	Landau et al., 2006a, p. 147
Image of an “ideal future.” It is aspirational and idealistic, a guiding star with dreamlike qualities	Haines et al., 2005, p. 139
A picture of the future of our organization	Auster et al., 2005, p. 50
A detailed description of a desired future that provides clarity as to how the organization will need to operate differently in order to meet the changing conditions of its markets, customers, and overall business environment	Belgard and Rayner, 2004, p. 116
An ideal that represents or reflects the shared values to which the organization should aspire	Kirkpatrick et al., 2002, p. 139
An ambition about the future, articulated today; it is a process of managing the present from a stretching view of the future	Stace and Dunphy, 2001, p. 78
Articulates where the organization is headed and what it is trying to accomplish	Deetz et al., 2000, p. 54

Definitions do not necessarily help to determine the actual content of visions. Observing that “little is known about what the essential properties of a vision are,” Kimberly Boal and Robert Hooijberg (2001, p. 527) argue that visions have two components:

· a cognitive (intellectual) component, which is based on information and expresses outcomes and how these will be achieved;

· an affective (emotional) component that appeals to values and beliefs, and thus underpins the motivation and commitment that are key to implementation.

Table 6.3 summarizes the views of a number of commentators on the components of a good vision. As this table shows, most commentators point to similar attributes: they mostly suggest that visions should be aspirational, clear, desirable, distinctive, easy to communicate, feasible, flexible, future-focused, inspiring, meaningful, memorable, motivating, and should recognize the problems facing the organization. This sounds like a long list of attributes to incorporate in a brief statement that can be quickly communicated and easily remembered. Some commentators, therefore, have sought to distill the essence of these guidelines. For example, Paul Nutt and Robert Backoff (1997) identify four generic attributes of visions that are likely to enhance organizational performance:

TABLE 6.3

The Characteristics of Effective Visions

Characteristics	Advocates
imaginable: conveys a picture of the future desirable: appeals to stakeholder interests feasible: embodies realistic, attainable goals focused: guides decision making flexible: enables initiative and response to changing environments communicable: can be explained in five minutes	Kotter (2012a)
provides a sense of direction sets the context for making decisions reflects the organization’s values and culture recognizes and responds to pressing needs identifies current actions to create a strong future	Deetz et al. (2000)
aspiration: how the new organization will look inspiration: getting people excited about where they are headed perspiration: highlights the work required to achieve the vision	Scott-Morgan et al. (2001)
clear direction conveys ambition and excitement memorable motivating relevant, to staff and customers can be translated into measurable strategies	Davidson (2004)
future focused: what will our business look like in 5 to 10 years’ time directional: describes where the organization is going clear and easily understood: guides decisions and independent action relevant: reflects the past as well as current challenges purpose-driven: connecting to a meaningful sense of purpose values-based: shared beliefs that influence behavior and attitudes challenging: stretch goals that set a high standard unique: reflects what makes the organization different vivid: provides a striking mental image of the future inspiring: captures the heart, and engages people to commit to a cause	Ambler (2013)

1. Possibility: Points to innovative possibilities for dramatic improvements

2. Desirability: Based on shared values and norms about the way things should be done

3. Actionability: Indicates the roles and contributions of those who will make the vision a reality

4. Articulation: Communicates the future clearly through powerful imagery175

John Pendlebury et al. (1998) specify three components of visions key to change management:

1. Why the change is needed: The problem that validates the need for change

2. The aim of the change: The solution, which must be credible, meaningful, and feasible

3. The change actions that will be taken: The means, how actions will be mobilized and delivered

We can thus identify the desirable features of vision statements. However, this does not reveal the criteria on which those features should be assessed. This suggests that the affective or “feel good” content of vision is important; we know it when we see it, but this is difficult to define or to measure. Consider the sample of vision statements taken from leading (Fortune 100) global companies. Which of these vision statements have the characteristics that we have identified so far? Which do not have these characteristics? Based on these vision statements, for which of these companies would you find it attractive to work? Whose vision statements would turn you away? Why? How do you explain your preferences and dislikes with regard to these visions?

Ira Levin (2000, p. 92) argues that some vision statements have a “bumper sticker” style, based on jargon and fashionable terms. Their similarities thus mean that they could be used by several different companies, and they are not inspirational. Hugh Davidson (2004) calls these “me-too” statements that lack distinctiveness, such as Ericsson’s vision in the 1990s, “to be the leading company in tomorrow’s converged data and telecommunications market.” Levin (2000) advocates instead the development of “vision stories” that176portray the future in a manner to which people can relate. Table 6.4 outlines the process for producing vision stories. Levin cites Arthur Martinez, chief executive of Sears, as someone adept at using vision stories. Martinez required his senior managers to write stories about the businesses that they managed and how customers related to those businesses (Domm, 2001).177

TABLE 6.4

Vision as Storytelling—How to Develop the Narrative

Step	Actions for the Senior Team
1. Become informed	Leadership team articulate their vision for the future—five to fifteen years ahead—of the organization, taking into account: External impacts and future business challenges? Economic, social, political, and technological trends and developments? What are other organizations doing to prepare for the future? Core values and beliefs?
2. Visit the future	Imagine it is five years into the future, and the organization has been so successful that business magazines want to report the story, covering: What is the organization’s reputation and what do competitors envy? What is the customers’ experience? What contributions have been made to the community? What do employees tell friends and family about working here? What new business ventures have been developed?
3. Create the story	Write the vision story as a narrative (1,500 to 2,000 words): Describe the actors, events, actions, and consequences What are the key messages and themes? What’s happening in the marketplace? How are staff providing services and interacting with customers? What is the mood—what are people experiencing and feeling?
4. Deploy the vision	Develop the story for further discussion across the organization: Explain the business case for change and the desired outcomes Explain what is not negotiable—values, operating principles Collect responses—what needs clarification, elaboration, explanation? Finalize the vision story—translate into strategies, targets, goals

Source: Based on Levin (2000), pp. 99–105.

Vision Statements from Fortune 100 Companies

Exxon Mobil: Exxon Mobil is committed to being the world’s premier petroleum and petrochemical company. To that end, we must continuously achieve superior financial and operating results while adhering to the highest standard of business conduct. These unwavering expectations provide the foundation for our commitments to those with whom we interact.

Wal-Mart Stores: To become the worldwide leader in retailing.

Chevron: To be the global energy company most admired for its people, partnership, and performance.

Sinopec: To become the largest chemical fertilizer manufacturer and most effective resources processing enterprise in the chemical industry in China, which is also geared up for competing in the international market.

Toyota Motor: Toyota aims to achieve long-term, stable growth in harmony with the environment, the local communities it serves, and its stakeholders.

HSBC Holdings: We aspire to be one of the world’s great specialist banking groups, driven by our commitment to our core philosophies and values.

Gazprom: To establish itself as a leader among global energy companies by entering new markets, diversifying its activities, and ensuring reliable supplies.

Carrefour: The Carrefour Group has one simple ambition: making Carrefour the preferred retailer wherever it operates.

AT&T: To design and create in this decade the new global network, processes, and service platforms that maximize automation, allowing for a reallocation of human resources to more complex and productive work.

Nestlé: To bring consumers foods that are safe, of high quality, and provide optimal nutrition to meet physiological needs. In addition to nutrition, health, and wellness, Nestlé products bring consumers the vital ingredients of taste and pleasure.

Industrial and Commercial Bank of China: ICBC adheres to the concept of scientific development for obtaining new driving force for growth, striving to ameliorate its operational structure, and strengthening the internal management and promoting innovative development.

Home Depot: To create a company that would keep alive the values that were important to us. Values like respect among all people, excellent customer service, and giving back to communities and society.

U.S. Postal Service: The U.S. Postal Service is committed to actions that promote sustainability—meeting the needs of the present without compromising the future. We are working to create a culture of conservation among our 663,000 employees in our more than 34,000 facilities.

BMW: To be the most successful premium manufacturer in the industry.

Source: From Kolk (2010). Organizations update their vision statements from time to time, and this list may not be current. The aim is to offer typical illustrations for the purposes of assessment.

Offering a subtly different answer to the question, “What are the characteristics of effective visions?” Levin (2000, pp. 105–6) concludes: “A well-conceived and articulated vision offers the promise of serving as both a springboard and a frame of reference for fuelling such aligned action. Yet, the traditional vision statement with its abstract, lofty, and generic language fails to fulfil this promise. The vision story, on the other hand, with its rich imagery and vivid description, is more effective in fulfilling this promise. The178vision story provides people with a lifelike glimpse into the future of possibilities and directly answers the fundamental question: What will this future mean for me?”

Vision, Mission, and Goals

Visions are often confused with other terms such as mission statements, goals, and organizational values. Visions and missions can be particularly difficult to disentangle. Most commentators adopt the position set out at the beginning of this chapter, from Johnson et al. (2011). Mission concerns what an organization is and does. Vision describes a future scenario, where the mission is advanced, and where goals and strategy are being effectively achieved. Nutt and Backoff (1997) treat visions as being similar to missions and goals, in providing direction and identifying necessary changes. However, although goals may identify desired results, such as improved morale, lower179costs, or bigger market share, they do not necessarily articulate the actions necessary to produce those outcomes. Nor do they usually address the role of organizational values in achieving the result. Visions, in contrast, usually paint a picture of the future and are inspirational. Mission statements tend to be more purposive and instrumental in outlining what needs to be done.

Vision and Market Strategy

Some commentators argue that, to create competitive advantage, an organization’s vision and strategy must be unconventional, perhaps even counterintuitive, and must also be distinct from those of other companies. Michael Hay and Peter Williamson (1997), for example, note that visions have an external and an internal dimension. The external dimension concerns a shared view of the outside world: how markets work, what drives customers, competitors, industry dynamics, macroeconomic trends, the impact of geopolitical events. Most car tire manufacturers, they note, such as Goodyear, Michelin, and Bridgestone/Firestone, have a market vision that sees the large car manufacturing companies as their main customers, where large market share and high volumes are the way to drive down costs. In contrast, the comparatively unknown Cooper Tire and Rubber Company had a different market vision. They decided that, as Americans were holding onto their cars for longer, the independent replacement tire outlets were their main market.

Hay and Williamson (1997) argue that having a well-specified external vision helps to identify how the company will grow and compete. Only then can an internal vision be developed, pointing to the capabilities that need to be acquired to compete, and also to what the organization seeks to become. External and internal dimensions of the vision thus have to be aligned.

LO 6.3How Context Affects Vision

What is the relationship between vision and the organizational context in which it is articulated and used? Context, for the purposes of this discussion, includes organization culture.

Nutt and Backoff (1997, pp. 316–17) assess four organizational contexts in terms of their abilities to produce visionary strategic change. These abilities are assessed in relation to the degree of acceptance of the need for change (change susceptibility) and the extent to which resources for strategic change are available (resource availability).

· Rigid organizations have limited available resources and lack acceptance of the need for change. Such organizations tend to be hierarchical and inflexible (such as Eastern and Pan Am before their collapse).

· Bold organizations have limited resources, but acceptance of the need for change is high. They tend to be more organic and less rule-bound. Visionary leadership is more likely to emerge in this context, although this entails freeing up resources and ensuring that key stakeholders are carefully cultivated in the process of developing the vision.

· Overmanaged organizations have high resource availability but little acceptance of the need for change. They tend to be limited in their ability to accept the need for a new180vision, due to a comparatively stable environment dominated by past practices that are seen to have worked well and which remain relevant.

· Liberated organizations have a context in which visionary processes are likely to be most successful. Hewlett-Packard and Intel, for example, have been regarded as having high acceptance of the need for change and high availability of resources that can be allocated to the strategic change process.

When does a vision “take”? This context analysis suggests the need for a “trigger” that alerts organization members to the need for a new vision, thus strengthening acceptance of change. The power of the vision, remember, lies with the way in which it can give meaning to the current situation and promise to solve the organization’s problems. Triggers can include external turbulence and uncertainty, crises demanding new strategies or ways of working, poor organizational performance, or transitions such as entrepreneurial start-up to growth. In addition, change leaders can use their influence and storytelling capabilities to frame interpretations of the current situation so as to heighten dissatisfaction with the status quo (Lewin, 1951), thus enhancing the desire for change. In other words, change leaders can generate a crisis situation through their visionary and rhetorical skills, rather than waiting for one to appear (Denning, 2004 and 2005).

The national and cultural contexts in which an organization is embedded are also factors contributing to whether or not visions “take.” For example, Jerry Wind and Jeremy Main (1999) note that Donald Burr’s vision for the airline People Express was “to become the leading institution for constructive change in the world.” That, they observe, was vague and preposterous. In Japan, on the other hand, a past chairman of Canon, Ryuzaburo Kaku, referred to himself as an evangelist, saying that the organization was guided by “living and working together for the common good.” While similar in intent to Burr’s vision, Wind and Main argue that Kaku’s vision “worked” in Japan, where organizations are more closely aligned with national and social interests than they are in the United States. Consider again the vision statements in table 6.4, and in particular those that you assessed as less attractive. Did those come from companies based in another country and culture?

LO 6.4How Visions Are Developed

How are visions developed? We will consider three answers to this question, exploring approaches to “crafting” a vision, the kinds of questions that can help to develop a vision, and connecting the vision to the organization’s “inner voice.”

Crafting the Vision

Lawrence Holpp and Michael Kelly (1988, p. 48) argue that crafting a vision is “a little like dancing with a 500-pound gorilla. It takes a little while to get the steps down, but once the dance is over, you know you’ve really accomplished something.” There are different approaches (or dances) to crafting or creating a vision, and some of these are outlined in table 6.5 (based on a concept similar to the “leadership styles continuum,” discussed in chapter 10, table 10.7).

TABLE 6.5

Approaches to Vision-Crafting

Approach	What It Means	Used When
Tell	Chief executive creates the vision and gives it to staff	Involvement is not seen as important
Sell	Chief executive has a vision that he or she wants staff to accept	Chief executive is attracted to the vision and wants others to adopt it
Test	Chief executive seeks feedback on ideas about a vision	Chief executive wants to see which aspects of the vision find support
Consult	Chief executive seeks the creative input of staff, within set parameters	Chief executive needs help to develop the vision
Co-create	Shared vision is created by chief executive and staff	Chief executive wants to identify shared visions throughout the organization

For some commentators, crafting a vision is a senior management responsibility, typically discharged by having a small team analyze needs, identify choices, and develop181recommendations (Pendlebury et al., 1998). But some see this as a collaborative effort, involving both the top team and those who will be affected by the vision. Lynda Gratton (1996), for example, describes how seven European companies engaged in a democratic vision process, drawing on a range of cross-functional groups instead of imposing a top-down approach. Allowing the vision to emerge from debates among those multifunctional groups, she argues, can potentially lead to more creative visions and subsequent actions. This democratic approach also ensures that the need for change (which may be urgent) is transmitted across the organization, and it provides executives with a better understanding of the risks and trade-offs involved in implementing the vision.

Adopting a similar approach, Nutt and Backoff (1997) suggest three vision-crafting processes.

1. Leader-dominated approach. The CEO provides the strategic vision for the organization. This is similar to the “tell” and “sell” approaches in table 6.5. This approach is not consistent with the concept of empowerment, which argues that people across an organization should be involved in the processes and decisions that affect them.

2. Pump-priming approach. The CEO provides visionary ideas and gets selected individuals and groups to further develop these ideas within some broad parameters. This adapting and shaping process is similar to the “test” and “consult” approaches in table 6.5.

3. Facilitation approach. Similar to the “co-create” approach in table 6.5, this draws directly on a participative management perspective by involving a significant number of people in the process of developing and articulating the vision. The CEO acts as facilitator, orchestrating the crafting process. Nutt and Backoff (1997) argue that this approach is likely to produce better visions and more successful organizational change because those who have contributed will be more committed to making the vision work.

Three sets of structured guidelines or “routines” for producing a vision are summarized in table 6.6. While similar in style, they provide different levels of detail with regard to the nature of the process and the steps that should be involved. There is no “one best way” to do this.182

TABLE 6.6

Guidelines for Structuring the Vision Process

Core Steps in Creating a New Vision
1	Use a qualified facilitator	Develop trial vision statements	Leadership team defines the timeline
2	Assess where you have been and where you are	Discuss these with staff and customers	Conduct an environmental scan of threats and opportunities
3	Think about a new direction	Revise the vision	Develop appropriate interview questions
4	Co-construct a statement about the organization’s future direction	Rediscuss the vision	Use questions to interview leadership team to obtain their ideal vision of the future
5	Identify roadblocks	Repeat the process until an agreed vision is produced	Draft a vision of the future
6	Take action quickly to capitalize on enthusiasm; develop a strategic plan to integrate vision throughout organizational practices		Get feedback from across the organization
7	Develop a system for monitoring and adjusting the vision, such as performance review workshops		Develop a second draft
8			Share vision with leadership team to gain commitment: develop a catch-phrase that captures its essence, and a communication plan
9			Assess implications and develop specific action plans
	Deetz et al. (2000)	Davidson (2004)	Belgard and Rayner (2004)

Questions That Help to Develop a Vision

The approaches that we have discussed so far distinguish between different degrees of involvement in the development of an organization’s vision. However, they do not directly address the question of how to develop the substance of the vision itself.

Holpp and Kelly (1988) identify three different approaches and sets of questions through which vision may be developed. They label these approaches intuitive, analytical, and benchmarking.183

The intuitive approach relies on the use of imagination and imagery to encourage staff to participate in vision development. Managers are asked to imagine doing their jobs in such a way that they really achieve what they want from themselves and from the other people with whom they work:

First, they are asked to list up to ten things that they want to achieve personally and professionally, and then to prioritize these, focusing on the top two or three.

Second, they focus on their current situation as a way to identify the tension between their current lived experiences and their desired image.

Third, they are provided with support to help identify and implement structured action plans to work toward achieving their vision.

The analytical approach sees visions as defined in relation to organizational or departmental missions and roles. Vision is thus related to purpose and focuses on the following questions:

· Who is served by the organization?

· What does the organization do?

· Where does the organization place most of its efforts?

· Why does the organization focus on particular work and goals?

· How does the organization operationalize these efforts?

The aim of these questions is to guide the organization as a whole, and individual departments, from the current situation to a desired future state.

The benchmarking approach bases the vision on the actions and standards of the organization’s toughest competitors. This involves asking:

· What do our competitors do well?

· How can we surpass this?

· What quantitative and qualitative measures would indicate that we had achieved this?

· What will it be like, and how will it feel, when those standards have been achieved?

The benchmarking approach is more externally focused, compared with the intuitive and analytical approaches, which have an internal focus. Here are some of the problems with these approaches:

· The intuitive approach, which follows an organization development perspective, may produce personal visions that are not connected to the core business of the organization and to current or anticipated industry trends.

· The analytical approach serves more to align the vision to the mission of the organization, but pays less attention to the values and guiding logics of the organization. By aligning too tightly with mission, the analytical approach may neglect the inspirational element of visions.

· The benchmarking approach assumes that the organization’s future will be linked to current competitors. However, it may be more valuable to identify who will be the new competitors in the future, especially where an organization and sector are facing transformational change.184

Connecting to the Organization’s “Inner Voice”

Robert Quinn (1996, p. 197) makes an interesting contribution to the process of identifying change visions. He points out that, in many organizations, people want to know what the vision is and look to the chief executive to provide it. Paradoxically, however, where vision statements are available, such as on corporate business cards, these are likely to be rejected as being in name only; they are not what people are “willing to die for.” He argues that developing a vision to guide organizational actions has to go beyond superficial statements and “confront the lack of integrity that exists in the system,” an exercise for which few managers are well equipped.

To illustrate this view, he tells the story of a speech given by Mahatma Gandhi at a political convention in India. When he rose to speak, many in the audience also rose, left their seats, and paid little attention to him. However, as he spoke about what Indians really cared about—not politics, but bread and salt—the audience sat down again and listened. His message was unusual: “This small, unassuming man had journeyed through their heartland and captured the essence of India. He was vocalizing it in a way they could feel and understand. Such articulation is often at the heart of radical, deep change” (Quinn, 1996, p. 199). For Quinn, it is this ability to find the organization’s “bread and salt” that makes a vision appealing, passionate, and beyond the superficial. This search for the “inner voice” of the organization is necessary in order to develop visions that resonate and narrow the gap between “talk and walk.” Such “bread-and-salt” visions are achieved in a circular manner involving a bottom-up and top-down dialogue to reach the “inner voice” of the organization.

Adopting a similar position, Chris Rogers (2007, p. 229) maintains that “vision is as much about insight as far sight.” Visions need to connect with people’s desires, feelings, and ambitions, as well as with the organization’s intentions. Resonating with the interpreter image of change management, this implies that visions are important in encouraging the members of an organization to develop and explore “new ways of seeing,” to gain fresh insights, make new connections, and to be better prepared to work with the challenges that a new vision is likely to bring.

Purpose beyond Profit

A focus on purpose goes beyond asking questions about whether a business is operating profitably or whether an action is legal—it engages a soul-searching focus on questions at a core level, such as: What is a business’s sense of purpose (shared identity and goals)? How and why did a particular business begin (imprinting effects of founding philosophies)? Who founded the enterprise and what did they want to achieve (entrepreneurial values, mission, and vision)? How does a sense of purpose relate to all the stakeholders in the organization and to the context in which it operates (stewardship and governance)? How does a business understand itself relative to society, and what is it doing to create a shared sense of purpose (institutional norms and logics)?

Source: From Hollensbe et al. (2014), p. 1228.

Table 6.7 provides examples of “bad” and “good” purpose statements (Craig and Snook, 2014, p. 109). Many organizations express their vision in vague and general terms: “Help others excel,” “Ensure success,” “Empower my people.” These statements do not include a plan for translating purpose into action. Some organizations try to cover every185possibility with jargon: “Empower my team to achieve exceptional business results while delighting customers” (p. 108). Now consider these two visions:

TABLE 6.7

From Bad to Good Purpose Statements

From Bad …	To Good …
Be a driver in the infrastructure business that allows each person to achieve their needed outcomes while also mastering the new drivers of our business as I balance my family and work demands	Bring water and power to the 2 billion people who do not have it
Continually and consistently develop and facilitate the growth and development of myself and others, leading to great performance	With tenacity, create brilliance

Purpose-Driven Leadership

Nick Craig and Scott Snook (2014) explore the concept of “purpose-driven leadership,” arguing that the leader’s sense of purpose contributes to a clear statement of the organization’s vision and mission:

Doctors have even found that people with purpose in their lives are less prone to disease. Purpose is increasingly being touted as the key to navigating the complex, volatile, ambiguous world we face today, where strategy is ever changing and few decisions are obviously right or wrong. (p. 106)

Google: “To organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful”

Charles Schwab: “A relentless ally for the individual investor”

In order to develop a sense of purpose that has an impact, leaders must clarify their own purpose based on experience, preferences, and ambitions. Craig and Snook also argue that leaders have to imagine the impact that “living the purpose” will have on their world. While actions matter more than words, the language in which purpose statements are expressed is important, as table 6.8 suggests.

TABLE 6.8

The Language of Purpose-to-Impact Planning

Traditional Development Planning	Purpose-to-Impact Planning
Uses standard business language	Uses meaningful, purpose-infused language
Focuses on weaknesses to address performance	Focuses on strengths to realize career aspirations
States a business- or career-driven goal	A statement of purpose explaining how you lead
Measures success with metrics tied to the firm’s mission and goals	Sets incremental goals related to living your leadership purpose
Focuses on the present, working forward	Focuses on the future, working backward
Generic; addresses the job or role	Unique to you, addresses who you are as a leader
Ignores responsibilities outside the office	Takes a holistic view of work and family

Leaders must therefore clarify their own unique sense of purpose, and put that to work.186

LO 6.5Why Visions Fail

Visions can fail for a number of reasons. For example, this can happen when a vision is:

· too specific; fails to appreciate the inability to control change, and the degree of uncertainty often associated with outcomes

· too complex; difficult to understand

· too vague; fails to act as a landmark toward which change actions are directed

· inadequate; only partially addresses the presenting problem

· irrelevant; clear picture, not firmly attached to the business

· blurred; no clear picture of the future

· unrealistic; perceived as not achievable

· a rearview mirror; pictures the past, extrapolated into the future

Be Specific Alan Lafley at P&G

The chief executive of Procter & Gamble (P&G), Alan Lafley, is reflecting on his five years of leading change inside the company. One of his key comments is that he found it important to provide more than just a briefly stated vision, because people responded better to specifics:

So if I’d stopped at “We’re going to refocus on the company’s core businesses,” that wouldn’t have been good enough. The core businesses are one, two, three, four. Fabric care, baby care, feminine care, and hair care. And then you get questions: “Well, I’m in home care. Is that a core business?” “No.” “What does it have to do to become a core business?” “It has to be a global leader in its industry. It has to have the best structural economics in its industry. It has to be able to grow consistently at a certain rate. It has to be able to deliver a certain cash flow return on investment.” So then business leaders understand what it takes to become a core business.

Why did this extra level of detail help? According to Lafley, there were two factors. One was the size and diversity of the P&G workforce—100,000 people from over 100 cultures. The second was that, for managers with so much going on in their businesses, the provision of more detail on the implications of the vision helped them to focus on what was needed to implement it (Rajat Gupta and Jim Wendler, 2005, p. 3).

Todd Jick (2001, p. 36) adds that a vision is likely to fail when leaders spend 90 percent of their time articulating it (but not necessarily in clearly understood terms), and only 10 percent of their time implementing it. Table 6.9 suggests other reasons why visions fail. The sidebar “A Lack of Shared Vision?” tells a short story about the absence of a shared vision. We will now consider two further reasons for vision failure; inability to adapt over time, and the presence of competing visions.187

TABLE 6.9

Visions Fail When …

Visions Fail When …	Because …
The walk is different from the talk	When managers do not match their words with actions, the vision is treated by staff as an empty slogan
They are treated as the “holy grail”	The expectations will be unrealistic, and visions are not magic solutions
They are not connected to the present	Visions need to recognize current obstacles if they are to be believable and seen as achievable
They are too abstract, or too concrete	Visions must be idealistic, realistic, and tangible
Development does not involve a creative process	It is often the process as well as the final vision that helps to secure the organization’s future
Participation is limited	Consensus must be built around the vision, which has to be diffused throughout the organization
People are complacent	Visions that are projected too far into the future are not seen as urgent

Source: Based on Lipton (1996), pp. 89–91.

A Lack of Shared Vision?

John Symons (2006) tells the following humorous story:

The man in the hot air balloon was lost. Descending sufficiently he shouted to a walker on the ground asking where he was. “You are 30 feet up in the air,” was her immediate response before she walked away.

Asked subsequently by a companion to explain this unhelpful behavior she said: “He was a typical manager. He didn’t know where he was, or how to get to where he wanted to go without the help of those underneath him.” Somewhat mischievously she added, “Why should I do more than necessary to help someone who got to where he was by hot air and did not tell me where he was planning to go?”

As John Symons comments:

She obviously did not know or share the balloonist’s vision. The lesson for managers is clear. As well as enthusing those underneath, the leader needs to communicate where he or she is in relation to achieving the vision.

Failure to Adapt

Some visions stand the test of time and remain applicable and adaptable to new situations and environments. Others, however, need to be overhauled in order to remain relevant. This situation is illustrated by the investigation by Lloyd Harris and Emmanuel Ogbonna (1999) into two medium-sized UK retail companies and the impact of the founders’ visions on strategic change. In both cases, the vision was established well over 100 years ago by the company founder and there was evidence of an escalation of commitment to the vision by subsequent management. In one company, the vision was paternalistic (commitment toward staff) and focused on prudent growth. This led to a strong focus on sales and profitability in each new store location. These characteristics were still present in the current management of the company. The vision itself was seen as flexible and responsive to the prevailing environmental conditions facing the company. The researchers label the founder’s vision in this case as providing a “strategic dividend” for subsequent management.188

By contrast, in the other company, the founder’s vision was to have a store in every town in a particular region. A second aspect of this vision concerned family control of the company. The researchers argue that this original vision continued to drive senior management. However, in contrast to the first company, this vision served as a “strategic hangover.” The closed nature of the vision led successive management teams to make decisions that were out of step with changes in the environmental conditions facing the sector, such as the movement of large retail stores into the region, and a shift in focus of such stores from price to quality and service. As a result, the company almost faced financial ruin on two separate occasions. In relation to subsequent strategic change actions taken by management in these two companies, the authors argue that “whether the original vision of the founder results in a legacy or a hangover is clearly dependent on the original flexibility of the strategy and the later environmental appropriateness” (Harris and Ogbonna, 1999, p. 340).

Presence of Competing Visions

Visions may also fail due to what Rosabeth Moss Kanter et al. (1992) call “vision collisions,” involving the presence of multiple and conflicting visions. This can happen, for example, when the vision is crafted by organization strategists who are convinced of the need for change, but where this sense of urgency is not shared by those who will implement or be affected by the change (who may still be trying to embed previous changes). Vision collisions can also occur where there is a gap between the visions of management and stakeholders. In the mid-1980s, the vision of Nike, the sportswear company, was to make athletic footwear. However, the company found that a different market segment was buying their shoes: not athletes, but people who were wearing Nike trainers instead of casual shoes. Nike responded by introducing its own brand of casual shoes. This strategy failed because Nike had not understood that customers were buying expensive “overengineered sneakers” because they appealed to their image. In other words, the company’s vision was out of step with its customers’ vision of Nike. Multiple and conflicting visions can also arise with company mergers. Colin Mitchell (2002), for example, cites the failure in 2000 of the merger between Deutsche Bank and Dresdner Bank. In this merger, there was a “failure of management to persuade Deutsche’s investment bankers of the vision for how the newly merged company would compete. Many key employees left, and the threat of mass walkout forced Deutsche to abandon the deal after considerable damage to the share price of both companies” (p. 104).

We need to close this discussion with a note of caution. There is limited research into the concept and process of vision failure. As Davidson (2004) argues, while there are many tales of failed visions, there are also many corporate insiders who have a vested interest in declaring success.

LO 6.6Linking 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.189

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) as well as 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. It is most 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 term 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 organization 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 in order 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. Robert Quinn (1996, p. 83) describes this as “building the bridge as you walk it.”

Other commentators have adopted an even stronger position, arguing that “the vision thing” is overrated in terms of driving change. For Frederick Hilmer and Lex Donaldson (1996), business planning, not vision or visionary leaders, produces successful change. Analyzing corporate change at GE, they observe that “there was no clear vision to guide the transformation” (p. 126) and that the actions of Jack Welch were pragmatic and “based on the application of conventional business ideas about the190need for productivity improvement and high market share” (p. 127). Many visions were produced over the period of Welch’s tenure, and a clear vision did not emerge until most of the transformational changes had been implemented. Hilmer and Donaldson (1996) argue that “vision rhetoric” was used simply to make management decisions appear to be more acceptable.

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 James Collins and Jerry 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 that 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 develop the distinctive 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 “Lou Gerstner on Vision,” below). 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 operations191in 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)

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, Michael Raynor (1998, p. 368) argues that “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.”

Source: Based on Gerstner (2003).

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 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.

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 that:

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 become 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 in192the future being stable and predictable. Outcomes are locked in and goals are set. The problem is that the vision may prevent the organization from pursuing new, unanticipated opportunities that may emerge.

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. (2006a and b) 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 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 David Nadler and Robert 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 articulating193it. Nadler (1998, p. 276) points to visionary leaders such as Jamie Houghton at 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 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, who managed Chrysler after Lee Iacocca, 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.

William Gardner and Bruce 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:

1. 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;

2. 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

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

4. 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 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 in order 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,” being 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 distance194

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 Chris Rogers (2007) calls “supervision,” using interactions, conversations, and role modelling to demonstrate:

perspective, concerning the challenges facing the organization purpose, both personal and organizational processes, to respond more effectively to customers possibilities, by challenging current constraints potential, concerning personal contributions passion, to 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 in order 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,” 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:

3M: “solve unsolved problems innovatively”

Mary Kay Cosmetics: “give unlimited opportunity to women”

McKinsey & Company: “help leading corporations and governments be more successful”

Walmart: “give ordinary folk the chance to buy the same things as rich people”

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, which can involve:195

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”; in 1996, Watkins-Johnson’s goal was to “become as respected in 20 years as Hewlett-Packard”

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.

The Complete Vision at Merck

Collins and Porras (2005) argue that complete visions have three components: a core ideology (values and purpose); an envisioned future (big, hairy, audacious goals); and vivid descriptions. They offer the following example from the pharmaceutical company Merck in the 1930s:

Core Ideology	Envisioned Future
core values: social responsibility, excellence, and science-based innovation	BHAG: to transform from a chemical manufacturer to a world drug company with research capacity rivalling major universities
Purpose	Vivid Description
to preserve and improve human life	with the tools we have supplied, science will be advanced, knowledge increased, and human life win ever greater freedom from suffering and disease

The work of Collins and Porras offers a sensitive treatment of the relationship between vision and change. Vision (which they also call “industry foresight”) is broken down into component parts, some of which remain stable and some of which change over time. Many change models that refer to the need for vision to guide organizational change lack this degree of sophistication. Vision is often presented as something that guides change, handed down to the organization by the chief executive and the top management team. However, for Collins and Porras, vision (as core ideology) serves as an enduring background component, not so much guiding change as reflecting how change will be achieved (by following core values, for example). It is the envisioned future of vision that offers concrete change direction, concerning what should be changed, and how.

196

EXERCISE 6.1

Interviewing Change Recipients

LO 6.1

Your task is to interview three employees; they can be in the same or different organizations. Ask them to think back to an organizational change that they experienced, and to answer the following questions:

1. Were they presented with an organizational vision for this change, and if so: What was the vision? What effect did this have on them? Were they involved in developing the vision? To what extent did the vision motivate them to engage in the change? How central was the vision to implementing the change?

2. If your interviewees were not given an organizational vision for this change, ask them: Would a vision have helped them to understand and become involved in the change? How important is vision to achieving organizational change?

When you have completed your interviews, consider the responses that you have documented. What general conclusions emerge regarding the relationship between vision and organizational change? What have you learned from this exercise?

EXERCISE 6.2

Analyze Your Own Organization’s Vision

LO 6.2

Consider your own current organization, or another with which you are familiar, which could be the institution where you are studying.

Refer back to the description, from Collins and Porras (2005), of “The Complete Vision at Merck.” Identify your chosen organization’s vision in those terms: core ideology (and values), envisioned future, BHAGs, and vivid descriptions.

Does your organization’s vision help to drive change, or not? Why?

Is the vision just a “public relations” exercise, or is it used in practice? How can you tell?

EXERCISE 6.3

The Role of Vision at Mentor Graphics

LO 6.3

As you read this case, consider the following questions:

1. How would you describe the way vision was used at Mentor Graphics?

2. Did it strengthen or weaken the company? How? Why?

3. Of the reasons discussed in this chapter concerning why visions fail, which are applicable to Mentor Graphics?

4. What is your assessment of the vision content and the process through which it was introduced in the Mentor Graphics context? What lessons emerge from your assessment?

5. Based on what happened at Mentor Graphics, what are the implications for the three debates discussed in this chapter: whether vision drives change or emerges during change; whether vision helps or hinders change; and whether vision is an attribute of heroic leaders or heroic organizations?

6. Of the six change images outlined in table 6.1, which images of vision can be applied to this case study? What lessons emerge from this?197

Gerard Langeler (1992), president of Mentor Graphics Corporation, described the role of vision in his company over a decade. Formed in the early 1980s, Mentor Graphics started with an unarticulated vision to “Build Something That People Will Buy.” On this basis, they spent a number of months interviewing potential customers and designing a computer-aided engineering workstation product.

At the same time, a competitor, Daisy Systems, was engaged in the same task and, in the early years, outcompeted Mentor Graphics. Eventually, “Beat Daisy” became the new vision, driven by the need to survive as a business.

By 1985 Mentor’s revenues were higher than Daisy’s; their vision had been realized. The company continued to grow despite the recession, but it suffered from typical growth problems, including decline in product quality and problems of internal company coordination. Stock value also suffered, and a number of staff approached Langeler seeking a new vision for the company.

The new vision was developed based on “Six Boxes,” which represented the six different businesses in which the company sought market leadership. The “Six Boxes” became a company mantra, but in the late 1980s, one of the businesses, computer-aided publishing, was not paying dividends. However, the fact that it constituted one of the “Six Boxes” meant that they could not shut it down, and be left with a “Five Boxes” vision. In this case, the existence of the vision disrupted the ability to make sound financial judgements. It also stopped them from moving more quickly to using Sun platforms, something they thought was too conventional for them.

A new vision was developed—the “10X Imperative”—that mirrored the push other companies were making toward quality through Six Sigma and other similar quality programs. However, customers did not really understand the new vision: it was too abstract and elusive.

In 1989 yet another vision emerged: “Changing the Way the World Designs Together.” In retrospect, Langeler depicts this vision as “the final extension of vision creep that began with Six Boxes.” It was very grand and had little to do with the actual businesses in which Mentor Graphics operated, including the development of its new 8.0 generation of software.

The realization, by the early 1990s, that the company’s vision detracted from what the company was actually trying to achieve led to the dumping of the vision and its replacement with one that echoed the early beginning of the company: “Our current short-, medium-, and long-term vision is to build things people will buy.” This was seen as a more pragmatic vision for a company that had lost its way, caught up in a cycle of visions that were increasingly irrelevant to the core business and which inhibited their ability to make sound business decisions.

Additional Reading

Hollensbe, E., Wookey, C., Hickey, L., and George, G. 2014. Organizations with purpose. Academy of Management Journal 57(5):1227–34. Discusses vision and purpose in terms of the “greater good” and the organization’s contribution to society. Argues that an organization’s sense of purpose must recognize the interdependence of business and society.

Ibarra, H. 2015. Act like a leader, think like a leader. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press. Offers advice on thinking strategically and avoiding the distractions of short-term priorities. Citing George W. Bush and his dismissive comment about “the vision thing,”198Herminia Ibarra argues that “the ability to envision possibilities for the future and to share that vision with others distinguishes leaders from nonleaders” (p. 40).

Kotter, J. P. 2012b. Accelerate! Harvard Business Review 90(11):44–52. (Also available in a book with the same title.) Develops his work on transformational change, first published in 1995, and echoes the arguments in his 2012 book Leading Change. This article puts vision at the heart of designing, implementing, and accelerating the pace of change: formulate a strategic vision, communicate the vision, and accelerate movement toward the vision. Kotter describes this as a “head and heart, not just head” approach (p. 49).

Roundup

Here is a short summary of the key points that we would like you to take from this chapter, in relation to each of the learning outcomes:

LO 6.1 Explain the arguments for and against the concept of vision, and how approaches to this issue depend on the image held of managing organizational change.

Some commentators argue that vision is indispensable, providing direction, purpose, and inspiration, and also strengthening the motivation to accept and become involved in change. Others, however, argue that the concept of vision is abstract and vague, becoming meaningless—and attracting cynicism—when most organizations articulate similarly bland visions that typically incorporate excellence, social responsibility, empowered employees, and delighted customers.

The concept of vision varies with the image of change management that is in use. For example, the director image assumes that responsibility for framing vision lies with senior leaders. The caretaker assumes that an organization’s vision is shaped primarily by external forces. The coach facilitates the consultation and co-creation process through which vision is developed by staff across the organization. The nurturer sees visions emerging from the clash of unpredictable forces, and therefore as temporary constructs.

Reflections for the Practicing Change Manager

What criteria do you use in order to decide whether a particular vision or vision statement is likely to be useful in your organization? What other criteria might you wish to take into account?

What is your preference: a short vision statement or a longer vision story? Why? How do you use vision statements or stories?

How do you distinguish vision from mission, planning, and goals? Are these important distinctions? In your organization, how aligned is vision with these other factors? Are there competing visions in your organization? How are these resolved?

What is your experience: are visions more likely to “take” in some organizations or cultural contexts compared with others? Why is this the case? What criteria can you develop to help assess when you should use vision to assist in organizational change?

What process have you used, or seen in use, to craft an effective vision? Do you have a personal preference toward an intuitive or an analytical approach to vision development? Why?

Is there an “inner voice” in your organization? What are the “bread-and-butter” issues? Are there “undiscussable” issues in your organization?

What is your judgement: When do visions fail, and when does their effectiveness fade? Can visions be revitalized? How?

What is your position: Does vision drive change? Does vision help change? Does vision need visionary leaders?

199

LO 6.2 Identify the characteristics of effective visions.

Evidence and experience suggest that, to be effective, visions should be clear, appealing, vivid, ambitious, and attainable, providing a sense of direction and guiding decision making, but also flexible enough to accommodate initiative and change. Effective visions also describe a desirable—perhaps ideal—future for the organization. A further emotional property of the effective vision, although difficult to define, is that it “feels good.” Some commentators argue a vision should be expressed in a brief, memorable statement. Others, however, claim that lengthier and more detailed “vision stories” can provide a better frame of reference for change and answer the question that all those who are involved will ask: what will this future mean for me?

LO 6.3 Assess how the context in which a vision is developed affects its meaning.

For the purposes of this discussion, “context” includes the organization’s culture as well as the external environment. We identified four stereotypical organizational contexts: rigid, bold, overmanaged, and liberated. These contexts vary in terms of degree of acceptance of the need for change, and resource availability. Rigid organizations are characterized by low acceptance and resources. Bold organizations have limited resources but high acceptance. Overmanaged organizations have high resource availability but little acceptance of the need to change. The context in which vision processes are most likely to be effective is the liberated organization, with high acceptance and high resource availability.

National cultures can also be influential. A corporate vision that would be acceptable and effective in Japan, where organizations are more closely linked to national and social interests, would be less acceptable in the United States, where organizations are more preoccupied with financial performance.

LO 6.4 Apply different methods and processes for developing vision.

There are many approaches to developing vision, ranging on the familiar continuum from “tell” (the chief executive determines the vision) to “co-create” (everyone participates in the development). There is no “one best way,” and choice is influenced by the change management image in use. Leader-dominated methods can be rapid, and may be inspirational, but are not consistent with the concepts of employee empowerment and engagement. Most commentators suggest that co-creation methods, where the role of senior leaders is to “orchestrate” the vision-crafting process, are more likely to produce better visions and more successful change.

Other approaches to crafting vision have been described as intuitive, analytical, and benchmarking. Intuitive approaches rely on imagination and creative imagery: what are our personal and organizational priorities, and what do we need to do to work toward our desired future? An analytical approach links vision to purpose and goals, using questions such as: Who do we serve? What do we do? Where do we place most of our efforts? How do we operationalize those efforts? A benchmarking approach is more externally focused and develops vision in relation to key competitors: What do our competitors do well? How can we do better than them? How should we measure our achievement? What will it be like when those standards have been met?

LO 6.5 Explain why some visions fail.

Visions can fail for many reasons: too specific, too vague, too complex, fails to address known problems, detached from the business, unrealistic, or does not offer a clear view of the future. Lack of adaptation to changing circumstances can make a vision obsolete,200contributing to decisions that are not consistent with new environmental conditions and constraints. Visions also fail because of “vision collisions”—the presence of too many competing visions for an organization.

LO 6.6 Explain the arguments concerning the relationship of vision to organizational change.

We explored three key debates. First, does vision drive change, or does vision emerge from the organizational change process? Second, does vision contribute to or hinder the organizational change process? Third, are visions attributes of heroic leaders, or of heroic organizations? With compelling arguments on both sides of these debates, the answers are not clear.

The traditional view sees the vision of the heroic, charismatic leader driving and contributing positively to the organizational change process. There is evidence and argument to challenge that perspective. The importance of charisma and vision may have been exaggerated. Charismatic senior figures perhaps contribute less to sustained organizational effectiveness than embedded visions, core values, and enduring ideologies. Visions are emergent because it is difficult to articulate a clear image of the future at the start of a disruptive transformational change process. Visions can impede change by making strong emotional appeals to the future instead of focusing on current operational problems, and where organizational capabilities are inadequate to achieving the vision.

The change manager must be aware of these debates and tensions and take these considerations into account before embarking on a vision development process at a particular time in a specific context. The weight of commentary, from academic research and management consultants, appears to endorse the value of articulating clear and compelling visions. However, this perspective should not be taken for granted, and a more cautious, skeptical, critical approach is perhaps advisable. The role of and need for vision should be assessed in relation to each specific organizational change situation. What has been effective for one organization, given its history, current challenges, and future aspirations, may not be wholly appropriate for another organization with a different background, a different set of problems, and a different desired future.

References

Ambler, G. 2013. 10 characteristics of an effective vision. Online blog accessed October 14, 2014: http://www.georgeambler.com/10-characteristics-of-an-effective-vision/.

Auster, E. R., Wylie, K. K., and Valente, M. S. 2005. Strategic organizational change: Building change capabilities in your organization. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Beaver, G. 2000. The significance of strategic vision, mission and values. Strategic Change 9(4):205–7.

Belgard, W. P., and Rayner, S. R. 2004. Shaping the future: A dynamic process for creating and achieving your company’s strategic vision. New York: Amacom.

Boal, K. B., and Hooijberg, R. 2001. Strategic leadership research: Moving on. Leadership Quarterly 11(4):515–49.

Collins, J. C., and Porras, J. I. 1991. Organizational vision and visionary organizations. California Management Review 34(1):30–52.201

Collins, J. C., and Porras, J. I. 1996. Building your company’s vision. Harvard Business Review 74(5):65–77.

Collins, J. C., and Porras, J. I. 2005. Built to last: Successful habits of visionary companies. 2nd ed. New York: HarperCollins.

Craig, N., and Snook, S. A. 2014. From purpose to impact: Figure out your passion and put it to work. Harvard Business Review 92(5):104–11.

Davidson, H. 2004. The committed enterprise: How to make vision, values and branding work. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.

Deetz, S. A., Tracy, S. J., and Simpson, J. L. 2000. Leading organizations through transitions: Communication and cultural change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Denning, S. 2004. Telling tales. Harvard Business Review 82(5):122–29.

Denning, S. 2005. The leader’s guide to storytelling: Mastering the art and discipline of business narratives. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Domm, D. R. 2001. Strategic vision: Sustaining employee commitment. Business Strategy Review 12(4):39–48.

Ford, J. D., and Pasmore, W. A. 2006. Vision: Friend or foe during change? Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 42(2):172–76.

Gardner, W. L., and Avolio, B. J. 1998. The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical perspective. Academy of Management Review 23(1):32–58.

Gerstner, L. V. 2003. Who says elephants can’t dance? Inside IBM’s historic turnover. New York: Harper Business.

Goffee, R., and Jones, G. 2000. Why should anyone be led by you? Harvard Business Review 78(5):63–70.

Gratton, L. 1996. Implementing a strategic vision: Key factors for success. Long Range Planning 29(3):290–303.

Gupta, R., and Wendler, J. 2005. Leading change: An interview with the CEO of P&G. McKinsey Quarterly, July:1–6.

Haines, S. G., Aller-Stead, G., and McKinlay, J. 2005. Enterprise-wide change: Superior results through systems thinking. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Hamel, G., and Prahalad, C. K. 1989. Strategic intent. Harvard Business Review 67(3):2–14.

Harris, L. C., and Ogbonna, E. 1999. The strategic legacy of company founders. Long Range Planning 32(3):333–43.

Hay, M., and Williamson, P. 1997. Good strategy: The view from below. Long Range Planning 30(5):651–64.

Hilmer, F. G., and Donaldson, L. 1996. Management redeemed: Debunking the fads that undermine our corporations. New York: Free Press.202

Hinterhuber, H. H., and Popp, W. 1992. Are you a strategist or just a manager? Harvard Business Review 70(1):105–13.

Hollensbe, E., Wookey, C., Hickey, L., and George, G. 2014. Organizations with purpose. Academy of Management Journal 57(5):1227–34.

Holpp, L., and Kelly, M. 1988. Realizing the possibilities. Training and Development Journal 42(9):48–55.

Ibarra, H. 2015. Act like a leader, think like a leader. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.

Jick, T. D. 2001. Vision is 10%, implementation the rest. Business Strategy Review 12(4):36–38.

Johnson, G., Whittington, R., and Scholes, K. 2011. Exploring strategy: Text and cases. 9th ed. Harlow, Essex: Financial Times Prentice Hall.

Kanter, R. M., Stein, B. A., and Jick, T. D. 1992. The challenge of organizational change: How companies experience it and leaders guide it. New York: Free Press.

Kirkpatrick, S. A., Wofford, J. C., and Baum, J. R. 2002. Measuring motive imagery contained in the vision statement. Leadership Quarterly 13(2):139–50.

Kolk, A. 2010. Visions & missions of Fortune Global 100. http://www.slideshare.net/openinnovation/visions-missions-of-fortune-global-100, accessed October 14, 2014.

Kotter, J. P. 2006. Transformation: Master three tasks. Leadership Excellence 23(1):14.

Kotter, J. P. 2012a. Leading change. 2nd ed. Boston: Harvard University Press.

Kotter, J. P. 2012b. Accelerate! Harvard Business Review 90(11):44–52.

Landau, D., Drori, I., and Porras, J. 2006a. Vision change in a governmental R&D organization. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 42(2):145–71.

Landau, D., Drori, I., and Porras, J. 2006b. Vision: Friend and foe during change: A rejoinder to reviewers’ comments. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 42(2):177–81.

Langeler, G. H. 1992. The vision trap. Harvard Business Review 70(2):5–12.

Levin, I. M. 2000. Vision revisited: Telling the story of the future. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 36(1):91–107.

Lewin, K. (ed.). 1951. Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers by Kurt Lewin. London: Tavistock Publications. (UK edition published 1952, edited by Dorwin Cartwright.)

Lipton, M. 1996. Demystifying the development of an organizational vision. Sloan Management Review 37(4):83–92.

Lissack, M., and Roos, J. 2001. Be coherent, not visionary. Long Range Planning 54(1):53–70.

Metais, E. 2000. SEB group: Building a subversive strategy. Business Strategy Review 11(4):39–47.203

Mitchell, C. 2002. Selling the brand inside. Harvard Business Review 80(1):99–105.

Nadler, D. A. 1998. Champions of change: How CEOs and their companies are mastering the skills of radical change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Nadler, D. A., and Shaw, R. B. 1995. Beyond the heroic leader. In Discontinuous Change: Leading Organizational Transformation, ed. D. A. Nadler, R. B. Shaw, and A. E. Walton (217–31). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Nutt, P. C., and Backoff, R. W. 1997. Crafting vision. Journal of Management Inquiry 6(4):308–28.

Pendlebury, J., Grouard, B., and Meston, F. 1998. The ten keys to successful change management. London: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Pfeffer, J. 2010. Power play. Harvard Business Review 88(7/8):84–92.

Quinn, R. E. 1996. Deep change: Discovering the leader within. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Raynor, M. E. 1998. That vision thing: Do we need it? Long Range Planning 31(3):368–76.

Robbins, H., and Finley, M. 1997. Why change doesn’t work: Why initiatives go wrong and how to try again—and succeed. London: Orion.

Rogers, C. 2007. Informal coalitions: Mastering the hidden dynamics of organizational change. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Schoemaker, P. J. H. 1992. How to link strategic vision to core capabilities. Sloan Management Review 34(1):67–81.

Scott-Morgan, P., Hoving, E., Smit, H., and Van Der Slot, A. 2001. The end of change: How your company can sustain growth and innovation while avoiding change fatigue. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Shaw, R. B. 1995. The essence of discontinuous change: Leadership, identity and architecture. In Discontinuous change: Leading organizational transformation, eds. D. A. Nadler, R. B. Shaw, A. E. Walton, and Associates (66–81). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Stace, D. A., and Dunphy, D. 2001. Beyond the boundaries: Leading and re-creating the successful enterprise. 2nd ed. Sydney: McGraw-Hill.

Symons, J. 2006. The vision thing. E.learning Age, April:18.

Victor, P., and Franckeiss, A. 2002. The five dimensions of change: An integrated approach to strategic organizational change management. Strategic Change 11(1):35–42.

Wind, J. W., and Main, J. 1999. Driving change: How the best companies are preparing for the 21st century. London: Kogan Page Ltd.204