Unit 6 LDRSHP

Disclaimer: This is a machine generated PDF of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace original scanned PDF. Neither Cengage Learning nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the machine generated PDF. The PDF is automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. CENGAGE LEARNING AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the machine generated PDF is subject to all use restrictions contained in The Cengage Learning Subscription and License Agreement and/or the Gale OneFile: Business Terms and Conditions and by using the machine generated PDF functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against Cengage Learning or its licensors for your use of the machine generated PDF functionality and any output derived therefrom.

Leadership as vision Author: Tony Morden Date: September-October 1997 From: Management Decision(Vol. 35, Issue 9-10) Publisher: Emerald Group Publishing, Ltd. Document Type: Article Length: 6,412 words

Abstract: Organizational leadership requires vision to attain management objectives. This visionary leadership approach is exemplified by General Electric CEO Jack Welch. According to a study by Tichy and Sherman (1994), Welch instituted a management philosophy at General Electric guided by vision and shared values. He also stimulated positive emotional energy in employees by allowing them to have a dialogue with their bosses. Kay (1993), on the other hand, analyzed visionary leadership in terms of relational contracts within an organization. These relational contracts, termed by Kay as architecture, are fostered by the ability of corporate leaders to build and sustain long-term trust and the pursuit of mutual benefit. In other words, visionary leadership requires consistency, trust, emotional energy, holism, social architecture and relational contracts.

Full Text: Contends that in addition to the role of leadership as a fundamental organizational competence, leadership may be defined in terms of vision and shared values. Vision is conceptualized in holistic terms. Defines vision as an imagined or perceived but consistent pattern of communal possibilities to which others can be drawn, and whose values they will wish to share. Explains visionary leadership and analyses its implementation within the context of social architecture and trust. Describes Collins and Porras' (1996) analysis of the visionary company. Concludes with a summary of Hickman's (1992) analysis of the relationship between the visionary capacity of the leader, and the practical implementation approach of the manager, as the two opposite ends of a spectrum. Concludes that a basic holistic objective should be to blend strong visionary leadership with effective management into one integrated whole, in which the strengths of both combine synergistically to the advantage of the enterprise.

Introduction

This article contends that leadership is a visionary concept. It analyses leadership in terms of vision. Vision is holistic; and is defined as an imagined or perceived pattern of communal possibilities to which others can be drawn, which they will wish to share, and which will constitute a powerful source of energy and direction within the enterprise.

Vision and holism

Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars (1994) comment on the holistic character of French attitudes towards issues of organization and management. The French describe such concepts as:

* solidarisme (mutual responsibility and interdependence);

* l'elan vital (the vital impulse, energizing source, or driving force);

* vision;

as key motivations for any organized community.

Mary Parker Follett (1987) describes leadership in holistic terms when she states that it is the leader who "can organize the experience of the group ... it is by organizing experience that we transform experience into power. The task of the chief executive is to articulate the integrated unity which his business aims to be ... the ablest administrators do not merely draw logical conclusions from the array of facts ... they have a vision of the future" (quoted in Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars, 1994, pp. 341-2).

Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars (1994) suggest that vision comes most easily to the holistically operating mind, while those with an analysing bias admit, like ex-President Bush of the USA, to not being "good at the vision thing".

Vision can be defined as an organized perception or phenomenon. It is an imagined or perceived pattern of communal possibilities to

which others can be drawn, given the necessary enthusiasm and momentum on the part of the leader who is promulgating that vision.

Bennis (Bennis and Nanus, 1985) defines leadership in terms of the capacity to create a compelling vision, to translate it into action, and to sustain it. Bennis's 1985 study of 90 successful US public figures identified the following leadership skills:

* The ability to create a vision that others can believe in and adopt as their own. Such vision is long term in its orientation (while market imperatives are short term). The leader uses vision to build a bridge from the present to the future of the organization.

* The capacity to communicate that vision (for instance through the process of management by wandering around or MBWA described in the first of these two linked articles), and to translate it into practicalities. Its implementation, for example, might be based on the enterprise mission statement; the organization's culture and values; its mechanisms of socialization, training and development; or its systems of incentive, status and reward.

* The ability to create a climate of organizational trust. Trust acts as an emotional glue that unites leaders and followers in a common purpose, and helps achieve the outcomes of that vision. The issue of trust is dealt with in a later section of this article.

Tichy and Sherman's analysis

Tichy and Sherman (1994) first published their bestselling account of the US General Electric (GE) corporation in 1993. This in-depth and influential work describes the transformation of GE under its CEO, Jack Welch, and sparked a major renewal of academic and practitioner interest in corporate leadership. The following section of this article is based upon direct quotations from Tichy and Sherman (1994) and from Jack Welch.

Jack Welch and leadership

"Managing doesn't interest Welch much. Leadership is what he values, because that's what enhances his control over the organization" (Tichy and Sherman, 1994, pp. 195-6). "Welch's six rules:

1 control your destiny, or someone else will

2 face reality as it is, not as it was or as you wish it were

3 be candid with everyone

4 don't manage, lead

5 change before you have to

6 if you don't have a competitive advantage, don't compete". (Tichy and Sherman, 1994, p. 15)

"You don't get anywhere if you keep changing your ideas. The only way to change people's minds is with consistency. Once you get the ideas, you keep refining and improving them; the more simply your idea is defined, the better it is. And you keep communicating. Consistency, simplicity, and repetition is what it's all about" (Tichy and Sherman, 1994, pp. 255-6).

Vision and leadership

"Somehow, the leader and the led have to define a vision that everyone can share" (Tichy and Sherman, 1994, p. 181).

"A company should define its vision and destiny in broad but clear terms" (Tichy and Sherman, 1994, p. 298).

"Look at Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt: they said, This is what it's going to be. And then they did it. Big, bold changes, forcefully articulated. When you get leaders who confuse popularity with leadership, who just nibble away at things, nothing changes" (Tichy and Sherman, 1994, p. 298).

"In the new culture, the role of a leader is to express a vision, get buy-in, and implement it. That calls for open, caring relations with employees, and face-to-face communication. People who cannot convincingly articulate a vision won't be successful" (Tichy and Sherman, 1994, p. 248).

Vision and emotional energy

"In the years ahead, corporations will sort themselves out into those that can compete on the playing field of global business, and those that either sell out or fail. Winning will require the kind of skill, speed, and dexterity that can only come from an emotionally energised work force". Bureaucratic corporations instead respond sluggishly to environmental changes. "Businesses organized on the old scientific model still build their best ideas into systems instead of encouraging employees to think for themselves. You can recognize such companies by the listlessness of their workers, who lack the conviction, spirit, and drive that characterizes champions in any field of endeavour" (Tichy and Sherman, 1994, p. 73).

"The old managerial habit of imposing ideas on employees transforms concepts into rules, stripping them of their vitality. Workers change their behaviour but not their minds" (Tichy and Sherman, 1994, p. 73).

"The world of the 1990s and beyond will not belong to `managers' or those who can make the numbers dance. The world will belong to passionate, driven leaders -- people who not only have enormous amounts of energy but who can energise those whom they lead" (Tichy and Sherman, 1994, p. 182).

"Executives have substantial power over employees, but they can't tell people what to believe. Creating the pumped-up, turned-on ... workforce that Welch envisions requires an honest intellectual exchange between bosses and subordinates -- conducted as a dialogue of equals. Welch calls this `leading while being led'" (Tichy and Sherman, 1994, p. 75).

"One of Welch's main goals as a manager has been to stimulate positive emotional energy in subordinates. He says he wants `turned on people'" (Tichy and Sherman, 1994, p. 62).

The values represented by the vision

"The goal was to implant and nourish the values Welch cherishes: self-confidence, candour, and an unflinching willingness to face reality, even when it's painful" (Tichy and Sherman, 1994, p. 4).

"The new organization at GE ... depends on shared values ... the values-based organization... derives its efficiency from consensus: workers who share their employer's goals don't need much supervision" (Tichy and Sherman, 1994, p. 4).

"The most effective competitors in the twenty-first century will be the organizations that learn how to use shared values to harness the emotional energy of employees. As speed, quality, and productivity become more important, corporations need people who can instinctively act the right way, without instructions, and who feel inspired to share their best ideas with their employers. That calls for emotional commitment. You can't get it by pointing a gun. You can't buy it, no matter how much you pay, You've got to earn it, by standing for values that other people want to believe", want to identify with, "and by consistently acting on those values" (Tichy and Sherman, 1994, p. 195).

Welch "pushes values because that's the way to get results. Delegating more of the control function to individuals ... reduces the need for reports, reviews, and other external mechanisms. A boundaryless organization can achieve the same level of control as a hierarchical one -- but at less cost, with less friction, and faster" (Tichy and Sherman, 1994, p. 195).

Architecture and trust

Bennis and Townsend (1995) suggest that a key to competitive advantage in the years to come will be the visionary capacity of leaders to create a social architecture that is capable of generating intellectual and social capital, and capable of adding value. This capital will be manifest in the value addition that results from the generation of ideas, knowledge, expertise, and innovation. Such social architecture is likely to be based on high levels of trust.

Architecture

Kay (1993) identifies four sources (or "foundations") of corporate success. These are:

1 architecture;

2 innovation (which may be imitated), and additionally an architecture that is capable of sustaining a process of ongoing innovation (which may be much more difficult, or even impossible for competitors to imitate);

3 brands and corporate reputation;

4 the possession of, or access to some key strategic asset.

Kay suggests that the key measure of corporate success is that of added value. Added value is the difference between the value of outputs and the relative cost of the inputs required to create them. Kay contends that the purpose of enterprise activity is to put together a set of relationships (architecture), to innovate, to develop the long-term value of brands and reputation, and to seek strategic assets such that the generation of added value is achieved within the prevailing conditions.

The enterprise is defined by its contracts and relationships. Added value is created by the success in putting together these contracts and relationships, so it is the quality and distinctiveness that enterprise leadership can bring to these contracts and relationships that determine the amount of value addition (and hence the degree of corporate success).

Architecture is defined by Kay as the network of relational contracts (defined below) within and around the enterprise. Organizations may establish these relationships with and among their employees (internal architecture); with their customers and suppliers (external architecture); and among groups of institutions engaged in related activities (networks; partnerships; value adding partnerships; holonic networks and virtual companies [which are defined as configurations of independent organizations that act in an integrated manner to meet emerging business opportunities]; etc).

The value-adding potential of enterprise architecture will derive from the relative success of those who establish it to create and sustain organizational knowledge and competence; to create and sustain experience; to achieve flexible and ongoing responses to changing circumstances; to create open and useful exchanges of information; and to create internalized cultural disciplines of motivation, quality, and control.

A key part of Kay's analysis is that architecture and social capital can only be created, sustained, and protected from imitation if it is contained within a framework of relational contracts. What can be written down in a standard or classical contract can be reproduced. Architecture therefore depends:

* on the ability of enterprise leadership to build and sustain long-term relationships characterized by trust and the pursuit of mutual benefit (for instance as described elsewhere by Ouchi, 1981 as "Theory Z"); and

* on the ability of enterprise leadership to establish an environment that discourages (or makes unnecessary) "opportunistic" short- term behaviour. Opportunistic behaviour by individuals is likely by definition to be counter-productive to long-term value generation (especially where the individual has been able to appropriate some of the value they has generated to themself).

Long-term enterprise relationships must therefore be mutually profitable, for instance taking the form of the offer of "noticeably fatter paychecks" (Tichy and Sherman, 1994, p. 217), employment guarantees, or significant length-of-service based bonuses, in return for personal flexibility and commitment. They might instead take the form of long-term supply contracts framed within partnership sourcing agreements, etc).

Trust

Fukuyama (1995), like Tichy and Sherman (1994), suggests that the most effective organizations are based on communities of shared ethical values. These communities do not require extensive contractual or legal regulation of their relations and social architecture because prior moral consensus gives members of the group a basis for mutual trust. Fukuyama comments that

social capital has major consequences for

the nature of the industrial economy that

society will be able to create. If people who

have to work together in an enterprise trust

one another because they are all operating

according to a common set of ethical norms,

doing business costs less. Such a society will

be better able to innovate organizationally,

since the high degree of trust will permit a

wide variety of social relationships to

emerge. Hence the...sociable Americans

pioneered the development of the modern

corporation... (while) the Japanese have

explored the possibilities of network organizations

... By contrast, people who do not

trust one another will end up co-operating

only under a system of formal rules and

regulations, which have to be negotiated,

agreed to, litigated, and enforced (if necessary

by coercive means). This legal apparatus,

serving as a substitute for trust, entails

what economists call "transaction costs".

Widespread distrust in a society, in other

words, imposes a kind of tax on all forms of

economic activity, a tax that high-trust

societies do not have to pay" (Fukuyama,

1995, pp. 27-8).

Fukuyama (1995) suggests that a high degree of trust increases economic efficiency by reducing these transaction costs that would otherwise be incurred, for instance in:

* maintaining and sustaining an effective enterprise relationship architecture;

* holding together large-scale and impersonal organizations or networks whose relationships must have a wider basis than that restricted to family or kin;

* dealing with inter-party disputes;

* finding trustworthy and reliable suppliers, buyers, or creditors;

* negotiating and implementing contractual arrangements;

* complying with government, trade, or environmental regulations;

* identifying, and dealing with malpractice or fraud.

Such transactional arrangements are made easier (and less expensive) if the relationship architecture is characterized by honesty. For instance, there will be::

* less need for control mechanisms within the management process;

* less need to specify matters contractually;

* there will be fewer grounds for dispute; and hence fewer disputes;

* less need for litigation (which consumes wealth but adds little or no value; destroys relationships; and reduces trust);

* less need to hedge against unexpected contingencies and unpredictable issues.

At the same time, Fukuyama (1995) contends that societies manifesting a high degree of communal solidarity and shared values may be more efficient than their more individualistic counterparts in that they may lose less value from "free riders". Free riders benefit from value generation by an organization or a society, but do not contribute proportionately (or at all) to the effort by which that value is generated. The free rider problem is a classic dilemma of group behaviour.

One solution to the free rider problem involves the group imposing some sort of coercion or discipline on its members to limit the amount of free riding that they can do. This might involve the classical use of frequent and close monitoring and supervision (which is expensive; and which as a form of control may be resented by the "non free riders" in the community who are pulling their weight).

Equally, but more efficiently, the incidence of free riding could instead be mitigated if the group possesses a high degree of social solidarity. People become free riders where they put their individual interests ahead of the group. But if they strongly identify their own well-being with that of the group, or put the group's interests ahead of their own in the relative scale of priorities, they may be less likely to shirk work or avoid responsibilities. Hence, within business organizations, sensitive leaders will attempt to establish a culture of pride, equality, a sense of belonging, and a sense of esprit de corps among their employees such that these people believe that they are part of a worthwhile enterprise which has a valuable purpose.

The high-trust workplace

Fukuyama describes lean manufacturing, for instance as found in the automobile industry, as an example of the organization and management of a high-trust workplace. It can be contrasted with the classic low-trust manufacturing system created by F.W. Taylor and the School of Scientific Management (for instance, see Morden, 1996).

Lean manufacturing systems require a high level of trust because, for example:

* the fragility of the system, which can easily be disrupted, calls for responsible behaviour throughout the network upon which it is based, at all times. This applies equally to suppliers and employees;

* people are trusted to deal with problems, where and when they happen, at source.

This is because:

* people are trusted with high levels of responsibility and discretion at all points of the supply and operational process. This implies a significant degree of the delegation of authority and responsibility throughout the workforce and the supply chain;

* the use of collective and team/cell-based operational structures means that free-riding behaviour becomes unacceptable. Group norms become dominant (particularly if pay is also based on them) over individualistic priorities;

* the abandonment by employees of traditional lines of demarcation and trade union involvement in the establishment of work practices must be reciprocated by management. This may mean making available the necessary multi-skill and quality assurance training; providing employment guarantees (at least to core workers); implementing single employee status, and the downgrading/elimination of hierarchical privilege; increased remuneration resulting from increased productivity, etc);

* there will be an expectation of totally cooperative and trustworthy behaviour by suppliers and intermediaries throughout the value chain. This is related to the requirement that open information flows are needed to make the system work. The free exchange of information will only occur where there is adequate trust between the parties to that exchange. This is particularly true of the supply chain; and of network structures/relationship architectures.

Collins and Porras' analysis

Collins and Porras' (1996) influential study, Built To Last, may be described as an inheritor of a lengthy (and US dominated) tradition of the study of corporate performance. This tradition is based on the work of such academics, consultants, and corporate leaders as Frederick Taylor, Alfred Sloane, Peter Drucker, Tom Peters, and Rosabeth Moss Kanter.

Collins and Porras (1996) suggest that their study identifies the main characteristics of what they call "visionary companies". These companies are all American, with the exception of the Sony Corporation. These companies are described as being characterized by excellence. Collins and Porras (1996) define such companies, which include 3M, Hewlett-Packard, Johnson and Johnson, and Boeing, as "premier institutions -- the crown jewels -- in their industries, widely admired by their peers and having a long track record of making a significant impact on the world around them.., visionary companies prosper over long periods of time, through multiple product life cycles and multiple generations of active leaders" (Collins and Porras, 1996, pp. 1-2).

Company sample and research methodology

Collins and Porras (1996, p. 2) note that "in a six-year research project, we set out to identify and.., research the historical development of a set of visionary companies, to examine how they differed from a carefully selected control set of comparison companies, and to thereby discover the underlying factors that account for their ... long term position".

The primary objectives for the research project were to:

1 identify the underlying characteristics common to visionary companies (that distinguish them from other companies), and to translate these findings into a useful conceptual framework;

2 communicate these concepts and findings so that they may influence the practice of management and prove beneficial to people who want to create, develop, and maintain visionary companies.

The survey was based on a sample of 18 companies, all founded before 1950. These were compared with an equivalent set of comparison companies, in order to establish what distinguishes one set of companies from another.

These sample companies were analysed in depth across their entire history. The researchers sought "underlying, timeless, fundamental principles and patterns that might apply across eras" (Collins and Porras, 1996, p. 17). This analysis was based on the study of:

nine categories of information over the

entire history of each company. These categories

encompassed virtually all aspects of a

corporation, including organization, business

strategy, products and services, technology,

management, ownership structure,

culture, values, policies, and the external

environment. As part of this effort, we systematically

analysed annual financial statements

back to the year 1915 and monthly

stock returns back to the year 1926. In addition,

we did an overview of general and

business history in the United States from

1800 to 1900, and an overview of each industry

represented by the companies in our

study (Collins and Porras, 1996, p. 19).

Collins and Porras' proposition

Collins and Porras (1996) propose a model of a visionary company. This model is characterized by:

* Clock building, not time-telling, by which the company itself is the ultimate creation. The builders of such companies take an architectural approach and concentrate on developing the key organizational traits of the visionary company. Building a vision and a company that can prosper far beyond the presence of any single leader and through multiple life cycles is described as "clock building".

* More than profits. The visionary company is driven by a powerful internal core ideology, which comprises core values and a sense of purpose which extend far beyond simply making money. This "pragmatic idealism" guides and inspires people, and remains relatively fixed for long periods of time. The core ideology is seen as a primary element in the historical development and success of the visionary company.

* Preserve the core but stimulate progress. The visionary company protects and preserves its core ideology, but puts in place a relentless drive for progress that implies development and change in all of the activities inspired by that core ideology. Visionary companies are characterized by strong drives for exploration and discovery, for creativity and innovation, for improvement, and for change.

* Big hairy audacious goals (or BHAGs). Visionary companies will deliberately set themselves audacious and risky objectives, some of which will "bet the company" (Deal and Kennedy, 1988). Such objectives (for example the development of the Boeing 747) will challenge the whole company and force change upon it, as well as reinforcing the market leadership typically enjoyed by these premier companies.

* Cult-like cultures. The company's core ideology is translated into clear cultural and behavioural patterns. These cultural and ideological patterns are imposed on people in the organization, who are screened and indoctrinated into conformity and commitment to them. There are high levels of expected commitment; those who cannot accept the prevailing culture will leave or be fired. Visionary companies tend to be more demanding of their employees and managers than other companies. But those who can cope may develop a strong sense of working for an elite organization, which in turn has an effect on the calibre of people who can be attracted and recruited. Visionary companies may be regarded as ultimate employers who are in a position to recruit "the best".

* Try a lot of stuff and keep what works. Visionary companies exhibit high levels of action and experimentation -- often unplanned or undirected -- that produce new or unexpected paths of progress. This evolutionary progress is opportunistic in character; accepts the value of trial-and-error and chance discovery; and rejects `Not Invented Here' limitations on the strategic management of technology and innovation. Individual employees are encouraged and empowered to seek new paths and new ways of doing things.

* Home-grown management. Visionary companies select, develop, and promote managerial talent from inside the company to a greater degree than other organizations. This brings to senior levels only those who have spent considerable time being socialized into, and internalizing the core ideology of the company. This has the effect of preserving and reinforcing the core ideology, and bringing about continuity. For instance, in commenting on the track record and succession planning of the US General Electric corporation (GE), Collins and Porras (1996, p. 171) comment that "to have a Welch-calibre CEO is impressive. To have a century of Welch-calibre CEOs all grown from inside ... that is one key reason why GE is a visionary company".

* Good enough never is. The visionary companies are characterized by an ethic of continuous self-improvement, with the aim of doing better and better in the future. This helps to stimulate progress. The search for improvement becomes a way of life -- a habit of mind and action. Collins and Porras (1996) suggest that excellent performance comes naturally to the visionary company as a result of a never-ending cycle of self. stimulated improvement and investment for the future. One consequence of this ethic is that visionary companies tend to install powerful mechanisms to create discomfort and to obliterate complacency. As a result, such companies may not be "comfortable" places in which to work!

Mind of a manager, soul of a leader

Hickman's (1992) influential study Mind of a Manager, Soul of a Leader was first published in 1990. Hickman compares and inter- relates the competences and mind-sets of managers and those of leaders. He notes that as a result of the growing pressures on contemporary organizations, "executives find themselves confronted with an escalating conflict... between the managerial and leadership requirements of organizations. An `either/or' mentality dominates at a time when organizations most desperately need the best of both" (pp. vii-viii). Hickman (1992) attempts to put to rest fruitless "debate about `managers' and `leaders' ... (suggesting that) what companies need are the skills of both; the practical, analytical, orderly mind of a manager; and the experimental, visionary, creative soul of a leader" (endpapers).

Hickman (1992, p. 7) suggests that "the words `manager' and `leader' are metaphors representing two opposite ends of a spectrum. `Manager' tends to signify the more analytical, structured, controlled, deliberate, and orderly end of the continuum; while `leader'

tends to occupy the more experimental, visionary, flexible, uncontrolled, and creative end".

A fundamental holistic objective should be to blend strong management and strong leadership into one integrated whole, where the strengths of both combine synergistically, and offset each other's weaknesses. This synergy might be achieved by any or all of the permutations described below.

Authority plus influence

Authority gives someone the legitimate right to order and command behaviour. Managers use authority to get people to take action. Influence involves the use of indirect or intangible means to prompt thought, opinion, attitude, and behaviour.

Leaders apply influence rather than authority to get people to take action. They are able to rally others behind the vision or purpose they have articulated.

Hickman (1992, p. 102) comments that the organization "needs leaders with strong influence and managers who use authority to get things done. Balanced attention to both allows an organization to focus on the key issues facing it, as well as on the nuts and bolts of daily operation".

Art plus science

Leaders may value the fluid, intuitive, and qualitative side of their work, thinking of it as an art. This may cause them to think and communicate in terms of visions and beliefs.

Managers will often conceptualize their work as a precise, rational, and qualitative science. Given this tendency, managers typically study, define, and attempt to clarify the concrete, measurable aspects of organization and management. Some will dismiss the concept of organizational leadership as a "soft" issue, of little worth compared with the "hard" matters of management science.

The enterprise in reality needs both approaches to be effective and responsive, even if these approaches co-exist in a state of tension.

Simplicity plus complexity

Hickman (1992) notes in this context McNamara's First Law of Analysis, which states that a person should "always start by looking at the grand total. Whatever problem you are studying, back off and look at it in the large". Hickman suggests that when a leader wishes to view this full picture, they may do so by simplifying it. The leader searches for patterns, connections, frameworks, or concepts that encompass all the confusing details surrounding a particular issue. As a result of this inclination, leaders tend to create simple visions or perceptions of reality, encouraging a philosophy of keep it simple (KIS). Leaders use the detail to find patterns and frameworks in order to simplify the complexity,

When looking at the same situations, managers may tend to see complexity. When attempting to conceptualize and understand the whole picture, the manager's mind may turn to the detail, digging for additional data that may not be readily apparent. Given this inclination (reinforced by the tendency of Western managers to receive analytical, deconstructionist, and problem-orientated education and training), managers may create complex analyses of reality that contain all of the detail they can muster. Managers use details to paint the most realistic picture possible, with all its complexity.

Hickman (1992, p. 163) comments that "in cases of complexity versus simplicity, it may be easier for the manager to embrace some or part of the orientation of the leader than for the leader to assume some or part of the orientation of the manager". He suggests that "organizations should look for complexity first and then find ways to simplify that complexity Both orientations are ... important, but simplicity alone carries much more risk ... in an increasingly global and complex world. However, complexity in and of itself can fail because it obscures simple strategic priorities and cultural values that need to be clearly... communicated to people throughout the organization. In a balanced and integrated organization, managers work to bring the full picture with all its complexity into focus, while leaders complement their efforts by taking that complex picture and finding simple patterns and frameworks to make it easy to use and communicate" (Hickman, 1992, p. 164).

Dreams plus duties

Hickman (1992) suggests that when leaders want to enhance their effectiveness, they pursue dreams because dreams represent new visions and new possibilities. Leaders may evaluate their performance on the basis of dreams achieved.

In their drive to become effective, managers will instead focus on duties because duties represent concrete and finite tasks. Hickman suggests that when managers appraise and evaluate their performance, they instinctively use current duties as their measurement standards.

Hickman (1992) comments that both dreams and duties are needed, because both "are inexorably linked" (p. 223).

Inspiration plus instruction

Because managers want to ensure that their people know what to do and how to do it, they tend to take an instructional approach to their subordinates. Such an approach emphasizes the "how" of individual and organizational performance; and relies on training to make sure the "how" can be turned into capability.

On the other hand, leaders, wanting to make sure that their people know "why" their jobs are important, may try harder to inspire. Inspiration, as a form of motivation, is seen as the best way of helping people grasp the meaning and outcome of their work. Leaders will be well advised to ensure that people are properly instructed and trained in the "hows", but only after focusing on the "whys" and their attendant vision and inspiration.

Fasten plus unfasten

Hickman suggests that the management process tends to fasten matters in two ways:

1 managers fasten their attention on specific issues;

2 managers then attempt to fasten resolutions to those issues onto people and organization.

As a result, managers will set performance and behaviour priorities, objectives, policies, expectations, milestones, assignments and tasks that will lead towards the resolution of these matters.

Leaders tend instead to unfasten matters in two ways: 1 they will tend to focus their gaze away from immediate concerns, and visualize the larger context or wider picture;

2 they like to unfasten apparent narrowly focused or "tied-down" aspects of their people and organization.

In this way, leaders may disdain existing direction, immediate priorities, prevailing expectations, and current objectives. They may question the "received wisdom", challenging what they perceive as potentially myopic, conservative, or static views of the market, technology, competitors, culture, etc; and past organizational responses to these variables. Their objective may be to evaluate and review, to create or innovate, to challenge self-imposed "not-invented-here" restrictions, to change the parameters of the enterprise, or to achieve breakthroughs in their critical success factors.

Compromise plus polarize

A manager's mind may seek compromise, whether with superiors, peers, or subordinates, in order to ensure that policies, plans and programmes get implemented. Compromising may become a way of life for managers, for without it the organization may get enmeshed in a rising tide of conflicts and differences. Compromise is used to reduce or eliminate conflict.

The leader may instead seek to polarize. Leaders may deliberately attempt to elicit strong, diametrically opposed responses from superiors, peers, and subordinates. Polarization of viewpoints is useful because it reveals the multiplicity of perspectives that enrich an undertaking, and demonstrates alternative visions or possibilities.

Hickman (1992) contends that both compromise and polarization are needed. He comments that "there is a time for iron-willed polarizing, and there is a time for flexible compromising. If you only know how to compromise, you miss the tonic effect of polarizing; if you only know how to polarize, you miss those opportunities where ... bending could save the day" (p. 158).

Vision plus version

A prime leadership skill will be to envision some desired future state of being, and to inspire others to understand and share that vision. However, after the leader has envisioned and conceptualized that desired future state of being, someone else usually has to create a version of that desired state in order to implement it. This raises two issues:

1 the developing relationship between what was envisioned and what can be realistically implemented;

2 the leader's perception of(and satisfaction with) the process of versioning and implementation; and his/her capacity to leave the versioning of vision to others.

Hickman comments that the enterprise needs both visioning and versioning capabilities to sustain it over the long term.

Present plus future

Hickman suggests that managers' minds typically think about and act on the present. When managers do look into the future, they may do so by extrapolating from the past and present. For these managers, the present represents the boundary of their accountability. They perceive that the only way to create the future is to manage the present.

Leaders' souls, on the other hand, reside in the future, viewing the present in terms of its long-term implications. The present functions primarily as a measure of progress towards some future envisioned state. Leaders perceive their accountability to be defined in terms of future change, progress, or results.

In reality, the direction of the enterprise depends on the effective management of both present and future, not one or the other.

Short term plus long term

Managers tend to focus on short-term, immediate results. They may view such results as the key measure of whether or not they are doing a good job.

Leaders will tend to think in the long-term of wider issues and results. They believe that focusing on the long-term places the short- term in its proper perspective.

In reality, both short and long-term results are important considerations for any organization. Hickman (1992) comments that "while the company should not pursue short-term results at the expense of long-term results, neither should it use the pursuit of long-term results to justify poor performance in the short-term" (p. 256).

Summary

The model of leadership described in this article is illustrated in Figure 1. The diagram summarizes the key variables described in this article that comprise the model of leadership as vision. A related article, published in Management Decision, Vol. 35 No. 7, analysed leadership as competence.

Application questions

1 How well are we developing, training, schooling leaders as opposed to managers? What are or should be the main differences in developing leaders as distinct from developing managers?

2 Can a leader lead with a vision?

3 What would be the ideal characteristics of a leader in your organization in the near future? How would they spend their days at work?

References

Bennis, W. and Nanus, B. (1985), Leaders: the Strategies for Taking Charge, Harper & Row, New York, NY.

Bennis, W. and Townsend, R. (1995), Reinventing Leadership, Piatkus, London.

Collins, J. C. and Porras, J. I. (1996), Built to Last, Century Business, London.

Deal, T. E. and Kennedy, A. A. (1988), Corporate Cultures, Penguin, London.

Follett, M E (1987), Freedom and Co-ordination: Lectures in Business Organization, Garland, New York, NY.

Fukuyama, F. (1995), Trust: The Social Values And The Creation Of Prosperity, Hamish Hamilton, London.

Hampden-Turner, C. and Trompenaars, F. (1994), The Seven Cultures of Capitalism, Piatkus, London.

Hickman, C. R. (1992), Mind of a Manager, Soul of a Leader, Wiley, New York, NY.

Kay, J. (1993), Foundations of Corporate Success, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Morden, A. R. (1996), Principles of Management, McGraw-Hill, London.

Ouchi, W. (1981), Theory Z, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Tichy, N. M. and Sherman, S. (1994), Control Your Own Destiny or Someone Else Will, Harper Business, New York, NY.

Copyright: COPYRIGHT 1997 Emerald Group Publishing, Ltd. http://www.emeraldinsight.com.libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/ Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition) Morden, Tony. "Leadership as vision." Management Decision, vol. 35, no. 9-10, Sept.-Oct. 1997, p. 664+. Gale OneFile: Business,

https://link-gale- com.libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/apps/doc/A20531638/ITBC?u=oran95108&sid=ITBC&xid=101285d6. Accessed 16 Aug. 2020.

Gale Document Number: GALE|A20531638