In recent years, one word has become synonymous with good leadership: Vision.
In 2018, the Leadership Commission launched 28 recommendations for better public sector leadership and pointed out that "all public sector leaders must be able to set a meaningful direction for their organization through a clear vision [and] if you can't and won't do that, you shouldn't be a leader". Period.
The reason for the recommendation was that a clear vision will help ensure that decisions, strategies and action plans make sense "at the sharp end" among the employees who have to live the vision.
In 2020, it was the Carlsberg Foundation that joined the vision chorus as another weighty voice. The foundation initiated a visioning process in which 52 prominent people provided input for a long-term vision to describe what an ideal Danish society could look like. This extensive work has just resulted in the vision document Vision Denmark 2050. The document states that the vision "aims to inspire Denmark to make use of the unique opportunities we possess and, as a country and society, to reinvent ourselves (...) and sow the seeds for Denmark's future". The argument here is that visions can help identify and unlock potential.
When Mette Frederiksen mentions in her New Year's speech that Danes should be able to fly green on all domestic flights by 2030, it is an example of how a vision can help address a significant challenge we are facing right now in relation to the climate impact of air traffic. The argument here is that clear visions can help address some of the wicked problems that we as a society have to deal with.
Finally, I have also contributed to the debate with the book Vision Leadership - how to create a clear and meaningful direction for your organization, which summarizes the research on vision leadership. Several studies show that vision can help motivate employees to go the extra mile and that vision can play a crucial role when organizations need to implement major changes.
In summary, in other words, there are numerous reasons to formulate visions. However, research, as well as my own practical experience as a consultant who has facilitated several visioning processes, suggests that there are a number of obvious pitfalls that must be avoided if a vision is to end up "winning rather than sailing". Three of the most central pitfalls are discussed below.
The article continues after the next section.
Management in private companies
Trap 1: The vision appears unfounded
We can define a vision as the organization's picture of a desirable, long-term future. The vision answers the following questions: Where do we want to be in, say, three, five or seven years? What do we want to succeed in the long term? What mental images should appear in our minds when we "see" the desirable future in our minds?
But before we can relate to the desirable future situation, it is necessary to first look at the current situation. If the vision doesn't relate to the current challenges, it can easily appear unfounded. So start by asking: Where are we currently not succeeding as well as we would like? By reflecting on this question, we indirectly get a range of reasoned and well-founded inputs to the vision content - rather than just generating inputs 'out of the blue'.
Imagine a school that is challenged by more and more students being segregated into special classes. Here, a vision could address a desirable future characterized by greater inclusivity towards a diverse student population in mainstream schools. This could be addressed by the vision below:
"We want to create a school where students feel there is room for everyone, and where twisted minds and clever hands can go hand in hand."
Trap 2: The vision is not motivating
Employee buy-in to a vision is naturally higher if they are motivated by contributing to the vision. A new study suggests that people are typically motivated by contributing to visions with three different types of content.
The first type of vision that motivates are visions with prosocial content, which are about charity and altruism. In other words, the vision focuses on making a difference for other people to a greater extent than the organization does now. The vision for the school above is an example of such a vision.
The second type of vision that motivates are visions with a strength-oriented content, which is about dominance and influence. Here, the focus is on pronounced competition with other organizations and the intention to be a leader in your field. Visions that start with phrases such as "we want to be the industry/community/country leader..." are examples of strength-oriented visions.
Finally, visions with a performance-oriented content can also motivate. Here, the focus is also on doing well - but not in competition with others. Here, the vision is about solving complex problems, tackling difficult challenges or meeting extraordinary standards of high quality. Such visions are often about exploring the unknown and developing new solutions that have not been seen before, and thus often have an entrepreneurial and innovative character.
Volvo's safety department has a vision that "no one should be killed or seriously injured in a new Volvo in the future". This is a vision that seeks to meet exceptionally high quality standards.
The company Eksobionics also has a vision with a performance-oriented content. Their vision is that they will "contribute to the fact that robotic skeletons will one day be an accessible option for millions of wheelchair users who will have the ability to stand and walk". This is a vision that seeks to solve complex problems.
So what characterizes a non-motivating vision? A Danish study suggests that visions with content that deals with "inner workings" fail to motivate - for example, visions that focus on creating a good working environment, good competence development opportunities, use of specific professional approaches, focus on cost efficiency or the like.
Trap 3: The vision wants too much and doesn't express a clear direction
Often, organizations formulate visions because they want to create a clear direction. But all too often, highly participatory visioning processes end up with visions that are more like watered-down compromises that express several different directions because they seek to embrace all stakeholders' desires for the vision's content. And this is where the paradox arises: when all directions become equally valid, all directions become irrelevant.
Opting in to one direction for the next three, five or seven years also implies opting out of another direction - and we must dare to stand by this if the vision is to function as a real direction-setting tool that can clarify which strategic initiatives should be initiated and which should not.
Closely related to this challenge, visions that want too much are often very long. Research suggests that the ideal length of a vision is 11-22 words when it needs to be unambiguous, easy to communicate and easy to remember.
What should you take away from the above? Let's focus on just three implications for you to formulate a winning vision for your organization:
- Make sure you address your current challenges - and let the "response" to the challenges be addressed in the vision, as this can help create a sense of relevance when presenting the vision to your employees.
- Make sure the content of the vision is either prosocial, empowering or performance-oriented so that the vision is motivating to contribute to.
- Make sure the vision expresses one clear direction and keep it concise so it's easy to use in your leadership communication and easy for your employees to remember.
