Shared Vision

RefactorMe: Moved from ManagementByVision. Perhaps some of the content should be split out and moved back to ManagementByVision?

'Vision' and 'strategy' are orthogonal. Vision denotes the end result: "A computer on every desktop, running Microsoft software" is a vision. Strategy denotes how one gets from the current state of the world to the state described by the vision: "Become the standard, make it easy for developers, undercut competition."

What determines the path of a project; the path of an organization? Is it somebody's vision? What gets sacrificed when we FollowTheVision??

Do ConflictsOfVision? undermine the success of projects and organizations?

My chief uses management by vision. Actually ManagementByWishfulThinking? would be more accurate. It has been harmful to my morale, since (a) being asked to deliver the impossible and (b) being expected to promulgate and defend a plan that I know to be impossible really kills my motivation. But higher level management eats that stuff up. It is marketing. See OrganizationalPathologies.

All chiefs should use some amount of management by vision, because without it you get the opposite end of OrganizationalPathologies: shotgun. A lack of vision creates a lack of direction, and natural tendencies towards MobMentality? can cause a company without vision to move in the wrong direction in a coordinated fashion.

ConflictsOfVision? are a problem that definitely undermine morale, projects, and companies. Few things are more demoralizing than working hard on something that doesn't eventually contribute to the common goal. Part of the job (and sometimes, the only job) of the company leaders is to find a way to get everybody to agree upon the same vision, and to see what each part plays in realizing that vision.

Some reasons for using "vision" to guide a group:

"Vision" fits in the context of "Mission, vision, objectives, and goals." Management by vision assumes that a group of people have a well understood purpose for working together (the "mission"), and are capable of using small-scale management techniques ("objectives and goals") for day-to-day and month-to-month work.

The idea of "vision" adds something important to this context. A "vision" is a shared dream of how things "ought to look" after significant improvements have been made to the working environment. Management by vision dares the dreamer to articulate this dream in a way that everyone involved understands and can buy into. In particular, it encourages visual descriptions, and the use of (hypothetical) concrete (instead of abstract) examples of the improved environment.

An excellent example of such a "vision" is Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech.

The group can then tailor their "objectives and goals" to be specific steps that help make this dream a reality. Each step can "just make things better than they were before".

In some ways, the idea of working to achieve a vision is similar to eliminating "CodeSmells" or "OrganizationSmells?". Both are sensory analogies for improving what things are done, and how. Both can be illustrated with concrete examples.

A "vision" is positive -- something desirable, worth working towards. Whereas a "smell" is negative -- something to be avoided or rooted out.

Some reasons to have a shared "vision", not just a "strategy":

The word "vision" implies creativity and imagination. It dares each person in the group to imagine what things would be like when the "vision" is achieved. It acknowledges that the "vision" does not yet exist, but asserts that it is possible. It reminds each person that their creativity and contributions can help make the "vision" a reality.
A "vision" is something that anyone can have. It dares the dreamer(s) to express their vision in a way that everyone can share.
The word "strategy" has connotations of being something for a general or a chess player. Whereas, most people are soldiers, pawns, or chess pieces. If a "strategy" is something to be "implemented", it may be harder to get people to buy into it.
The word "vision" sounds unscientific. You don't have to be a general, a mathematician, or a chess player to have a "vision".
The word "vision" suggests a lack of rigor in its formulation. Anyone can contribute ideas, and help imagine the way things ought to be.
A "vision" is something desirable, worth working towards.

Some reasons to follow a "strategy", not just work toward a "vision":

Vision has many CultOfPersonality aspects to it--it couples the strategy far too much with the person in charge (the "visionary"). In many companies, everyone talks about implementing "Joe's vision", where Joe is the executive in charge. (At least it is clear who should get the credit or blame). Frequently, strategies need to change, and if someone is too tied into a particular strategic direction (because it's her "vision"), then the ship might well be steered into the rocks.
The word "vision" sounds unscientific, as if revealed to the "visionary" on stone tablets. It suggests a lack of rigor in its formulation.
(On the other hand, many so-called "strategies" might as well be "visions", the sort one observes while on hallucinogenic drugs, but I digress.)
Strategies can be simulated and compared. It is hard to objectively compare "visions", which leads to ConflictsOfVision?.

A sound strategy is necessary but not sufficient; an enterprise must be able to execute whatever strategy is in place. I've also seen plenty of instances where sound strategies were torpedoed by incompetent execution. In one case in particular, the former boss of a division at my employer had what in retrospect was a good strategy--but she was an incompetent manager who surrounded herself with YesMen? and rather swiftly drove the business into the ground. The business was sold, most likely at a big loss; and the new owners (with different management) are now doing quite well.

In well-managed corporations, they have a concept called StrategicPlanning... not only do they develop a strategic plan, but they have a process for managing StrategicPlanning as well. But I believe this Wiki page evolved from a discussion on TheFundamentalProjectManagementQuestion, which was taking a much narrower, project-based view. When you are in the bowels of getting work done, writing code, building databases, enforcing design constraints, and you get a PointyHairedBoss who practices ManagementByVision, all kinds of issues arise. (The folks actually doing the work at the bottom of the company, client-facing, aren't always in-the-loop, or even aware, of the StrategicPlanning).

Sometimes a management team may prefer to promote a SharedVision rather than use StrategicPlanning -- or even, if they are manipulative enough, do the StrategicPlanning in a secretive fashion and then promote a SharedVision to hoodwink the employees or investors.