reached which everyone could take on board. Some wonderful images emerged: “Fly, little eagle, fly!” “The noble eagle soars majestically through the circus tent,” “A supertanker travelling as fast as a speedboat,” or our favorite, “The court jester rides bareback on the mighty condor.”
Hundreds of “Vision Workshops” started like this and, to the delight of the consultants, were rolled out across the whole of the organization, both nationally and worldwide. While we can look back on all this now with a wry smile, at the time it was taken very seriously by those involved. Well, most of them.
It is just as risky to derive visions from a condensed bundle of brainstorming contributions as it is to outsource everything to an outside consulting firm. For a vision to work well, it has to reflect corporate culture and form the basis of a long-term objective, which will motivate, serve as a guide in day-to-day business, and encourage the “wow” factor. If an organization wants to be “the most customer-friendly business in the world,” every decision taken at all levels of the business must be measured against this vision. This applies equally to how staff react to customer complaints through to management making strategic decisions. A good vision enhances a project to an extent where people say, “Hey, I want to be part of that!” and motivates by giving purpose to the work of each and every individual involved. It should be clear and concise, so that all employees can understand it, which conveniently rules out long-winded marketing blurb. Purely numerical statements involving market share or financial targets are also taboo and can, indeed, be quite dangerous—but more about that in a few moments, under “Why Striving for Increased Market Share Is Not a Vision.”
First of all, how many of the following would capture your heart and convince you to give everything?
•“We aspire to be the leading client-centric global universal bank. We serve shareholders best by putting our clients first and by building a global network of balanced business underpinned by strong capital and liquidity.” (Deutsche Bank)
•“We are ‘The Chemical Company’ successfully operating in all major markets.” (BASF)
•“Our vision: world-leading brands and technology.” (Henkel)
•“GM’s vision is to be the world leader in transportation products and related services. We will earn our customers’ enthusiasm through continuous improvement driven by the integrity, teamwork, and innovation of GM people.” (General Motors)
•“To operate the best omni-channel specialty retail business in America, helping both our customers and booksellers reach their aspirations, while being a credit to the communities we serve.” (Barnes & Noble)
The longer the slogan, the more it arouses skepticism. To become “the most customer-friendly business in the world” may well inspire. But “…the leading client-centric global universal bank, serving the best interests of its shareholders”? Likewise, references to performance objectives or market share targets fail to inspire. Which business doesn’t want to “succeed in all its main markets” or deliver “top performance”? This type of wording ignores completely that powerful visions feed on strong emotions. Admittedly, this is easier for non-profit organizations to achieve than businesses. It is, however, not impossible.
•“UNICEF’s vision: A world where the rights of every child are realized.”
•“Amnesty International’s vision: A world in which every person enjoys all the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards.”
•“Syngenta: Using Innovation to Feed the World.”
•“Google’s vision: to provide access to the world’s information in one click.”
•“To become the world’s most loved, most flown and most profitable airline.” (Southwest Airlines)
Simon Sinek, the successful TED speaker, author, and management consultant, links this with the “Start with why” effect. Almost everyone knows what a business does, and some people know how it does it, but it is rarely clear why it does what it does. Most visions get stuck at the level of “what we do,” as shown above. That’s the reason they are so long and boring. “Why” visions inspire, are meaningful, and provide a real vision: A fair chance for every child, improving everyday life, making information available at all times to everyone, feeding the world. This “why” is also the key difference of mission statements, which are often confused with visions. Just as a reminder: A mission statement describes what a company wants to do now and how it will do it, whereas a vision statement outlines why a company exists and where it wants to be in the future. Management visionary Jim Collins uses the catchphrase “Big, Hairy, Audacious Goals” (BHAG) instead of visions, meaning a picture of a very large, bold, extremely challenging (“hairy”) distant objective, an inspiring “Mount Everest” which the business wants to conquer in the next ten to thirty years. Good BHAGs—pronounced “bee-hags”—are not just marketing talk; they drive things forward forcefully and effectively. The bar is thus set pretty high, and so it’s not surprising that, despite the surfeit of visions, a really cracking, inspiring vision is rare.
Why Striving for Increased Market Share Is Not a Vision
So, you’d like to be “number one” in your industry? Well, what might seem like an exciting and motivating target is something you might want to think about a little more carefully before proceeding. Is that really a sensible objective? Watch out if your top management starts to toy with the idea of such a so-called vision. Maybe VW wouldn’t be involved in constant legal battles if former CEO Martin Winterkorn hadn’t announced his objective to topple Toyota from its title of largest automobile manufacturer in the world. A good vision guides workforce behavior positively, whereas overambition can take it in the opposite direction. Would there be an exhaust emissions scandal caused by “cheating software” if VW hadn’t wanted to expand its markets in the US in order to reach its ambitious targets? Would Deutsche Bank have been hijacked by investment bankers with their “boom or bust” mentality if, like many other banks toward the end of the nineties, it had not wanted to join the ranks of global players, cost what it may? Would the Inca Empire have been able to put up sterner resistance against the Spanish if it had started earlier to shift from rapid expansion to internal consolidation? The focus on a goal such as “being number one” gives employees the impression that anything goes, as long as the activity is helping to achieve this target. In the cases of VW, Enron, Arthur Andersen, and others, it created a values-free zone, in which behavior was no longer subject to accepted company values or even those of wider society.
We look at this issue more closely in Chapter 4, “Fair Play or Shifting Values.” The following example illustrates some of the other dangers of seeking to be Number One.
“Vision 2020” or How to Provoke Poor Investments
It is the turn of the millennium and we are at a Eurostoxx 50 company, an engineering business in the process of launching its “Vision 2020” which foresees a large-scale transformation, creating thousands of jobs and generating billions in turnover. Within the next twenty years, one of its key business units should, once again, rank in the top five in the world. In the previous ten years, the business has dropped out of the top five, falling to sixteenth place, so the vision seems to make sense and be strategically sound. It is communicated worldwide across the organization by means of a large number of meetings and workshops, and ambitious targets are set. So, why did the whole initiative eventually fail, considering how much was invested in the new business approach and how many employees embraced and adopted it enthusiastically? Here are four reasons, all of which are applicable to other businesses.
1.
