Shared Vision and Organizational Success - Research Paper Example

According to Peter Senge, a shared vision is, or should be, a priority for any organization. The basic concept is that people need to be committed to the organizations vision. Another basic concept is that everybody has individual ideas about the vision of the organization, and all of these ideas are important and valuable and a synthesis of these ideas should be something that the organization should work towards. Senge uses the example of the movie Spartacus when illustrating his point – Spartacus, a slave, was to be turned over to the Roman legion for crucifixion. When the Romans came to speak with the slaves, they asked who was Spartacus, and Spartacus immediately stood up and stated that he was Spartacus. After he did this, every man stood up as well as said that he was Spartacus, and every man was crucified for this. The point that Senge was trying to make was that Spartacus, as a leader, was able to transmit a shared vision to which every slave was committed, and this vision was that they all should be free. Because he was able to do this for his men, they literally would die for him (Senge, 1990, pp. 205-206). So, how does a leader inspire this same sort of loyalty? By creating a shared vision. A shared vision is one that the leader envisions, and every follower envisions the same thing. Each person in the organization has a picture in their heads about this vision, and this vision is in their hearts, a part of each and every person. Each person cares about this vision, and desire to be connected to everybody else in carrying out this vision. In other words, it is not just the leader conjuring up a vision for the organization, and transmitting the vision, essentially imposing his vision on others. It is the leader transmitting this vision in such a way that every member of the organization has the same vision, therefore will be truly committed to make the vision happen (Senge, 1990, p. 206). How this shared vision comes into being, along with ideas on making this happen that are the ideas of other researchers and writers, is the topic of this paper. The first factor in creating a shared vision is by acknowledging the strengths of individual members, and by acknowledging each individual members personal vision of the organization at its best (Senge, 1990, p. 212). Essential to this is composing a team, as opposed to a group. Plenart (1995) tells the story of team building in Malaysia. His team was composed of a mix of Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus who, initially, did not understand one another at all, and there was a great deal of resistance to open communication. Plenarts challenge was to create a team out of these disparate people. He found that, after much time and patience, and much work in avoiding culturally offensive occurrences, the team was strong and vital because of the fact that each member of the team brought a different perspective, and this generated innovative ideas (Plenart, 1995, p. 290). This method – acknowledging personal visions and strengths, and allowing them to be a catalyst for the organizations vision - is in contrast to the typical way of creating a vision, where the manager comes up with a vision, and this is transmitted from “on high” down the line. This is problematic, as such a vision is ephemeral if the managers just write it down, transmit it, then forget about it. Such is the case with the man who was made an example in Senges book. When asked about his companys vision, he said that he already formulated this and moved on, and, when asked what the vision was, he could not remember. He was apparently too busy to truly get his people committed to the vision (Senge, 1990, p. 213). And, simply transmitting the vision to others does nothing to promote their own personal vision. Promoting the personal vision of the organizations members requires testing and inquiry. It also entails the leader asking for help from the members of his organization who are under him. This makes people invested in the vision, and feel like they own a piece of it (Senge, 1990, p. 213-214). It also enables organization members to give their ideas, that gives the potential to have vision bubbling up from the bottom up. A special kind of leader is able to transmit shared visions in this way. There are two kinds of leaders who have the traits to foster this. One type of leader is the servant leader, who puts aside his or her own self-interest in favor of the interests of those being led. These leaders are altruistic; are able to provide emotional healing to those who fail; are wise, in that they have a good grasp on any given situation that faces the group and knows how to handle these situations; have an excellent ability to persuade others; and understand how their organization impacts society, and are able to use their organization for positive societal means (Barbuto & Gifford, 2010, p. 5-7). Another type of leader is the transformational leader, who is able to “enhance their followers performance beyond the personal and leaderships expectations” (Thomas, 2010, p. 9). This leader is able to identify each individuals personal needs; is able to elicit creative and innovative thinking among the led; is able to assist the followers through task that they might have thought to be impossible; and is able to inspire a “charismatic admiration and emulation of the leader” (Thomas, 2010, p. 9). These leaders use a system of punishment, rewards and pre-emptive actions to solve group problems (Thomas, 2010, p. 10). Because these leaders are able to really work with their members, and understand them and assist them through seemingly impossible tasks, these are leaders who will be able to foster shared vision among their organizational members. Senge also talks about seven attitudes towards a vision. At the top is commitment – the people in the organization want the vision, and will do whatever it takes to make it happen – even creating new laws or structures to make it happen. Just under that is enrollment – the members of the organization want it, and they will do whatever it takes within the already existing structures and laws to make it happen. Then, under this are the compliance categories. There is genuine compliance, where members of the organization see and understand the vision, and agree with it, but are not really invested in it because they do not really share the vision. But they follow the “letter of law” and do everything that is expected of them and more. With formal compliance, the members of the organization see the benefit of the vision, and do what is expected, but do not go above and beyond the call of duty. Then grudging compliance – the organization members do not see the vision, do not understand it or agree with it, goes along with it because they do not want to lose their jobs. They do what they need to, and no more, and complain about it the whole way. Then, you have non-compliant people – they have the attitude that the vision is not theirs, and they do not want to go along with it, and they dont. Apathy is where people really dont care either way – they are not for the vision, they are not against it, they just want to get their paycheck and leave (Senge, 1990. pp. 219-220). Obviously a manager wants to inspired commitment or at least enrollment in his or her members. According to Senge, there are a few ways to do this. One way is for the manager to be enrolled in the vision as well. Lead by example. An example of managers who do not do this are the managers above who wrote their vision on a sheet of paper and were then done with it, and moving on. They cannot be enrolled in their own vision if they cannot even remember what the vision is. If the leader is not enrolled in the vision, the leader can only sell the vision, not really foster it within the organization members. Another way to inspire enrollment and commitment is to not sugar-coat the vision and not sweep problems under the rug. The leader cannot tell the followers that everything is rosy and downplay the hard stuff. The third way is by allowing the organization members to choose about being a part of the vision. The leader cannot give ultimatums or state that they must accept the vision or else. They organization members must have a choice in the matter, and the leader must create a sense of safety so that they can develop their own sense of the vision (Senge, 1990, pp. 222-223). Another way of making sure that the organization has only committed members is by hiring only A players, who are defined as people who are in the top 10% of all the candidates for a certain position (Smart, 1999, pp. 18-19). A players must be cost-effective, however. An organization must make sure that they are not paying more for personnel than it can afford. But, since A players have talent and value, more than B and C players, the organization can afford to pay them a bit more and these employees will still be cost effective (Smart, 1999, p. 19). The vision must be grounded, and this ground is the organizations governing ideas. The core values, purpose and mission must be well-established and visible, and the vision must build upon this. The vision is the what, the purpose and mission is the why – why this vision? Core values state how the organization must enact its mission, and how day to day life will be for the organizations members (Senge, 1990, pp. 224-225). Related to this is the culture of the company. The culture is “the coding of values and deeply-held beliefs that mold an organizations decision patterns, guide its actions, and drive individual behavior” (Dauphinais & Price, 1998, p. 190). Culture is also belief patterns that come from group norms, informal activities and values (Ivancevich et al., 2008, p. 503). The culture of an organization is visible to the members and to outsiders as the way things are done(Dauphinais & Price, 1998, p. 190). It is also subtle and invisible, in that it makes up the values, beliefs and attitudes that go throughout the organization. Culture can be an asset, if it is in line with companys vision, thus catalyzing the vision. Or it can be a drawback, hindering the vision if the culture is not so in line and the fit between the culture and the vision is flawed, as the beliefs that permeate the organization propel it to mediocrity, not to greatness. According to Dauphinais & Price, culture and culture change are not triggered from the top down, but from the bottom up and is created by “practical tools such as measures, rewards, and carefully structured people practices” (Dauphinais & Price, 1998, p. 191). Moreover, the vision must be positive verses negative. The organization cannot just function in crisis mode, and expect everybody to get on board for the long term. A negative vision – if we dont do this, our company is bankrupt – does get commitment for the short run, because everybody is running scared. But it does nothing for long-term commitment, because, once the crisis is over, everybody goes back to status quo, and this status quo is probably what got the organization in trouble in the first place. Also, when everybodys energy is put into saving a sinking ship, there is not energy to create the positive vision which is necessary for sustenance of the company in the long term. Finally, negative vision works against the organization by essentially stating that the company does not care, and that they will only pull together to head off disaster (Senge, 1990, p. 225). This is a tricky thing, especially in light of the current global recession. In other words, there are many companies who are in crisis. It seems easier said than done to state that a company must focus more on company vision than on keeping the boat afloat. Crisis “has the potential for bringing an organization into disrepute and imperils its future profitability, growth, and, possibly, its very survival” (Lerbinger, 1997, p. 4). For instance, take the case of BP Oil at this very moment. They are dealing with a tremendous crisis, yet, according to Senge, they must focus less on the four alarm fire and more upon the companys future. While there is certainly value in focusing on its future, BP needs all hands of deck to combat their current situation. It does not seem realistic to expect it to focus on shared vision, as if the crisis is not occurring. On the other hand, Silva and McGann (1995) state that, in times of crisis, organizations must focus on areas of the organization that are the most productive and important. Crisis, if handled correctly, could actually be positive and lead to innovation. One of the examples they used was Tylenol during the poisoning crisis. This crisis led Tylenol to innovate tamper-proof caps and containers, and sealed caplets. This forced the entire industry to follow suit (Silva & McGann, 1995, p. 38). Likewise, the BP crisis has likely led to innovations on protecting wells from explosions that could be used by the oil industry worldwide. This is one way that a positive shared vision can turn lemons into lemonade, so to speak. These are responses to crises, therefore it could have been strictly negative visions, yet these companies turned the crises into positive visions that innovate and changed the entire industry. Thus, these organizations went from possibly being “risk-focused” to being “opportunity focused,” in that the organizations did not just focus on the problems, but also on the opportunities presented by these problems (Flaherty, 1999, pp. 173-174). Silva and McGann compare the process to a person who lives on a diet of junk food and does nothing about it until he lands in the hospital with a heart attack. At that point, he becomes shocked into reality – that his diet is killing him. Thus, he makes all the necessary changes that should have been made years ago – diet, exercise, etc. Thus, organizations will go along with routines that are not working, but are not motivated to change until something drastic happens – like an oil spill, a well burst, somebody poisoning tablets. Then, like the patient who suddenly sees that he has to change his lifestyle, the organization changes and implements a positive shared vision in response to the crisis. This is the essence of what Senge imagines an organization must do in times of crises. Senge states that visions die prematurely because they never take root, due to growth limits. The vision spreads through reinforcement of communication, commitment, enthusiasm and clarity. The vision spreads through people talking, and, through talking, the vision becomes more clear and this helps enthusiasm spread as well. If this process is allowed to continue unfettered, it would result in the vision becoming clear to the organizations members, which fosters enthusiasm, and more clarity, until the whole organization has the same shared vision (Senge, 1990, p. 227). Unfortunately, this is not usually what happens, because of limitations on the growth of the vision that pops up. One of the ways that this process gets broken is that there is too much diversity in the views of the people within the organization. The people begin to believe that the vision is set and stone and their views do not count; that they must change their views to suit the vision of the organization; that their visions do not matter. In essence, the organization become polarized – there are those are on board and sharing the vision, and there are those who are not and feel that they do not count. This reduces the clarity of the vision and limits enthusiasm. The way to counteract this is to inquire within the division of people who do not feel the vision, and find out why and find out what their visions are. This can possibly allow the shared vision to evolve into something different and become larger than the weight of the individual visions (Senge, 1990, pp. 227-228). Another reason for vision death is that the organizations members become discouraged because of the difficulty in bringing the vision to fruition. This happens when the vision becomes clear, and there is a gap between the vision and reality. The organizations members essentially take stock of what is going on, get disheartened and feel that the task seems impossible, and lose interest in the vision. This can be solved by simply encouraging the visions along (Senge, 1990, pp. 228-229). Related to this is the vision dying because the members get overwhelmed by reality and lose focus. When this happens, the leader must find a way to focus away from the crisis, or to separate the people who are pursuing the vision from the ones who are managing the crisis. This approach, however, has its drawbacks, as one team is going forward and another is being held back, dealing retroactively with crisis instead of getting to look prospectively at the future. This can lead to a break with the two camps, as what happened with Apple computers in the 1980s. One of the Apple groups was dealing with the problems surrounding the Apple II computer, while another group was going forward and ended up creating the Macintosh computer. This led to a break that took a long time to heal (Senge, 1990, pp. 229-230). Senge concludes the chapter by stating that systems thinking is the underpinning for shared vision. Systems thinking allows the organization members to reveal what is already there, while vision paints the picture of what needs to be created. The people in the organization must see how the policies and actions already in place are creating their current reality. This breeds a new source of confidence. Protocol for Shared Vision Putting this all together, a strategy for the real world emerges. First and foremost, employees must be encouraged to give their ideas and feedback on the organization and the organization must let them know that their ideas are valuable. This may be in the form of management encouraging employees to speak their minds through employee meetings or suggestion boxes, or perhaps holding a contest for the best employee idea. This has two advantages – number one, the employees become invested in the organizations vision, because they are encouraged to give their ideas, and this will make them feel important and valued. Number two, it helps the organization, because one never knows where the next great idea might come from. An employee just might have an idea that will help with innovation or spurring the company into the right direction at the right time. Also, to understand organizational dynamics, group theory would be helpful. This is helpful because, in order to transmit shared vision, one must understand basic theory as to why people act the way that they do within the confines of the group. After understanding the basic concepts, the shared vision of the company can be transmitted by infecting each individual group with the shared vision, and letting the shared vision be transmitted group by group. Bruce Tuckman introduced group theory in 1965, stating that every group goes through four processes – forming, in which the group is oriented and formed; storming, in which intragroup conflict emerges; norming, in which the group settles in to form a cohesive whole; and performing, in which the group works on and completes the task around which the group was formed (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977, p. 419). There are theories as to how best to accomplish the performing element. One is a concept of group awareness, which states that individual group members must have information about one another, about their goals and about the development of the group in order to achieve peak efficiency (Oemig et al.). Another states that the similarity between group members aids in task efficiency, mainly because, the more similar people are, the more they think alike and the less likely there will be conflict that will slow down the task (Civettini, 2007, p. 264). There is also theories about accommodating new members of the group. According to Hingst (2006), it is most advantageous to introduce new members during the first three phases, as this represents the time when the group is coming together and would be most able to accommodate a new member. However, once the group gets to the performing stage, it would be more difficult to accommodate a new member because this would lead to a reduction of group cohesiveness (Hingst, 2006). Related to this theory is the theory put forth by Wright (2010), which states that there are phases that each group goes through, which marks how the members interact with one another through time. In the beginning, the group is marked by the individuals fears and anxiety about the group, which is related to Rothwells emotional group culture. These fears and anxieties are based upon the fear of rejection from other group members, and it is up to the leaders to facilitate each individual members entrance into the group. Individual members may feel that perhaps the group will not accept them, or accept their views; that perhaps they are not good enough at the given activity, and that others will be better than they are; and that there may be unwanted competition. These fears may be allayed by making sure that each group member works at the same competency, and that competitiveness, skill demand and instruction complexity are minimized (Wright, 2010, p. 211). The middle phase of the group is where the group settles in and becomes more comfortable with one another, and they become emotionally invested in the group. The individuals settle into status and roles within the group. Each member has a better idea of his or her place within the group, and each individual member feels more confident to individualize him or herself – whereas at the beginning of the group, the members felt a need to be similar to one another, in the middle, differences are celebrated. The individual group members bond by sharing personal information that they would not have shared before. Opinions are given more freely (Wright, 2010, p. 214). The last stage of the group is marked by a return of insecurities and fears, only now these insecurities and fears are coalesced around the feeling that the group is ending, and the ambivalence that is felt when this is at hand. It is also marked by openness in communication, presumably because the group is coming to an end, so the members may feel able to speak more freely. This openness may result in tension, regression and fights (Wright, 2010, p. 207). The ending of the group may be made more harmonious by emphasizing the fact that the members are free to express their ambivalence about the group ending, and to talk about how the group changed them (Wright, 2010, p. 221). Through understanding these dynamics, the organizational leader can better implement his plans for a shared vision for the organization. He has to understand that people often operate out of fear, which is what might make them less likely to accept the shared vision or might come off as non-compliant. Understanding this fear and tension is helpful in combating the problem and getting everybody on board. For instance, every small group within the organization should have one person who is designated to assuage fears and help all new member acclimate. This person should be somebody who is well-liked and personable, so that the person has a great deal of social status within the organization. He or she should take all new hires under his or her wing, and make sure that the new hires meet everybody and feel comfortable in their new surroundings. Also, because group awareness is important in achieving peak efficiency, the individual members of the small groups within the organization need to have certain information about one another – what the others goals are, as much personal information as they are willing to give to one another should also be encouraged. This can be accomplished by ensuring that the team meets once a month or so for some kind of team-building exercise. There is also some benefit to grouping like people together, in that they become more efficient, but this is less important in the context of shared vision building. , the leader must know how to facilitate and accommodate new people into each group, so that the group does not become disrupted and inharmonious. Different strategies for this should be developed. All of this is important in making sure that the groups within the organization come together as a cohesive unit. In this way, when groups become close and cohesive, shared vision can take root in each individual group. As each group becomes “infected” with the shared vision of the company, that group can transmit the shared vision to other groups. This can be facilitated by maybe transferring group members around to different groups so that these members can help the other groups get on board with the shared vision. The shared vision can then be transmitted, throughout the organization, group by group, team by team. At the same time, a cohesive group provides a platform for generating new ideas and visions that the individuals share that may become a part of the organizations visions as well. Groups need to encourage individual ideas, and they can hold a meeting once a week to ascertain new ideas and to reiterate what the overall company vision is. Cohesion will aid in this, as perhaps the group, as a whole, can come up with a new idea that can be incorporated into the shared vision of the organization. It is only after working with the group dynamics, and finding ways to overcome potential problems within a group can this even be possible. Conclusion Shared vision is one of the most important aspects of organizational success. The leader must have a vision and this vision must be shared with the entire organization. Or else, the organizations members can have their own vision, and this can enhance the organizations shared vision by the organization incorporating these new ideas into the overall shared vision. In this way, each group can become truly committed to the vision of the company, and, when each individual group is committed to the shared vision, the organization can truly excel. Sources Used Barbuto, J. & Gifford, G. (2010), “Examining Gender Differences of Servant Leadership,” Journal of Leadership Education 2(9): 4-16. Civettini, N. (2007), “Similarity and Group Performance,” Social Psychology Quarterly (3): 262-271. Dauphinais, G.W. & Price, C. (1998), Straight from the CEO: The Worlds Top Business Leaders Reveal Ideas That Every Manager Can Use. York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Flaherty, J.E. (1999), Shaping the Managerial Mind: How the Worlds Foremost Management Thinker Crafted the Essentials of Business Success. Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Ivancevich, J.M., Konopaske, R. & Matteson, M. (2008), Organizational Behavior and Management. York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin. Lerbinger, O. (1997), The Crisis Manager: Facing Risk and Responsibility. , NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Oemig, C. & Gross, T., “Shifts in Significance: How Group Dynamics Improves Group Awareness.” Plenart, G. (1995), World Class Manager. New York, NY: Prima Publishing. Silva, M. & McGann, T. (1995), Overdrive: Managing in Crisis-Filled Times. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Smart, B.D. (1999), Topgrading: How Leading Companies Win By Hiring, Coaching and Keeping the Best People. Paramus, NJ: Prentice Hall Press. Thomas, J. (2010), “Bet You Never Heard of This Leadership Trait,” Journal of Leadership Education 2(9): 1-3. Tuckman, B. & Jensen, M. (1976), “Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited,” Group and Organization Studies: 419-430. Wright, W. (2010), “The Use of Purpose in On-Going Activity Groups: A Framework for Maximizing the Therapeutic Impact,” Social Work With Groups 28(3): 205-227. Read More