Vision And Mission
I've been speculating on the nature of organisational progress. The hardcore stuff will of course be work, but here is what I think: I think that you need at least two kinds of people, in a roughly 1:5 ratio — the vision types and the mission types. It is tempting to suggest that the former are primarily divergent thinkers and the latter are convergent thinkers; I shall fall into that temptation because it is convenient.
We can review organisational effectiveness in terms of a) expanding the core competency or b) expanding the legitimate reach of the organisation. This is predicated on the assumption that organisational effectiveness means that the organisation becomes more effective with time at spreading whatever it is that it is supposed to be spreading. Of course, some people do not think an organisation should spread, but external pressures must at the very least be resisted or the organisation will shrink.
This is not to say that the organisation necessarily has to expand in terms of expenditure, physical size, or number of staff. The focus here is on the size of the organisation's self-image. Does it think of becoming more influential? Does it think of using data to inform its processes, thus making them more effective (or efficient, if the two coincide)? Does it think of new ways of doing these things? This is about vision.
Neither is this to say that an organisation necessarily have to think of new things to do or new things to mess around in. The focus here is on the shape of the organisation's self image. Does it retain its fundamentals — its reason for existence, its orientation towards the world, its approach to doing things, its ideas on what ought to be done? This is about mission.
Three kinds of organisational problems can arise in this model.
Firstly, if there is low vision, then there is low real growth. The organisation will not become a benchmark for its industry, or if it does, it is based not on quality, but on quantity. Conversely, an organisation with vision may not be #1 in size (in staff or physical plant) but may be #1 in qualitatively substantial ways (brand name, style etc). The staff will stay on because they are enthused by this vision (and not merely attracted by being able to tout the brand on their CVs). They will stay on because the organisation is developing them as people. Another common problem is some people don't know what a vision is, or that vision can be refocussed.
Secondly, if there is random departure from the mission, then there may be bloat and overdiversification. The sense of direction towards the visionary horizon is thwarted. But because most people are used to convergent thinking (consider the phrases 'staying on task', 'toeing the line', 'keeping the faith' and other defensive options), this is seldom a problem. The more serious problem may be deliberate departure from the mission, in which case the organisation may succeed, but not in terms of its original intent. This can be considered to be mission failure; it is as if a 30-day lunar probe were to end up sending data back from Venus for 30 seconds. Some people might consider this a great success though.
Thirdly, if the 1:5 ratio is significantly off (e.g. too few visionaries or too many missionaries), then the organisation may become a provincial circus, in which the same acts with minor variations are repeated everyday to the easily-impressed. The organisation may also become a marching band, in which impressive acts of trained synchronic movement are carried out. There is then the semblance of creativity, where the term 'choreography' is more apt. The organisation may also become a kaleidoscope. This produces pretty pictures all the time, but the pictures are unrelated except by the fact that the production process automatically imposes visual symmetry on what is essentially a chaotic process with chaotic outcomes.
All these problems can be seen as small states with large budgets gear up to take advantage of large states with no common sense. This is an artifact of globalisation. What I'm waiting for is when standards become truly global, with inspection teams walking into all kinds of organisations at random and information control becomes near-impossible. Then the nimblest and most focussed tight-rope walkers and lion-tamers will survive; the rest may have to become human cannonballs or clowns.
We can review organisational effectiveness in terms of a) expanding the core competency or b) expanding the legitimate reach of the organisation. This is predicated on the assumption that organisational effectiveness means that the organisation becomes more effective with time at spreading whatever it is that it is supposed to be spreading. Of course, some people do not think an organisation should spread, but external pressures must at the very least be resisted or the organisation will shrink.
This is not to say that the organisation necessarily has to expand in terms of expenditure, physical size, or number of staff. The focus here is on the size of the organisation's self-image. Does it think of becoming more influential? Does it think of using data to inform its processes, thus making them more effective (or efficient, if the two coincide)? Does it think of new ways of doing these things? This is about vision.
Neither is this to say that an organisation necessarily have to think of new things to do or new things to mess around in. The focus here is on the shape of the organisation's self image. Does it retain its fundamentals — its reason for existence, its orientation towards the world, its approach to doing things, its ideas on what ought to be done? This is about mission.
Three kinds of organisational problems can arise in this model.
Firstly, if there is low vision, then there is low real growth. The organisation will not become a benchmark for its industry, or if it does, it is based not on quality, but on quantity. Conversely, an organisation with vision may not be #1 in size (in staff or physical plant) but may be #1 in qualitatively substantial ways (brand name, style etc). The staff will stay on because they are enthused by this vision (and not merely attracted by being able to tout the brand on their CVs). They will stay on because the organisation is developing them as people. Another common problem is some people don't know what a vision is, or that vision can be refocussed.
Secondly, if there is random departure from the mission, then there may be bloat and overdiversification. The sense of direction towards the visionary horizon is thwarted. But because most people are used to convergent thinking (consider the phrases 'staying on task', 'toeing the line', 'keeping the faith' and other defensive options), this is seldom a problem. The more serious problem may be deliberate departure from the mission, in which case the organisation may succeed, but not in terms of its original intent. This can be considered to be mission failure; it is as if a 30-day lunar probe were to end up sending data back from Venus for 30 seconds. Some people might consider this a great success though.
Thirdly, if the 1:5 ratio is significantly off (e.g. too few visionaries or too many missionaries), then the organisation may become a provincial circus, in which the same acts with minor variations are repeated everyday to the easily-impressed. The organisation may also become a marching band, in which impressive acts of trained synchronic movement are carried out. There is then the semblance of creativity, where the term 'choreography' is more apt. The organisation may also become a kaleidoscope. This produces pretty pictures all the time, but the pictures are unrelated except by the fact that the production process automatically imposes visual symmetry on what is essentially a chaotic process with chaotic outcomes.
All these problems can be seen as small states with large budgets gear up to take advantage of large states with no common sense. This is an artifact of globalisation. What I'm waiting for is when standards become truly global, with inspection teams walking into all kinds of organisations at random and information control becomes near-impossible. Then the nimblest and most focussed tight-rope walkers and lion-tamers will survive; the rest may have to become human cannonballs or clowns.
Labels: Mission, Strategic Thinking, Vision
etched with acid at 8:35:00 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home