Where there is no vision

"Where there is no vision, the people perish" (Proverbs 29:18, KJV)

What if there is vision, but no leadership? Will 'the people' still perish? This thought woke me up in the middle of the night. There are currently many struggles taking place at my work. I've been there for four years, and for the majority of that time we've been facing major change. There are more changes coming.

The change we've seen has been driven by a mix of economic, financial and industry challenges, but mostly, by vision. Visions are grand and lofty. They are meant to inspire and motivate. They should be just beyond our reach so that we continue to press on towards something 'better'. I've heard it said that there are good visions and bad. If this is the case then surely there are good ways to implement bad vision and bad ways to implement the good.

A vast amount of my work experience has been focused on helping visionary leaders implement their grand schemes. Many visionaries cast their visions and then quickly move on to the next. This 'if you dream it, it's done' mentality can be the greatest source of frustration for the visionary implementers. At some point every vision must be thrashed out, worked over, dissected and put back together again to ensure that it is in fact, implementable, sustainable and worthwhile for the organisation. For those who birthed the vision, I imagine that it would very frustrating to see your idea worked over by others. I haven't yet been blessed with the opportunity to have children, but I imagine having your vision challenged and pulled apart would be a lot like someone picking on your kid. I wouldn't be surprised if it elicited a similar emotional response.

There exist a different set of frustrations for those who work with visionaries as implementers. The implementer's frustrations come in the urgent and often unrealistic expectations that big visions can be implemented immediately. Vision is usually cast from the top of an organisation, therefore, there can be a bit of isolation between the vision caster and those who are most impacted by that same vision. So the implementers, in translating the vision, have to find ways of taking account of all the implications that need sorting out when working out the vision. The implementer needs time to do this. They usually have to rework existing systems, or invent new ones. This is an important part of any change project. But more importantly, they need to be active in shifting the 'people' who are affected. This is where the Proverb is most helpful. Without vision, systems don't perish – people do. So it is vitally important for the vision implementers to work with all individuals and groups affected by the change that vision can bring.

You may be wondering by now (if you're still reading) when I'm going to get to leadership. Hold on for a few more moments. Bill Hybels is the pastor of Willow Creek Church in Chicago. I remember hearing him speak on the topic of vision. His exposition on vision highlighted the importance of vision to an organisation. After getting the audience fired up and excited, he shifted to leadership. He said something to this effect – you should never put vision above people. This line has stuck in my mind for one reason. People need vision to survive. They need to be able to see beyond themselves and their own little worlds. They need to see a world filled with others just like them. Others who struggle, work hard, and who find joy in family and friends. So vision and people are intertwined. Vision is not something that can be cast and left on its own. It must be nurtured, fostered, rewarded and chastised. In order to do this we inevitably must focus on the people who will ultimately experience the benefit of the vision. But we must be careful not to cast a vision that can only be implemented at the expense of those who carry out the implementation.

So this brings me back to my opening question. What if there is vision and no leadership? What if there is a vision that people embrace, but ultimately ignores those it impacts the most? Leadership is required to translate the vision for the people who implement and receive the benefits of the vision. The rest of the proverb says this, "but he that keepeth the law, happy is he." When I read this verse I had to ask myself, "what law?" In the Christian tradition, the two greatest laws are these: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbour as yourself'" (Matthew 22:37-29, NIV). Whether or not you are a person of faith, there is something here for all of us. Vision that focuses on systems and procedures and things other than human, will be impersonal. The vision caster and implementers may be able to ultimately fulfil the vision, but it will result in a heartless, soulless organisation because it will not contain people who wrestled with and owned the vision. Vision is about ownership. People must believe. Leadership must work to instil ownership in people in order to make this happen. In a 'Brand Me' culture, where everyone is looking out for themselves, the second law above is broken. When we love ourselves more than we love those around us, we cannot expect to be 'truly happy'. Note that the second law does not require us to love others more than ourselves, just 'as yourself.' Some of us love ourselves pretty much (me included). For those of us involved in change management and implementation, there is something in coming to grips with learning to 'love' others as much as we do ourselves. After all, it's the people we lead and manage who ultimately help us fulfil the vision that we (and our leaders) cast.

Responding to the Groundswell

A good friend recommended that I pick up the book Groundswell (Li & Bernoff, 2008). Our institution has been struggling with getting a viral marketing campaign up and running. We continue to create a buzz in the traditional sense through events and promotions. But the social networking hasn't taken off as we had hoped. As I began reading through the book I realised that we need to get our staff posting more news, comments and updates on their blogs. What the book points out is that trying to contain a viral outbreak is all but impossible. Trying to stop something from happening only makes the think happen more widely.

Li and Bernoff site three elements at the root of the current social media groundswell – people, technology and economics. Of people they say, "people have always rebel against institutional power" (p.10). This got me to thinking – do people rebel against institutional power or institutional authority? And, is there a difference?

The idea of power has popped up a few times in the last 24 hours. Last night my wife and I watched Baz Luhrmann's Australia (2008). The villain in the film says at least twice, "pride isn't power." I think I'm beginning to understand what that means. Institutions that have built and invested heavily in brands take pride in what they do. We all search for purpose in life and organisations are no different – they need a purpose to exist. The arrival of social technologies has shifted the organisational message to the hands of the consumer. This obviously presents a challenge to traditional business, and thus, is the purpose for Li and Bernoff's book.

America as a society is facing such a groundswell. The election of President Barak Obama brought great hope to millions of Americans. This hope was rooted in returning America to her former glory and greatness. There has begun a groundswell, however, and the rest of the world is questioning the 'institutional power' that has been vested in America for the last few generations. Social technologies have the capacity to not only undermine businesses, but also nations and governments. CNN carried a story this week about Iran banning Facebook – something that Iranian officials were quick to dismiss. They later reconnected the site. So we can see that the social technologies offer us some great advantages. But, should we not also be cautious about the disadvantages as well. Rebelling against power is one thing. But what if we begin rebelling against our authorities? If every human becomes the source of their own authority, who arbitrates between competing ideologies and thought? Where will the forum be for considered thinking in the future? Will we even have time to process and think things through – or will be just do things instantaneously and deal with the consequences later?

There are more questions than answers and I think there always will be. But as a living, breathing, thinking human being, I have to hold on to the hope that although life is happening as the speed of my broadband connection, I still need to consider where I fit into the world in relation to my fellow human beings and the social structures (families, organisations, etc) that have existed for centuries.

Li, C., & Bernoff, J. (2008). Groundswell: winning in a world transformed by social technologies. Boston: Harvard Business Press.

Luhrmann, B. (Writer) (2008). Australia. In G. M. Brown, C. Knapman, B. Luhrmann, C. Martin & P. d. Watters (Producer). Australia, USA: 20th Century Fox.