The Architecture of Vision

Michael K. Jhin, Elena M. Marks, and Osama I. Mikhail

INTRODUCTION

rom the business world to the political arena, criticism is often directed at a lack of vision by
leaders. Its absence is recognized in organizations and institutions that appear to stagnate or

behave aimlessly. While the need for vision may seem compelling, articulating the elements of
vision and translating vision into a useful navigational tool for an organization are more difficult.
Part of the difficulty is conceptual, in that vision is interpreted in many different ways, with little
consensus as to its meaning. Another part of the difficulty is functional, arising from the many
processes for the development of vision that often conflict with one another. And even when
vision is articulated, it may not be applied in a way that adds value to the organization in the
form of improved performance.
The confusion surrounding vision has led many to overlook its potentialor to reject it
outright. However, some organizations are able to develop a meaningful conception of vision, a
process for its development, and a means for its realization. For those organizations, vision can
be an important leadership tool that bridges the gap between the present and the future, and
drives the organization towards an articulated future. At a minimum, organizational vision, when
articulated, is useful for defining organizational success and reducing uncertainty regarding
organizational aspirations. Such clarity is essential to aligning the organization, which Collins
and Porras (1996) see as the principal requirement of a visionary company; consisting of 1%
vision and 99% alignment. This paper reviews the literature regarding the construction of vision
and presents a useful working conception of vision, a three-step process for its development, and
direction for its application.

Michael K. Jhin is CEO, St. Lukes Episcopal Health System, Houston, Texas. Elena M. Marks is an attorney and is

currently a graduate student at the University of Texas, School of Public Health. Osama I. Mikhail, PhD, is the Chief
Strategic Officer, St. Lukes Episcopal Health System, Houston, Texas, and Professor, The University of Texas, School
of Public Health. All inquiries should be directed to Osama I. Mikhail, PhD.
1

I. The Conception of Vision

he strategic management literature abounds with explanations of vision and justifications for
its development by organizations. Often, vision is described as a broad, abstract concept.

Quigley (1994) states that vision is the fundamental source of power, which is the basic energy to
initiate and sustain action-translating intention into reality. Mintzberg (1994) describes vision as
the vaguely-defined outcome of the creative, synthetic strategic thinking process. Hamel and
Prahalad (1989) describe strategic intent, which is a vision of the future, as an obsession with an
out of proportion ambition, requiring organizational stretch. To Collins and Porras (1996),
vision requires a vividly described BHAGa big, hairy, audacious goal.
Others describe vision as a limited, analytic construct. Frisch (1998) asserts that the
development of vision is a pedestrian activity. He rejects the primacy of creativity espoused by
others, as well as the idea that vision requires organizational stretch. Shoemaker (1992) sees
the development of vision as a resource-based process encompassing predictable futures,
which leads to a conservative vision productive of incremental change.
The stated reasons for the development of vision vary, leading to further confusion about
whether or not vision is useful. Hamel and Prahalad (1989), El-Namaki (1992), and Wilson
(1992) suggest that vision is needed in times of rapid change because it serves as a beacon in an
uncertain environment. Cowley and Domb (1997) and Wilson (1992) place the development of
vision within the strategic planning process, considering it as an anchor or foundation of the
long-range plan. Collins and Porras (1996), Quigley (1994), and Bertado (1990) assert the
importance of vision based on studies of highly successful companies that show a correlation
between success and the existence of a vision statement.
The processes recommended for the development of vision vary widely from the purely
analytical and mechanistic to the open-ended and unstructured. Among the most highly
structured is Schoemakers (1992) resource-based approach. This model extrapolates from the
present and builds a future that is closely tied in concept and operation to the organizations
present status. A thorough analysis of the organizations current situation, including competitor
and core capabilities analysis, determines the vision. Predictions about the future are virtually
excluded from this process because of their uncertainty. The resulting vision statement is
conservative and produces incremental change. The vision engineering process used by Frisch
(1998) and endorsed by Stewart (1996) is also a highly structured, fact-based approach. Frisch
asserts that the analysis and processing of facts supported by research is the only valid basis for
vision. Creativity, revelation, and stretch are not substitutes for working with established facts.
2

Among the most abstract processes for developing vision is Mintzbergs (1994) strategic
thinking. Mintzberg emphasizes the importance of creativity and intuition to generate ideas that
are synthesized into visions. Analytical thinking that focuses on the realities of today hinders the
development of vision by tying it too tightly to extant circumstances. Collins and Porras (1989)
also encourage abstract thinking as a means of developing the vividly described BHAG that
becomes the envisioned future.
The conflicting advice regarding what vision is, how and why it is developed, and whether it
is of practical significance to management has led some to conclude that time spent on the
development of vision is wasted. Simpson (1998) contends that mission, vision, and values
statements are worthless in virtually every organization, except in those rare organizations with a
visionary CEO who can actualize these statements. Coulson-Thomas (1992) reviewed studies
that examined the impact of vision statements on hundreds of companies. The studies revealed a
wide gap between the rhetoric of vision statements and reality, between aspirations and
achievements. Despite the assumption in the corporate world that vision is important, CoulsonThomas concluded that the misuse and nonuse of vision statements had a negative effect on
performance because they created disillusionment and mistrust in the organization. Recently
published strategic management textbooks reflect a similar disregard for the importance of
vision, in that they devote virtually no attention to the concept. David (1999); Wheelen and
Hunder (1998). Perhaps one of the more famous recent rejections of vision came from Lou
Gerstner shortly after taking over the helm at IBM. When asked about his mission for IBM, he
said, The last thing IBM needs right now is a vision, Morris (1996).
The confusion generated by the proliferation of advice about the development and use of
vision is aptly described by Gerald Langeler (1992). He recounts the roller coaster ride taken by
his company as management followed various formulas for the development of vision. As a startup, the companys vision to create a prominent place for itself in its market was sufficient
guidance. Once the company had accomplished that goal, however, it began to search for a new
vision. The company developed a new vision statement with a catchy slogan and graphic
describing the six lines of business in which the company wanted to engage. This vision was not
sufficiently tied to operational reality, and over time the vision statement became the tail
wagging the dog. A new vision was developed, and this time it was tied tightly to operational
performance. However, this vision turned out to be too narrowly focused to inspire growth. The
company then adopted another vision, which it transplanted from a large, highly successful
company. The borrowed vision was also abandoned because of its disconnect with the
companys business. After ten years, the company abandoned the development of vision
statements entirely, having concluded that all kinds of vision statements can misdirect corporate
efforts and hinder performance.
3

As the above discussion demonstrates, the conflicting conceptions of vision and the reasons
for and processes by which it is developed have led many to discount the value of vision as a
leadership and management tool. The broad, abstract conceptions of vision can distract
management because of the time and energy required, while the narrower conceptions may be of
limited utility. Open-ended models are difficult to implement due to lack of structure, while the
highly structured, analytical models are not likely to inspire significant change.
It is our contention that, if properly conceived and developed, vision can become a powerful
leadership tool because of its ability to link the present with the future and to direct the
organization toward that carefully articulated future. A useful conception of vision should
combine the creative and intuitive aspects of the abstract models with the analysis entailed in the
more structured models. The resulting vision should anticipate the potential for significant
organizational change and inspire future-oriented action. At the same time, an understanding of
and grounding in the organizations present reality is necessary to ensure that the vision is
achievable. The process described below will guide an organization in the development of a wellarticulated, useful vision of the future.
At the outset, we must eliminate some of the confusion in organizational jargon surrounding
the definitions of values, vision, and mission, their relation to one another and their relation to
the planning process. We regard values as the underlying principles that motivate all of an
organizations actions. Values are abstract, lofty concepts that rarely change over the life of an
organization. Values articulate philosophy; but it is the mission, which arises from the values,
that articulates purpose. It is possible for a single set of values to give rise to entirely different
missionsleading to divergent courses of action. For example, the values of knowledge,
excellence, integrity, quality, and service can underpin a hospital or a school of public health.
Mission serves as the pathway for the actualization of the organizations values. Mission is an
organizational journey extending indefinitely into the future. Vision is a milestone or destination
along the mission pathway. A vision statement describes the organization at a specified point in
time as the organization proceeds toward the fulfillment of its mission.
Values encompass, circumscribe, and extend beyond mission, which in turn encompasses,
circumscribes, and extends beyond vision. Vision serves as the starting point of the planning
process, the object of which is to translate the values, mission, and vision into operational reality.
The vision provides the architectural rendering of the organizations future. The strategic and
operational plans provides the construction drawings or blueprints that detail the design and
prepare the groundwork for resources and actions that will be necessary to realize the envisioned
future.

II. The Architecture of Vision

he three-step visioning process described below will guide an organization in the

development of a feasibility-tested and clearly articulated vision statement. In Step One, we

present a conceptual and graphic framework through which the organization articulates an initial
or first impression vision. This vision is often abstract and subject to clarification and
significant change as the visioning process is completed. Step Two requires an analysis of the
organizational structures, processes, and outcomes as they exist today and those that will be
necessary to support the envisioned organization. In Step Three, the gaps between the existing
organization and the envisioned organization are compared and analyzed. At the completion, the
organization should be able to articulate a refined vision for the future. This vision may be a
crisper version of the initial vision, or it may be an entirely new statement.

Step One: The Triangular Prism

ur exercise begins with the construction of the triangle depicted in Figure 1. At the
foundation of the triangle lie the organizations values. Values exist in all organizations,

and while they often require elucidation and articulation, values do not require construction. An
organization can uncover its values by asking a series of why questions about its actions, until
the answer is because this is what we believe. See also Collins and Porras (1996).
The organization begins to operationalize its values by
articulating a mission explaining how it intends to live out
its values. It accomplishes this by asking itself how
questions: how will we actualize our values? The resulting
mission is more concrete and directive than the articulated
values, but it is still broad enough to permit the operational
flexibility necessary to guide the organization far into the
future. Its time frame is, perhaps, the foreseeable future.
The mission supports the remaining levels of the
triangle. The content of these levels may be determined by
asking how questions regarding the actualization of the mission: how do we fulfill our
mission? Each succeeding level is more concrete and action-oriented and shorter-lived than its
predecessor. The strategy level often takes the form of a three-to-five year plan; the tactics level

usually addresses two-to-three years; and the action level includes the annual budget and the
specific tasks to be undertaken within the next year.
The two dimensions of the trianglewidth and heightcorrespond with the breadth and
clarity of the content of each level. The values, at the base of the triangle, are broad and abstract
principles. They include the possibility of many different kinds of actions, and do not compel
any particular actions. The upper levels of the triangle clarify and focus the organization by
translating abstract concepts into concrete directives. The action level, at the top of the triangle,
is the clearest and most specific. It spells out exactly what the organization is doing at a
particular point in time.
The face of the triangle describes the organization as it presently exists, including its current
plans for the future. If we add a third dimension to the triangle corresponding with time, we
create a triangular prism through which we can project organizational characteristics into the
future. This third dimension enables us to construct an image of the organization at various
points in time. The organizations vision can be understood as a vertical slice of the triangular
prism at a designated point in the future, as shown in Figure 2.
The process of describing the vision
should begin with some notion or alternative
notions regarding the organizations future.
Creativity, intuition, and outside the box
thinking are important here. This starting
point, which will not be a crisply or clearly
articulated picture of the future, reflects
existing preferences, biases, and choices of
the ownership, governance, and management
of the organization. As such, it is an
organizational vision in an embryonic or
skeletal state. This initial vision serves to
narrow the options within the broad context of mission in order to put some boundaries around
the range of possibilities to be examined and evaluated. It serves as a starting point for the
visioning process, through which the initial vision becomes sharpened and refined.
The original values and mission will always form the base of the projected vision, regardless
of the point in time at which the vision is placed. The strategies, tactics, and action plans,
however, will change dramatically as the vision is placed farther and farther beyond the horizon
of those levels as presently constructed. The clarity of the levels of the original triangle reverse
themselves as the vision is projected into the future. As we project farther into the future, the
6

discontinuity at the higher levels diminishes their clarity and focus. In contrast, as we project
farther into the future, the clarity and focus at the lower levels is preserved through their
reaffirmation. Discontinuity at the lower levels would suggest a fundamental change in the nature
and mission of the organization; it would likely signal a potential redefinition or new beginning
for the organization. While this is possible, it should be a rare event in the life of an organization;
or, the organization would be in frequent, if not constant, turmoil.
The projected actions, tactics, and strategies reflect the operational progress the organization
will have made on the journey toward fulfilling its mission. The articulation of the content of
these levels requires the organization to describe what it will look like strategically and
operationally at the specified point in time, as broadly defined by the initial vision. This is
accomplished by defining the structures, processes, and outcomes that must be in place to
support the envisioned future, as described below.

Step Two: Structures, Processes, and Outcomes

ver three decades ago, Donabedian (1966) developed a model for characterizing the quality
of health care, which can be adapted to organizations in general. As an example, consider

the application of this model in constructing a vision for an emerging integrated health care
delivery system. The structural dimensions of this vision would address such things as the
number and location of health facilities, the portfolio of health services to be offered, the size and
mix of medical staff, the technologies to be deployed, the size and mix of other technical and
professional staff, and the organizational and governance structures. The process dimensions
would address three general sets of processes: clinical care, customer service, and the
management and administrative processes that govern organizational decision-making. The
outcomes dimensions would address the desired results of the organization in a number of key
performance areas, such as volume (how much the organization does in its defined business),
quality (how well it does whatever it does), and efficiency in the delivery of its services
(resources consumed per unit of output). Additional outcomes (performance measures) could
include such things as reputation of the organization, cost-effectiveness of services delivered, and
accessibility for the community served. Organizations with multiple components to their mission,
such as patient care, education, and research, may have to expand the outcomes indicators to
capture the full spectrum of performance measures related to their mission. For not-for-profit
organizations, the notion of organizational success may take on added complexity with
performance measures spanning both corporate/business and mission indicators of success.

Figure 3 shows an abbreviated application of the structures, processes, and outcomes model
to the hospital described above. The recommended approach in applying this model to an
organization is to begin with the outcomes dimension. In this regard, organizations that have
adopted Kaplans (1996) Balanced Scorecard approach, will have already addressed the
outcomes dimensions. Once the organization can articulate the results (outcomes) it expects, it
can better address the processes necessary to produce such results. After it determines desired
outcomes and processes, it can develop the structures necessary to house the processes that will
produce the desired outcomes.
After

the

structures,

processes,

and

outcomes necessary to support the envisioned

future are determined, the organization must
examine its current structures, processes, and
outcomes. The current and the envisioned
structures, processes, and outcomes can then
be compared and the gaps between them
identified. The identification of the gaps is the
heart of the visioning exercise because it
enables the organization to test the viability or
feasibility of its vision. If there are too many
large gaps, the vision may not be realistically
achievable within a reasonable time. Patently
unrealistic and unachievable constructs might simply frustrate an organization and have been
characterized more as hallucination than vision. On the other hand, if the gaps are small, the
vision may not be sufficiently forward-looking and inspiring to direct the organization into a
meaningful future. In either case, the initial vision will require adjustment.
Defining the structures, processes, and outcomes of the envisioned future is partly creative
and intuitive and partly analytical. Inspired by a broad, general statement of vision, the
organization adds substance by determining the structures, processes, and outcomes that will
support such a vision. The examination of the current structures, processes, and outcomes and the
identification of the gaps between the current situation and the envisioned future require careful
and objective analysis. The identified gaps and the actions necessary to close the gaps will drive
the ensuing planning process aimed at realizing the organizations vision.

Step Three: The Spider Web

he object of the third step is to undertake a big picture evaluation of the envisioned future
in light of the current situation; this enables the organization to refine its initial vision. The

use of a spider web chart, for example, Cowley and Domb (1997), is helpful in evaluating the
gaps identified in Step Two. To create the chart, place the envisioned structures, processes, and
outcomes identified in the previous exercise along the circumference of a circle, as shown in
Figure 4. The structure, process, and outcome points form radial axes along which the gaps
between the organizations current situation and envisioned future will be plotted. Concentric
circles within the main circle represent progress toward the future
structures, processes, and outcomes as measured in percentages.
Points along the largest interior circle might mean that 90% of
the envisioned structure, process, or outcome has been
achieved; points along the smallest interior circle might
mean that only 20% has been achieved. The
organization then determines how close its current
structures, processes, and outcomes are to each
envisioned structure, process, and outcome. This
analysis may be qualitative and/or qualitative, but
must be converted to a numerical percentage for
representation on the chart. The gaps are then
plotted along the radial axes at the points along
the interior circles representing the appropriate
measurements. The points along the interior circles,
which represent the organizations current situation, are then connected to one another by lines.
The resulting image resembles a spider web, hence the name of the graphic.
The spider web chart is useful for several reasons. First, it provides a visual depiction of the
gaps between the current situation and the envisioned future. This adds another dimension of
meaning, the way a road map complements verbal directions. The placement of all of the
structures, processes, and outcomes with their corresponding gaps on a single graphic facilitates
cross-departmental and interdisciplinary analysis because the relationships among the structures,
processes, and outcomes become apparent. A large gap in one area may be part of the
explanation for the gap in another area, and the simultaneous viewing of both gaps may highlight
such interrelated problems. The relative sizes of the gaps also become apparent from their
placement on a single graphic. This permits a comparative analysis of the strengths and
weaknesses of various areas of the organization, which might not otherwise be juxtaposed in an
9

analytical setting. Similarly, the single-graphic comparison allows the organization to focus on
the level of resource commitment necessary to achieve each objective. The relative sizes of the
gaps, of course, do not necessarily correspond to the amount of resources needed to close the
gaps. Comparatively few resources may be required to bring one area from the 20% to the 90%
range, while comparatively more resources may be required to bring another area from the 70%
to the 80% range.
Perhaps most importantly, the spider web chart assists in the clarification of the initial vision.
If the gap for a particular structure, process, or outcome is large and bridging it will require
significant capabilities and/or the use of extensive resources, the organization may be forced to
reevaluate that desired structure, process, or outcome. The organization must consider whether it
is more important to emphasize development of that particular component of the vision to
decrease the size of the gap or to focus organizational resources in other areas in which the goals
are more realistically achievable. The organization may determine that it is best to revise the
envisioned structure, process, or outcome to better reflect an achievable future.
This three-step process brings the vision into proper focus. The process itself is not bound by
the initial vision and the outcome may be the rejection of the initial vision if it appears to have no
merit or minimal likelihood of achievement. In this respect, the process serves to test the
feasibility and viability of the vision, while simultaneously adjusting and adding specificity to
the initial concept. What emerges through the process is an organizational vision that has been
tested and clearly articulated. This provides the organization with a meaningful guide to the
ongoing development and evolution of the organization towards its envisioned future along its
mission pathway.

III. Vision, Planning, and Momentum

he visioning process described above will lead to the development of a vision that can serve
as the starting point for and as a beacon in organizational planning. The identification of the

gaps between the envisioned future as ultimately articulated at the conclusion of the visioning
process and the organizations current situation sets the stage for establishing organizational
priorities for change, which is fundamental to the planning process. The traditional Strength,
Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis can now be conducted in the context of
the identified gaps. Thus the key questions to be addressed by the SWOT Analysis are: (1) what
are the organizations strengths and external opportunities that may contribute to closing the
gaps, and (2) what are the organizations weaknesses and external threats that may inhibit
10

narrowing the gaps. Using the gap analysis as the starting point for the planning process, whether
long- or short-range, will ensure that the strategies, tactics, and actions addressed in the plan
further the articulated vision, and, ultimately, the mission and values. Applying the vision in this
way will ensure the purposeful alignment of all organizational activities, leading to the
realization of the vision.
With or without a vision (or a plan), organizations move and evolve as a consequence of the
collective activity of those in the organization. Organizations sometimes appear paralyzed or
stagnant with little visible motion; however, virtually all organizations are dynamic and, in some
respects, organic with an inherent momentum (Figure 5). This momentum may come about
through conscious and explicit organizational
choice or by default. Nonetheless momentum
exists and moves the organization, for better or
worse, toward some future state. The value of
constructing an explicit vision is that it
provides the organization with an opportunity
to explicitly test the desirability of the future
state suggested by its current momentum. If the
desired and consciously chosen vision is
inconsistent with the likely future state implied
by

the

current

momentum,

then

the

organization must take action to chart a new

course. The scope and magnitude of necessary
action

(intervention)

to

redirect

the

organization will depend on the magnitude of

the gap between the chosen vision and the
implied future based on current momentum, as well as the timing of such action. Clearly, the
larger the gap and the later that action is taken to realign the momentum with the chosen vision,
the more traumatic the corrective action will be. The sooner adjustments and necessary changes
are made, the less abrupt and painful such interventions will be. Clear vision established early on
provides the foundation for considering and effecting change in a timely and minimally
disruptive fashion.

11

IV. Conclusion

he development and articulation of a viable vision serve multiple but related purposes in an
organization:
1. Direction: Vision provides a navigational aid to an organization, ensuring
that the organization is on course in fulfilling its mission.
2. Speed: Vision establishes key milestones and/or destinations for measuring
the rate of progress with respect to mission performance.
3. Deployment and alignment: Vision aids in aligning people and work efforts
while guiding the efficient and effective deployment of organizational
resources.

When vision is properly conceived and constructed, it can contribute to enhanced

organizational performance, which is the ultimate test of any leadership or management tool. The
type of vision that will result from the three-step process explained in this article is likely to be
such a tool. A creative, audacious vision of the futureone that has been reality-testedwill
inspire, align, and direct the organization in its day-to-day activities and in its long-range
planning. The vision serves as the touchstone against which current actions are measured as well
as a beacon for the future, thereby uniting the present with the future. When the process of
constructing a vision does not contribute to the purposes outlined above, then the skeptics of
vision may have a point. In our view, however, such a failure would not be a validation of the
irrelevance of vision; rather, it would constitute a failure of leadership.

12

Bibliography
Bertado, R., Implementing a Strategic Vision, Long Range Planning, 23 (1), 22 - 30 (1990).
Collins, J.C. and Porras, J.I., Building Your Companys Vision, Harvard Business Review (Sept.-Oct.
1996).
Coulson-Thomas, C., Strategic Vision or Strategic Con?: Rhetoric or Reality? Long Range Planning 25 (1),
81-89 (1992).
Cowley, M. and Domb, E., Beyond Strategic Vision, Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston (1997).
David, F.R., Strategic Management: Concepts and Cases, 7 th ed., Prentice Hall, New Jersey (1999).
Donabedian, A., Evaluating the Quality of Medical Care, The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 44(3),
166-203, (1966).
El-Namaki, M.S.S., Creating a Corporate Vision, Long Range Planning 25 (6), 25-29 (1992).
Frisch, B., A Pragmatic Approach to Vision, Journal of Business Strategy, 19 (4) 12-15 (1998).
Gratton, L., Implementing a Strategic VisionKey Factors for Success, Long Range Planning, 29 (3), 290303 (1996).
Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K., Strategic Intent, Harvard Business Review (May-June 1989).
Humble, J., Jackson, D. and Thomson, A., The Strategic Power of Corporate Values, Long Range
Planning, 27 (4), 28-42 (1994).
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P., Using the Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic Management System, Harvard
Business Review (Jan.-Feb. 1996).
Langeler, G.H., The Vision Trap, Harvard Business Review (March-April 1992).
Liedtka, J.M., Strategic Thinking: Can it be Taught? Long Range Planning 31 (1), 120-129 (1998).
Mintzberg, H., The Fall and Rise of Strategic Planning, Harvard Business Review (Jan.-Feb. 1994).
Morris, B., Hes Smart, Hes Not Nice, Hes Saving Big Blue, Fortune, April 14, 1997.
Mulligan, P., Hatten, K. and Miller, J., From Issue-based Planning to Hoshin: Different Styles for Different
Situations, Long Range Planning, 29 (4), 473-484 (1996).
Quigley, J.V., Vision: How Leaders Develop it, Share it, and Sustain it, Business Horizons, 37 (5), 37-41
(1994).
Schoemaker, P.J.H., How to Link Strategic Vision to Core Capabilities, Sloan Management Review (Fall
1992).
Simpson, D., Why Most Strategic Planning is a Waste of Time, Long Range Planning, 31 (3), 476-480
(1998).
Stewart, T.A., A Refreshing Change: Vision Statements That Make Sense, Fortune, 195-196 (Sept. 30,
1996)
Wilson, I., Realizing the Power of Strategic Vision, Long Range Planning, 25 (5), 18-28 (1992).
Wheelen, T. and Hunger, J., Strategic Management, 6th ed., Addison-Wesley (1998).

13