Four Ways to Create a Compelling Vision
Resource
The Fieldstone Alliance Nonprofit Guide to Crafting Effective Mission and Vision Statements
Contents
A Good Vision is Hard to Find
Four Options for Generating Vision
Option 1: Critical issues
Option 2: News stories
Option 3: Metaphors and pictures
Option 4: Stakeholders approach
Building a Shared Vision
Discover the Dramatic Benefit
From Vince Hyman, former Publishing Director, Fieldstone Alliance:
A Good Vision Is Hard to Find
Consider three presidential visions:
- In the mid 1960s, President Johnson set forth the vision of creating a Great Society, free of poverty and racial injustice.
- In the mid 1970s, President Ford set forth the vision that we would “Whip Inflation Now” via a mix of public measures and voluntary savings and thriftiness.
- In the early 1960s, President Kennedy set forth a vision of landing a man on the moon and bringing him home within the decade.
The first vision failed; the second was ignored; and the third became reality. What combination of factors helped each succeed or fail?
Visions that work combine four elements:
- First, they are grand; they excite and inspire, and are presented with credible commitment. People want to be inspired, and to feel good about where they are heading.
- Second, they are within grasp—doable within a set time—while challenging people to work hard. People rise to challenges when they perceive they can succeed at them.
- Third, there are resources to fuel the work necessary to reach the vision. People seek to fulfill a vision when they feel there are sufficient money, willpower, and capacity to succeed.
- Fourth, the vision can be expressed succinctly. People respond to memorable ideas.
All three presidential visions met the last criteria—concision. They diverge from there. Johnson’s Great Society remains perhaps the grandest vision of all, but it lacked long-term political support (a resource issue), a time frame, and a sense of true feasibility (a willpower issue). Some parts of the Great Society continue to this day, but many elements were not funded, partially funded, or fully funded but cut over time.
Ford’s “Whip Inflation Now” program was tragically uninspiring: while inflation was a major problem of the day, there was nothing grand about “whipping” it. The vision was plagued by an unrealistic timeline: only the most credulous could believe an inflationary economy would be solved in the near-term “now.” It was promoted via lapel buttons (and, as the picture shows, apparently earrings too) with the acronym “W.I.N.,” which immediately became the subject of derision. (To his credit, Ford made an attempt to gain buy-in by asking the public for lists of inflation-cutting activities, some of which made it into his program.)
Only Kennedy’s vision of setting a man on the moon and bringing him home succeeded within the time frame set out. Perhaps the greatest technological achievement in recent history, its byproducts included major revolutions in technology, massive advances in the training of science and technology experts that kept the United States in the forefront for several decades, and an enormous public relations and credibility edge for the United States.
The creation of a vision statement has become an accepted practice among planning consultants because it works—when it is carried off well. The creation of a truly inspiring vision is no easy task. How can the leaders of our organizations find ways to translate their mission statements into compelling visions? Given that nonprofit organizations, foundations, and their allies exist to do some good for some group, vision should be easy: in the nonprofit community, our work is always about making life better in one way or another. But translating complex change into a compelling picture of a reasonably possible future—that is, a vision that excites followers but feels doable—is no easy task. The organization needs to find a vision that is inspiring, feasible within the foreseeable future, has sufficient resources, and is concise and memorable.
Four Options for Generating Vision
In The Fieldstone Alliance Nonprofit Guide to Crafting Effective Mission & Vision Statements, Emil Angelica describes four options that will help organizations find a compelling vision while garnering staff and constituent support that is both broad and deep. (See pages 29-33.) He describes these as
- Critical issues
- News stories
- Metaphors and pictures
- Stakeholders
Before any of these approaches can be used, the organization needs to review its history and values. Moreover, it needs to find out—through interviews, focus groups, or other tactics—just why its stakeholders care about the organization. (Some call this process stakeholder analysis, covered in an earlier newsletter.) Then, the organization assembles a team to work on creating a vision. Usually, this team includes a mix of board, staff, volunteers, and dedicated constituents, and is led by a facilitator. For the approaches below, smaller teams are convened as part of a group effort to reach a vision.
Option 1: Critical issues
Critical issues are problems the organization must resolve if it is to be successful in the future. In this exercise, each small group identifies up to five of the organization’s most critical issues and develops a scenario (plan) for solving them within the next three to five years. It will help the group if it works in this way:
- Be specific and focused in identifying a problem as a critical issue. For example, “How can we get more funding?” is not specific enough. It should be restated as “How can we become less dependent on United Way support?”
- Do not lump several vexing problems into one critical issue; treat each problem as a separate issue. For example, “How can we recruit, retain, and motivate a more diverse board, staff, and volunteers?” contains several issues and is too broad. Restate it this way: “How can we recruit a more diverse board so that it will reflect the composition of the community that we serve?”
- Frame each critical issue in the form of a question. For example: “How can we serve those families that are no longer covered by welfare and have no current jobs?” “How can we change the identity of the organization from a service provider to an advocacy organization?” “How can we reduce recidivism in our chemical abuse program?”
- Only one critical issue can focus on the problem of getting more money.
- The scenario developed has to answer all the questions the small group identified as critical issues.
After forty-five minutes, each recorder tells the planning participants about the scenario the small group developed to answer the organization’s critical issues. Some of the advantages of this approach are that it addresses the big problems facing the organization and very deliberately makes people choose what they will focus on in the future. A disadvantage is that it is problem based and may not capitalize on opportunities or encourage a positive vision of the future.
Option 2: News stories
Each group imagines itself three to five years in the future and develops a news story to describe the organization at that future point. The person designated as the small group’s recorder plays the part of a newspaper reporter who interviews the organization’s board members, played by the rest of the small group. Everyone in the small group must agree to the key points in the news story that come out of the interviews. The news story should answer the following questions:
- What will be different in the (world, community, or target population) in three to five years because our organization exists?
- What role(s) will our organization play in making this difference?
- Who will be our organization’s partners or collaborators in this effort?
- What will our organization be known for in three to five years?
- What is the headline for our news story?
After twenty to twenty-five minutes, each recorder reads her or his small group’s news story to the planning participants. The advantages to this approach are that it is a little more linear for groups that prefer a linear style; also, the news story angle helps participants pick up on specifics and lets them have some fun imagining what a news article in the future might be like. The creation of a headline helps begin the process of writing a compelling vision statement. The disadvantage is that some people find it hard to envision significant change when writing the article as if change has already happened.
Option 3: Metaphors and Pictures
In this exercise, each group develops a metaphor and a drawing that illustrates the future three to five years from now. Give each group a sheet of poster board and ten to fifteen colored markers. The instructions are that within two minutes the group will start drawing a picture that is a metaphor for the future. The metaphor should address these questions:
- What will be different in the (world, community, or target population) in three to five years because our organization exists?
- What role(s) will our organization play in making this difference?
- Who will be our organization’s partners or collaborators in this effort?
- What will our organization be known for in three to five years?
After twenty to twenty-five minutes, each recorder interprets her or his small group’s drawing to all planning participants. The main advantages to this approach are that it taps into people’s intuition, helps them look at the big picture all at once, and is fun, providing a break from the linear approach to planning. The disadvantage is that the details often need to be developed later; there is less information for the writing team to work with.
Option 4: Stakeholders approach
The planning participants develop a list of the organization’s significant stakeholders, such as customers, funders, community members, policymakers, allies, and competitors. Each small group “adopts” one or two stakeholders, with no two groups adopting the same stakeholder(s). Each group assumes the identity of the stakeholder(s) assigned to it and answers the following questions:
- What does the stakeholder think about our organization today?
- What would we like the stakeholder to think and say about us in three to five years?
- What steps does our organization need to take to change our stakeholders’ perceptions of us in three to five years?
After twenty-five minutes, each recorder tells the planning participants what her or his small group’s stakeholder thinks of the organization now and in three to five years and what changes the organization needs to make to change the stakeholder’s perceptions. The advantages are that this approach is clearly customer focused, allows the different small groups to perceive the organization in different ways simultaneously, and forces people to take off their organization’s “hat” and put on a stakeholder’s “hat,” giving them an opportunity to lose some of their defensiveness. The disadvantage is that the perceptions that emerge are those of stakeholders who have perspectives other than those of the organization’s leaders.
Building a Shared Vision
After “vision-storming” using one or more of the options, the planning participants need to blend the ideas of the different small groups into one picture. Planning participants first develop a single list of ideas they’ve generated using the options, and then limit them to those that most inspire the group. Once the list is complete, the planning group has the opportunity to comment on and modify it so it reflects the thinking of the majority.
Now the group turns to drafting a compelling vision—one that inspires, has sufficient resources available, is feasible within a set time frame, and is concise. A top-notch writer or writing group—hopefully drawn from among the ranks of the planning participants—should be commissioned to draft one or more themes. These writers should be charged with working up a concise, inspiring, and memorable statement or paragraph.
Beyond that, the process itself will deliver on some of the other criteria we’ve identified. One of the benefits of using a mix of board, volunteers, staff, and loyal followers is that the process itself builds the kind of buy-in that is essential to a compelling vision. So, that critical part of the four criteria is at least partially fulfilled in the process—though of course the vision needs to be tested with others to verify the buy-in. Further, the process elicits visions that can be accomplished within a reasonable time frame, helping with another of the vision challenges.
Discover the Dramatic Benefit
People are inspired by dramatic pictures. Offering to “whip inflation now” fails to inspire because it focuses on the symptom of a problem and neglects the true benefits people desire. Inflation is a major problem: it creates unpredictability that thwarts long-term planning, erodes savings, and harms growth. Perhaps President Ford might better have framed the challenge of inflation as creating lasting prosperity for all, identifying inflation as one of the barriers to be overcome in a national drive for universal prosperity. Drama might have been gained from the image of a comfortable home for everyone. Still not sexy, but more inspiring than “whipping” an economic concept.
Leaders in the nonprofit community face the same problem President Ford faced. Most of the future visions we might generate lack the sex appeal of zipping off to the moon for a flag-raising, a round of low-gravity golf, and a refreshing dish of freeze-dried ice cream. But then, we’re not trying to move an entire country, only a contained community. And we can rely on that community to uncover its own metaphorical moon blast.
Once the vision statement has been uncovered and agreed on by most, it is really up to the organization’s leadership to
- Find the balance between a vision that is inspiring and one that is doable and fundable,
- Seek the resources necessary to fuel the vision, and
- Keep staff and constituents focused on the vision during the time frame.
This sustained balancing act is the "performance art" of leadership. Unfortunately, that art can’t be achieved through the options outlined above—though the wisdom of the group can go far in setting the stage for the leaders' performance.
Sincerely,
Vince Hyman
Publishing Director
Fieldstone Alliance
May 2, 2007
Copyright Fieldstone Alliance. For reprint permission, click here.