Vision implementation success and organizational culture

Vision implementation success

and organizational culture

A multifaceted explorative analysis of the

visioning process

See possibilities

Name: Julius L. de Jong S-number: 1479881

First supervisor: Dr. C. Reezigt Second supervisor: Dr. J.A. Neuijen Groningen, 19 September 2011 University of Groningen

To my mother Janny, and my father Ruurd. Because of their infinite support and love.

I am grateful to everyone who contributed to my research, either by making time for interviews and great personal conversations, or by trusting me with their

networks and reputation. Thank you.

CONTENT

1.1 Key vision attributes... 11

1.2 Vision defined... 13

2 Vision formulation ... 13

2.1 Perspectives on vision formulation... 14

2.2 Approaches to vision formulation ... 15

3 Vision implementation... 19

3.1 The vision implementation discourse: re-occurring features ... 20

3.2 The vision formulation-implementation relation... 23

3.3 Vision implementation success ... 24

3.4 Vision and values... 25

3.5 Monitoring and vision renewal... 26

4. Organizational culture anatomized ... 27

4.1 Organizations, the bearers of culture... 28

4.2 The concept culture ... 29

4.3 Organizational culture ... 30

4.4 Attributes of organizational culture... 31

4.5 Organizational culture defined ... 34

4.6 Types of organizational culture ... 34

5 Summarizing ... 39

5.1 Vision formulation and implementation... 39

5.2 Vision implementation success ... 40

5.3 The influence of organizational culture... 41

5.4 Values, organizational culture, and vision... 42

5.5 Theoretical lacuna... 43 RESEARCH METHODS ... 45 6 Data collection ... 45 6.1 Participants ... 45 6.2 Interview procedure... 46 6.3 Choice of methodology ... 46 7 Data analysis ... 47 RESULTS ... 48 8 Interview results... 48 8.1 Critical components... 48

8.2 The vision formulation-implementation relation... 49

8.3 Vision implementation success ... 53

8.4 The influence of organizational culture... 59

8.5 The linkages between values, organizational culture, and vision... 62

DISCUSSION ... 65

9.1 Findings ... 65

9.2 Synthesis and meaning ... 69

9.3 Limitations... 72 9.4 Future research ... 72 APPENDIX 1... 74 List of interviewees... 74 Consultants ... 74 Interim Managers... 74

Business- and Public sector ... 75

APPENDIX 2... 76

Interview questions ... 76

Vision... 76

Participation (in the visioning process) ... 76

Organizational culture ... 77

SUMMARY

This thesis has analyzed the influence of organizational culture on vision implementation success. Based on theory analysis and 36 qualitative interviews, the visioning process has been explored and analyzed. The key findings show that organizational culture is not a seminal factor for vision implementation success. Instead, six critical components of the visioning process are seminal for vision implementation success. These six critical components are: Signification, Translation, Facilitation, Involvement, Quantification, and Alignment. Together, these critical components can be grouped into the three key elements of vision implementation success: people, concretization, and realization.

Thus, it is the people in the organization; the concretization of the vision from abstract to concrete; and the ultimate realization together that result in vision implementation success. This is a useful and important insight for management, leaders and consultants working with vision. They learn that people come first, concretization comes second, and that realization is a logical third: together, these elements result in vision implementation success.

Keywords: vision, organizational culture, vision formulation, and vision

INTRODUCTION

Today’s global business environment is increasingly becoming more and more complex. Fast paced change; forces of globalization; international markets; and worldwide competition are compelling organizations to continually redefine and reshape their strategies, structures, and processes while dealing with their environments. In this turmoil of uncertainty, complexity and organizational change strategic vision is the gauge of organizational direction and the ‘coat rack’ for strategy. As Nanus (1992: 9) has put it; ‘[v]ision is a signpost pointing the way for all who need to understand what the organization is and where it intends to go’. In both the academic- and the business world it has been widely accepted and established that strategic vision is closely linked to competitive advantage and that it enhances organizational performance, effectiveness, and aids the achievement of sustained organizational growth (Palmer, Dunfold, and Akin, 2009). Similarly connected to organizational performance and competitive advantage is organizational culture (Schein, 1999, 1997; Deal and Kennedy, 1999; Peters and Waterman, 1982). Alike the concept of vision, organizational culture too is a much-disputed concept in the academic literature and discourse. Nonetheless, its importance for organizational success appears to be accepted (Peters and Waterman, 1982; Neuijen, 1992; Schein, 1999, 1992; Garmendia, 2004).

the practical side of the vision implementation process (see for example Nanus, 1992, and Quigley, 1994). Obviously, the greatest influence of the visioning process on organizational performance results from the implementation process (Jick, 2001). Creating more insight and understanding into the vision implementation process is therefore the second reason for commencing with this research. Thirdly, and closely related to the second point conferred above, is the nearly absolute absence of scientific debate and agreement on to what is – or what should comprise – vision implementation success. Establishing understanding to what is, and what results in vision implementation success is the therefore an obvious third reason for this research. A fourth signaling observation when studying the concepts of culture and vision is the pivotal role of values for both these concepts. Although values appear to be the common denominator for both culture and vision, the inter-linkages between culture, vision and values seem to have not been clearly established. When connecting this to the above-mentioned importance of both culture and strategic vision for organizational performance and competitive advantage, enabling a deeper analysis and understanding of the connecting function of values becomes a logical fourth reason for this research.

Hence, this thesis will focus on the linkages and relation between strategic vision and organizational culture. Furthermore, because the more practical part of vision implementation has remained largely underexposed in most of the academic and management literature on strategic vision, a special focus will be with the determinants of the vision implementation process and the key elements of vision implementation success. Finally, due analysis will be effected on the role of values in the visioning process. The venturing point for analysis and study is the following research question: pertaining to vision formulation, is organizational culture a seminal factor for vision implementation success? This central research question has been divided into four sub questions.

qualitative data collection and analysis. Closely related is sub question two. The second sub question focuses on what constitutes vision implementation success, and which specific factors are determinative for this success. This sub question will be answered based on literature and theory examination and qualitative data collection and analysis. The third sub question focuses on how and if organizational culture influences the vision formulation and implementation processes. To provide demarcation for answering this question, the concept of organizational culture will be defined and cultural typologies will be established based on literature and theory review. Thereafter, the formal answer to this question will be funded in the qualitative findings. The fourth and final sub question will deal with the overarching element of values. Establishing what linkages and connections are existent between values, organizational culture, and strategic vision will therefore be the fourth sub question. Partly continuing on the theoretical findings from sub question three, most of the research for this question will again be based on qualitative data. For parameters, methods, and scope of the qualitative part of this research, please refer to the research methods section.

THEORY

1 Vision anatomized

The aim of this theory section is to provide insight into the theoretical perspectives and discourse on strategic vision and organizational culture. In addition, it will also help expose the omissions and insufficiencies of both the academic and management discourse on strategic vision. The theory section functions therefore as the overture to the qualitative research part of this thesis. The first part of the theory section will elaborate on the vision formulation and implementation processes. Although these processes are very much interconnected, for theoretical and analytical purposes, they will be separated and discussed independently. Thereafter, the particular relation between vision formulation and implementation will be discussed. Before discussing the vision formulated and implemented discourse, the concept of vision itself will firstly be introduced and defined.

The relevance and occurrence of vision as a strategic concept gradually started emerging around the mid 1980ies. Scantily, the concept occurred in academic writings and business practices. It was only from the 1990ies onwards that vision effectively became part of the academic and professional strategic discourse. In this respect, the work of Nanus (1992), and Collins and Porras (1996), Quigley (1994a, 1994b) and Kotter (1996) can be considered the most important of those championing vision as a strategic tool. So far however, agreement on a formal definition of vision has been lacking. In both literature and practice, vision has remained a very much-disputed concept (Namaki, 1992; Larwood, Falbe, Kriger, and Miesling, 1995; Nutt and Backoff, 1997; Collins and Porras, 2000, 1997, 1996; Levin, 2000; Beaver, 2000; Cossette, 2001). Although agreement exists on the importance of vision, like-mindedness with regard to a general definition is absent. Because vision is also easily confused with – and sometimes thought to be coinciding by – other concepts such as mission, philosophy, strategy and organizational goals, some common characteristics of vision will be dealt with below before formally defining vision for the purpose of this research.

strategy. Most business executives however, see vision in the more traditional way of single sentence elevated vision statements peppered with buzzwords (Larwood et al, 1995). According to Levin (2000), these types of visions resemble bumper sticker slogans. These so called ‘vanilla vision statements’ leave too much space for interpretation and will therefore not provide the needed direction and personal connection that inspires people to act (Levin, 2000: 93). Yet another differentiating perspective on vision is that of storytelling. In this case, not only a vision statement itself is formulated but also stories are developed bringing the vision to life (Levin, 2000). These stories function as the reference points for the vision statement and bring it to life thereby creating shared meaning and eliciting action. The repetition of communicating these stories within an organization will help the expressed ambitions within the vision become reality. In order to deepen the understanding about these and other perspectives on vision, and hereby laying the basis for answering the first sub question, a formal definition of the concept vision will be established below. Finally, to avoid any possible confusion, the concept of mission will be shortly explained in relation to vision. Where vision focuses on the future (Kotter, 1996; Nanus, 1992), the focus of mission is with the present, and what the organization is, and does (Palmer, et al. 2009). Maas (2001) described it very adequately, stating that mission is about who the organization is, what it does, why, and for whom. Alike with the concept of vision, much dispute exists on to what defines mission, and how it relates to vision specifically. For the purpose of this research, this discussion won’t be continued in this writing, and mission will be seen as an integral part of vision. The distinction between the future and present orientation will therefore be considered sufficient.

1.1 Key vision attributes

1.1.1 Future and long-term orientation

conditions for actualization. Subsequently, according to Kotter (1990), vision is a vivid description of something in the future. ‘Vision refers to a picture of the future with some implicit or explicit commentary on why people should strive to create that future’ (Kotter, 1996: 68). Thus, vision is about creating linkages between the present and the future by means of stimulating imagery and alluring ambitions. Hence vision could be seen as a tool for closing the gap between current and future realities. The future orientation of vision thus purports an opportunity of dissociating oneself from the limits of today’s world and constructing the desired future needed for the organization (Van der Erve, 1993).

1.1.2 Directive nature

1.1.3 Inspiring and ambitious

Aside from their future orientation and directive nature, visions are also considered to entail some aspect of inspiration and ambition. The vision should ‘tell people what could be’ and should thereby inspire them to act and work towards achieving this picture of the future. Furthermore, a vision that conveys ambition will inspire people and initiate action. Inspired people thereby, are motivated people (Yearout, Miles, and Koonce, 2001). As Nanus (1992) states, the right vision can jump-start the future by mobilizing people into action towards achieving it. In this sense, Collins and Porras speak of Big Hairy Audacious Goals (BHAG’s). According to them, grand and ambitious vision will motivate people and engage them into action (Collins and Porras, 2000). Metais (2000) speaks of vision as a dream, representing an emotionally involving aspiration. Thus, through imagery, audacity, and dreaming, vision can help organizations to create and reach desired futures.

1.2 Vision defined

Sub question one aims at establishing clarity on the concept vision and how it is both formulated and implemented. Furthermore, it seeks to understand how vision formulation influences vision implementation. In relation to this question, and based upon the three key attributes and their underlying theories discussed above, below a formal definition of vision is established. This will not only answer the first part of sub question one, but will also purvey the central fundament for the rest of this research. Building on the theories of Stace and Dunphy (2001), Nanus (1992), Kotter (1996), and Deetz, Tracy and Simpson (2000), for the remainder of this research vision will be defined as: ‘an inspiring and compelling ambition about the future that provides direction for organizational members’.

2 Vision formulation

formulation process will be reviewed and summarized. Section three will thereafter deal with the vision implementation process.

2.1 Perspectives on vision formulation 2.1.1 Quigley; generations of vision formulation

Various different perspectives on the vision formulation process exist. Amongst these different perspectives, views on the depth of the process vary considerably. In this regard, based on his extensive experience as a strategy consultant, Quigley (1994a) has identified the following five ‘generations’ for classifying vision formulation types, reflecting these varying perspectives.

First generation vision formulation consists of a CEO’s unwritten construction, only existent in the CEO’s head. This type of vision formulation has inevitable problems with ambiguity in execution. Second generation vision formulation consists of a vision written and formulated by an outside consultant. This type of vision formulation holds problems related to lack of ownership and absence of true commitment to the vision. A third generation process is a vision formulated by one separate department such as the corporate planning department. This type of process has the danger of resulting in separate strategy development and implementation. The forth generation of vision formulation identified by Quigley, delegates the formulation process to key operating executives. Here both formulation and implementation are in the hands of the same group of people. This results in high levels of ownership and commitment. Problems here are related to lacking linkages between the key operating executives and operations, and the insufficient addressing of interdependencies. The fifth generation vision formulation as indentified by Quigley is what he calls the ‘Leadership Conference Planning Process’ (LCPP). This highly participative process consisting of a series of conferences attended by the leaders of the organization. As Quigley’s research has shown, this fifth generation process is the preferred type. Section 2.2.1 will further elaborate on this approach.

2.1.2 Nutt and Backoff; leader-dominated versus co creation types

process, Nutt and Backoff differentiate between leader-dominated- and co creation types of vision formulation processes.

With the leader-dominated type of vision formulation the creation process is limited to the CEO. As mentioned above, this approach could bring about problems related to implementation and a lacking sense of ownership and commitment. With the rise of empowerment (Walton, 1985) in the reshaping of organizations, co creation in vision formulation started to occur more often (Barnes and Kriger, 1986).

The role of the leader in the co creation type vision formulation process is different. It varies from initiator to facilitator. In any of these ways, the leader uses a more participative approach in the vision formulation process. Co creation can remain limited to a select group such as only the top management team, and on the other hand entail organization-wide participation. A vision resulting from a co creative process will find more support and less resistance (Quigley, 1994a; Kelly, 1992). As a result, implementation is faster and will have fewer derailments (Nutt and Backoff, 1997). Essential for the co creation approach is to involve key people throughout the whole organization. A multiple stakeholder approach to vision formulation is key for sustainability and support (Deetz, Tracy, and Simpson, 2000). Below, the more practical ‘how to’ question of the vision formulation process will be dealt with.

2.2 Approaches to vision formulation

2.2.1 Quigley; the Leadership Conference Planning Process

be about vision formation. In this stage shared values are defined and mission and goals for the organization are drafted, also a first draft of the new vision is formulated. The second conference is about establishing strategic consensus. The actual meeting is preceded with the development with three or four goals and their accompanying strategic plans. The actual meeting will commence with a review of the vision. Mission, values goals, and their strategies are also carefully scrutinized. After this, the core group will begin to look at their vision from the perspective of the various stakeholders to the organization. At this point too, the vision will become a public document. The real challenge for the second conference however is reaching agreement on how the organization will make the new vision reality. Finally, the third conference is about creating total commitment. Achieving total commitment to the vision and the implementation strategy of choice is central in this meeting. After the vision statement and its realization strategy, the financial plan is the third vital element. Finally, linking vision and strategy to financial projections and assumptions, business volumes, and profit and loss statements will help make objectives measurable. After these five sequential steps, implementation, communication and creating stewardship will commence.

2.2.2 Nutt and Backoff; crafting vision

In their empirical literature analysis on vision, Nutt and Backoff (1997) compared various procedural approaches. Their research focused on process aspects of the vision formulation process and resulted in a preferred sequence of activities and methodology for vision formulation. Nutt and Backoff had classified the varying process aspects based on their relation to possibilities (P), desirability (D), or actionability (A) and whether these activities are initial, intermediate, or downstream in the formulation process. For the six sequences that can be employed, please see table 2.2.1 below.

As seen, possibility should be the first consideration in vision development. Dealing with possibilities first is important because of its inspiring effects (Nutt and Backoff, 1997). This creative process of expressing what is desired with disregard to the current status quo should be executed with a minimum of constraints (Rothenberg, 1989). Before anything, possibilities should be the initial focus in vision development (Morgan, 1993). Focusing on desirability is the preferred intermediate step according to Nutt and Backoff (1997). It makes values explicit and links the various developed (vision) possibilities with the existing organizational values and culture. The actionability related part of vision formulation has emphasis on facts and logic. ‘When attention is directed towards defining and elaborating, the flow of ideas is shut down’ (Nutt and Backoff, 1997: 319). Because of this, the actionability phase of vision formulation should be downstream in the vision development process. In this way, it will not hamper the creative processes of the possibility and desirability phases. With these theoretical considerations as venturing point, now a shift will be made to a more methodological approach to vision formulation.

2.2.3 Nanus; vision development

right vision is chosen. Finally, the vision of choice is fine-tuned and a determinative statement is developed.

Clearly, the approach to vision formulation of Nanus is opposite of that of Nutt and Backoff. Where they begin the formulation process with a creative exercise establishing ‘what is wanted’ with the least possible constraints, Nanus initiates the formulation process in a more quantitative manner. Data collection, stakeholder analysis, and boundary setting all are done previous to dealing with possibilities. Where in Nanus’ approach one commences with establishing a framework and bandwidth for the vision development, Nutt and Backoff begin with a ‘dreaming’ exercise with the least amount of constraint. One must add though, that getting hard-boiled executives fantasizing about the future is often a difficult exercise (Tichy and Devanna, 1986). Although acknowledging the need to innovate and be creative, leaders resist approaches designed to dream about the future (Nutt and Backoff, 1997).

2.2.4 Collins and Porras; vision building

Building on extensive research, Collins and Porras (1996 and 2000) have developed yet another approach to vision formulation. They have established a three-step method. First, organizations must discover their core ideology. This ideology defines the enduring character of the organization; it provides the glue that holds an organization together as it develops (Collins and Porras, 1996). The core ideology exists out of the core values and the core purpose. The core values are the guiding principles that do not need external justifications or explanations. They have intrinsic value for those inside the organization. The core purpose is the organization’s reason for being. In most strategy literature, this is referred to as the organizational mission. The organizations core purpose should reflect peoples idealistic motives for doing the organizations work. According to Collins and Porras, both the core values and purpose cannot be developed. The core ideology will be discovered when looking inside and finding an authentic and intrinsic motivation for action.

years and formulation should requires thinking beyond current capabilities, environmental trends, forces, and conditions. NASA’s 1960ies goal for putting a man on the moon in ten years is a striking example of and effective BHAG. The vivid description should be a vibrant and appealing description of what it will be like when the BHAG is achieved. Both the BHAG and the vivid description should be filled with passion and conviction.

Thirdly and finally, putting it all together is the last step in vision formulation according to Collins and Porras. Essential here is creating alignment between preserving the core and stimulating progress for realization of the BHAG. Elimination of misalignments is key in this phase. This calls for both creative and analytical processes and a continuous reevaluation of the organization as a whole. For an outline summary of these four approaches to vision formulation please refer to table 2.2.2 below.

Table 2.2.2 – Outline summary of approaches to vision formulation

3 Vision implementation

the actual implementation should comprise 90 percent of the work (Jick, 2001). With these numbers in mind, one would expect a substantial amount of the academic and management literature covering the vision implementation process. However, reality differs. Although the academic and management literature is filled with perspectives on, and methodologies for vision formulation, the work on vision implementation on the other hand has remained significantly underdeveloped. The section hereafter will shed some light on the scholarly debate on vision implementation. A short overview of the discourse on this process will be shortly elaborated upon below.

3.1 The vision implementation discourse: re-occurring features 3.1.1 Vision communication

What the literature seems to agree upon is the importance of communication as part of the vision implementation process (Nanus, 1992; Quigley, 1994a; George, 1997; Farmer, Slater, and Wright, 1998; Deetz, Tracy, and Simpson, 2000; Levin, 2000; Jick, 2001; Davidson, 2002). Vision will not be effective unless it is clearly communicated and integrated throughout organizational processes and practices (Deetz, Tracy, and Simpson, 2000). Organizational members who are well informed about the vision are more likely to agree with-, and be supportive of the vision (Farmer, Slater, and Wright, 1998).

3.1.2 Walk the talk

Exemplifying behavior is very important during the vision implementation process (Quigley, 1994a). Because most people in organizations will have a ‘wait and see’ attitude towards (new) organizational visions, seeing actions in line with the vision will hold more effect than a thousand words. When leaders act in accordance with the vision, people in the organization will begin to do the same (Quigley, 1994a).

There should be an absolute consistency between the actions and behaviors of top-level management and the vision (Nanus, 1992). Furthermore, the choice of methods and procedures for implementing the vision should be in sync with the vision. As Jick (2001: 38) has sharply put it: ‘[i]t takes quite a while for a vision to be seen as real, as serious, as worthy of one’s commitment. But it can take only a small incident to undermine the credibility of a company’s new vision where a single decision […] signals a disconnect between the espoused aspirations and behavior’.

3.1.3 Alignment to the vision

Next to communication, and walking the talk, alignment is another key factor in the vision implementation process. Aligning strategies, structures, systems, processes, and human resource policies with the vision will be determinative for the long-term viability and success of the vision. Alignment is about translating the abstractness of the vision into tangible and measurable goals and strategies. It’s about linking the future with today’s reality. Aligning organization and vision is all about change management. Alignment means operationalizing the vision in terms of new ways of doing things (Jick, 2001).

This process begins with thinking strategically (Nanus, 1992). Strategic thinking expands on the thinking that created the initial shared vision (George, 1997). Choices relating to the goals and objectives for realizing the vision, together with strategies, tactics, and time planning are the basis for alignment (Nanus, 1992; Quigley, 1994a). From this basis, the necessary changes in organizational structures, systems, processes, and human resource policies can be identified and executed in accordance with the goals, strategies and tactics as derived from the vision (Quigley, 1994a).

(Davidson, 2002). Furthermore, appraisals and rewards too should be brought in line with the vision. Because most reward systems tend to be short-term focused, some drastic alterations will be needed in order to shift attention to more long-term matters in conjuncture with the vision (Nanus, 1992). Finally, succession policies and procedures should also be aligned with the vision. Moments of succession should be used as opportunities for reflecting, sharpening, and renewing the vision (Davidson, 2002). A well-planned succession process will help sustain vision and values.

The sum of aligning strategies, structures, systems, processes, and human resource policies could, and in most cases will, result in changes in the organizational culture. Many authors even consider cultural change as part of the vision implementation and alignment process. For instance, Jick (2001: 38) correlates the boldness of the vision with likeliness of cultural change. As he states: ‘[t]he more bold the vision, […] the more likely it is that the achievement of the vision must entail changing the culture […].’ Nanus (1992) too identifies cultural change as part of the alignment process. He speaks of ‘adapting the organizational climate to the new agenda’ (Nanus, 1992: 145). Organizational culture and its relation to vision implementation will be elaborated upon extensively from section 4 onwards.

3.1.4 Transmitting/localizing the vision

Transmitting the vision throughout the organization is an important part of the vision implementation process (Van der Loo, Geelhoed, and Samhoud, 2010; Davidson, 2002). Vision transmission or vision localization is about translating the central vision into divisional-, or sub-visions throughout the organization (Davidson, 2002). This process of translating the central vision should be executed throughout the middle and lower levels the organization (Nanus, 1992). For this to be successful, due empowerment of middle and lower level managers is needed (Nanus, 1992). Common problems encountered with vision localization relate to the prevailing short-term pressures at the middle and lower organizational levels. 3.1.5 Celebration

(Richards and Engel, 1986). Celebrations function as accentuations of the positive and as means for rewarding and enjoying successes of the vision implementation process (Nanus, 1992). Rewarding and enjoying success lifts the spirit and sends a clear signal of desired behavior in sync with the vision (Richards and Engel, 1986). As mentioned above, vision implementation is about organizational change, and thus about getting people to shift attention and change directions. This, according to Peters and Waterman (1982) is the most important output of management; furthermore, they believe that positive reinforcement is a highly potent tool for doing just that. Celebrations are a pre-eminent example of positive reinforcement.

3.2 The vision formulation-implementation relation

3.3 Vision implementation success

As discussed in the introduction, the second sub question of this research aims at establishing what constitutes vision implementation success, and which specific factors are determinative for this success. Building on the academic vision implementation discourse and Nanus’ (1992: 156) ‘Formula for Visionary Leadership’, as discussed in his book Visionary Leadership, this section will commence with establishing what constitutes vision implementation success. In the results section, contributions and perspectives of the interviewees will be added to these theoretical findings.

For vision to be useful, it must become aligned with organizational strategies, structures, systems, processes, and human resource policies, and especially with the organization’s culture and value system. However, before any of the above could occur, the vision has to be communicated and become shared throughout the organization. Without successful vision communication, implementation is doomed to fail, because without it, vision can never become shared (George, 1997). As Senge (2006) identifies, having a shared vision is key to vision implementation success. Also Nanus (1992) underlines this importance. According to him, the process of vision communication results in a shared understanding of the organization’s purpose. This shared purpose, combined with empowered people, the necessary changes and alignment of the vision together with strategic thinking as discussed above in section 3.1.3 will according to Nanus result in vision implementation success. The relationships between the various key aspects of vision implementation are illustrated in figure 3.31 below.

Figure 3.3 – Vision implementation formula Source: Nanus, 1992: 156

1 _{In the original figure of Nanus, ‘Successful Vision Implementation’ is referred to as ‘Successful}

3.4 Vision and values

The fourth sub question aims to establish the linkages and connections between values, organizational culture and strategic vision. Below, the linkages and connections between strategic vision and values will be explored. The linkages and connections in relation to organizational culture will be explored from section 4 onwards.

Values influence the possible directions an organization considers viable. They are the principles and standards that assist people in deciding what is worthwhile or desirable (Nanus, 1992). Because of this, alignment of the vision with the prevailing values is essential. Only in this way the vision can find fertile ground and become shared and accepted in an organization. Because of this, articulation of the connections between the future vision and today’s prevailing values is key. The literature on strategic vision is relatively clear about the relation between values and vision. For example, Quigley (1994) considers values as the foundation of the vision. According to Deetz, Tracy, and Simpson (2000), the integration of the vision within the organization’s cultural value system is key to vision implementation success. And Thornberry (1997) states, that in order to realize the vision, the organization’s values must support it. Davidson (2002) underlines that vision and values, which are aligned and mutually reinforcing, create committed enterprises. Clearly, in order to be successful, vision and values should be linked. According to some authors, linking vision and values is not yet enough. For them, values are considered an integral part of the vision.

For instance, Collins and Porras (1996, 1997) regard values as a key facet of the vision. For them, the vision is comprised out of the core ideology and the envisioned future. The core ideology is comprised of the organization’s core values and core purpose. In their case, the organizational values are an integral part of the vision. The same is true for the approach taken by Van der Loo, Geelhoed, and Samhoud (2010). They present vision as a ‘four-part’ encompassing a higher goal, an audacious goal, core qualities, and core values. The core values in this case define what the organization stands for. Thus, in the cases of Quigley (1994), Collins and Porras (1996, 1997), and Van der Loo, Geelhoed, and Samhoud (2010), values are considered an integral part of the vision.

that the relation between vision and values is an important variable for vision implementation success. The linkages and connections between values and organizational culture will be explored in section 4.4.1 below. Finally, in the results section, the triptych relationship between values, vision, and organizational culture will be exposed.

3.5 Monitoring and vision renewal

It should be noted that vision formulation and implementation is never really completed (Levin, 2000). It is a continuous process of calibration and recalibration. Continuous assessment of the effectiveness of both the vision and the vision implementation process is very important (Deetz, Tracy, and Simpson, 2000). This does not mean however that core values and deep-rooted ambitions for the future should change with every ripple. On the contrary, the core should remain untouched while goals, strategies, tactics, and methods for implementation are brought in tune with both internal and external dynamics and change.

For this reason, monitoring change, and making the necessary midcourse corrections is an important part of a successful vision implementation process (Nanus, 1992). Monitoring is about tracking the vision and gathering information on how well the vision is implemented and whether strategies and tactics help achieve the new direction. Although this monitoring process is mostly internally directed, tracking the vision also involves gathering information about the effectiveness of the vision in the external environment (Nanus, 1992). Quigley (1994a) identifies two important facets of the monitoring process. He differentiates between monitoring for tactical accountability, and the monitoring of key corporate issues. Monitoring for tactical accountability functions as a progress check on strategic plans and tactics with a large focus on accountability of the vision implementation process. Monitoring of key corporate issues is about identifying new opportunities and threats, relevant environmental issues, and the effectuation of the appropriate action (Quigley, 1994a). Again, when comparing the literature on the topic, Quigley offers the most practical analysis and description of these processes.

vision renewal. Furthermore, the rate of change in the environment, and the natural disintegration of vision and values – when left without the necessary nurturing – too present valid reasons for vision renewal (Quigley, 1994a). An ill-conceived vision also demands a vision renewal process. And finally, off course, when a vision is achieved, this calls for a new one. According to Davidson (2002), visions by definition have a life cycle. ‘They wear out and need updating’ (Davidson, 2002:312). Nonetheless, according to Davidson, the organizational core – the values – will remain intact and endure forever. Quigley (1994a) on the other hand states values decay over time. Because of this, there must be perpetual building, calibration and recalibration. Nanus (1992) too underlines the importance of a re-visioning process. As he puts it: ‘[t]he world changes, and so must the vision’ (Nanus, 1992: 157). With both environmental and internal change and dynamics, continuous monitoring and, when necessary, adjustment is important. However, as long as the vision is working, and is consistent with developments in the internal and external environments no changes should be made. Rather, in that case the vision should be affirmed and supported (Nanus, 1992).

4. Organizational culture anatomized

The central research question for this thesis aims to establish whether or not organizational culture is a seminal factor for vision implementation success. Sub question three focuses on how organizational culture influences vision formulation and implementation processes and sub question four aims to establish what linkages and connections are existent between values, organizational culture and strategic vision in relation to vision implementation success. Evidently, to be able to answer either one of these questions, the concept of organizational culture will first be introduced, defined, and typologized.

(Schein, 1999). It is people and not processes that determine organizational success. Understanding the actions and behavior of people from a cultural level is therefore essential to organizational success.

The growing interest for organizational culture as a determinative factor for organizational success emerged in the early 1980ies. Greatly responsible for this was the best-selling business book In Search of Excellence, by Peters and Waterman (1982). Written in reaction to the booming business successes in Japan, this book placed organizational culture at the heart of competitive advantage. The research of Peters and Waterman showed that it was not the hard factors such as structure and systems, but the softer factors such as values and culture that were determinative for organizational success (Peters and Waterman, 1982; Neuijen, 1992). Similarly, the book Corporate Cultures by Deal and Kennedy (1982) too has been of great significance for bringing organizational culture into the centre of attention in both business and academic writings. Finally, the work of Schein (1985) has also made a substantial contribution to the increased attention to the concept of organizational culture and its relevance for organizational performance and success. What defines and constitutes this elusive concept of will be established below.

4.1 Organizations, the bearers of culture

In order to define the complex concept of organizational culture, clarity first must be established on organizations itself: the containers of organizational culture. Organizations are groups of people with a common purpose or goal. Organizations can be considered responses to, and means of, satisfying human needs. When put more practical, organizations group and coordinate people and resources in order to produce goods and services (Etzioni, 1961). Organizations thus always entail forms of cooperation between people in order to achieve common goals (Wely, 2002).

human interaction and collective behavior within organizations is key to the importance and relevance of organizational culture, for organizations are the principal bearers of culture.

4.2 The concept culture

Culture is a very prominent factor for group processes and in the interaction between group members. It determines, from an unconscious level, how people of a certain group interact amongst each other, and with the outside world. It shapes common understandings and practices as well as a climate that reflects a common identity and reference point. Culture is therefore always a collective phenomenon, and consists of the unwritten rules of the social game. But what exactly defines culture? And what characteristics can be ascribed to this intangible and elusive concept? These questions will be answered below.

Summarizing, culture is a human made patterned process of thinking, feeling, and reacting. This process develops over time, within a certain group of people. The group’s shared history, complete with successes and failures and the incidental learning on route, sets these particular group members apart from ‘others’. The common experiences of the group create bonding and form the communal glue we call culture.

4.3 Organizational culture

4.3.1 Why organizational culture matters

According to Schein (1984, 1999), all organizations are confronted with two key problems. First, organizations have to deal with their external surroundings and define a vision, mission, strategies and goals in order to cope with the contingencies and dynamics of their environment. Also, the organization has to develop and employ the means for survival in structures, and processes. Finally, measurement tools and methods for error detection as well as correction systems need to be evolved. All of these, Schein refers to as external survival issues.

4.4 Attributes of organizational culture 4.4.1 The pivotal role of values

As mentioned above, sub question four aims to establish what linkages and connections are existent between values, organizational culture, and strategic vision. For this sub question, the relation between values and organizational culture will be explored below.

As many writers and scholars agree, values play a pivotal role in culture (Deal and Kennedy, 1988; Schein, 1984, 1985; Peters and Waterman, 1982; Cummings and Huse, 1989; Hofstede, 1994; Giblin and Amuso, 1997; De Jong, 2009). Values are preferences of one thing over the other. They are broad feelings about what is good and what is bad, clean or dirty, rational or irrational, and normal or abnormal (Hofstede, 1994). In other words, values reflect assumptions about what’s right and wrong. They are at the deeper levels of culture and are considered by many scholars as the culture’s core. Gagliardi (1986) for example, refers to this cultural core as ‘sacred’. These core values are almost impossible to change because of their taken for granted character and the deep commitment to them of organizational members (Alvesson, 1995). According to Deal and Kennedy (1982), values are the bedrock of culture and as Hofstede (1994) puts it, they represent the deepest level of a culture.

Values, alike the concept vision, provide a common bearing for the organizational members; values direct behavior (Van Muijen, Koopman, and De Witte, 1996). Shared values function as guidelines for delivering on the organizations ambitions and promises. They help create alignment and create common understandings about decision-making and interpersonal interaction. Values enable people to decide on what to do, and on what not to do. A mostly unconscious framework of preferences lies at the basis of this decision making process. Values help answer the why question (Schein, 1984). Furthermore, organizational values help employees identify with their organizations and commit to its goals (Giblin and Amuso, 1997). Values drive behavior, they refer to what ought to be, and to what organizational members should pay attention (Cummings and Huse, 1989).

should have, or at least try to find – and there are the so-called desirable values. Schein (1984, 1997, 1999) refers to these desirable values as the espoused values. These espoused values are based on ideological assumptions. Schein does not identify core organizational values, although he does recognize a deeper level of culture, that of the basic underlying assumptions. These underlying assumptions are based on learning experiences and are developed over time. They are learned responses that originated as espoused values (Schein, 1984). Basic underlying assumptions develop in an unconscious and invisible process. Some authors believe this layer of organizational cultural to be more visible. For them, values developed from learning experiences, failures, and successes, in the history of an organization, are at the deeper core of the organization. These values are hard to change, fundamental, absolute, and irrevocable (Giblin and Amuso, 1997). This type of values is lasting, and should not be changed. Not even – in the very unlikely event – if they become a competitive disadvantage for the organization (Collins, 1995). These values are referred to as the core values.

In many cases, there are inconsistencies between the deep-rooted core values – or the underlying assumptions – and the espoused values within organizations (Schein, 1999). The same conflicts are observed between the espoused values and the business goals of an organization (Giblin and Amuso, 1997). When times get tough, the business goals seem to always prevail. Only the truly successful organizations manage to link their actions to their deeper organizational core, thereby disregarding the fruitless efforts of wasting precious time with espoused- and desirable values (Collins and Porras, 2000; Giblin and Amuso, 1997).

Symbols of organizational culture are the ‘words, objects and gestures which derive their meaning from convention’ (Hofstede, 1994: 12). They are the dress codes, and status symbols. The symbols of culture relate to the expressive side of human nature, rather than to the more practical and technical side. Although human actions both do and say something, it’s the expressive side of culture that makes it visible (Trice and Beyer, 1993). Symbols are therefore key in the communication and expression of an organizations culture. It is even for this reason that some authors focus on symbolism rather than on the broader concept of organizational culture (See for example Pondy et al., 1983; Pfeffer, 1981; and Alvesson and Berg, 1992).

A third tangible and amplifying element of organizational culture are its rituals. Rituals are the physical manifestations of values and beliefs, and are, as Deal and Kennedy (1983: 501) beautifully state, ‘the dance of culture’. Rituals are more than celebrations alone; they dictate meetings, the writing of memo’s, planning, ways of addressing, and for instance, who can afford to be late for what type of meeting (Hofstede, 1994). Rituals define everyday organizational interactions and reinforce values. They signal to employees, and the outside world, that certain things matter more than others (Deal and Kennedy, 1983). Rituals therefore function as ratifications and means for communicating and expressing an organizations’ value system. Artifacts, symbols, and rituals are easily observed, but hard to decipher. While one may be able to understand and see how a group of people constructs its environment, and what behavioral patterns are discernable, answering the why question remains difficult (Schein, 1984).

Both easier to observe and decipher is role of heroes in organizational culture. As Hofstede (1994: 12) defines them, ‘heroes are real or imaginary people, dead or alive, who serve as models for behavior within a culture’. According to Deal and Kennedy (1983), heroes embody the values of the organizational culture. Throughout these values, they signal direction for other organizational members and their behavior is emphasized and exemplified for wanted behavior. In many examples, the founders of an organization become mythical heroes later.

4.5 Organizational culture defined

Alike the general concept of culture, the concept of organizational culture too is very much disputed. From the 1980ies onwards, writers have tried to capture this concept in various dimensions, attributes, and definitions. The field of organizational culture is enormously broad and all encompassing in scope with many interconnected, and complex factors (Cameron and Quinn, 1999). For this reason, the many definitions of organizational culture have remained broad and all encompassing. As Sackman (1991) accurately discerned, there are as many definitions of organizational culture as there are scholars studying it. Refer for a comprehensive review of the development of both the concepts and definitions of organizational culture, to the work of Reiches and Schneider (1990). For the sake of conciseness, the discourse on finding definitions and their aptness will not be dealt with in this writing.

Building heavily on the definition of Schein (1984, 1997) and his two central problems for organizations, as discussed in section 4.3.1, for the remainder of this writing, organizational culture will be defined as ‘the pattern of values, assumptions and behaviors that a given group has invented, learned, and developed over time while dealing with problems of external adaptation and internal integration, and that have worked well enough to be considered valid and are therefore taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, feel and act in relation to those problems’. The values in this definition do not refer to the espoused values as identified by Schein, but to the deeper-rooted core values such as used by (Giblin and Amuso (1997), Collins (1995), and Collins and Porras (2000).

4.6 Types of organizational culture

(1999) summed up much of this discourse and identified the key focal points of the prominent scholars in the field of organizational culture.

For example, Schein (1984), and Kotter and Heskett (1992) are focusing on the cultural strength and congruence as the main dimensions for analyzing organizational culture. A strong-weak and internal-external dimension for analyzing organizational culture has been proposed by Arnold and Capella (1985). Deal and Kennedy (1982) focus on the speed of feedback and the degree of risk. Handy (1991) focuses on the propriety of culture in relation to place and purpose. And Quinn and McGrath (1985) focus on dimensions of internal integration versus external differentiation and flexibility versus control for analyzing organizational culture. While Hofstede (1991), on the other hand focuses on power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism, and masculinity. These are but some examples of the wide scholarly debate on how to analyze, measure and type organizational cultures.

Of the above, the three key cultural typologies from Deal and Kennedy (1982), Handy (1991), and Quinn and McGrath (1985) will be discussed. Both because of their extensive research in the field of organizational culture and the practical usefulness of their models and cultural types, their three cultural typologies will be elaborated on below.

4.6.1 Deal and Kennedy

After extensive research in hundreds of corporations, businesses and their environments, Deal and Kennedy (1982; 1983; 1999) identified two marketplace factors of influence on the cultural patterns and practices of organizations. These are dimensions in the business environment that have a direct influence on the cultural type of a given organization. These dimensions are the degree of risk of a company’s key activities, and the speed of feedback on decisions and strategic choices and their success. Based on these two market realities, Deal and Kennedy developed four generic cultural types.

These types of cultures are supportive of those who can take risks and succeed. Those who cannot cope, and take longer to blossom will be devastated in this type of culture. Because of this, turnover rates are high and building a strong cohesive culture has proven to be difficult (Deal and Kennedy, 1999).

The second cultural type is the work hard/play hard culture. This culture is dominated by a sales focus. Risk taking is low and feedback quick. Everything evolves around making sales. Heroes in this type of culture are the super salespeople. However, it’s not an individualistic culture, the sales teams make the difference. Staying on edge and being highly motivated is key for this type of culture. Basically, all sales driven organizations fall in this cultural category.

The bet your company culture is the third cultural type identified by Deal and Kennedy. In this culture, stakes are high and feedback time is very long. Examples of organizations with this type of culture are aircraft companies, mining companies, oil companies and the like. In these cultures, decisions don’t just reflect on individuals and their personal careers, but can potentially destroy the whole organization. Values focus on the future and the long term (Deal and Kennedy 1982), and coping with uncertainty is key in this type of culture.

The last cultural type is the process culture. In these cultures, risks are low and feedback is slow. This cultural type is found in the banking and insurance industries, governments, utilities, and other heavily regulated industries. A close eye for detail and managing how things are done is key in this type of culture. Values in this cultural type focus on technical perfection and getting the details right.

4.6.2 Handy

Based on extensive academic research and his experiences as an international consultant, Handy established his so called Theory of Cultural Propriety for analyzing, and working with organizational culture. This theory holds that there is no right or wrong culture, but what really matters is getting the right organizational culture for the right place and the right purpose (Handy, 1991). Culture thus, is an instrument of management. Handy identifies four cultural types.

The first cultural type is the club- or power culture. This cultural type is associated with a web structure, with strong and powerful figures in the centre wielding control. Relationships with the power centre matter more than the relationships at the divisional- or unit level. This type of culture is mostly found in smaller entrepreneurial organizations in which trust, empathy and speedy decisions are the standard.

The second cultural type is the role culture. This cultural type functions around jobs and tasks that need to be done, and not around personalities. It is appropriate to bureaucracies, and organizations with mechanistic and rigid structures, order and rules. In this cultural type, everyone sticks with his or her personal job descriptions, prescriptions, and roles. It assumes rationality and emphasizes logic and analysis. In a role culture, as the set of duties are fixed, people just do their jobs, not more. This cultural type best fits within stable and predictable environments.

The third cultural type as indentified by Handy is the task culture. This culture evolves around the outcome of certain tasks or jobs. How people do it is of lesser importance. The focus is on problem solving, instead of prescribing how. This cultural type fits with organically and flat organizations where teamwork and flexibility are encouraged and appreciated, and where unique circumstances and turbulent environments demand continuous creativity.

4.6.3 Quinn and McGrath

The Competing Values Framework of Quinn and McGrath was developed from research conducted on the major indicators of effective organizations (Cameron and Quinn, 1999). Because of the complexity of organizational culture, the framework focuses on those factors most important for diagnosing it and for facilitating change. Based on the Competing Values Framework four dominant cultural types emerged. These four cultural types are based on two dimensions for organizational effectiveness criteria. The first axis of the framework differentiates between an emphasis on flexibility, discretion, and dynamism versus an emphasis on stability, order, and control on the other side. The second dimension distinguishes between an organizational internal orientation, integration, and unity, versus external orientation, differentiation, and rivalry. Together, these two dimensions form four quadrants representing a particular set of effectiveness indicators and have resulted into four cultural types (Quinn and McGrath, 1985; Cameron and Quinn, 1999).

The first organizational type is the hierarchy culture. Strict hierarchies, formalized procedures, and strict control and accountability characterize this cultural type. Long-term concerns for this cultural type are related to stability, predictability, and efficiency (Cameron and Quinn, 1999). Examples of this type of culture are large production companies, and governments.

Second is the market culture. Also focused on stability and control, this cultural type has an external focus. Its main focus is with transactions with external constituencies and operates through economic market mechanisms. Key values are competitiveness and productivity. Market cultures are results driven and perceive their environments as hostile. A clear purpose and an aggressive strategy are thought to lead to productivity and profits (Cameron and Quinn, 1999).

The fourth and final cultural type is the adhocracy culture. This cultural type is risk oriented and value driven. Focused on external differentiation and flexibility and discretion, this cultural type is highly dynamic and adaptable. Adapting quickly and creatively to new opportunities is key. Adhocracies do not have centralized power or authority relationships. Power flows from task to team dependent on what issue is at hand. Emphasis is with individuality, risk taking, and becoming as widely involved in all aspects of the organizational processes as possible.

5 Summarizing

The sub questions that have been – fully or partly – answered above based on the literature analysis will be shortly summarized below. Subsequently, the remainder of the (partly) unanswered sub questions will be reintroduced, thereby clarifying their connections with the results- and the discussion sections below. Furthermore, the exposed omissions and insufficiencies in both the academic and management discourse on strategic vision will be discussed.

5.1 Vision formulation and implementation

The first sub question aims to answer how vision formulation is related to vision implementation. In order to allow for an adequately answer to this sub question, the concept of vision has been defined; understanding has been established on both how vision is formulated and implemented; and the vision formulation-implementation has been explored. As discussed in the above literature review, three key attributes of the concept vision were identified. Visions are always: future and long-term oriented; directive in nature; and inspiring and ambitious. These key attributes led to a formal definition of the concept, defining strategic vision as ‘an inspiring and compelling ambition about the future that provides direction for organizational members’. Furthermore, insight was provided into the vision formulation process. Both perspectives and approaches to vision formulation were analyzed and discussed. A summary of four key approaches to vision formulation has been presented in table 2.2.2.

celebration have been identified as key reoccurring features in the vision implementation process. Thereafter, the vision formulation-implementation relation has been discussed. Theory and literature analysis have shown that the connection between the vision formulation and implementation processes is critical. As identified in section 3.2, flattened two-way communication and interactive co creation processes best establish this. It has become clear that the vision formulation process has an influencing role on vision implementation. However, because profound research – focusing solely on the formulation-implementation relation – has been lacking, an all-inclusive answer to this sub question will be established in the discussion section below, building on both theoretical analysis and the empirical findings from the interviews as discussed in the results section hereafter.

5.2 Vision implementation success

What constitutes vision implementation success, and which specific factors are determinative for this success, comprises the second sub question. In section 3.3 above, building heavily on the work of Nanus (1992), an impetus has been provided for answering this second sub question. To establish vision implementation success, a vision has to be adequately communicated throughout the organization. Next to extensive communication, the vision has to be aligned with organizational strategies, structures, systems, processes, human resource policies, and especially with the organization’s culture and value system. When effectively communicated, aligned, and shared vision implementation is theoretically considered successful. The relationships between the various key aspects contributing to vision implementation success have been illustrated above, in figure 3.3.

5.3 The influence of organizational culture

The third sub question focuses on how organizational culture influences the vision formulation and implementation processes. Above, the literature analysis has provided the necessary theoretical foundations and conceptual framing needed for answering this question. In section 4.5, clarity has been established on what defines organizational culture and in section 4.6, various typologies have been established for analyzing and working with organizational culture. Organizational culture has been defined as ‘the pattern of values and assumptions that a given group has invented, learned, and developed over time while dealing with problems of external adaptation and internal integration, and that have worked well enough to be considered valid and are therefore taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems’. Aside from this formal definition, the literature analysis building up to it, and the key attributes of organizational culture, also, the cultural typologies of Deal and Kennedy (1982), Handy (1991), and Quinn and McGrath (1985) were discussed. From these three typologies – and with careful consideration of the theory and literature on vision discussed above – three cultural types are identified as best fit for promoting vision implementation success based on their characteristics, but not necessarily because of the organizational examples as used in section 4.6.

From Deal and Kennedy’s four types, the ‘bet your company culture’ appears to be best fit for vision implementation success. In this culture, stakes are high and feedback times long. This cultural type focuses on the future, has a long-term orientation, and emphasizes coping with uncertainty. Of Handy’s four cultural types, the ‘task culture’ seems best fit. This culture has a collective focus on a common task or problem. Through shared learning and problem solving individuals are empowered to deliver outcomes contributing to the realization of a common objective. Teamwork, flexibility, and creativity are encouraged and appreciated. Of the four cultural types of Quinn and McGarth the ‘clan culture’ is best fit for ensuring vision implementation success. This cultural type emphasizes shared values, goals, consensus, cohesion, and participativeness. Its focus is on internal integration and flexibility and this cultural type is thereby highly dynamic and adaptable.