The redundant vision statement, but what’s next?
The redundant vision statement, but what’s next?

The redundant vision statement, but what’s next?

Vision statements are result of the over traded strategy consulting era of the 90’s and early 2000’s. A new kind of focus is emerging as people feel that their individual worth is more important than to believe in statements that include: “be the best in our industry, deliver to our customers and optimise value for shareholders”. It does not get people out of bed in the morning to know that their shareholders are the major recipients of their creative efforts. It is the era of “statements of philosophy”.

If you look around at vision, mission and value statements you will quickly see that most of these are created by people that focus on a few key rules; firstly, make sure that the rules of defining a vision, mission, goals, etc are all according to tightly defined structure. This is the sad thing about “computer-generated” statements; they all look the same and they all focus on the same characteristics as defined by companies that compete in an industry. Do we actually need to define these statements?

Would it be possible to swap vision statements of companies in an industry? Check these statements by Samsung and LG Electronics: (both great companies and awesome achievers)
“We will devote our human resources and technology to create superior products and services, thereby contributing to a better global society. Our management philosophy represents our strong determination to contribute directly to the prosperity of people all over the world. The talent, creativity and dedication of our people are key factors to our efforts, and the strides we’ve made in technology offer endless possibilities to achieve higher standards of living everywhere.
At SAMSUNG, We believe that the success of our contributions to society and to the mutual prosperity of people across national boundaries truly depends on how we manage our company. Our goal is to create the future with our customers.”

and here is LG Electronics:
“LG’s vision is to supply top-of-the-range innovative digital products and services and ensure customer satisfaction.
LG Electronics is pursuing its 21st century vision of becoming a true global digital leader that can make its customers happy throughout the world by means of its innovative digital products and services.
LG Electronics has set a new mid-term and long-term vision, aiming to achieve a position as one of the top three electronics, information, and telecommunication firms in the world by 2010.
As such, we are embracing the philosophy of “Great Company, Great People,” whereby only great people can create a great company, and pursuing two growth strategies involving “fast innovation” and “fast growth.” Likewise, we seek to secure three core capabilities: product leadership, market leadership, and people-centered leadership.”

So, can we assume that LG is a more customer oriented and innovative organization because their vision states explicitly that they will ensure customer satisfaction? All the standard constructs are included like; serve your customers, look after your people, make sure that society accepts you, and oh yes, the stakeholder thing. It still doesn’t explain how one organization will outperform the other based on their vision.

What about Google: “Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.“ I’ve yet to find the vision statement, but the focus on a business philosophy: Never settle for the best: “The perfect search engine,” says Google co-founder Larry Page, “would understand exactly what you mean and give back exactly what you want.” Given the state of search technology today, that’s a far-reaching vision requiring research, development and innovation to realize. Google is committed to blazing that trail. Though acknowledged as the world’s leading search technology company, Google’s goal is to provide a much higher level of service to all those who seek information, whether they’re at a desk in Boston, driving through Bonn, or strolling in Bangkok.
To that end, Google has persistently pursued innovation and pushed the limits of existing technology to provide a fast, accurate and easy-to-use search service that can be accessed from anywhere. To fully understand Google, it’s helpful to understand all the ways in which the company has helped to redefine how individuals, businesses and technologists view the Internet.”

They then published Ten things Google has found to be true alongside their business philosophy. Even in here lies a problem as Google has found themselves. This statement is from their corporate web site:
“Full-disclosure update: When we first wrote these “10 things” four years ago, we included the phrase “Google does not do horoscopes, financial advice or chat.” Over time we’ve expanded our view of the range of services we can offer –- web search, for instance, isn’t the only way for people to access or use information -– and products that then seemed unlikely are now key aspects of our portfolio. This doesn’t mean we’ve changed our core mission; just that the farther we travel toward achieving it, the more those blurry objects on the horizon come into sharper focus (to be replaced, of course, by more blurry objects).”

So, this is the remedy; it’s not about the statement [vision etc], nor the people that typically define those. Its all about the behavior of the many people that fill the structure created to achieve the business mandate. Vision statements lack many components, but the most important being; getting people in the business motivated to transform themselves into citizens that deliver value to the few people that represent the shareholders. Well, things might be different in smaller businesses, parastatals and government units; but we live in a capitalist world…

What are the new constructs needed to get people mobilized with this era of “the importance of the social being”? People need a philosophy of life that resonates with their day to day existence. Can generic statements crafted by specialists fill this gap of vision to self worth?

What if conflicts arise as we travel through time, like in the Google example? Should we change our philosophies as we learn more about the world, like the current global warming and other issues?