ALMOST EVERYONE has seen a company “mission statement,” perhaps posted above the counter at a fast-food restaurant or nicely framed in the lobby of a divisional office for a leading manufacturer. Whether phrased as a “commitment to quality,” a “dedication to service,” or “our personal pledge” to provide the greatest value possible for the consumer dollar, the ideas behind these statements - of the vision and the values of the organization - are relatively simple and straightforward. They may even seem so commonsensical that they “go without saying.” Though it may seem almost clichéd by now, the need for communication of visions and values is nonetheless foundational to the growth and success of the organization in the long term, as this paper will show. A sense of clear, inspiring vision and a shared understanding of bedrock values constitute the most important messages-the raw materials, so to speak-of effective, strategic organizational communication. Why vision and values are so critical can be best explained in the context of the history of management theory.
History, Scientific Management, and the Information Age
Most management students are familiar with Frederick Taylor’s development of the theory of scientific management back in the early 1900's. In keeping with the emergence of interchangeable parts and the rise of industry, Taylor’s theory utilized techniques such as job specialization and mass production (Moorhead & Griffin, 2001). His approach to labor, like Max Weber’s treatment of bureaucratic organizational structure, was characterized throughout as rational, scientific and systematic, applicable to any business or environment (O’Hair, Friedrich, & Dixon, 2002). Scientific management was succeeded in following decades by the human relations and human resources theories, as depicted by Elton Mayo and Douglas McGregor respectively, and more recently by the systems, social and cultural organizational theories popularized by Likert, Peters and Waterman, and others (O’Hair, et al., 2002).
In all these theories, the role of the worker as a motivated social player is the common thread. The question remains how to keep, train, motivate and inspire people to produce for the organization. Since Taylor’s publication of The Principles of Scientific Management in 1911, management theory has gradually come full circle: from scientific to humanistic, to social and cultural, and – arguably – right back to scientific. According to Maccoby (1993), for example, the shift from an industrial to knowledge-based economy has precipitated a need to carefully distinguish personal empowerment from systematic control in a “technoservice” environment:
Frederick Winslow Taylor’s scientific management is a case in point. Generations of managers have been taught to maximize productivity by determining the one best way of designing work rules… In fact, Taylorism did improve productivity by controlling workers, but only so long as certain conditions were met. These had to do with the tools of production and the social character of employees (¶ 3).
As Maccoby (1993) notes further, one problem with the current revival of scientific or systematic organizational arrangements is that, whereas the tools are still central to production, “the tools have changed. Instead of shovels and assembly lines, workers use computers” (¶ 5). To use the new tools, knowledge workers must be well educated and self-motivated. Consequently, they do not function well in a controlling, bureaucratic system.
This reversion to scientific management - in the form of systematic control, determined by technology - has become a relatively persistent problem for corporations in making the necessary transition from filing cabinets stuffed with paper to computer information systems. Laudon and Laudon (2003) maintain that systems design tends toward technical rather than organizational concerns. “The result has often been information systems that are technically excellent but incompatible with their organization’s structure, culture and goals” (Laudon & Laudon, 2003, p. 429). Ironically, the increasing dependence on information technology in the workplace therefore requires more-not less-emphasis on personal communication skills (O’Hair, et al, 2002). Lowy and Reimus (1996) likewise refer to the “overreliance on technology”: “Anxious to reach more constituents, more quickly and efficiently, many companies are resorting to technology and creating overload-instead of truly leveraging it to better target, personalize and facilitate two-way communications” (¶ 22). Thus the situation calls for enhanced organizational communication as a means to guide and motivate the new generation of knowledge workers. Vision and values, a couple of trendy (and hence, easily ignored) concepts taken from the “organizational culture” school, stand to provide the communication basis necessary to transcend the technology-driven system with people-centered motivational and decision making direction.
Vision: Impetus for Change in a Changing Environment
The preceding discussion of emerging technology underscores the reality of change in the contemporary marketplace. Any business manager with any hope of success will have to eventually come to grips with changes in technologies, markets, customers, employees, global opportunities and the economy. Leadership vision is the key to recognizing these shifts in the early stages, preparing the organization accordingly, and thus capitalizing on change as a business opportunity (Peters, 1987). It follows that articulating a vision has everything to do with managing change (O’Hair, et al., 2002) Indeed, “transformational leadership” is essentially managing large-scale change through promulgation of vision (Ackoff, 1999).
A somewhat nebulous concept, vision has been described variously as a future state more desirable than the current state (Ackoff, 1999), a creative mental image of new organizational goals (O’Hair, et al, 2002), or “a perceived but consistent pattern of communal possibilities to which others can be drawn” (Morden, 1997, ¶ 2). According to Tom Peters (1987), visions “are aesthetic and moral - as well as strategically sound” (p. 401). He goes on to describe visions as inspiring, challenging, clear, yet flexible (imprecise in their applicability), employee-focused, future-oriented and foundational as reference points (Peters, 1987). Because it is notably “unscientific,” what President George Bush Sr. once called “the vision thing” is often difficult to convey to rational minded top managers-the very people most in need of embracing it.
Therein lies a major communications challenge facing managers. On one hand, as a major responsibility of leadership, creating an inspiring vision is an aesthetic expression, or an art form (Ackoff, 1999). On the other hand, management schools do not generally emphasize philosophical notions such as aesthetics, so that managers do not typically express vision effectively, if at all. Too often, “leadership” is therefore treated as an extra (even optional) function of “management,” when the two are actually separate but equally vital functions (Ackoff, 1999; O’Hair, et al, 2002). Loss of vision occurs when this distinction is blurred. The blind literally lead the blind. Without vision, an organization becomes both lifeless and chaotic - as workers grind their way to another paycheck and make decisions based on little more than their own instincts.
Consequently, leaders simply must learn to develop vision, and communicate vision in simple, clear, creative and yet pragmatic terms. The average employee probably does not understand what phrases like “multidimensional data analysis,” “marginal physical product,” or “asset utilization” are supposed to mean. Such terms have meanings that are technical, even scientific, but entirely lacking in the sorts of “meanings” that connect with employees, i.e., people. Employees do understand, however, basic concepts like “customer cultivation”-as described by Home Depot founder Bernie Marcus. Almost as if telling a parable in New Testament times, Marcus (1999) explains:
Customer cultivation is just like cultivating a tomato plant. Prepare the soil, maybe put some additives in it. Plant the seed. Water it. Prune it. Apply insecticides. It will always grow bigger if you cultivate it. If you cultivate it, it will bear more fruit (p. 135).
Such imagery is simple, vivid, inspirational and eminently practical. Customers treated like a well tended garden will invariably come back for more of the same, and the business will grow and be profitable. Likewise, employees treating their customers with the same care a gardener would a tomato plant will invariably be happier and more effective than employees with no direction or motivation other than a desire to remain employed.
Vision is all about simple, unscientific unseen realities - about the future, about possibilities, about making a difference, about growing and getting better all the time, about perhaps making business headlines one day. Indeed, the unscientific simplicity of it all has made it easy for managers to dismiss as irrelevant to the “real world” of business administration: “Consumed by change and the bottom line, some business leaders began to question all the attention (and hard-to-measure results) that organizational vision had attracted at many companies in the 1980s” (Lowy & Reimus, 1996, ¶ 15). A number of researchers have concluded that vision is among a company’s most essential, fundamental messages (Ackoff, 1999; Lowy & Reimus, 1996; Moorhead & Griffin, 2001; Morden, 1997; O’Hair, et al, 2002; Peters, 1987). Like the solution, the problem here is simple: lack of communication.
Values: Defining Foundations of Organizational Culture
When I was first hired by the Home Depot in 1998, I was inundated with what can only be described as corporate propaganda - in the form of the company’s stated values. The values were stated on posters, buttons and pins, and constantly preached by management. I heard about them in training sessions, store meetings and casual conversations. Anyone who was serious about the business was also serious about these values. Arguments about procedure or protocol-even among ranking managers-were often resolved by an appeal to one of the values. Because these values were clear and unchanging, and appealed to human instincts for meaningful and ethical behavior, they formed the basis for a real and coherent organizational culture.
Much like vision, values are distinctly non-rational and non-scientific and yet undeniably constitute a foundational message for effective strategic communication “A key element in any communication activity is the values of the organization” (O’Hair, et al., 2002, p. 27). Whereas vision promises a march of progress over time, values underscore the unchanging principles that define the organization culture. According to Home Depot founders Bernie Marcus and Arthur Blank, “Values are beliefs that do not change over time; they guide our decisions and actions. They are the principles, beliefs, and standards of our company” (Marcus, et al., 1999. p. xvii). As examples, some of Home Depot’s defining values include: “Excellent customer service”; “Taking care of our people”; “Developing entrepreneurial spirit”; and “Doing the right thing, not just doing things right” (Marcus, et al, 1999, p. xvii). Marcus and Blank go so far as to assert that adherence to these values - rather than information technology or astute financial management - will be the key to growth in international markets in the decades to come.
In their seminal study on the “excellent companies,” Tom Peters and Robert Waterman (1982) noted: “Virtually all the better performing companies we looked at…had a well-defined set of guiding beliefs” (p. 281). Commenting on Peters’ and Waterman’s findings specifically pertaining to a firm’s “loose-tight” qualities, Griffin and Moorhead (2001) affirm their relevance to corporate business two decades later:
The firms are tightly organized because all their members understand and believe in the firm’s values. This common cultural bond is a strong glue that holds the firms together. At the same time, however, the firms are loosely organized because they tend to have less administrative overhead, fewer staff members, and fewer rules and regulations. The result is increased innovation and risk taking and faster response times (p. 495).
When carefully formulated in conjunction with the organization’s overriding vision, stated values serve a number of practical business purposes (Ackoff, 1999; Morden, 1997; O’Hair, et al., 2002; Peters & Waterman, 1982). Among these are increased productivity, decreased turnover, and leaner staffs due to a large measure of organizational direction and self-motivation among employees (Morden, 1997). Ironically, the vaguely “unscientific” notion of values, when effectively communicated by managers along with a clear vision for the future, yields specific, quantifiable - and it need not be added, wholly desirable - results (Peters & Waterman, 1982).
Vision, Values, and the Model of Strategic Communication
That vision and values are vital, foundational messages for an organization seems difficult to deny. However, they can do no good at all if not properly communicated. The four-part model of strategic communication, devised by O’Hair, Friedrich and Dixon (2002), provides a method of communication every bit as practical and universally applicable as the notion of organizational culture itself. The four parts of this approach are: goal setting; situational knowledge; communication competence; and anxiety management (O’Hair, et al, 2002).
Goal setting is basically the deliberate conception of a fixed objective for a given communication event (O’Hair, et al, 2002). Vision and goal setting are roughly synonymous, so vision is clearly a component of the strategic approach to communication. Organizational values, similarly, depend on an understanding of vision - and vice versa - so that Morden (1997) speaks of “the values represented by the vision” (¶ 24). Tom Peters (1987) also suggests the necessary interplay of the two concepts: “Effective leadership-at all levels-is marked by a core philosophy (values) and a vision of how the enterprise (or department) wishes to make its mark” (p. 398). Formulating vision and values is a basic goal setting function.
Situational knowledge is information gleaned from the environment and the particular business context in order to make communication more relevant and effective (O’Hair, et al., 2002). This is where the issue of specificity comes into play. Merely dreaming up any old vision, or drawing up some borrowed, generic values, is not the point of all this, and probably explains why so many managers who have “tried” to develop vision and values have failed. In each case, there must be a practical connection between the cultural ideals and the actual organization in question. “A vision must be presented so that others can see the potential benefits of acting on it” (O’Hair, et al., 2002). Folz (1993) has termed these failures to link vision with process “systemic disconnects,” and argues that a vision must come complete with a “road map” detailing its application to basic business functions and processes. The same holds for values. Cultural values must reflect the specific strategic values and characteristics of the particular organization (Moorhead & Griffin, 2001).
Closely related to situational knowledge, communication competence is the ability to communicate both effectively and appropriately with others (O’Hair, et al., 2002). This is the “nuts and bolts” of communication - choosing the right message, through the right channels, at the right time, for the right audience (O’Hair, et al., 2002). In the case of communicating vision and values, the language must be inspirational and motivational. According to Peters and Waterman (1982), managers need to beware excessive “business school rationality” and instead tell culture-defining stories. Transformational leadership involves the consistent communication of vision and values, through the example set by the leader and through words spoken by the leader (Ackoff, 1999; Griffin & Moorhead, 2001; O’Hair, et al, 2002).
Finally, anxiety management entails keeping nervousness in check so that it becomes a source of energy for the communicator-rather than a cause for confusion or discouragement (O’Hair, et al, 2002). An effective leader is confident, inspiring, and optimistic when it comes to communicating the message of vision and values-and is able to even have some fun in the process (Ackoff, 1999). O’Hair, Friedrich and Dixon (2002) place anxiety in proper perspective for the leader, acknowledging that whereas everyone experiences apprehensions about communication, “Effective managers and leaders control their anxieties and do not let them become overwhelming. Optimism, persistence, passion and accepting responsibility for failure enable leaders to overcome the anxieties of their jobs” (p. 173). Old-fashioned courage, then, is one of the prerequisites for managers seeking to promote visions and values: “The leader must be able to encourage and facilitate (inspire) pursuit of the vision by invoking the courage to do so, even when short-term sacrifices are required” (Ackoff, 1999, ¶ 22).
Conclusion
The defining characteristics of company culture, vision and values are ultimately more foundational to effective organizational performance than more scientifically “rational” principles, such as those underlying financial management or information systems design. It follows that leadership bears the burden of communicating these basic concepts throughout the organization. Leaders who want to succeed would do well to take the visionary and value-based concepts of organizational culture seriously, and to apply them systematically to their own organization using the model of strategic communication.
References
Ackoff, Russell L. (1999). Transformational leadership. Strategy & Leadership, 27, 20-26.
Retrieved October 10, 2003 from Infotrac database.
Folz, Dennis. (1993). A culture of high performance. Executive Excellence, 10, 17. Retrieved
October 16, 2003 from Proquest database.
Laudon, Kenneth C., & Laudon, Jane P. (2003). Essentials of Management Information Systems:
Managing the Digital Firm (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Lowy, Peter, & Reimus, Byron. (1996). Ready, aim, communicate! Management Review, 85,
40-43. Retrieved October 22, 2003 from Firstsearch database.
Maccoby, Michael. (1993). Managers must unlearn the psychology of control. Research
Technology Management, 36, 49-51. Retrieved October 29, 2003 from Proquest database.
Marcus, Bernie, Blank, Arthur, & Andelman, Bob. (1999). Built from Scratch: How a Couple of
Regular Guys Grew the Home Depot from Nothing to $30 Billion. New York: Random House.
Moorhead, Gregory, & Griffin, Ricky W. (2001). Organizational Behavior: Managing People
and Organizations (6th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Morden, Tony. (1997). Leadership as vision. Management Decision, 35, 664-13. Retrieved
October 10, 2003 from Infotrac database.
O’Hair, Dan, Friedrich, Gustav W., & Dixon, Lyda Lee. (2002). Strategic Communication in
Business and the Professions (4th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Peters, Thomas J. (1987). Thriving on Chaos: Handbook for a Management Revolution. New
York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Peters, Thomas J., & Waterman, Robert H. Jr. (1982). In Search of Excellence: Lessons from
America’s Best-Run Companies. New York: Harper & Row.