In my previous introduction, I outlined that the meanings of words need to be carefully considered and defined and their roots understood, before grand ideas can be communicated.
The use of terms that are unexplained, mean something different to others, or particularly are on a scale of meaning, lead to misinterpretation and bluffing by collaborators.
I intended to continue by taking some common concepts and explaining them, while adding some comments about how to communicate them. However, the one I wanted to start with, Vision – as in “the vision this company has the vision of being the best at X”, brought out another subtlety about What Words Mean – the relationship, often unconsidered, that exists between words.
To illustrate this: There are any number of ways of talking about “vision”, since it relates to other concepts such as strategy, purpose, mission and so on. Try a search for “vision strategy mission values” images! There is little consensus about what order they come in, where you should start, or how they relate, and some are considered interchangeable, despite the fact that most companies consider them to be foundational.
This should set the alarm bells ringing. Someone, somewhere, is mis-communicating – they are bluffing, they don’t understand the concepts or consequences, or they are living with an ad-hoc definition that others may pitch elsewhere.
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’ ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’
To avoid the trap, consider that you should have a “master” meaning for these concepts, while understanding when it’s useful to use the said concepts and where they add value. Otherwise, similarity and complementarity build confusion. If I can help this forward, I’ll have (reached my objective)(added value)(achieved my purpose)(completed my mission).
Relationships of the terms
Here’s a little framework that helps start the process:
- The core concepts about DOING SOMETHING are STRATEGY, MISSION, TACTICS and OBJECTIVES
- The core concepts about WHY IT IS DONE are VISION and PURPOSE
- The core concepts about IN WHAT WAY IT IS DONE are VALUES and CULTURE. I’ll also add a small dose of realism by adding in RESOURCES into this category.
This, at least, shows that the concepts don’t exist independently, and have certain effects and consequences. The three categories particularly influence one another. So any company that uses these terms needs to have consistent definitions that they keep to internally – strong enough to resist an external strategic consultant or new hire jumping in and applying their own interpretation.
However, you don’t need to use the lot. You are the master! You can choose to do without these concepts, or choose one or more, and adapt to align with your management style. Having a strategy without a vision may well work, for you’ll be doing something and there is likely to have been some thought put into it. Having a mission without an overriding purpose will not allow those executing the vision to use their own judgement, which implies a centralised, strong management structure. The more independently you want your people to act, the stronger the culture of the company has to be. And that, somewhere, is all words – no, better yet, meanings, and training and reinforcement that goes along with it.
Reasonableness of the relationships that exist between terms
It is reasonable to state that if you do consider why you are doing something, then everything relating to actually doing it should be consistent and credible. The same goes for the “lenses” of your values, culture, and resources (manpower, machines, money, knowledge in general terms), through which the company views what it is doing, why it is doing it, and assesses progress. In particular, those elements to do with doing work – strategy, mission, tactics and objectives – are the expression of what the company says it ought to be doing. Make sure there are no obvious holes or contradictions – try putting the documents in order on a large table and checking the story they tell.
Communicating is always to people
Any employee (and supplier?) should be easily able to relate what they are doing to this expression of the company’s will. This requires communication, credibility, and shared meanings of the terms. While no strategy, mission, vision etc. should be eternal in this ever-changing world, there is a time lag, an inertia, between the introduction of a change and its acceptance. Avoid introducing changes quicker than people can adapt, nor you should not introduce something new until the previous one has been implemented and is stable. Most importantly, employee acceptance should not be taken for granted, nor should the strategy etc. be created without reference to the employees. Your managers are also people, and they need to know and believe the reasons for explaining to new hires and old hands. attempts to make the concepts fully adaptable will make them lose their meaning, and attempts to make them all-encompassing will make them inapplicable: no-one will be able to relate their job to them.
Maintenance
Blind obedience to an outdated mission would be like those Japanese soldiers isolated on Pacific islands after WW2, who refused to believe that Japan had surrendered and continued fighting for decades. While the vision, strategy etc. should be periodically reviewed, it should not drift gradually from one meaning to another, across time or geography, and changes should be definite, explained and not too frequent. Bear in mind also the amount of resources you need to devote to maintenance and reinforcement of these elements – don’t overreach! To reduce maintenance, do not over-generalize, adapt meanings or admit unnecessary variability.
Summary
- Similar and complementary words, especially foundational terms for a company like the ones considered, build confusion when both meanings and relationships are not clearly and consistently defined.
- You do need to explain what related terms you are using and why, so they are easily assimilated into culture and behaviour.
- Changes to related and foundational terms should be definite, explicable, and not too frequent.
- Training and reinforcement will be needed, and maintenance will require resources!
- Communication is helped by taking related terms, placing them together and seeing what story they tell – is it credible and consistent, how will different national cultures react?
- You have the choice of none, one or more of the core concepts: DOING SOMETHING – STRATEGY, MISSION, TACTICS and OBJECTIVES; WHY IT IS DONE – VISION and PURPOSE; IN WHAT WAY IT IS DONE – VALUES and CULTURE.
