The question of who writes the vision gets further muddled when we examine the center or core of the message. Is it something the leader wants to do, or is it a summation of unspoken needs by a multitude of people? Let’s not confuse the message with the messenger in this case. Often the president is simply someone who centers the vision for the company by putting it into words or symbolic meaning. This means he or she simply articulates what is felt consciously or unconsciously in the hearts and minds of the employees. The vision, therefore, is not one person’s dream. It is the expression of many dreams, hopes, and desires. But someone must take the lead to articulate, champion, and energize those dreams.
Someone must create a rally point in time of uncertainty or chaos. That someone is not a committee, a group, or a mass of employees. It is the ethical responsibility of the top management team to assume the mantle of leadership and have the courage to put the stake in the ground. What is confused in this controversial issue of top-down versus bottom-up vision development is the need to have employees involved. Having input and buy-in is more than important. It is critical to have a shared vision for a simple fact: People support what they develop more quickly than something handed to them. This translates to ownership and vested interest. Building a case for shared ownership is not a new topic.
This common bonding of different perceptions allows the employee individual participation. This supports the belief that people willingly follow a vision. This moves employees from pure compliance behavior to a collaborative model where it is in everyone’s mutual interest to achieve the vision. A company’s vision is inclusive of the direction for all subunits such as staff functions and strategic business units.
