Vision Statement

The third common barrier to casting vision is what I call “white hot” executive sponsorship. This is when the Executive Sponsors of two organizations are so intent, so excited, so certain of the Relationship, that they are blind to concerns in other areas of the Relationship due to their enthusiasm and position. Again, this happens many times with Executive Sponsors who already know each other, like each other, and want to do something with each other. Let me start with a story of such:

Blinded Vision:

Three business associates who were also close friends decided to form a business Relationship. Harry was the CEO of Elite Financial Services, Inc. This was his second successful venture. He had sold his stake in another general financial services organization and established a new one focused on a specific profile of clientele. Jane was an investment banker. She had worked with many of Harry’s clients in the past taking the recommendations his company’s advisors made to their clients and implementing them into various financial vehicles that benefited the clients. John, another associate and friend, brought a unique value to the Relationship, which was his network of contacts. He was the CEO of CEOs Unlimited, a training organization who provided executive coaching for CEOs of various organizations. The CEOs tended to be affluent and ideal clients for Harry and, subsequently, Jane. Everyone benefited when the there were plenty of clients and when the client’s financial interests were advanced.

All three of these people were also personal friends. John and Harry attended the same church. Jane and John’s children were in the same private school. Harry’s wife and Jane were close personal friends. In support of each other, Harry had his organization put on a financial planning seminar which featured Jane as one of the speakers. John attended the seminar. At lunch afterwards, the three met to discuss the day. The energy was high. The day had been a success. The lunch was a mixture of rapid conversation, laughter, and insight. They all agreed to work closer together in a Relationship and sealed the decision with a toast. The obvious benefit of the organizations working together was only surpassed by the enjoyment the 3 CEOs anticipation in working with each other.

When each returned to their respective offices they announced to their operating teams that they had decided to form a Relationship with the other two organizations. Each gave a very quick overview of the obvious benefits. Each cast effectively the same Vision to their teams that their friends did. Each shared their overflowing excitement to their teams.

The teams responded by quickly trying to engage their peers at the other organizations. Meetings were set up. Discussions were far ranging. However, there was little traction in the Relationship. The Shared Vision statement became a long rambling sentence which attempted to take into consideration the 3 Visions described by each CEO. The teams struggled to come up with Short and Long Term Goals that met their needs and fit into the rambling Vision. Each was working hard and with great sincerity to make the Relationship work. However, with each meeting, frustrations grew as the achievement of goals became more elusive.

The CEOs did not understand why their teams simply could not implement what was obviously a great fit among the 3 organizations. They decided to have a monthly oversight meeting in which they would meet to discuss the Relationship. At these meetings the CEOs would get together over lunch. Each of their meetings was a renewal of the first luncheon. The Relationship synergy was obvious. Everyone got along well. Each assured the other that they would speak to their operating teams and ensure that they worked on the Relationship in earnest.

Eighteen months into the Relationship, there was still no traction in the Relationship. Short term goals had yet to be achieved in any meaningful way. In addition, an animosity was growing among the operating team members. When I was called and asked to help get the Relationship on track, the primary question was “what happened”?

The situation among Harry, Jane, and John was one in which their strong friendships and the nature of their personalities combined to cause what I call a “white hot” Executive Sponsorship. Love is blind. This type of very strong, very enthusiastic Executive Sponsorship is often akin to looking at the sun or trying to view the work of a welder without proper eye protection. It blinds the Executive Sponsors from seeing the Red and Yellow areas of the rest of the Relationship, the areas of the Relationship Wheel that are showing transitions or serious problems. Each of those areas may have been able to be corrected, but due to the blindness they tend to continue on without being recognized or addressed until the abrasion within the organization becomes often irreparable.

Avoiding the problem of Blinded Vision:

The best way to avoid the problem of a blinded vision by white hot executive sponsorship is to involve the operating teams early. When I accepted the opportunity to help Harry, Jane, and John, the first step I took was to ask the CEOs and their operating team leaders to meet with me to have a working session. The goal was to walk through a Relationship Wheel using the InSight Circle tools (See Book “Six Strand Weave”).

The teams literally sit together and I’d prompt them through the Relationship Exam and scribe onto a white board their initial feedback. As we gathered before the meeting, one of the operating team leaders came up and expressed his appreciation for getting the operating teams together with the Executive Sponsors. I asked when the last time was that this had occurred. His response was that it had never occurred!

Never had the operating teams had the opportunity to be together to hear from the CEOs what they each had in mind for the Relationship. Nothing was ever put in writing from the luncheons that the CEOs had. He went on to say that the CEOs would invite one or two of them to a portion of their monthly meeting, but never had the operating team leaders all hear from the CEOs at the same time. Given that all the companies were located in the same city, this clearly was a missed opportunity.

When we did get together, within 30 minutes it was clear that without the operating teams’ involvement, the CEOs were not aware of several fundamental operational conflicts that existed among the organizations. For example, the sharing of contact names was an issue. Part of the contractual commitment to the CEOs who participated in CEOs Unlimited was that under no circumstances would there be solicitation to the CEOs through CEO’s Unlimited, even for financial services.

Another aspect of CEOs Unlimited was that the relationship developed between the John’s executive coaches and the CEOs was very closely held. John’s team members would not hand over access to a CEO to anyone else unless they were personally satisfied that the person to whom they were handing the relationship had only the CEO’s best interest in mind. Knowing that their CEOs would be potential clients to Harry and Jane’s made the executive coaches of CEOs Unlimited wary of the Relationship. They viewed it as a conflict of interests. Harry, Jane, and John may trust each other; however, “in the field” the relationships were among unknowns.

Finally, there had been a struggle to have one organization be the lead in engagement with the CEOs. John’s organization felt they were the natural lead. Harry’s organization wanted to take that lead role.

The Relationship Wheel™ that we created together that day had been color coded “green” for executive sponsorship because the Executive Sponsors were known and had cast a vision. Actually it was white hot and glowing nuclear green. However, in the 4 quadrants, there were 2 red areas and 2 yellow areas. The white hot executive sponsors had been blind to the series of conflicts that indicated the probability of success of the Relationship was well below 10%. To their dismay I indicated that they really did not need my services. The Relationship was doomed to fail. They should disband amicably and look for other Relationships, possibly among the organizations present, but not necessarily with all parties involved. There was silence. After some uncomfortable “Thank You’s” we ended the meeting. I drove away wondering if there is ever a good way to give such terminal information. My only solace was that I knew it to be true and I knew that the health of 4 organizations depended on them not continuing in the Relationship as it had been structured.

Rest of the Story:

Ultimately what came of this Relationship was that the nature of the Relationship and the joint venture structure in which it was cast was dissolved. A new Relationship with a clear Shared Vision was formed in the structure of an Alliance. The Shared Vision was created with high involvement from the operating teams. Executive Sponsorship still existed, but there was now the ability to see the other areas of the Relationship. The conflicts of leadership which were so abrasive in the joint venture structure were now able to be respected and synergistic in the alliance structure. The comfort of the field organizations with each other was able to grow at its own pace and without conflicts of interest. From that point forward, some 24 months after the initial ill-fated Relationship was formed, the Relationship which had ended was reborn and began to grow steadily.

Have you ever seen when people are trying to walk together and one turns right and the other turns left. Either they pull apart or bump into each other. Both outcomes do not make for easy walking. The same is true with a Relationship in which the Vision that has been cast is just not quite the same. The organizations begin to move in different directions and there is either a pulling apart or a bumping around that occurs in the Relationship. Let me start with a story that illustrates the problem and then give you ways to avoid such.

Casting Different Visions:

Lisa is the Vice President of Human Resource Development for LiveTeach, Inc., a very successful training organization. They specialize in providing seminar format teaching events to companies on all sorts of topics. They have highly skilled instructors who work with various subject matter experts to develop materials that are then sold as training modules to corporations for their executive training programs. Randy is the CEO of LiveTeach, Inc.

Jill is the CEO of Imperial Value, Inc, an organization that specializes in the management of cash flow for organizations, including the training of people throughout an organization on budgetary and cash flow considerations. Companies who have undergone their training have seen a positive impact to their bottom line of over 12% in the first year through better expense management and operational efficiencies. Charles is the Senior VP of Strategic Accounts for Imperial Value.

Randy and Jill have known each other for some time. At Randy’s request, Jill has spoken at several corporate functions at LiveTeach. After one such event, Randy and Jill discussed how uniquely effective the materials of Imperial Value were for those that used them. Randy and Jill decided that they would form a Relationship and that LiveTeach would use Imperial Value’s materials as the resource sold to corporations in search of training modules on expense management and cash flow. LiveTeach would private label the materials as all their materials are sold under the same brand.

Jill returned to Imperial Value and informed Charles of the decision to form a Relationship with LiveTeach. Randy returned to LiveTeach and informed Lisa of the decision to form a relationship with Imperial Value. As the operating teams lead by Charles and Lisa worked together, it was more and more clear that LiveTeach had no intention of private labeling the materials from Imperial Value. They were going to use parts of them and develop their own private offering using the materials from Imperial Value as an unnamed source and one that was not paid a license or royalty.

Jill and Randy had conveyed the vision to Charles and Lisa, respectively. However, Randy had not effectively conveyed the same vision to Lisa that Jill had to Charles and her organization. The visions were similar, but not the same.

Some of the issue was that the culture within LiveTeach was to always modify the materials from the subject matter experts. Furthermore, Lisa happened to have a background in finance and was quite adept at cash flow analysis. She felt that her own knowledge, combined with several other experts would be a good mix with the Imperial Value resources. Lisa wasn’t going directly against Randy. The exclusive, licensed, and paid for full use nature of the relationship had not been understood by Lisa. After 6 months of meetings that ended with strain on the part of all parties, the disconnect in Vision became known.

Avoiding the problem of “different visions”:

There are 2 steps that can be taken to avoid the issue of the operating teams of the organization receiving different visions or different versions of the same vision.

First, is to have the Executive Sponsor simulcast the Vision. What I mean by “simulcast” is to have them either physically or virtually present the Vision at the same time to their organizations or leaders of their operating teams. This is particularly difficult to accomplish in larger organizations or in organizations which have a low Geographic Proximity to each other. We’ll discuss this “Geographic Proximity” in more detail in future blogs.

Second, which should always be done even if the Executive Sponsors simulcast the Vision, is to write down the Vision. Writing a Vision statement was mentioned in earlier blogs. However, let me emphasize, it is in the process of committing a Vision to paper that allows it to become clear. This written vision can then be provided to the organizations for initial understanding and later reference. Sending out a copy of the written Vision under the signature of both Executive Sponsors is a good way to tie a bow around the Vision.

There are many ways that a Vision can be misinterpreted. However, starting with the same Vision, written down and cast to the organizations at the same time, is one of the best ways to ensure the same Vision is cast and that it is also understood.

There are 3 most common Vision problems which occur in Relationships do not have to do with a lack of Vision. Rather they all include a lack of effectively casting that vision from the Executive Sponsor to each of the organizations. Let me give a story which depicts a very common scenario.

Secret Vision:

Howard and Rick are both well noted for their success in industry. Howard developed commercial properties successfully throughout all the major metropolitan cities and was noted for restoration and reuse of older, downtown and industrial areas. Rick developed multi-use, residential properties and had most recently grown to some degree of acclaim through his implementation of “green”, environmentally friendly, construction and utilities technologies. At a recent convention in Las Vegas on community development, both were featured speakers. They concluded the keynote day by participating in a panel discussion.

As the moderator asked questions, it became apparent that the rapport and synergy between these two leaders was enormous. They respected each other. They had similar experiences in somewhat complementary areas of the industry. As they talked back and forth, the role of the moderator fell silent due to the frank and energized interaction between them.

They stepped down from the dias and spoke behind the stage, shook hands and said almost in unison, “We need to work together. Anything you need, just let me know. It’s yours.” With that they strode off having a great sense of new opportunity ahead.

Upon their return to their offices they told their operating team leaders of the positive interaction and commitment they had made to the other to work toogether. They each repeated, “Anything you need….it’s yours”. Both had in mind the use of Rick’s green technology initiatives being incorporated into Howard’s next commercial venture. However, neither had cast this vision to their respective teams.

Soon afterwards, the operating team leaders contacted each other. As they tried to interpret the cryptic guidance from a meeting in which none of the operating team members participated, they came upon the concept of developing a residential community in a downtrodden industrial area of a city in the northeast using green technologies. This was actually relatively close to what was intended by Howard and Rick. Then Howard’s team asked that they receive the patented construction materials and techniques developed by Rick’s organization at no charge with the intention to brand them under a new marketing initiative from Howard’s organization. Rick’s team pushed back saying that the intent was to sell them the materials and be a sub-contractor for the work itself. Howard’s team repeated the statement “Anything you need….its yours.” Rick’s team knowing that their patented techniques were a key differentiator for them in the market refused to give away such corporate treasures so freely. Six months later, Howard and Rick were shocked to find that nothing had begun and that the teams were not only not working well, but nearly opposed to each other. How did it get to this?

The issue was not that there was no vision, but that the fullness of the vision had not been conveyed effectively to the rest of the organizations. This occurs quite often. There are two steps that can be taken to help avoid this Vision problem.

Avoiding the problem of “secret vision”:

First, when Executive Sponsors get together, if at all possible, they should not have Vision discussions and make commitments associated with that Vision by themselves. They do not need other’s participation, but will benefit from other’s observations. In short, someone needs to keep notes on what was committed so that the operating teams can execute the vision.

Second, whenever possible, there should be a follow up meeting or phone call to summarize that to which was agreed. This follow up call should occur before the Vision is cast to the respective organizations. This allows for refinement and clarity of the Vision before the Executive Sponsors attempt to cast such to their organizations.

The first is not always feasible or always easy to arranged. The nature of visionary leaders who are dealing with other visionary leaders is often a derivative of what I just described in the case Howard and Rick walking off the dias and speaking behind the stage. It happens spontaneously. The Executive Sponsors recognize the synergy between themselves and another person or organization and seize the opportunity to engage them. It happens in phone calls in the office, at conferences, even in planes. They connect. They see the vision. They act on their instincts that have made them successful. The operating teams are simply caught in the rip tide of the newly formed relationship trying to swim upstream and get a glimpse of what was said and committed when they were not present.

If others are not present when these initial conversations occur between Executive Sponsors, the value of the second step is all that much greater. A follow up call or engagement before casting the Vision allows for the ramifications of some implications of the Relationship to be considered by the Executive Sponsors. Statements from Executive Sponsors such as “Whatever it takes, we’ll do.” or “We partner for life.” are very assuring. However, they are often not well considered and the details of what such statements mean are not well communicated. The operating teams try to fulfill such commitments. Yet, when the Vision is not known or not cast fully, it is an impossible task to fulfill.

Avoid “Secret Visions”. They will occur spontaneously. The way to avoid them is to have someone present when the vision is explored. Regardless of whether that occurs, there needs to be a follow up call between the Executive Sponsors, again with someone present to take notes, after the initial Vision has been conceptualized and before the Vision is cast to each of the organizations.

Executive Sponsorship is at the center of the Relationship Wheel™ because having such is a requirement in order for a Relationship to succeed. As you can see in the Relationship Wheel™ there are 4 quadrants that surround the center of Executive Sponsorship. So, why am I starting with Vision? One of the two functions of the Executive Sponsor is to “cast vision”. A Relationship begins with leaders who sees the synergistic value of forming the Relationship. However, once sponsored, the vision must be cast. In order to cast a Vision one must understand several things about a Vision for a Relationship.

Noted author, Steven Covey, in his book “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People” would summarize this with the statement that one must “Begin with the end in mind”. The timeless principle on which this is based is that without vision, the people perish. Applying this to Relationships we have the principle that “Without Vision, the Relationship will fail”. Organizations, and the people that comprise them, must know where they are going as they form a Relationship. Later I will explain why the structure of the Relationship is dependent on the Culture within and the Chemistry between the organizations. For now, let me focus on the Vision itself.

Shared Vision vs. One Vision:

There is a slightly different characteristic of a Vision depending on whether the Relationship is a Partnership/Alliance or a Merger/Acquisition/Joint Venture. The Vision for a Partnership/Alliance must be a Shared Vision. It is shared among those in the Relationship. Yet, it cannot be mutually exclusive of any one of the organizations’ individual Visions. Accomplishing the Shared Vision cannot have a negative result for any of the organizations involved in the Relationship achieving their individual Visions. Rather, the Shared Vision should help enhance the achievement of the individual Visions. The Shared Vision must be complementary to each organization’s individual Vision. By achieving the Shared Vision, the individual organization’s Visions must be moved closer to achievement. It is as if two circles represent each organizations vision. Those circles overlap. The area of overlap is the “Shared Vision”

In the circumstance of a Merger/Acquisition/Joint Venture, the Vision must be a single Vision. To distinguish it from the Shared Vision of a Partnership/Alliance, I will use the phrase “One Vision” in regards to the Vision for a Merger/Acquisition/Joint Venture. By the nature of merging, acquiring, or entering into a joint venture, the organizations entering into the Relationship are indicating they are eliminating their separateness and becoming one. The first indicator of this is to have a single Vision, to have One Vision.

The next several blogs will discuss casting a Vision and keys to defining One Vision or a Shared Vision that can be achieved by a Relationship between and among organizations.

Loom Enterprises.....C-Suite and Executive Consultation

Forming Successful Alliances, Partnerships, Mergers, Acquisitions, and Joint Ventures

All posts tagged Vision Statement

Three Barriers to Casting Vision: Barrier #3 – Blinded Vision

Three Common Barriers to Casting Vision: Barrier #2 – Casting Different Visions

Three Common Barriers to casting a Vision: Barrier #1: Secret Vision

Timeless Principle #2: Vision – Without Vision the Relationship will Fail.

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Categories

Meta