Random Riffs
“The Vision Thing” - Ends Are Important But Means Are Way More Fun.
March
27
2010
OK – I agree that you have to be able to answer the question, “What do you think you’re doing and why are you doing it?” You know, what the bemused 41st American president called “the vision thing.” Anyone responsible for moving any kind of collective enterprise forward has to have something in mind and be able to articulate it in a reasonably coherent and maybe even compelling way. Bankers and shareholders take a dim view of the matter if you can’t.
But does everybody have to find it compelling? Does it have to become everybody’s raison d’etre; their reason for getting up in the morning? I think not. By focussing on ends we overlook just how significant means are as a source of motivation. Maybe for some, means are the only source of motivation. Karl Weick, in the “The Social Psychology of Organizing”, has this to say about the matter and reflects on Gordon Allport’s concept of how groups form.
The crucial point in Allport’s collective structure is that people converge first on issues of means rather than on issues of ends. People don’t have to agree on goals to act collectively. They can pursue quite different ends for quite different reasons. All they ask of one another at these initial stages is the contribution of their action. Why the person consents to make the contribution or why that contribution is needed is secondary to the fact that the contribution is made. Partners in a collective structure share space, time, and energy, but they need not share visions, aspirations, or intentions. That sharing comes much later, if it ever comes at all.
Last week I had lunch with my good friend, grade school classmate and marvellous jazz pianist, Joe Sealy. We got through catching up on life events as we ate our egg rolls (we both love Thai food) and then spent the rest of lunch talking about our shared passion − playing jazz piano. I have conversations with and learn from other jazzers – bassists, drummers, guitarists, saxophonists, trombonists – which are fun, inspiring and instructive. But there’s nothing to compare with the conversation I had with Joe. We talked about how to accompany a soloist when playing a bossa nova; how to play with bassists who play behind, on or ahead of the beat; what to do when working with a “busy” drummer; different ways of arranging the notes of chords (“voicing”); how to practice; what to practice; how to stay in shape. Here’s the thing, when you’re really into something – the way Joe and I are into playing jazz piano – means and ends merge and become indistinguishable one from the other.
A couple of years ago, my colleague, guitarist Kevin Barrett, and I did a gig for a client in Paris and hired local Parisienne musicians – a bassist, drummer and tenor saxophonist – to work with us. We met them an hour before downbeat and briefly went over what a Getting in the Groove workshop looks like. But the bottom line was that we simply asked them to do what they did best: play their instruments. We then made music for a couple of hours and talked with the workshop participants about how jazz music is created. My job as leader was simply to create the space for the musicians we’d hired to be as good as they could be. Did I share my vision for Getting in the Groove? No, I didn’t. Did I tell them where I wanted the business to be in, say, five years? No, I didn’t. Did I ask them to share their visions, aspirations, or intentions? No, I didn’t. Would I have enjoyed sitting around in a bistro before or after the gig drinking whatever Parisienne jazzers drink and doing that kind of sharing? Yes, I would have. But it wasn’t necessary.
Let’s face it, accountants become accountants because they like to account for things; engineers because they like to engineer things; salespeople because they like to sell things; writers because they like to write; public defenders because they like defending the public; vets because they like animals. (I tried “vetting” but it doesn’t work.) You get the picture.
All this by way of saying that if organizational leaders want people to be motivated to perform well then their first order of business better be to make sure that they’ve created an environment where people can be good at what they’re good at. I’ve known organizations with vision statements that worked nicely as rhetorical devices but where jobs were badly designed, systems for managing interdependencies were ill-conceived and where people couldn’t do what they had invested so much of themselves in getting good at.
Patricia Shaw, author of “Changing Conversations in Organizations” has said that the world we live in and the world we talk about so often seem only tenuously connected. She’s got that right. It’s the reason why many start-ups fail − the founder gets a bunch of talented musicians on stage, tells them he has this vision of them making beautiful music that will enchant and delight the audience and then fails to tell them what tune to play, in what style, in what key and at what tempo. It puts me in mind of Oscar Wilde’s comment when he was waiting in the rain to be taken to prison: “If this is the way Queen Victoria treats her prisoners, she doesn’t deserve to have any.”
For individuals, means and personal ends or visions are inextricably linked and they can be satisfied whether they’re linked to the corporate “vision thing” or not.
