We often presume, when talking of vision, that it is cast in a speech or with some kind of audience listening. However, for many years I have claimed that vision is best cast in conversation. Here’s why:
- People can tune out a speech–but it is hard to fully tune out a conversation partner.
- Conversation allows for interruption and the answering of questions… becoming full interactive.
- A conversation values the input of the conversation partner, they feel like they are contributing to the vision.
- Ownership is optional in a crowd. In a conversation, an implicit ownership of what’s stated is expected if no push-back is offered.
- A vision speech is a moment in time–but a conversation can be ongoing and open ended.
- Conversation uses more appropriate terminology and language for the hearer–coming to them at their level.
- A speech might be generally assented to; but in a conversation the hearer can go deeper into the purpose of the vision.
- In a conversation someone can find their own place in the vision, instead of just seeing it as “the leader’s vision.”
- Conversation offers the opportunity to restate the vision in one’s own words–even if somewhat inaccurate that rewording is invaluable.
- A conversation allows the vision-caster to find out how the vision is sticking–which is hard to read from the stage.
- Conversations allow storys to be told with more customization toward the hearers own passions.
- And finally, a vision casting conversation is the best way to collect stories that correspond to the vision, as the hearer can talk back and offer ways they see the vision happening already.
For all these reasons and more, I think vision speeches are over-rated, and that vision is best cast in conversation.
What’s your take?
So, how do you have vision oriented conversations without it getting weird? (Amway, anyone?)
Great post Dave! I think that that casting vision in conversation is so vital, but i do like your question how do we do this without getting weird? I think that the vision we are casting has to be about more than toting the party line. The vision has the be what eat live and breathe, it is what we are about. Thus, when casting vision we are not talking about some abstract one liner. Rather we are talking about why we get up in the morning and do what we do. Authentic passion speaks. This lets me know that the leader is passionate about the vision themselves not just selling me on an organizational goal.
Secondly, i think that genuine relationships help it not get weird. THis is not about politicking and making meetings with people to talk about how to get on board with the vision. Rather, vision gets contagious when, in authentic relationships, leaders get passionate about where they are leading. I remember at a family thanksgiving dinner my cousin’s husband tried to sell me away for literally an hour. I was disgusted. He was using relationship to sell a product. Casting vision in conversation cannot be like this. The danger is to use relationships to manipulate and convince people of our vision. An authentic relationship gives a leader the credibility to talk about vision in way in which it will be heard.
Absolutely, Aaron… great nuances to this concept.
Casting vision with a crowd can’t be done this way either–although it often is. I find that its EASIER to have authentic vision talk in a conversation, as a speech at times tends toward pontificating.
Agreed, i have been thinking a lot about this and how i can be more intentional with having conversations that incorporate vision!
P.S. enjoying your new website and thought provoking posts, i have found your blog refreshing in the blogosphere!
Thanks Aaron. I have found your life refreshing in the earth’s sphere. 🙂
Two stories that demonstrate a difference between modern and millennial leadership.
(1) When I took a Christian Education class taught by an experienced, educated, and older generation than me, pastor as part of ordination courses the subject of vision came up. I asked a question along the lines of Does the pastor set the vision or should the pastor work with a group to come up with the vision? The instructor’s answer was that the pastor sets the vision and the congregation will get on board.
(2) In every one of of my six seminary praxis courses, I conducted numerous interviews and surveys with members of my congregation, including leaders, key influencers, target demographic groups, and Joe and Jill attender, all for the purpose of developing vision and action plans. For some it was awkward, probably because they had never been asked. At first it was awkward for me. I felt like a telemarketer. Over time I got better at it though. Although I still had to be somewhat structured and time restricted, because I was trying to complete a assignments, I got a variety of wisdom, found what people were passionate about, and learned their stories. On the positive side, buy-in to a vision was easier because people had contributed to the idea. On the negative side, we were moving so quickly in seminary there was not always time to implement before we were on to the next lesson or course. Part of what I have been doing since completing seminary is going back to find the essentials that needed to be more than an assignment.
Yes, I also sense some generational shift in this. Charlene Li’s book “Open Leadership” summarizes this shift… social media is in part to “blame” or “give credit” (depending on your view)…
Ownership is not something that comes after the vision is minted–instead, in this day and age–ownership is purchased before the vision is even bought by the leader. This is collaborative vision.
Many bemoan this–and say it can’t be done.I say that the best among us are already doing it–and the “come down fromt he mountain” types of visioneers are leading boldly, with fewer and fewer followers every year.
Paul– after this experience have you found that you will approach the casting of vision to be more collaborative in the future?
Absolutely. I’m not discounting God telling me or any leader, “Take these people to that place,” but I’d rather do so with a consensus, like Joshua, rather than leading a bunch or obstinate people, like Moses. Also, even in the Joshua model, God sometimes directed him to do things in a way of faith that the consensus would have thought foolish.
Yep… when God speaks clearly we have to lead prophetically. No prophet ever had consensus. However, far too many of us as leader act like God has spoken as an excuse for pushing our own agendas
I am a part of an organization that just went through a new vision casting season. Our president sat down and had a legitimate conversation with every full time employee in our organization; from Illinois to Ohio and from Traverse City to Seymour, IN. He took notes and prayed. He distilled feedback tirelessly for months until he had what he believed to be the dreams of the organization. The amazing thing about this was, he already had buy in by the time he was sharing it.
In some ways this sounds like the show Undercover Boss, only your president had his conversations openly.
GREAT story Zach… how awesome. Yes… these types of leaders end up casting the vision and they “have them at hello”… one of the great reasons vision is best cast in conversation.
Zach— would you mind sharing with me (private message if you have to) who this boss is and what company you now work for?
Such a great example I wanna capture it