“For a well-crafted vision to serve its purpose, it is important for OD practitioners to retain their
focus on the visioning (some call it envisioning) process, rather than the outcome—the succinct
vision statement.”
Visioning
The Method and Process
By Srinivasan R To accomplish great things, we must
not only act but dream; not only plan,
but also believe.
—Anatole France
There are several problems with orga-
nizational vision statements as they are
understood today. First, many people do
not believe in them; they are just another
set of words proposed by the management.
Second, most vision statements have too
much jargon representing fads-of-the-day
that they can be used for almost every orga-
nization. Thirdly, the brevity and loftiness
of vision statements obscure the primary
purpose of vision statements: galvanize the
aspirations of the organization members
and mobilize them into concerted action
towards the desire future (Levin, 2000).
For a well-crafted vision to serve its pur-
pose, it is important for OD practitioners
to retain their focus on the visioning (some
call it envisioning) process, rather than the
outcome—the succinct vision statement.
No doubt the vision statement is
important, but an effective process ensures
superior understanding of the organiza-
tion’s vision (not just remembering the
statement), enables commitment for
action, and emphasizes the alignment
across various statements of the organi-
zation’s intent or purpose—its mission,
goals, values, and policies. O’Brien and
Meadows (2000) in their survey of UK
organizations find wide variety in the way
visions are formulated, including the num-
ber of people involved and the processes
followed. Though they did not explicitly
study the relationship between involvement
34 OD PRACTITIONER  Vol. 46 No. 1  2014
in the process and commitment to action,
it is believed that greater involvement
would result in significant ownership and
commitment to the vision.
This article describes the method and
process of facilitating a visioning process
in a large organization. Drawing upon the
author’s experience as a facilitator in the
visioning processes at Forbes & Co. Ltd.
(www.forbes.co.in), as well as a variety of
organizations, this article is meant for use
by trainers and facilitators as a field guide
rather than as a prescription for an ideal
visioning process.
Role of the Sponsor
One of the most important steps in the
background preparation for the visioning
intervention is to identify the sponsors for
the activity. The sponsor for the activity
is the person/unit/representative in the
client organization who has felt the need
for change/new direction and is driving
the initiative. It need not always be the
CEO of the organization. At Forbes, it was
the HR Director who was the sponsor of
the change. The company had undergone
significant changes—a recent restructur-
ing had resulted in divestments of non-
profitable business units, and reorganizing
certain businesses under new leadership
teams. As the phase of restructuring
ended, it was important to generate a ral-
lying point for the organization to move
forward. In a leading poultry company in
India, the marketing unit felt the need for
change when they realized that they had
reached market leadership in key markets
 Dependence on the
Boss’ capacity
for leadership Co-creating the entire top management, including
the CEO, the CFO, the HR Director, the
Required capacity Consulting
for direction setting
Shipping Director, the Head of Forbes
and learning Technosys (a division), and the Head of the
Testing
Engineering Division. Each interview was
around 30-45 minutes long. Subsequently,
Selling 27 of the senior management members
Required capacity for
leadership amongst
(including the six people listed above) were
Telling the “troops” part of a group discussion that set out the
Degree of active involvement organization’s context and priorities. At the
poultry firm, the facilitator had done field
visits to the farm-locations, the corporate
offices, and had been part of a group that
Figure 1. Various Styles of Interventions1
delivered an executive education program
to the senior management team. However,
and they needed a bigger vision to moti- It is the role of a facilitator to take the in the context of the higher education
vate their employees and drive superior organization towards co-creating the vision; regulator, the facilitators were fairly aware
performance. In the case of an education however, considerations of organization of the context, as they were professors
regulator, the new chairman realized that size, complexity, distributedness, empower- themselves, and therefore only conducted a
the organization functioned in silos and ment, and culture could shape the design two-hour long meeting with the Chairman.
needed a shake-up. of the intervention apart from cost and A parameter that influences the
The sponsor’s role in the intervention time constraints. The focus should be on intervention is whether the organizational
is very critical to the design and delivery of co-creating a vision for the organization members are geographically concentrated
the intervention. It is therefore important involving a wide range of stakeholders. or dispersed across multiple locations.
to define the role of sponsors up-front
before the intervention begins. The role
and style of the sponsors and the leader- In most for-profit organizations, the goals and objectives
ship in the client organization should be
the key consideration for the choice of the are clear, stakeholders are easy to define, and the expecta-
intervention style. Depending on the orga- tions of the stakeholders are widely understood. However,
nization’s capacity for direction setting and
learning and the degree of active involve- in the case of nonprofit organizations, it is imperative
ment in the process, the intervention styles for the facilitator to appreciate the crucial activities of
could be placed across the following con-
tinuum: telling, selling, testing, consulting, the organization, and the varied expectations different
and co-creating (Senge et al., 1994). stakeholders place on the organization.
Briefly, the five styles could be
described as follows:2
»» Telling: I know… you’ll have to follow it Understanding the Context In the case of dispersed organizations,
»» Selling: I know… but I need your buy-in it is important to ensure that the partici-
»» Testing: I have an idea… I want to test The organizational context plays a criti- pants in the intervention freely express
your reaction before proceeding cal role in the design and delivery of the themselves, and depending upon the
»» Consulting: I am putting it together… intervention. In most for-profit organiza- culture of the organization, frequency of
and am looking for your inputs tions, the goals and objectives are clear, inter­action amongst them, and comfort
»» Co-creating: We will together build a stakeholders are easy to define, and the levels in working together, appropriate
shared vision expectations of the stakeholders are widely additional time should be budgeted for
understood. However, in the case of the inter­vention. For instance, signifi-
1. Source: Vista Consulting Team Limited, nonprofit organizations, it is imperative cant time and effort was required to get
(undated). Building shared vision—process tips, for the facilitator to appreciate the crucial the participants at the higher-education
available at http://www.vistanetwork.org/library/ activities of the organization, and the varied regulator to work together as the then
pdf/VISTA%20-%20tell-sell%20vision%20paper.pdf expectations different stakeholders place prevalent culture supported working in
last accessed 24 July 2013 on the organization. independent silos. An independent two-
2. Refer to Vista consulting (undated) for a detailed In the visioning process at Forbes, the day team-building workshop preceded
description of the five styles of interventions facilitator spent a few days interviewing the visioning activity.

Visioning: The Method and Process 35

 Another critical parameter that
influences the design and delivery of the
intervention is the power structure in the
organization. Some organizations are
hierarchical with explicit formal communi-
cation systems that drive business activity,
and a set of implicit informal systems that
bind and group people together. Some
others are fairly open with flatter orga-
nization structures and sufficient power
distribution across levels and functions/
divisions/geographies. A common meta-
phor used for distributed power structures
in organizations is that of a “flotilla” as
opposed to a “command and control” ship.
The more the organization resembles a
flotilla, it is important for the intervention
to involve and include a wide variety of
participants, whereas in more hierarchical
organizations, a smaller group involvement
might suffice.
The poultry firm was family owned
and managed, with the family patriarch as
the Chairman of the board; therefore, the
intervention involved about 30 of their top
managers. Added to this was the fact that
the organization structure was a flat pyra-
mid with a very large proportion of junior
employees compared to senior managers.
On the contrary, at Forbes, with a very
steep pyramid and divisionalized organiza-
tion structure, it was important to involve
a larger number of managers from across
the various divisions.
It is also important to consider how
much acceptance the sponsors have in the
organization. In cases where the visioning
exercise is a consequence of changes in
leadership or key positions, the acceptance
of the sponsors, who are new to the organi-
zation, could be low. In such situations, it
is important to include and involve a wider
variety of organization members in the
process. It is necessary to appreciate that
in some organizations, the entire exercise
could lack credibility due to history of
failures of similar interventions. In either
case, it is important to sell the need for the
intervention and the process of interven-
tion to the key participants before the
process begins. For instance, in the case of
the education regulator, the explicit intent
of the visioning exercise was to reorient the
organization, as the new Chairman wanted
36 OD PRACTITIONER  Vol. 46 No. 1  2014
to spearhead strategic change because of in identifying the visions (and missions)
various environmental challenges. of the best-in-class organizations. The
background understanding of the industry
Choosing the Group of Participants context and the strategic intents of best-in-
class organizations equips the facilitators
As discussed above, choosing the right in selling the need for the vision to the par-
group of participants is essential for the ticipant group. Quite often, selling the need
success of the intervention. The group of for a vision involves a description of the
participants chosen should include: competitive context, the broad changes in
»» The relatively senior people in the the external environment, and the specific
organization—do not include an changes in the internal environment of the
unwieldy large group for the sake of organization, including the need to develop
inclusion. The process could always new capabilities and competencies. Facili-
be done in stages across levels. To the tators, with their background research,
extent possible, the initial focus should process skills, and the resultant credibility,
be on the relatively senior people in the should inspire confidence, enable people
organization. to develop their vision, and be prepared to
»» All those who are influential—do not perspire with the group in setting a direc-
leave out anyone who is influential in tion for the organization.
the organization, for whatever reasons
such as: they are likely to demit office Vision: the Conceptual Background
soon; they are junior in hierarchy, but
head a critical function, division, or Vision defines the categories of inten-
geography; or they are located far away tions that are: (1) broad, all-inclusive, and
from the corporate headquarters/ forward-looking; (2) aspirations of the
power centers. future; and (3) a mental image of the future
»» Anyone who could derail the imple- state of the organization, that is shared
mentation—those who can derail the across the entire organization. It should
implementation of the evolved vision be an inspiring, motivating, and challeng-
are as critical for inclusion in the inter-
ing statement, and should rally the entire
vention process as those who are influ- organization to move towards the set direc-
ential. Examples of such people include tion. According to El-Namaki (1992), vision
workers’ representatives, vocal critics ofis a concept of the future the organization
organizational policies, and significant aspires to create within a broad time hori-
customers, vendors, and partners. zon and the underlying conditions for the
»» Anyone to whom you need to sell the realization of that concept.
need for change—as we finalize the Mission describes the organization’s
group of participants to involve, it is purpose and not direction. There are three
important to ensure that all those who components in a good mission statement:
are not convinced about the need for the purpose (why does the business exists,
change are included. what are the obligations to various stake-
holders, and their relative priorities); the
Developing the Relevant Content identity (what differentiates this organiza-
tion from others, including the scope of
The first step in developing the content of the organization’s activities); and the basic
the presentation that forms the key part of beliefs upon which the organization was
the intervention is to do extensive research founded and is being run.
on similar contexts. Research on industries Values on the other hand define
and organizations operating in similar commonly held beliefs, mindsets, and
contexts provides the facilitators with much assumptions that shape an organization’s
needed familiarity with the industry prac- behavior. It is an enduring preference for
tices including industry-specific “vocabu- a preferred mode of business conduct.
lary”—the specific terms used in those Values define the norms of behavior across
contexts. Good homework is also helpful the organization—what is acceptable and
what is not. The organization’s philosophy that sounds like a slogan—sometimes eight-step process for developing a “vision
is an extension of the values; it states how even resembles a bumper sticker, but statement,” although he acknowledges the
the organization views its business and its for a vision to be acceptable to every need for a systematic visioning process.
ideology about how to run the business. stakeholder, attention to the visioning In Table 1, I present the case study of the
Goals and objectives, on the other process is critical. visioning process at Forbes & Co. Ltd.
hand are expressed in measurable param- 3. Value a vision that is enacted, rather A typical intervention design should
eters, and should be associated with clear than one that is published in the com- include the following steps:
timeframes. These are milestones in pany’s websites, corporate brochures, 1. Prepare for the intervention: Gather the
achieving an organization’s mission. Most and other publications. For a vision to background notes.
often, an organization’s mission is broken be enacted, commitment from all stake- a. Collect previous attempts at such
down into separate goals for specific roles holders is imperative. intervention in the organization.
being performed in the organization. For 4. Value the implementation of the vision, b. Examine the organization’s internal
instance, while the goals of the sourcing rather the flaunt fact the organization context—core purpose, founder’s
manager might be to procure raw material has a lofty vision. For ensuring the imprint, mandate changes through
history, and evolution of the current
organization.
Quite often, selling the need for a vision involves a description c. Analyze the external context—what
of the competitive context, the broad changes in the external is changing in the immediate envi-
ronment, what is the direction and
environment, and the specific changes in the internal environ­ pace of change, and is the organiza-
ment of the organization, including the need to develop tion capable of adaptation?
d. Work with the sponsor to under-
new capabilities and competencies. Facilitators, with their stand the broad direction of the
background research, process skills, and the resultant organization’s response to the exter-
nal environment and the changes
credibility, should inspire confidence, enable people to develop therein.
their vision, and be prepared to perspire with the group in 2. Opening plenary
a. Purpose: To emphasize the need
setting a direction for the organization. for change, outline the process of
change, and highlight the need for
at the lowest prices without compromising implementation of the vision, it is criti- participants’ active involvement and
on quality, the goals of the sales and mar- cal that the visioning process focuses support.
keting manager might be to command the on not just evolving a vision, but also b. Design: Plenary—all participants
highest possible price for the given quality. produces a consistent set of missions, together.
goals, and strategy. c. Method: Address the participants
Visioning vs. Vision Statement together.
The Intervention Design d. Content and deliverables: Highlight
Levin (2000) avers vision as a story, rather the role of the sponsor, the facilita-
than a statement. It is, therefore, impera- The intervention design should depend tor, and the participants in co-
tive to focus on the criticality of the process on the nature of the organization and the creating the vision; set the rules and
of visioning, rather than the statement, if specific context of the intervention. The norms of participation; and provide
such a story needs to evolve and involve intervention design draws on the principles clarity around the concepts (vision,
commitment from all stakeholders. In of large group intervention methods (LGIP) mission, values, goals, and strategy).
order for the visioning process to be suc- as enumerated by Leith (2004). Vidal 3. Exploration groups
cessful, the organization and the sponsor (2004) presents a case study of a day-long a. Purpose: Generate a long-list of
should: vision conference in Denmark. The study ideas.
1. Value the process more than the out- highlights three major aspects of a success- b. Design: Small groups of 5-8 people,
come of the visioning exercise. The pro- ful vision conference: (1) focus on group randomly grouped.
cess would ensure awareness, generate dynamics including the Delphi technique c. Method: Ideation process within
acceptance, and, therefore, trigger and (2) visioning as a creative problem process; each group—everyone in the group
sustain action towards the set direction. and (3) the role of facilitation; plus the contributes to the generation of
2. Value a vision that is shared and owned, criticality of collective work and collabora- ideas documented without evalua-
rather than a statement that people tive learning in enabling sustainable com- tion and judgment, then classified
remember. It is nice to have a statement mitment. Wilson (1992) also proposes an on a two-dimension chart (time and

Visioning: The Method and Process 37

 Table 1. Visioning Process at Forbes & Co. Ltd.
Steps Activity Participants
1 Preliminary Senior management team
meetings (CEO, CFO, HR Director), heads
of three divisions
2 Opening 37 senior managers from the
plenary corporate office, the divisions,
and their joint ventures
3 Exploration 37 senior managers from the
groups corporate office, the divisions,
and their joint ventures
(grouped randomly into
5 groups)
4 Consolidation 37 senior managers from the
plenary corporate office, the divisions,
and their joint ventures
5 Vision 37 senior managers from the
plenary corporate office, the divisions,
and their joint ventures
6 Vision 37 senior managers from the
group— corporate office, the divisions,
stage 1 and their joint ventures
(Identity) (grouped randomly into
4 groups)
7 Vision 37 senior managers from the
plenary— corporate office, the divisions,
stage 1 and their joint ventures
(Identity)
8 Vision 37 senior managers from
group—stage the corporate office, the
2 (Scope) divisions, and their joint
ventures (grouped randomly
into 4 groups—same as the
identity groups)
38 OD PRACTITIONER  Vol. 46 No. 1  2014
Method & Time Content and Deliverables Outcomes
Discussion Facilitator led the discussion to Three objectives were defined:
(21⁄2 hours) foster an understanding of the a. Who are our constituencies?
context of each of the divisions b. To whom should we
and the firm, and define and agree demonstrate our success?
on the objectives of the visioning
c. How do we define ourselves?
exercise.
On what basis?
Opening CEO talked about the expected The need for a consistent
lecture outcomes and the need for the and coherent strategy post
(30 minutes) visioning process. restructuring (bigger, better,
Facilitator gave an overview of the faster) and hence the need for a
intervention and sought the senior visioning exercise
managers continued support and
Facilitator introduced
commitment.
Understanding of the difference
between a vision statement
(noun) and visioning as a process
(verb).
Ideation Facilitator tasked groups with Identification of major issues to
exercise identifying what is not “bigger,” address at the company
(2 hours) “better,” and “faster” at the
company in a brainstorming
session, and classifying their ideas
on the basis of two-dimensions—
resources required and time
required.
Plenary Groups presented their idea charts Realization that most problems
session to the whole group. and solutions therein were
(1 hour) Facilitator consolidated the groups’ easily solvable (within short
ideas and solutions therein. time and with least resource
commitments)
Plenary Facilitator presented and led a Common understanding of the
session discussion of vision concepts terms
(11⁄2 hours) (vision, mission, goals, and values).
Group Participants worked in groups to Assessment of current identity
discussion answer two questions: and preliminary identification of
(2 hours) a. What business are we in? aspirations
b. Where do we see ourselves
in the next 5 years (from the
perspective of customers,
shareholders, and employees)?
Plenary Groups presented their answers to A common understanding of their
session the identity questions. identity and aspirations
(11⁄2 hours) Facilitator summarized the answers
and resolved differences.
Group Participants worked in groups to Identification of scope
discussion answer three questions: aspirations
(1 hour) a. What do we want to be known
for?
b. How will we serve the needs of
our stakeholders?
c. How will we define our scope of
activities—vertical integration,
diversification, and geographic
scope?
continues next page
Table 1. Visioning Process at Forbes & Co. Ltd (continued)

Steps Activity Participants Method & Time Content and Deliverables Outcomes

9 Vision 37 senior managers from the Plenary Groups presented their answers A common understanding of their
plenary— corporate office, the divisions, session to the scope questions, and the scope aspirations
stage 2 and their joint ventures (1 hour) facilitator summarized the answers.
(Scope)

10 Vision 37 senior managers from the Plenary Facilitator summarized the A common understanding of
plenary— corporate office, the divisions, session discussion on identity and scope priorities (for instance, scale
stage 3 and their joint ventures (1 hour) questions, and facilitated a over profitability), speed, and
discussion on four anchors: differentiators
a. How do we want our brand to be Draft vision statement options
built? (two of them were elucidated)
b. What kind of an organization do
we want?
c. Why does Forbes exist? What is
the loss to society if Forbes did
not exist?
d. What capabilities and
competencies do we have? What
differentiates us from the rest?

11 Vision A larger cross-section of Group Groups discussed the vision Larger participation and buy-in
articulation managers (working in each discussion options and offered modifications from managers
groups of their divisions) (over two and edits to the vision statement.
weeks)

12 Mission 37 senior managers from the Plenary Facilitator presented the final Commitment to the vision
plenary corporate office, the divisions, session vision statement to the group and statement
and their joint ventures (1 hour) highlighted the need for preparing
the mission and action plans.

13 Mission 37 senior managers from
groups the corporate office, the
divisions, and their joint
ventures (grouped randomly
into 4 groups—same as the
identity groups)
Group Groups worked on answering the Evolving mission options
discussion three questions:
(1 hour) 1. Purpose—why does the
business exist?
2. Identity—what differentiates us
from others?
3. What are our basic beliefs,
values, and philosophies?

14 Mission 37 senior managers from the Plenary Groups presented their answers Larger participation and buy-in
plenary corporate office, the divisions, session and the whole group discussed from managers
and their joint ventures (1 hour) the mission options, and offered
modifications and edits to the draft
mission statement.

15 Vision Over 240 managers from the Workshops Facilitator announced the vision Evolution of action plans for the
articulation organization (in 8 batches over and draft mission statements and entire organization based on
workshops the next six months) working groups for translating them commonly evolved vision and
(2 days each) into division-level and department- mission statements
level action plans.

Visioning: The Method and Process 39

 resources required for implementa-
tion of the ideas, both from low to
high, on the two axes). Throughout
the group process, the facilita-
tor moves across the groups and
pushes the group to think farther in
time.
d. Content and deliverables: Ask each
group to come up with ideas on
how they see the organization in the
near term. I use the term near-term
deliberately, as the term long-term
will elicit too broad a range of ideas
that are difficult to classify, and the
word short-term elicits ideas that
reflect goals.
4. Consolidation plenary
a. Purpose: Sharing of the long list of
ideas generated by the independent evolve a prioritization scheme that disregards the frequency
groups, and arriving at common
ideas to work on.
b. Design: Plenary—all participants
together.
c. Method: Get each group to pres-
ent their idea charts. Restrict the
interaction to only seek clarifica-
tions, and not evaluate, judge, filter, or specific projects as anchors.
accept, or reject ideas. Facilitator
performs a content analysis of the
group presentations, and presents it
at the end of the discussion.
d. Content and deliverables: The intent
of the content analysis is to evolve
a union of ideas, without losing the
most important ideas. The chal-
lenge is to evolve a prioritization
scheme that disregards the fre-
quency of occurrence of an idea and
instead is based on the importance
of the idea. This deliberation pro-
cess should throw up a few anchors
for discussion; typical anchors
include product-market scope,
geographic coverage, customer seg-
ment choices, or specific projects as
anchors.
5. Clarification groups
a. Purpose: To evolve the current and
future “states” of the organization.
b. Design: Regroup the participants
based on the anchors identified.
Some people may volunteer to
contribute to a specific anchor-
group, and some others may be
40 OD PRACTITIONER  Vol. 46 No. 1  2014
agnostic to which groups they want b. Design: Typically undertaken after
to contribute. a short break (at least a couple
c. Method: The anchor-groups work of weeks from the commitment
independently and answer five spe- plenary), it should involve all the
cific questions—(1) Where are we participants of the previous work-
now? (2) Where do we want to go? shops, as well as a larger set of key
(3) Is that where the entire organiza- stakeholders (e.g., key customer
tion wants to go? (4) Is that what we representatives, community leaders,
are/want to be known for? And (5) and industry experts).
which stakeholder groups are likely c. Method: Participants work in
to be affected by our aspiration groups (created to reflect diversity
choices? in each group) to sharpen the short-
d. Content and deliverables: The list of aspirations, and their present
answers to the questions are col- versions of the vision story.
The intent of the content analysis is to evolve a union of ideas,
without losing the most important ideas. The challenge is to
of occurrence of an idea and instead is based on the impor­
tance of the idea. This deliberation process should throw up a
few anchors for discussion; typical anchors include product-
market scope, geographic coverage, customer segment choices,
lated by the facilitator and coalesced d. Content and deliverables: The facili-
into a single presentation. tator moderates the discussions and
6. Commitment plenary evolves a vision statement, and a
a. Purpose: To seek commitment to vision story that reflects the various
the ideas generated thus far; priori- groups.
tizing the agenda. 8. Mission plenary
b. Design: Facilitator presentation to a. Purpose: To evolve the organiza-
all the participants. tion’s mission from the articulated
c. Method: The facilitator presents the vision.
consolidated version of the clari- b. Design: Plenary—all participants
fication groups’ outcomes. At this together in small groups.
point, asking the groups to present c. Method: The conceptual differences
their ideas would not help in priori- between the vision and mission are
tizing of the agenda evolved by the reiterated and small groups (of 5-8
anchor-groups, as the discussion people) work on creating the organi-
can lead to defensive arguments zation’s mission.
about their own proposals. d. Content and deliverables: The facili-
d. Content and deliverables: A short tator moderates the discussions and
list of aspirations that the organiza- evolves a set of alternate mission
tion seeks to achieve, which has the statements that reflect the alternate
commitment of the entire group of “paths” available to achieve the
participants. organization’s vision.
7. Articulation groups 9. Action plan groups
a. Purpose: To get the vision formal- a. Purpose: To evolve action plans and
ized, ready for articulation to a identify resource requirements.
larger audience.

b. Design: Larger groups of 10-15
people each.
c. Method: The groups work on each
of the alternate mission state-
ments and evolve action plans and
resource requirements for the same.
d. Content and deliverables: The
groups’ present their preference
or priorities amongst the mission
options, along with their respective
action plans and resource require-
ments. The facilitator moderates the
discussion and seeks to evolve a set
of consistent criteria to evaluate the
various mission options.
10. Plan plenary
a. Purpose: To decide on alterna-
tive courses of action and provide
resource commitments.
b. Design: Plenary—all participants
together.
c. Method: The facilitator presents the
criteria for evaluation of the options,
and with the help of the participants
makes the choice. The vision and
mission are presented together with
the action plan to the entire group
of participants. Senior management
teams affirm their commitment
to the chosen path, and agree to
support the change management
initiatives required, if any. Plus the
senior management makes credible
commitments to allocate requisite
resources to pursue the chosen
course of action plans.
d. Content and deliverables: Evolve a
mission and action plan for the near
term.
11. Review and process workshop
a. Purpose: To take feedback on the
process and test for commitment to
the outcomes.
b. Design: Plenary—key participants,
plus one-on-one meetings.
c. Method: Take collective and indi-
vidual feedback on the process and
outcomes.
d. Content and deliverables: Such a
feedback process should provide for
venting frustrations about the mar-
ginal ideas that were not accepted,
as well as creating an explicit road-
map for action.
Srinivasan R is Associate Pro-
fessor of Corporate Strategy &
Policy, Indian Institute of Man-
Conclusion
agement Bangalore, India. His
Emphasizing the role of the process in research interests include study-
visioning, this article enumerates the ing rapid-growth organizations
pre-requisites of the visioning process and platform-mediated network
and offers a template for use by OD and firms. He is an avid case writer;
strategy process practitioners. Though
and has published his papers and
one could debate the names of the vari-
ous stages of the intervention, the process cases in international journals. He
template elaborated above, should serve teaches competitive and corpo-
the unique needs of a visioning process: rate strategies to graduate and
wider participation for ownership, com­ doctoral students. He is an active
mitment for execution, and sustained consultant and trainer to a number
attention for appropriate resource alloca-
of Indian and multinational orga-
tion for the initiatives.
nizations on envisioning, strategy,
and growth. He can be reached at
Resources srini@iimb.ernet.in.
El-Namaki, M. S. S. (1992). Creating a
corporate vision. Long range planning,
25(6), 25–29.
Levin, I. M. (2000). Vision revisited:
Telling the story of the future. Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science, 36(1),
91–107.
Leith, M. (2004). Leith’s guide to large
group intervention methods: How to
use large group intervention methods
to create interactive events that address
complex strategic issues. Retrieved
from http://www.largescaleinterventions.
com/documents/leiths_guide_to_lgis.pdf
O’Brien, F., & Meadows, M. (2000). Corpo-
rate visioning: A survey of UK practice
The Journal of the Operational Research
Society, 51(1), 36–44.
Senge, P. M., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C.,
Ross, R., & Smith, B. (1994). The fifth
discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools
for building a learning organization. New
York, NY: Currency Doubleday.
Vidal, R. V. V. (2004). The vision confer-
ence: Facilitating creative processes.
Systemic Practice and Action Research,
17(5), 385–405.
Vista Consulting Team Limited. (n.d.).
Building shared vision—process tips.
Retrieved from http://www.vistanetwork.
org/library/pdf/VISTA%20-%20tell-
sell%20vision%20paper.pdf
Wilson, I. (1992). Realizing the power of
strategic vision. Long Range Planning,
25(5), 18–28.
Visioning: The Method and Process 41
Copyright of OD Practitioner is the property of Organization Development Network and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.