Food for the CEO: Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) on how to create a company vision

What we can also learn from John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Steve Jobs and Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

Summary of the executive summary

The definitions of a mission and vision are given (among other things as strategy etc.) for many companies confuse the two. The reason it is important to be clear on what the mission and vision is is to be able to empower employees in order to let them at any moment in time be able to formulate whether they are customer facing or not to formulate (a) value (proposition) for and from within the perspective they are expressing the value (proposition) to.

An example of how three companies have expressed their mission, vision and strategy and a false method is described on not to formulate a vision. Specific pointers are given how to make a vision of which thinking in different scenario’s is an important one. 

That the differences between mission, vision and strategy are real differences is argued from the fact that they reflect the elements in the thinking of Immanuel Kant who together is one of the great thinkers of the West (and to whom many founding fathers of quantum mechanics go to to try and understand what quantum mechanics really is all about because Kant ‘designed’ a thinking in which scientist could think (of quantum mechanics) ). The last key take away is in order to be able to form a vision you should read Kant(’s vision on (the unreality and reality of) reality). Scroll down all the way to the bottom to read about Kant.

Being pragmatic: the essential importance of a vision

Leadership or the leader should provide a clear vision and express this vision in words. If the vision is clear you can empower the ones you lead for they can lead themselves from within the possibilities (and limits) the vision gives.

“If you want to build a ship, don’t drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work, and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea.” Le petit prince, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (1900-1944)

The bold mission: change the imagination to long passionately for the endless sea, to cross the endless sea and experience the treasure of adventure to discover treasures.

The brave vision: envision a vessel for the water, a water carriage, to carry X amount of people for so and so long etc..

Build a strategy: build a ship with people who can long for the endless sea.

Bolster executing: really build a ship with these and these measurements.

Discover treasures is very concrete, but it is also about the experience, what makes a great mission a great mission. The real visionary stuff is at the level of the mission where you blindly ‘without any vision’ are able to long for something (in which you can see you soul reflected in). The vision is the visual effect, the visual reward of you wishing for something invisible. Between the mission and vision are the core values that you need to realize the mission.

A vision must invoke the longing, a passion, a dream for those who at that moment in time lack the power to dream a mission, that will carry both employees and customers out of their daily tasks to a future present, a better present. That does not mean they will abandon their daily work, but that the daily work becomes a source of inspiration, and who knows mystery. Strategy as a possible execution of the vision realises the vision. Still a lot of freedom is given at the level of strategy for you can build a catamaran, a submarine, a love boat, an air craft carrier etc..

Less poetical, this less pragmatic, is the vision on vision, the reason of the importance to have a vision, of Steve Jobs (1955-2011): ‘Jobs goes on to explain that great employees shouldn't need to be managed. If they are passionate, smart and driven enough, they can manage themselves. But they do need to fully understand the company's vision. That's where the "management" role comes in. Instead of directing their employees how to do their job, Jobs believed leadership should be focused on articulating that shared vision so everyone could be working towards the same goal’ (https://www.inc.com/betsy-mikel/to-hire-all-star-employees-steve-jobs-looked-for-1-non-negotiable-quality.html or watch a 3 minute video of Steve Jobs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=rQKis2Cfpeo). (Einsteinian: ‘productivity/business power (to realize the mission) = vision x (passion x passion). Steve Jobs idea is that if the employees are empowered, their potential actualized by the vision, they will make the best value propositions, thus the best products, that will empower the customers.

In Proverbs 29:18 (King James version) we also find the idea that having a vision is of the highest importance: ‘Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he’. A company we also perish without a vision and will look like a monster with many heads going in contrary directions and wasting valuable energy on contradicting projects that will not be finished and if they are finished will sometimes not even serve the customers. So being really pragmatic is having a vision, having a dream, a longing, a love.

Personally, I would word it more extreme in haiku style:

Love beyond the sea

is to know what waves are

and catch dreamed ships

James Paul Roolvink 28-12-2018

This haiku builds on ‘Le petit prince’ and says that if you love something beyond something you will transcendent that something and will know that something. If you love something beyond the sea, for example the stars, you will know soon about the sea and are able to build ships although you long for spaceships.

A vision between why and who: how

The differences between a mission and vision are very subtle. You could say that the mission is about the reason of the existence of your company, the added value to the stakeholders, the added value for society. The mission is about the ‘why’. The core values are about who you are or make more explicit who you are. The vision is about the how, how you are in realizing the why.

How not to ‘build’ a vision!

In these days when politics in many countries is almost vanished from the earth and replaced by technocratic managers that manage society rather than providing a vision to really unite a people as a people so called visions are not made, but extracted from the people by questionnaires. They ask what is on top of your mind and spin a story on the basis of the answers.

It like asking what ship do you want to someone who cannot dream of the sea or who is dreaming about mountains or as Ford would joke asking ‘how would you like to have faster transport?’ to people who only know horses and will answer in terms of more horses or it is like white papers with the general structure ‘most CXO`s think so and so, so you should think so and so’.

The answers you might get are all objectively true, but a vision is not objective. A vision can capture objective (future) facts, but has something absolute. Different visions (on what a network can do for a customer) are all objectively true. They all cover the facts. Seeing is not believing for you have to absolutely believe what you see.

That is the reason visions are not questioned most of the times: facts are covered and a believe is hard to change, for without it you are blind and to change believes might mean to be(come temporary) blind. For someone who only sees the tree, the background is just air, and not a gorilla and lioness. Yet some objective visions are absolutely more objective, although this cannot be stated from a neutral Archimedean virtual visionless point outside all visions. To embrace a certain believe, if you cannot immediately see its essence as the little prince, you have to act upon it and share in the form of life, as a child or an anthropologist, the future scenarios of society in our case, out which the specific vision has evolved. ‘Time is a child playing counters in a game. The royal power is of a child’ Herakleitos (c. 535 – c. 475 BCE).

Objective adversaries to visionaries: the noiseless fundamentalist, silent terrorists

The noiseless fundamentalist or silent terrorist can be found in yourself. It is the ‘unhearable’ whispering of what they, everyone and no one, think and this tells you what is not possible (and never what is possible (outside the possibilities monopolized by what they think)). Heidegger (1889-1976) calls it ‘Das Mann’, that is ‘the they’. Michel Foucault (1926-1984) building on Heidegger speaks of a ‘prevailing discourse’ and I like to speak of ‘the evil ghost of indifference’ for it makes you indifferent to go beyond what is thought to possible now in the prevailing discourse.

The noiseless fundamentalists ‘amplify’ each other’s silence and when someone tries to break the silence they try to break that person, by saying things as ‘just be normal and pragmatic’, seeing him or her (dreams to benefit all), as a terrorist that attacks what is objectively true. When what they-think will prevail everyone is dreaming the dreamless dreams of everyone else and no one is dreaming. (Check what the definition of a zombie is: https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/zombies-work-%C3%BCber-untermensch-test-more-james-roolvink/). Bitterness and jealousy can also be a reason to an adversary against the poetic dream-power. One can experience one has lost all energy to be able to forge a vision. ‘If I start a new life in retrospective your previous way of living was a lie therefor I do not start a new life’.

Cultural mission, innovation vision, technological strategy

Definitions

The egg the culture, that is the core values, the chicken, the vision, the little chick, that is the eagle, the mission.

It is of core importance that the correct definitions are given. I have come across many companies that do not know the difference between a mission or a vision and are also lost in regards to core values that they may confuse with ‘doings’ (create/creativity) or ‘qualities’ (passionate, professional) or ‘goals’ (become successful). It may not always be harmful, although ‘a small mistake in the beginning will be a big mistake in the end’ (Aristotle 384–322 BC), but a passion is a way to activate (passionately) core values. 

A core ideology = mission, core values that make up the corporate (ideology in a) story. Words are the real building blocks of a company, not the bricks, iron, software etc..

Mission = reason of existence of the organisation, that is value for stake holders (customers, employees, shareholders and communities). What must I do?

Many missions do not describe what you do, but that is not a necessity. The mission can also describe what you do, but that doing is about the value add you have. The mission of CenturyLink is (‘roughly’ and ‘freely’ stated) to improve lives of individuals, businesses in order to connect communities (that can improve the lives of individuals). They are already realising this mission. I would state that if you want to put a dot on the horizon you will do that with the vision.

Core values = are principles from within all acts of employees must take their birth and cannot be (temporary) annulled (for short term (financial) gain) without stakeholder intervention (with the risk of losing the soul/essence of the company.

In that sense core values are not abstracted from operations, how the company does business (that you see for example in most of Cisco`s core values), but rather vice versa in the sense that doing business, how the company should operate, is inspired by the core values. 

A mission implies certain core values and vice versa. What is more primary the mission or the core values? If the mission is the answer to ‘What must I do?’ and the core values to ‘Who am I’ the mission is more important.

Vision = vision on a possible future (technological) state of affairs in which the mission can best be realised. A vision can be differentiated into visions for different verticals/market segments/industries.

Strategy = how the vision can be realised (in the different market segments/verticals). It is a strategy on technological innovation (of which acquiring companies is included) and also on sales execution, that is business/market innovation. (Innovation has a technological and a business aspect). Strategy is about the execution of innovation.

Pay-off = short phrase to capture the essence of what the company does (for the customer). A pay-off is not to be confused with a tagline, that is a more factual description of what the company does (and in the case of CTL that could be ‘continuing building the internet’ or ‘building a greater internet’). A pay-off seems to be like a slogan, but a slogan is more campaign driven and less lasting in time than a pay-off.

Logo = an for the ‘senses’ image that symbolized the company the company wordless in an instance. Logo`s have been traditionally visual, but they also are auditable (melody) and ‘smellable’ (parfume). It has to do with the ‘experience’ of the company for customers and other stake holders, most of them employees.

Examples of (what people think) of what a mission, vision & strategy is

Let’s look at some examples of companies on how they state how the mission, vision and strategy are formulated.

Things are not always clear, but it is important that you have a jargon to discuss what is not clear. It is not just all about semantics.

‘Go to the moon before the end of the decade’ is a vision in the context of the mission ‘Show we have superior technology to our allies and enemies’, but it is a very subtle vision. It is a vision on how to show superiority: make what is impossible with current technology possible in a relatively short time period (relative to what ‘they-think’), showing the creative power of the United States of America. It shows that even if the USA is missing a technology they will with their will create it at will in a short period of time. It is thus also a vision on the people of a nation and a vision how to activate creative power, namely to state a very clear target.

Without a context the mission could also be seen as a vision of the mission to let the American people prosper. Bare in mind that the criterium to decide whether something is a mission or vision is to see the mission and vision as answers to why and how. If you can pose the question of another why the mission ‘Show we have superior technology to our allies and enemies’ could be stated more clear.

Strategy also seems to be about the ‘how’ or you could say that the vision from the perspective it is faced to strategy, its first sight, first face, always direct to the mission, is a strategy to execute strategy and in that sense the rationale, the reason, the why for the strategy. Anyway the strategy answers the question on the ‘how’ on a less abstract idealistic way. You could also say that the vision is general and envisions at least a better scenario, world (in which the market is just a part), (and may have the intention to imagine the best world), and that the strategy is about different markets and market segments of that world.

Within the context of your expression of the mission, vision and strategy you should at least put them in the right hierarchical order with the right degree of ideality. 

How to really build a vision: mission, core values and scenario`s

Make it personal

Is your company a man or a woman? What age? How is he or she dressed? Could your company be your husband or wife? If you imagine the company as an animal what animal is it? What colour and what number is it? Draw something. Make symbol. Make a sound. How does the company sound?

What is your personal mission in and vision of life and how do you realize this? Can you build a company vision if you do not have a vision and mission in your life? A mission transcendents the circle of your family and I would state that to have a mission makes you value and love your family even more. 

Do you have a way in live or is live your way? Are you a soul or a talking medium rare talking steak? Is life a means to experience in life what is beyond life or the goal? Is life the sea or is there something beyond the sea? 

Make your task, mission, more difficult: if you want to build a ship to cross the oceans aim for the stars

Passion, love, the will is what makes a vision and a passion you will get when you have a real mission. ‘You will not have passion if you do not have great goals – if you settle for a live that is less than a live you are capable of living of’ (Translation James of Nelson Mandela 1918-2013). Be bold is stating a mission. That boldness can also bring you beyond the market segment you are in know.

Once I spoke with Maarten van Laere, big international business maker in Belgium who had such a power of abstracting the essence of his company that he could easily imagine that his company could act on a totally different market. You need the power of abstraction.

Scenario thinking

It is not the case you need a different vision for every possible scenario for a vision envisions the best scenario and is of a higher hierarchical order than a scenario. You need different strategies in different scenario`s to realize a vision. However, you may use different scenario`s to envision your vision, to make what is implicit explicit.

Scenario thinking out of your market segment

Make a business canvas and see how your company would act in a totally different market segment and what it needs to change. Use the improved business canvas: https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/improved-business-canvas-carl-friedrich-gauss-between-james-roolvink/:

Scenario thinking in your market segment

Know what general trends are in the market and exaggerate them and see what they consequence are for your company. 

Make an analogy with the trends of product evolution described by Triz

‘A vision without products is empty, but products without a vision are blind’ I would say in the slip stream of Immanual Kant who said that ‘Understanding without sensibility is empty, but sensibility without understanding is blind’. The vision is more primary and the vision is reflected in the products, so products are ‘frozen visions’, thus as a Sherlock Holmes you can extract visions on how products evolve.

Triz is a philosophical reflection on technology, that came about by reverse engineering many patents with the goal to find general patters and principles in how these technologies are made, that results in a technological method to innovate or what I call the grammar of innovation. When you are conscious of the grammar you can innovate faster and better. More on Triz: https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/how-recognize-future-blockchain-victims-triz-james-roolvink/ and https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/part-i-spoon-james-roolvink/).

Turn things around: pretend your company structure is the structure of the market

What if your company was the structure of the market and you had to act in that market? In general I would recommend to start playing with the building blocks of the business canvas that reflect the building blocks of your business model to discover are create (that is the question!) what your business is really about, what the essence is. What happens if a building block or parts of it are outsourced (to customers)? What happens if you et different customers? What happens if you do not have any channels anymore? How would you sustain or grow your business?

Start making different levels of the vision: visionary, innovative, customer centric and technological visions

We have a bold aspirational mission: 

The vision should be an inspirational vision. The inspirational vision is a visionary vision. The visionary vision can be embedded in the context of disruptive technologies (Artificial intelligence, Blockchain, Augmented reality and genetic manipulation etc.) and see how these technologies will effect your company, how company will react and how that reaction enables these technologies for their success and how this reaction will benefit your customers. A visionary vision is more about a future world, a future market.

In an innovation vision, a vision on innovation, you will describe how your company is innovating to guarantee great products and services. In a customer centric ‘missionary’ vision you will describe how you will service the customer. In that it must be clear what the value for the customer is, but also the value of the customer (in terms of finance and/or NPO etc.), so the customer can see the relation as a win-win (in which you or the customer can have a capital ‘W’). The vision on the products or services is the least abstract vision and thus the lowest in hierarchy, but still very necessary. If you are in a technological company you may call it the technological vision.

Communicate a vision to the customer & a customer maturity model

Better to listen to the customer than to talk your way through the meeting, but to get at the table of the customer you must be able to be very concise in what you can do for your customer…prospect…by telling what your mission, core values, vision and strategy are. Can he long for the sea? What sea is he longing for? Can you build parts for his ship?

Immanuel Kant on a reasonable mission, imaginative vision and understanding strategy

To formulate a vision for your company I wrote that you have to make it more difficult for yourself. It is harder to formulate a vision on a philosophy an ontology and even harder to formulate a vision on the whole of philosophy. Once you know how to do difficult tasks you are able to do with more ease the less difficult easy tasks.

My advise to CXO`s is to read philosophy not just as a means, an instrument, to formulate a vision for the company, but also as a goal in itself – parallel to what Kant says from the perspective of reason, rather than the understanding, on ethics, namely to treat others not just as instruments, dead soulless objects, but also as a goal in itself, as a soul. If you treat others as dead you treat yourself as dead. (To get more into the ethics of Kant go to: https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/geert-wilders-de-boxer-versus-immanuel-kant-ultimate-cage-roolvink/).

In this white paper I will not explain Immanual Kant, but only make an analogy between what we have said about mission, core values, vision and strategy and what is for Kant presupposed in knowledge, experience. It is very ‘logical’ that the analogy can be made for Kant is describing ontology, the structure of reality, so it is really no surprise these structures pop-up in the surface of reality, namely business insights. The fact that you can make the analogy proves the truthfulness of Kant (although there is some untruth in how he connected all the elements you see below and also misses a few elements).

If you read Kant correct you can read between the lines and read that the power of imagination appears as just imaginative to the understanding, but is in itself a power of judgement, reason in action on and in the level of sensibility. (That makes Kant very Platonic even if Kant would deny it). When you express a vision for your company or part of your company (in the sense that the perspective on the whole of the company is one sided), you might be a CISO (concerned ‘only’ with security and not with finance, sales, production etc..), you are really like a judge and should have a sound judgement for your judgement may influence positively and negatively.

The absolute judgement appears to the understanding as subjective imagination means, but that an absolute judgement as absolute is in itself more objective than the objective, for it constitutes and sustains objectivity, as a vision constitutes and sustains an organisation (and the products and/or services), means visions are not subjectively fabricated and constructed, but are the result of listening. Listening to all stakeholders both past and previous stakeholders, to the market, to society at large etc..

Kind regards,

James 3-1-2019, Amsterdam