Visions can be placed on a continuum from those that are self-referent at one end to those that are noble at the other. Self-referent visions are about what the organization and its people wish to become. Noble visions are about the contribution the organization’s leaders wish to make to some group of people. The continuum is shown in Self-referent and noble vision.
Many visions, especially those crafted by corporate leaders, are self-referent. They are about the organization’s business and about the leader’s aspirations to dominate that business, rather than about the contribution the leaders intend to make to a group of people. A conventional corporate vision is something like this: ‘‘To be the best in the eyes of our customers, employees, and the public.’’ This does not tell us why the organization’s product or service is valuable to anyone, or how it contributes to any group of people. The vision refers only to the leader’s desire to be at the helm of the best and to have everybody know it.
There is nothing wrong with being the best or having a good reputation,-but such statements reflect egoistic appetites for achievement rather than contributions to the human community. Being the best can be seen as a very good idea, therefore forming the basis for intellectual commitment. It can also inspire strong emotions such as satisfaction and pride. But neither of these commitments alone is sustainable over time. Two conclusions are intuitively and experientially obvious.
- Fundamental and sustainable great achievements, those requiring a high level of energy over a long period of time, as well as perhaps some sacrifice and pain, necessitate higher commitment than political or intellectual commitment.
- People will offer intellectual and emotional commitment to many causes, but they will commit spiritual energy only to those visions that address the elemental needs of a group of people.
In other words, as a leader, no matter how great you wish yourself or your organization to become, if your vision only focuses on this goal, a call for a high level of commitment from others is likely to fall flat. Self-referent visions do not focus on an insight into the needs and aspirations of a group of people. Life Teen was grounded in Monsignor Fushek’s insight about love. The Spiritual Eldering Institute was grounded in Rabbi Schachter-Shalomi’s vision of ‘‘elderhood’’ as a time of contributing to society. Without a seminal insight about the needs and aspirations of a group of people, visions can easily become degraded into mere personal goals or marketing slogans. Because self-referent visions are not grounded in such insights, they fail to sustain intellectual and emotional commitment for long, and they never inspire spiritual commitment.
It is also intuitively and experientially accurate to say that the leader of an organization whose products or services do not contribute substantially to a group of people entertains false hopes when he expects high levels of commitment from employees. Self-referent visions are the last— perhaps the only—resort of leaders in such organizations.
A vision that is self-referent also casts doubt on an organization’s other commitments. For example, if an organization’s leaders state that they are committed to customer service, yet their vision is entirely self-referent, an onlooker might legitimately conclude that the commitment to customer service is merely political. In other words, customer service is not valued in and of itself, but as a means to another end—the organization’s own achievement. This political commitment to service is the likely source of contradictory messages to customers, such as, ‘‘Your call is important to us. All of our representatives are currently busy helping other customers. Your call will be answered in twenty-two minutes.’’ If the call truly was important, if the organization’s commitment truly was to customer service rather than to its own achievement, then the call would be answered immediately.