Elsevier

The Leadership Quarterly

Volume 16, Issue 1, February 2005, Pages 121-148
The Leadership Quarterly

The origins of vision: Effects of reflection, models, and analysis

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.07.006Get rights and content

Abstract

Although vision is known to be a critical component of outstanding leadership, little is known about how people create viable visions. Drawing from a model of vision formation proposed by Mumford and Strange [Mumford, M. D., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Vision and mental models: The case of charismatic and ideological leadership. In B. J. Avolio & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead (pp. 109–142). Oxford, England: Elsevier], 212 undergraduates were asked to form a vision for an experimental secondary school where they would be the new principal. In addition to a plan for implementation of their vision, participants were asked to write a speech describing their vision for the school that was to be given to relevant constituencies. The conditions of performance were varied to manipulate the quality of the models available, reflection on past experience in secondary schools, and analysis of key goals and key causes. It was found that the availability of viable models and an analysis of key causes, and key goals, coupled with reflection, led to the generation of evocative visions and somewhat better plans. The implications of these findings for understanding vision formation and leader development are discussed.

Introduction

Theories of charismatic and transformational leadership differ from each other in some notable ways (Bass, 1990, Yukl, 2001). Nonetheless, these theories, unlike other theories of outstanding leadership (Mumford & Van Doorn, 2001), share a common core. They both stress the importance of vision (Antonakis & House, 2002, Bass, 1990, Conger & Kanungo, 1998, Kim et al., 2002). In fact, the evidence accrued in studies of charismatic and transformational leadership has indicated that vision is a powerful and pervasive mechanism of influence. Studies of leader vision have shown that articulation of a viable vision is related to various indices of organizational performance (Deluga, 2001, Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996, Lowe et al., 1996). Articulation of a viable vision, moreover, has been shown to influence follower motivation (Sosik, Kahai, & Avolio, 1999), effective group interaction (Parry & Proctor-Thompson, 2001), and satisfaction with both the leader and the group (Dumdum, Lowe, & Avolio, 2002).

Taken at face value, these findings appear to provide compelling evidence for the substantive meaningfulness of vision as an explanatory construct. However, as Messick, 1989, Messick, 1998 pointed out, the meaningfulness, or validity, of a psychological construct such as vision, cannot be fully established through the kind of correlational and descriptive studies commonly used to provide evidence for the meaningfulness of vision. In addition, evidence should be provided bearing on the origins of the construct and the variables that shape its expression. Indeed, evidence along these lines, typically experimental evidence, not only strengthens theory development, but also is essential for effective application of available theory. One cannot develop human attribute unless the processes and experiences giving rise to this attribute can be identified (Mumford & Manley, 2003).

Although few scholars would dispute the need for studies examining the substantive origins of vision, it has proven difficult to conduct these studies. One reason is that theories specifying how leaders construct a vision, theories necessary to guide requisite manipulations in experimental studies, have not been available. Recently, however, Mumford and Strange (2002) have proposed a theory of vision formation. Accordingly, our intent in the present study was to determine if the manipulation of certain critical variables specified by this theoretical model of vision formation would influence the ability of leaders to construct and articulate viable visions as assessed by relevant target populations.

Development of a model of vision formation must, of course, begin with a definition of what is meant by the term “vision.” Vision has been defined as an idealized future goal state (Conger, 1999, Yukl, 2001), as a plan for future goal attainment (Howell, 1988), and as an image of the future that articulates the values, purposes, and identify of followers (Boal & Bryson, 1988, Shamir et al., 1993, Tichy & Devanna, 1986). What binds these different definitions together, however, is the emphasis placed on the construction of a distinct image of a group's or an organization's future. This observation, in turn, led Strange and Mumford (2002) to argue that vision involves a set of beliefs about how people should act, and interact, to make manifest some idealized future state.

This definition of vision is noteworthy, in part, because it implies that vision is ultimately a cognitive construction—specifically a mental model. Mental models are conceptual representations used both to understand system operations and guide actions within this system (Johnson-Laird, 1983, Sein & Bostrom, 1989). These conceptual representations specify key causal concepts and likely outcomes of various causal actions in an integrated structure which links different causes to goals and outcomes (Holyoak & Thagard, 1997, Largan-Fox & Code, 2000, Rouse et al., 1992). Mumford and Strange (2002) argued that mental models come in two forms: one form, a descriptive model, reflects the system as it is while the other form, a prescriptive model, reflects the system as it might be. It is this prescriptive mental model that provides the basis for vision formation which occurs as a prescriptive mental model is articulated and refined to provide personal meaning for the leader and interpersonal meaning for followers.

This broad sketch of Mumford and Strange (2002) theory, however, begs a question—a question, in fact, critical to understanding the process of vision formation. How do people move from a descriptive mental model, a model describing the system as it is, to a prescriptive mental model, a model describing the system as it might be? The basis for any descriptive model, and thus derivatively any prescriptive model, is experience with, and knowledge about, how a system operates. Experience, however, provides feedback, both social and individual feedback, that reveals the strengths and weaknesses of system operations. This feedback, along with exposure to other conceptions of system operations (Frankwick, Walker, & Ward, 1994), may induce reflection and, based on perceived social needs and personal values, a search for the goals or outcomes that should be pursued as well as the key causes influencing the attainment of these goals. By reconfiguring a descriptive mental model in terms of idealized goals and their causes, a prescriptive mental model emerges that specifies both events to change and standards to be maintained.

The prescriptive mental model emerging from an analysis of idealized goals and their causes provides the foundation for vision formation. Vision formation, however, requires an additional step. Specifically, Mumford and Strange (2002) argued that vision emerges from a prescriptive model as this model is applied to articulate and address significant system issues taking into account others' actual or anticipated responses. Thus vision formation requires the social/contextual elaboration and refinement of a prescriptive mental model.

In an initial test of this theory of vision formation, Strange and Mumford (2002) sought to confirm a distinction among outstanding visionary leaders implied by their theory. More specifically, they argued that leaders, in vision formation, might stress personal values and standards to be maintained (ideological leaders) or perceived social needs and events to change (charismatic leaders). Thus, ideological leaders apply a goal-based vision while charismatic leaders apply a cause-based vision. In a historiometric analysis of 60 notable 20th Century leaders, they found that visionary leaders could, in fact, be distinguished with respect to this stylistic emphasis. Moreover, leaders' evidencing the ideological, as opposed to the charismatic, style differed with respect to follower interactions, follower attributions, and preferred influence tactics. Other historic work by Ellis (2001) examining the role of experience in vision formation has also provided some support for Mumford and Strange (2002) propositions.

Although these historiometric studies provide some initial support for Mumford and Strange (2002) theory of vision formation, as tests of this theory, they suffer from two deficiencies. First, a critical assumption underlying this theory, the notion that vision is based on an idealized, prescriptive model, was not explicitly tested. Second, it was not demonstrated that the activities held to provide a basis for the construction of prescriptive mental models actually resulted in the production of viable visions.

With regard to the assumptional issue, the theory of vision formation proposed by Mumford and Strange (2002) holds that vision formation is based on an idealized image of system operations. Thus, a leader's vision tells followers where to go but does not necessarily tell them how to get there. This point is noteworthy because it suggests that visioning is a distinct activity from planning—although a vision may provide a framework for plan formation (Mumford, Schultz, & Osburn, 2002). A plan is a form of situated cognition, cognition based on experiential analysis of a particular setting, which involves the forecasting of action outcomes under conditions imposed by relevant restrictions and contingencies, the specification of actions in a given context, the development of backup plans, and opportunistic implementation (Mumford et al., 2001, Patalano & Siefert, 1997, Xiao et al., 1997). Visions, however, imply a removal of given restrictions and contingencies where the image, a single image, transcends the demands of the current situation—pointing to a place to move towards but not necessarily the optimal way of getting there. Thus, although both visioning and planning involve some common elements, for example identifying key causes and key goals (Thomas & McDaniel, 1990), they represent distinct constructs. This observation led to our first hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1

Manipulations that influence the construction of prescriptive mental models will exert more influence on the impact of a vision than the quality of plans associated with implementation of this vision.

With regard to manipulations, the theory of vision formation proposed by Mumford and Strange (2002) indicates that certain critical events will be involved in constructing the prescriptive mental models that provide a basis for vision formation. The three events that appear of greatest importance are: (1) experience accompanied by exposure to alternative models of system operations, (2) reflection on these alternative models in relation to past experience and the individual's extant descriptive model, and (3) abstraction from experience, and other available models, of the key goals and key causes needed to construct a prescriptive mental model. The basis of vision in experience and exposure to other models implies that conditions where people are exposed to viable alternative models and are encouraged to abstract key goals and key causes from these models will result in the generation of better prescriptive models and the construction of viable visions. Hence, our next set of hypotheses:

Hypothesis 2

Conditions encouraging the abstraction of key goals and key causes from experience will result in the construction of better prescriptive mental models and the formation of more powerful, evocative, visions.

Hypothesis 3

Exposure to alternative descriptive models will result in the construction of better prescriptive mental models and the formation of more powerful, evocative, visions by providing information about relevant goals and causes.

As noted above, key goals and key causes are abstracted from experience only when people reflect on available models in relation to their experience. However, reflection per se, unless it is focused on abstracting key goals and key causes of system operations, is unlikely to prove of value. It should also be recognized that reflection on experience may have different effects depending on the type of experience under consideration. Sound, descriptive models serve to specify viable causes of goal attainment while poor descriptive models are a less useful source of information about relevant causes. Poor models, however, vis-à-vis negative outcomes, may nonetheless provide useful information about goals. Indeed, the oft noted effects of crises on visionary leadership may reflect the value of poor models for reformulating system goals (Hunt et al., 1999, Mumford & Van Doorn, 2001). These observations, in turn, led to our next two hypotheses:

Hypothesis 4

Reflection will prove most useful in the construction of prescriptive mental models, and the formation of viable visions, when it is focused on abstraction of key goals and key causes applying to the social system under consideration.

Hypothesis 5

Reflection on key causes will prove most useful in the construction of prescriptive mental models, and the formation of viable visions, when “sound” prior models are available while reflection on key goals will prove most useful in the construction of prescriptive mental models, and the formation of viable visions, when “unsound” models are available.

With regard to these hypotheses, however, an important caveat seems in order. The term “effective vision” might be interpreted in one of two ways. A vision might prove effective because it is evocative and motivational (Conger & Kanungo, 1998, Shamir et al., 1993). Alternatively, a vision might prove effective because it provides a structure that allows the group to respond to critical performance demands (Hunt et al., 1999). However, the basis of vision in prescriptive mental models, models that arise from descriptive mental models through reflection on both goals and causes, indicates that conditions influencing the formation of prescriptive models, conditions shaping the vision subsequently articulated, should influence both affective reactions and the perceived utility of the vision. Thus a final hypothesis seemed indicated:

Hypothesis 6

Reflection or key goals and causes in relation to available descriptive models will influence both affective reactions and the perceived utility of the vision statements.

Section snippets

Sample

The sample used to test these hypotheses consisted of 212 undergraduates attending a large southwestern university. The 86 men and 136 women who agreed to participate in this study were recruited from lower-level undergraduate psychology courses providing extra-credit for participation in experiments. Recruitment occurred through a web site where students reviewed available studies and selected the study, or studies, they would participate in to gain extra credit. Most sample members were in

Vision attribute ratings

Table 2 presents the results obtained in the multivariate analysis of covariance examining students', teachers', and parents' reactions to the vision statements provided in the speeches as reflected in the vision attribute ratings. As may be seen, only one covariate, intelligence for teachers’ evaluations of utility, produces a significant (F(7, 129)=2.52; p≤.05) effect. It is not, however, surprising that teachers' appraisals of utility would be positively related to intelligence.

In addition

Discussion

Before turning to the broader conclusions flowing from the present study, certain limitations inherent to the design applied herein should be noted. To begin, the present study was based on a “classic” experimental strategy. Accordingly, some caution is called for in generalizing our findings to real world settings. One illustration of this point may be found in our observations with regard to a search for both goals and causes since the longer time frames operating in real world settings may

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Ginamarie Scott, Holly Osburn, Jennifer Butler, Cynthia Jernstrom, and Patrick Strange for their contribution to the present effort.

References (57)

  • W.A. Baughman et al.

    Process analytic models of creative capacities: Operations influencing the combination- and-reorganization process

    Creativity Research Journal

    (1995)
  • K.B. Boal et al.

    Charismatic leadership: A phenomenological and structural approach

  • A.B. Butler et al.

    Effects of solution elicitation aids and need for cognition on the generation of solutions to ill-structure problems

    Creativity Research Journal

    (2003)
  • P.R. Christensen et al.

    Consequences form A-1

    (1953)
  • J.A. Conger

    Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations: An insider's perspective on the developing streams of research

    The Leadership Quarterly

    (1999)
  • J.A. Conger et al.

    Charismatic leadership in organizations

    (1998)
  • U.R. Dumdum et al.

    A meta-analysis of transformational and transactional correlates of effectiveness and satisfaction: An update and extension

  • J.E. Dutton et al.

    Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in organization adaptation

    Academy of Management Journal

    (1991)
  • J.J. Ellis

    Founding brothers: The revolutionary generation

    (2001)
  • Z. Estes et al.

    The emergence of novel attributes in concept modification

    Creativity Research Journal

    (2002)
  • R.A. Finke et al.

    Creative cognition: Theory, research, and applications

    (1992)
  • S. Finkelstein

    Planning in organizations: One vote for complexity

  • J.P. Guildford et al.

    Structure of intellect factors and their tests

    (1966)
  • K.J. Holyoak et al.

    The analogical mind

    American Psychologist

    (1997)
  • J.M. Howell

    Two faces of charisma: Socialized and personalized leadership in organization

  • P. Johnson-Laird

    Mental models

    (1983)
  • K. Kim et al.

    Extending the concept of charismatic leadership using Bass' (1990) categories

  • S. Kirkpatrick et al.

    Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (1996)
  • Cited by (177)

    • CIP leadership theory and creativity: The benefits of aligning leader cognition with context

      2023, Handbook of Organizational Creativity: Leadership, Interventions, and Macro Level Issues, Second Edition
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text