Ancient wisdom on Vision – from blind men

Part 2 on Vision Statements. In examining the many ways that our clients’ Vision statements have gone wrong in the past (and some spectacularly wrong), Beg to Differ can almost always sum up the biggest problem in one word: proximity. But don’t take our word for it; take it from an ancient tale of six men who tried to establish a common vision. And failed….

My photo of an elephant in northern Thailand (and no, that's not his real eye). From this close, an elephant seems like... well, a really difficult thing to move.

Six blind men write a Vision statement

The story I’m referring to is the Blind Men and the Elephant. Variations are found in cultures across Asia, but poet John Godfrey Saxe introduced it to Europe:

It was six men of Indostan

To learning much inclined,

Who went to see the Elephant

(Though all of them were blind),

That each by observation

Might satisfy his mind…

It’s a long poem (whole text here), but to sum up the action: six blind men approach an elephant and come away with six different impressions. One thinks an elephant is like a tree, one like a rope, one like a snake, etc. And while each of their descriptions is sincerely argued, and accurately reflects their observations, the poet laments that “each was partly in the right / And all were in the wrong.”

Now imagine pulling those six blind men into a room and trying to write a Vision statement.

Describing the elephant: where vision statements go wrong

In the story, here are the mistakes the blind men made – and I’m going to suggest that we make the same ones ourselves.

1) They are all blind (and so are we): When it comes to our own businesses and products, each of us is blind to the big picture – the whole animal. This is equally true of me and my company (note to self: update corporate Web site soon), you and yours, and blind elephant-feelers everywhere: we are all victims of habit, corporate silos, and unconscious vested interests.

There’s nothing wrong with blindness of course. But bringing in a “sighted” outsider can certainly speed things up.

2) They didn’t share their “visions” to create “Vision”: Notice that each blind man worked in isolation before comparing notes with colleagues. Imagine if they all had been talking to each other during the research phase. “What do you mean rope? This seems more wall-ish. Seriously, come over here and check this out… etc.” Wouldn’t they be more successful – and fight less?

3) Lack of common reference points: Saxe says that the men “Rail on in utter ignorance / Of what each other mean.” Because of the blinkers mentioned above, we need to check, double check, then write down our common understandings of corporate jargon, nomonyms, and other key language.

4) They ignored the elephant. These blind men SAID they wanted to learn about the elephant, for each to “satisfy his mind”, but they seem more interested in having talking points for the argument to come. Shame none of them examined the elephant’s navel. But then they’d have to take their heads out of their own.

5) Who was the exercise for? Perhaps they would have had more luck if they had a clearer goal in mind of who the customer for this information would be. Then they could test their theories against the only metric that matters: how much does their work help someone else understand the elephant?

6) Description is not Vision: even if all the blind men had been able to articulate a more accurate idea of the elephant, they still couldn’t get the elephant to do anything. For that, they’d need to study behaviour, capabilities, knowledge of how other elephants are being used and trained. And finally they’d need to correct one last mistake…

7) Vision needs direction: The blind men lacked clear goals and an audience. But they also lacked a destination or at least a clear sense of the direction they should be heading  - which is the “north star” that should guide any effective Vision exercise.

But then doesn’t that make this a Mission rather than a Vision? The next post in this series will take on that thorny issue. But in the meantime, we’re still looking for your help: vision stories; examples; thoughts?

First off, happy Canada Day to everyone!  And to Timmies, welcome back!

There couldn’t be a more fitting time for such an iconic Canadian brand to return to its roots in the Great White North.  Sure, you’ve stated that your move back to Canada is for tax reasons alone, but I know the real reason, Tim.  You missed us!  You’ve always been Canadian.  Never truly left.  Three years you spent in your surrogate home of Delaware, and how awfully lonely they must have been.  No one knew your name, and I bet they don’t even play hockey on the street or order double-doubles.

I know that expansion is a necessary evil, and there are so many Americans that have never tasted your wonderfully consistent blend of coffee and doughnuts (excuse me – donuts).  I know that Times Square is slightly flashier than Hamilton or Oakville, and I get what you’re trying to do down there.  I just ask that as you expand, please remember your roots, and don’t leave us again.  Once you’ve surpassed Starbucks and are taking on McDonalds head-to-head, continue to tell the world: “We’re Canadian! We make doughnuts and we support Timbits minor sports!”

I hope that a slight tax break or a convenient partnership will not cause you to jump ship in the future.  I hope that Tim Hortons is here to stay.

So, this Canada Day, enjoy your double-double with pride.  Tim Hortons in coming home.

The Globe and Mail: http://bit.ly/8pe94
The National Post: http://bit.ly/P4G3o
Reuters: http://bit.ly/Pvs7Q
Forbes: http://bit.ly/i6PnO
Bloomberg: http://bit.ly/14lDE3