Dr. Earl R. Smith II

admin says:

49 Responses to “Follow-up question about visionaries”
1.
July 8th, 2007 at 10:39 am e
Robert Fornal: Having a vision and being a visionary are two different things … you can have a vision and do nothing about it. The true strength of a visionary is the individual that makes things happen.
Implementation is critical.
2.
July 8th, 2007 at 10:40 am e
Richard Llewellyn: I think the difference is between a “visionary thinker (and/or writer)” and a “visionary leader” who actually implements the vision. Both have equally valid roles to play in our society.
3.
July 8th, 2007 at 10:41 am e
Kedar Sathe: I think the difference is analogous to someone who just teaches, preaches but rarely, if ever, practices. In my opinion, execution/implementation is as important, if not more, as strategy and vision. The proverbial rubber meets the road during implementation and real problems, challenges and hurdles are encountered. Solving real life problems takes real life experience and ability to think creatively on one’s feet. Someone who just writes or teaches usually does so assuming best case scenarios and real life is anything but that.
In a nutshell, in my opinion, someone who can also implement his/her vision is more accomplished than someone who can just write
4.
July 8th, 2007 at 10:41 am e
Kathie M. Thomas: There is a difference between having a vision and actioning the vision. As has been suggested already, it isn’t until you actually take part in that vision to get it happening that you encounter what’s required to get that vision actually moving forward.
5.
July 8th, 2007 at 10:42 am e
Jason Seiden: I like the split between “visionary thinker” and “visionary leader,” and I’d add one more thing to it, which is the element of creation. When we talk of visionaries, we tend to imagine people who build better futures–as oppose to people who create chaos and destruction, or who invent problems and then guide us “forward” to where we started. All of these people may be forward-looking, and all may be action takers, but none are visionaries.
Visionaries create in a positive sense, and in so doing they fundamentally change the nature of the world we live in.
6.
July 8th, 2007 at 10:42 am e
Jeff Storey: I believe that Edison (an acknowledged visionary) has already stated it better than I could: “Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration!”
7.
July 8th, 2007 at 10:43 am e
Zen Benefiel: Visionary leadership can either be active or passive, it is often the visionary who plants the seed, waters it, and even tills the ground to keep the weeds from growing while creating the means for the harvest. In some cases it is the harvesting of the past that helps to create the visionary’s picture. Some visionaries prefer to fertilize the fields of fertile minds instead.
Execution would be another perspective of proactive implementation, with benchmarks and deliverables associated with the visionary’s goal as a form of metrics. Indeed, a visionary is usually considered a positive influence. We like to think of visionaries as proactive, positive, world servers destined to help mankind in some way.
Including Mission and Vision rollouts, visionary leaders tend to create the environments that support the communication and collaboration to fulfill the process of achievement.
8.
July 8th, 2007 at 10:43 am e
Les DeGroff: I like science fiction, and science fantasy, and consider many authors to be literary and idea visionaries. Part of the context for implementation, and vision is time. I am perfectly willing to give “Visionary” status to those who do not implement, but other high respect for those who do. When I have seen it, I have mixed thoughts about those who implement off of literary ideas, the semantics of visionary allows for ball carrying implementors, but justice suggests that certain credit is due back to the story tellers.
9.
July 8th, 2007 at 10:44 am e
Mukund Toro: My two cents. Implementation is important. But we should not assess a visionary based on if he or she helped in implementing the vision. Taking up your example further, Alvin Toffler’s canvass of thinking was much broader in time and space than say Bill Gate’s (with due respect to the later). If I am right, in the “Third Wave”published in 1980, Toffler talked of developing countries skipping the second wave and directly getting on to the third wave. I am not sure if Toffler could have done a lot to implement this idea. But neverthless it was an important idea. The growth of service industry in India in late 90s is in a way a realisation of this idea.
In my opinion, visionaries should allow themselves to imagine freely without getting shacled by implementability. This will help in creating revolutionary changes as opposed to incremental changes.
10.
July 8th, 2007 at 10:44 am e
John Paul Saunders: A ‘vision’ is acquired through inspiration and validated through its realization, but only truly recognized/accepted through its materialization.
While the ‘vision’ is usually owned by one, the materialization of the vision is often based on the inspiration, realization and perspiration (thank you Jeff) of many.
11.
July 8th, 2007 at 10:45 am e
Leri M. Thomas, Ph. D.: I can find things to agree with in all these answers, but we need to consider the collaborative relationship and collaborative work as well. There are people who may be visionary and they transmit their influence to a group that may be better at execution. I proffer two examples:
A screenwriting professor of mine once told the story of a former student of his who could write great dialogue, but couldn’t seem to write an entire script from start to finish. It just wasn’t his schtick. Nevertheless he was one of the catalytic influences in a team of writers for “Cheers”
OK, maybe he wasn’t a visionary. In local politics I have watched truly visionary people approach governing boards and craftily make their own ideas those of the board. Everyone walks out praising the Board for their insight, when it was some bloke in the audience who actually came up with the insight, or vision.
Ok, Ok maybe that doesn’t entirely fit the definition of visionary either, but it is sufficient to note that a visionary can be a driving force within a group and go unnoticed or unrecognized. Newt Gingrich taught a course at Kennesaw State over a decade ago where he spoke at length about the changes we could expect in the workplace and in business. Had he never cited his sources (Toffler specifically), he could have been credited with Toffler’s vision.
12.
July 8th, 2007 at 10:45 am e
Brent Alexander: Implementation is crucial to the success of a visionary’s planning and end result. No matter one’s plan and/or vision for the future, poor implementation usually leads to hindsight being 20/20.
I sadly never heard of Toffler, but I did look him up on Wikipedia. My answer to the second part of your question may be off-base, but I’d like to attempt to provide an answer.
Gates and Kissinger were very proactive in seeing their individual visions come to life. Both Gates and Kissinger, in my opinion, made sure that their visions were not ignored and whether right or wrong they plowed ahead with blinders, ignoring anything or anyone in their way,
In reading about Toffler, I find his visions to be more of generalizations than matter of fact. Toffler shared his visions/ideas through his writings and he never forced them upon anyone. Toffler’s visions weren’t implemented by him, but by others who took the ball and ran with it,
***If I am wrong about Toffler please fill me into what I am missing. ***
I believe that Gates, Kissinger and Toffler all are solid visionaries. Each had a vision(s) and saw them carried out. The difference was in the implementation. Gates and Kissinger took their visions and led the way. Toffler shared his visions, acting more as a coach/manager, and allowed others to take his visions and implement them as they saw fit.
13.
July 8th, 2007 at 10:46 am e
John Constantine: Steven Hawking hasn’t implemented a thing. And so…
Cheers.
14.
July 8th, 2007 at 10:46 am e
Michal Szopinski: Implementation is a critical part of what a vision can become. The experience of implementing a vision provides the individual with the needed experience to articulate the meaning and opportunity a vision presents.
15.
July 8th, 2007 at 10:47 am e
Phil Lawson: As I suggested in my response to the original question and Answers, there was and remains significant confusion about what is a visionary when compared to a leader, innovator, motivator, idea generator etc. This confusion seems to continue as the dialog now is about people who may be catalyst, seers, or analyst and label them as visionaries.
A visionary is one who has an original idea-a vision-and has the integrity to stay with that idea, either going it alone or attracting others to them and their work to see it take hold – though they may not live long enough to see full implementation or acceptance of their vision (this was the case with Rachel Carson and her book Silent Spring as she died of cancer not long after its publication but she had already attracted others to carry on her vision).
While many label both Gates and Jobs visionary because of their work the personal computer, the personal computer was not their idea, not their vision. Though both clearly embraced, enhanced and shaped the final version.
Gates bought DOS (renaming it MS-DOS) and built his company on his sales and business savvy. Read his biographies and he talks about a computer on every desk, of course with Microsoft software, but it was more a business plan than a real vision for what it could do for humanity.
The ideas for an easy to use computer with a GUI and a mouse, the key components of the Macintosh came from PARC, they were not Jobs ideas though he commercialized them (some would make a case for Jobs as a visionary with I-Tunes, I-Pod and I-Phone, others would argue this is simply innovation, though clearly brilliant innovation).
But take a look at Muhammad Yunis and microcredit. Read the account of the moment the idea came to him and effort he expended to make it a reality and the countless millions of people it has empowered. He fundamentally altered the world’s understanding of poor people, their desire to work and better themselves and their credit worthiness.
Read Tim Berners-Lee’s account of the simple idea he had to share information in and with other people’s computers that led to his building the World Wide Web. He stayed with his idea, his vision even after he recognize that if he tried to patent his idea, had he charged people to use his invention of the WWW it would have died instantly (others have made billions from the web but not Berners-Lee).
Both of these men had unique visions and the integrity to stay true to their visions, visions that truly changed the world, doing so at great personal costs.
Yunis and Berners-Lee are visionaries, they each had an original idea—a vision—and the integrity to stay with it bringing it to the world.
16.
July 8th, 2007 at 10:48 am e
Terri L Maurer: Very often those visionary, big picture people are just that: visionary, big picture people. They are seldom the implementers and have no clue about how to get where they envision the organization is going or needs to go. But, a well-run organization will also have people on board who can handle the process and operations it takes to get to the prize.
17.
July 8th, 2007 at 10:48 am e
Yvonne Larose: Some visionaries are capable of seeing the destination as well as helping build the path to it. Others are able to mentally collect the information and deduce the outcome, thereby becoming visionary because they “see” where things are going. There are many of these visionaries who realize the outcome without having to travel the path because they already have sufficient experience to know what is to be expected.
All three have their usefulness. If you have a person onboard who knows how to build whatever you want, simply get the forecaster so that you can learn about the stumbling blocks and whether it’s possible to get there. But that’s the most important role the forecaster plays — knowing what will come of the activities and the various detours that are possible, along with their concommitant outcomes.
Having a good leader will yield one who will know about implementation and garnering support for the goal.
18.
July 8th, 2007 at 10:49 am e
Clint Perez: Vince Lombardi once said that winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing. The same thing could be said about implementation. What is a vision without implementation? Merely a mirage. Unfortunately, history doesn’t give credit to those who don’t do.
Going back to the previous question on qualities of a visionary, I would add courage. It takes a lot of courage to articulate and implement a vision.
19.
July 8th, 2007 at 10:49 am e
Bobby Vassallo: In the eyes of the world, Leonardo Da Vinci does not figure in. Yes, he invented things hundreds of years before anyone else visualized or realized them, yet what is interesting is that he hid everything in a trunk. His conceptualising a helicopter, a tank, concentrated solar power, a calculator, and the double hull,were absolutely revolutionary, but Da Vinci was so consumed with protecting his ideas, they never saw the light of day. Yes, he was a great man, but without having shared or implemented his visions, he died somewhat a heretic, never really impacting his world. The visionary Da Vinci will be remembered as just a painter, while Gates will be remembered as the great implementer who was also a visionary. Gates gets to write his own history, don’t you see. Great question.
20.
July 8th, 2007 at 10:49 am e
Sheilah Etheridge: Simply put it is ALL about implementing the vision. Without that all you have is an idea
21.
July 8th, 2007 at 10:50 am e
David Kalman: You pose a thorny question because you can’t validate a vision UNLESS it is implemented. In that sense, the question “how much does implementation count?” is a non-sequiter. Implementation is exactly what determines who we consider “visionary” (or not). For example, in 1945 Arthur C. Clarke proposed the use of geostationary satellites for global communications. Today we consider him a visionary. The idea worked. But imagine if it hadn’t. We might have considered Clarke a crank, or worse, we might have forgotten him completely. In this light, attempts to cultivate “vision” should be subservient to taking risks and advancing as many new ideas as possible. How many times did Edison “fail” before he succeeded?
22.
July 8th, 2007 at 10:50 am e
Eric Joiner, Jr.: Here’s my experience with people who are visonary. You can explain a tactical concept to them and they immediately see strategic value. They intuitively see that if you can do A…then add B…then you could do C.
23.
July 8th, 2007 at 10:51 am e
Thomas Milkovic: A visionary’s plan will succeed if he infuses passion into his believers and encourages them to implement his idea.
24.
July 8th, 2007 at 10:51 am e
Henrik Nielsen: To have a vision is one thing, but to have a vision with humane emotions is what make a different. Try and look at Lance Armstrong. Lance was very unlucky and got cancer. He was at that time not very good, hi did not win anything at all.
Try to imagen some doctor is saying to Lance “ well you got testicular cancer , that is very tuff a specially if you want to ride a bike ! “
Lance got this in his brain and lunges , he got a vision doing this period of time. He made the decision “ The vision was, that he would win tour de france”
And he did 7 times. Why ???
Lance got his emotions to collaborate with the vision of going down in history. So in basic a vision and human emotions is the force that leads to action and make things happen.
Most people get a lot of vision in their life, but most tent end up with this.
Didn’t have the time
Didn’t have the money
Didn’t have the right company / manager
Ect…ect…ect
But the different is if you have human emotions you will find the money, you find the time ect.. But this vision have to be thru to your brain and body.
25.
July 8th, 2007 at 10:52 am e
Alex Finkelstein: I believe that Steve Jobs is an example for an visionary that also implements his view regarding the media market and Apple’s role in it. Having said that, He is not alone and I am sure that there is a huge team of people who are implementing his vision.
I think that implementation is a completely different quality which is not always abundant with the visionary types. On the contrary, visionaries are free of the limitations that are imposed by the actual down to earth pesky “how to do it” and “where to get the resources” issues. My guess is that the ideal visionary is not only a person who is able to show the direction, provide the greater future outlook and set the goals, but also to point out how it is going to happen and what are the tools/recourses/technologies needed. Then, he should work together with the “just do it” guy.
26.
July 8th, 2007 at 10:52 am e
Matthew Liptak: You are correct on this one. I think a visionary is not successfull or impactfull if they do not have follow through. Thy can have vision of future changes or outlook on landscape shifts, but without implementing these changes or proactively producing results, they are less meaningfull.
27.
July 8th, 2007 at 10:53 am e
Claudia Del Giudice: I think communicating (in whatever way) vision can be an important step in implementation, as influencing the community around.
28.
July 8th, 2007 at 10:53 am e
Kevin Jackson: My initial thoughts on this was that vision without implementation is “dreaming”. However upon further reflection, I agree with one of the other respondents, that there is room for the dreamer. I think the key is “application”. Most people who come up with visionary ideas, have no idea of its far-reaching implications. I happened to work with the gents who invented the transistor, and I assure you that they had glorious ideas about the impact of this development, however they in no way would have envisioned what has happened with the continuous evolution of their invention. Needless to say, their “Salieri has been Amadeused”! I believe in the end that implementation is key, however I do not believe the visionary must be the implementer, eg Toffler.
I think a good discussion might be on those who can enhance a great vision. I think in many cases these are the understated “visionaries”, ie. those who can truly expand the original thought. Konrad Zuse invented the first computer, and Von Neumann developed the architectures used today for computers, but what of all the other innovations that have gone into this device, and the host of forgotten visionaries. Consider that massive first computer, that occupied an entire room, and needed its own electric grid to operate, and now the power of the microprocessor and its relative size? Then consider the power of the software. There are thousands of visionaries in the wake of these original ideas.
29.
July 8th, 2007 at 6:44 pm e
Steven Podvoll: Of course, vision is moot without implementation. However, I find it disturbing that so many focus on “project management” skills as the sole means to implementation. Leadership has much more bearing on successful implementation, than do mere administrative skills. Leaders can accomplish more by inspiring their followers, than an army of Gannt charters.
30.
July 8th, 2007 at 6:46 pm e
George F Franks III: There are – in my studies and experience – two kinds of visionaries.
There are the ones who look forward and see the future and come of with great ideas – regardless of the field or discipline. Then they keep these to themselves. document them in some form or pass them on to others to implement.
There is a second category of visionary – and one that I align more closely with who do all the same things as the first but then take that idea, concept or vision on to execution, implementation, realization or whatever you want to call it. To take something from vision (not exist today, future state) and then make it a reality is a marvelous thing – and all too rare. These are gifted people regardless of their field or discipline.
Few of the latter category stay with what they have seen, implemented and created for long. Most enjoy the creative aspects of thinking of some need or opportunity in the future, then making it a reality. The day-to-day running of whatever is much too ordinary and mundane for many of these people and they hand it off to others.
31.
July 8th, 2007 at 6:48 pm e
Shava Nerad: I think there are two kinds of visionaries you might want to distinguish. One is the business visionary — focus on implementation. The other is something they call (everywhere but the US) a “public intellectual” — Alvin Toffler is a great example.
In the US “intellectual” is such a dirty word, even “academic” is dirty to a lot of people. It reflects our lack of respect for teachers — we say “Those who can, do. Those who don’t, teach.”
This fails to recognize how many who “do” are not competent, and focuses on how many who “teach” are not. We see failure to perform as a natural selection function in capitalism, but since bad teachers aren’t selected against, this breeds resentment in the system, I think.
Personally, I prefer to think of myself as an “applied public intellectual.” I love to explore and develop ideas about systemic change — and then test them in the marketplace. Right now I’m testing the “v-commerce” or “web3D” market in Second Life.
32.
July 8th, 2007 at 6:49 pm e
Walter Groth: While the vision is the driving power behind every achievement it still requires implementing the steps to take to get there. Often visionaries are great leaders as well, knowing what they don’t know, and then finding the right people to perform the implementation part. That way the visionaries do what they are best at: Holding and expanding their vision while providing the inspiring leadership to achieve results beyond imagination.
33.
July 8th, 2007 at 6:49 pm e
Marc Rapp: It’s important because, at this stage you will be utilizing the skills and talents of others. Very few things can be done alone. And, as is the case with most goals, objectives or visions–at some point expect the idea to grow beyond your control, or rather, expect someone else to help guide the vision and continue to refine the vignetted edges as it moves forward. The vision becomes tangible here. Nothing is implemented alone.
“You’ve got to think about big things while you’re doing small things, so that all the small things go in the right direction” -Alvin Toffler
34.
July 8th, 2007 at 6:50 pm e
Susan Fuchtman: I agree with Terri Maurer’s comment — it is unusual to find a visionary who is a good implementer. Visioning and implementing are two very different functions. A smart visionary will find someone to come alongside and take care of the implementation, leaving the visionary to come up with more ideas! A good implementer can quickly grasp the vision, question and fill in gaps, determine feasibility, assemble resources, establish communication processes, and get the ball rolling. By that time the visionary is on to the next thing. It’s a rare combination for visionaries to be good implementers, or for that matter, for good implementers to be visionaries.
35.
July 8th, 2007 at 6:51 pm e
M. Prabhakar Rao: I will put it this way: visionary thinker inspires others and the visionary leaders influence others to do the implementation part., while being at the helm of affairs.
36.
July 9th, 2007 at 1:20 pm e
Melissa Pollock: The two are completely independant.
I would liken somene having a vision and writing about it as being a “thought leader”.
I would liken someone taking action on it and producing positive implementation a “visionary leader”.
37.
July 9th, 2007 at 1:21 pm e
William F DeVault: Well, I would take exception to the notice that merely writing is not implementation. By that definition almost any evangelist, politican or author is excluded, then.
The act of publishing, or uttering in any form, a new, radical or revolutionary idea is critical. It establishes the vision and it brings it to the attention of those who may work to manifest it.
Henry Kissinger’s work was and has been to write and talk, to communicate. Bill Gates is a salesman who has seen the potential in what others have done (including Steve Jobs) to make a personal fortune. They have worked through words and communication.
In fact, I would have to say that the act of communicating one’s idea, whether in a meeting, from a podium, or as a book, is as vital and dynamic as any physical manifestation. The vision must be communicated. You yourself may only author the idea, others may implement, but you are the visionary.
38.
July 9th, 2007 at 1:22 pm e
David P. Schofield: A visionary inspires and motivates either themselves or someone else to take action to leap years ahead of the process, create a completely new process or turns common thinking on its ear. Implementation only gets it noticed on a wide scale. Davinci did not have working models, but he was not a dreamer but a visionary. The difference between a visionary and a dreamer is that a visionary writes it down.
39.
July 9th, 2007 at 1:23 pm e
Brian Clark: I wonder how much of the value of implementation in the definition comes from the domain in question. As a theorist, I probably place much less importance on what someone has done (”track record” invites suvivorship bias) than I do in the artistic realm (where “talking about making a film” isn’t really the same as having made one.)
I also notice how many of the answers so far are sort of mixing the concepts of “implementation” and “leadership”. From personal experience, a good team (which is the most common unit of implementation) doesn’t have to find both leadership and vision from the same individual. Communication arts are littered with these kinds of relationships, and professionals who exist to help people with vision get over their implementation hurdles — book editors (the implementation scaffold to a writer’s vision) or even audio engineers (the implementation scaffold to a musician’s “vision”) are examples of those niches.
Of course, I’m one of those people who believes films get envisioned by writers, directors and actors … but created by producers, cinematographers and editors. You can’t make the assumption that the “visionary” sits in one particular canvas chair or another unless you poke deeper into the team dynamics. So those who might argue that visionary status is all about implementation are describing, at least in some of the arts, an auteur … and I’m not sure all films actually get made that way (or that telling directors they are auteurs is particularly good for the artform.)
Like your last question, there is also an interesting game you can play: cover up the name of the person who posted, and try to guess what their job title, company or both are from their answer. Are we perhaps in Rorschach territory here?
40.
July 9th, 2007 at 1:24 pm e
David Prior: I believe Claudia highlighted the key point here – communication.
I observe from experience that there are four phases to innovation: vision, communication, implementation, adoption. Having the vision is one thing but, once you have it, it is not to be assumed that the other three phases will automatically follow.
A vision, not communicated, is simply another bright idea. A communicated vision, not implemented, is another consensual hallucination. An implemented vision, without adoption, is just a research project.
I’m not saying that abortion at any stage is a bad thing, just that we should be aware that there are more facets to the issue than ‘jumped out of the bath, implemented a screw’. If you cannot communicate your ideas – or find someone to whom you can explain and then they can communicate – nothing will happen. If you cannot find a market – in the loosest sense of the term – your efforts go back on the shelf.
In either case, however, it is worth noting that – as they still say in adventure games – ‘time passes’. After time, someone somewhere may look back and find your vision, your communications, and your implementation (prototype?) and, with a market that is then ready in both the technological and social senses, build upon your foundations.
41.
July 9th, 2007 at 1:25 pm e
Noreen Postman: Entirely my opinion – a visionary without implementation is similar to a philosopher or perhaps a fiction writer. The idea may be powerful. It may affect people in the present and the future. Someone else may implement what they understand that vision to be.
But, I believe that it is better for the visionary to share that vision and allow it to inspire action and provoke discussion. We each have different skills, and should learn to use those we have effectively. The skills to implement and the skills to envision may not often be found in a single person. Teamwork, in such a situation, creates a realized vision.
42.
July 9th, 2007 at 7:34 pm e
Robert Dolezal: For the visionary that has an idea that only takes a single lifetime to execute–think Michaelangeo, Leonardo, etc.–application will yield the result. For the idea that requires more than yourself, execution becomes the core issue since it is literally impossible to do it all yourself, no matter how hard you might try. From big ideas grow companies. Category leading companies always out-execute their competitors–when they stop being great executors, they lose market share and their first place ranking.
By extension, execution is the core requirement and counts for nearly everything.
43.
July 9th, 2007 at 7:34 pm e
Brian Casteel: Visionary thinking brings value in many ways. However, what truly distinguishes an individual as a “visionary” is leadership. A true visionary must possess sufficient leadership to bring his vision to fruition. This means that the individual has abilities to execute his vision, or he can bring in other resources. In either case, the individual or his organization must be able to carry out a plan sufficient to make the vision a reality. Otherwise, the vision will likely remain only an abstract idea.
44.
July 10th, 2007 at 4:24 pm e
Christina Chemhuru: A visionary is someone with an ability to see and create possibilities. Being able to communicate what they perceive in a way that not only enables everyone else to see the same “vision” but to be equally inspired and driven to make it happen is deemed the success of a visionary leader. In fact, it goes on further to suggest that even when people lose sight because of unforeseen complications and so on, this visionary leader can get them back on track working towards the vision “they” now have. So I guess that suggests seeing it through to end – implementation.
45.
July 10th, 2007 at 4:25 pm e
Timothy Fearnside: Implementation, while important, says much more about timeliness, societal acceptance, commercial viability, market readiness, entrepeneurship, and numerous other factors, than it does about the “visionary” merits of the original concept. In other words, they are largely separate, but-for the former’s value in judging, at any given point in time, the then-apparent worthiness or value of such concept.
Many visionaries were seen as quacks during their day, only to have their ideas embraced and celebrated long after their deaths. Did their ideas magically become brilliant once some group or academy finally embraced them, or were they, perhaps, all along?
Also, we should also be careful not to confuse “implementation” with “product placement.” Introducing great ideas, shaping public discourse, developing meaningful theories– these, too, are examples of implementation, which, at various points in history, have had far reaching effects.
46.
July 10th, 2007 at 10:20 pm e
Aaron Clutter: I would say that implementation is very important, but the visionary does not always have to be the one implementing. Having the vision and then having the leadership ability to organize the proper people for the implementation process. I would say that vision without implementation is simply seeing and not doing anything about it. Isn’t that called vouyerism? Not very productive.
47.
July 11th, 2007 at 8:28 am e
Scot MacTaggart: I think that the fact that the vision does make it to implementation is important…but I don’t think it’s necessary for the person who originally has the vision to be the one to take it there.
I think the visionary must convince others to take on one of two roles: producing the final result, or being part of the crowd that buys into it.
48.
July 12th, 2007 at 8:29 am e
Patrick Ballin: I am sure there’s an old saw somewhere about vision without action, action without vision. Because, as several respondents have already said, each needs the other.
Two aspects of the vision into implementation piece that are interesting to me.
Firstly, great visionaries are not necessarily great implementers: and vice versa. However, those that can do both or – often – team up with others who have the other part: these people are on to a winner. As long as each understands and respects what the other brings.
Secondly, sometimes it’s a really good thing not to implement a vision. Not all visions are implementable: they may be ideas whose time has not yet come; they may need some resource to become available; or there may even be a competing vision that is in some way more compelling.
In organisations, the best strategies are often found when there are multiple compelling and competing visions. The trick then is to select the one that is “right” (maybe the one that is most compelling, or most implementable, or maybe just the one that the CEO likes best!) and to get the organisation behind it. Pitfall to avoid: prolonging the debate about whether the other vision should have been implemented. Was it a good vision? You bet. Was it the one we chose to follow? No, we chose to follow this other vision instead.
49.
July 12th, 2007 at 8:32 am e
Thom Hounsell: Being able to champion a vision of the future is a very different skill from being able to manage an organization to respond to a vision of the future. Some leaders do both but it’s probably more common for a business leader to pick and choose their goals by listening to other, more purely visionary thinkers. When you have a leader that can provide both the vision and the ability to execute, you get the stand out business stories like Microsoft and Apple. But I wouldn’t say that Gates or Jobs are any more visionary than Toffler. Some visionaries are great leaders, others are great champions of a vision.