Under the guise of this fundamental need to give meaning, a very legitimate need, I observe a tyranny of vision. Tell me “why” or I won’t commit. The request is understandable as long as it doesn’t become intolerant.

The intolerance would be to condition engagement on a precise vision, on a detailed answer.

Yet vision is a direction, not an answer. And vision must be clear, but precise I’m much less sure about. Not having a vision is a vision, but it must be stated as such, and by stating it we’ll also probably indicate how we hope to get out of the rut, which will become a vision.

If the vision is precise, it has become a big upfront plan. In contradiction with our perception and understanding of the world that emphasizes systems thinking, chaos, and emergence.

Good execution is potentially a good vision. No need for grandiloquence, to save the world every morning. For dominant market players, incremental improvement (and not experimental/disruptive) can be largely sufficient. The trap here is just not to measure good execution by how well it unfolds, but by the results (value) it produces.

Systems thinking, chaos and emergence. Vision naturally can also be emergent. It often will be. It will change, it will adapt, it will evolve.

A vision should be

• a direction (carrying meaning)
• simple and clear enough to be owned
• desired and therefore lived, embodied
• it can emerge, change, adapt, evolve

A vision doesn’t have to be

• enslaving
• detailed
• necessarily grandiloquent (no need to save the world every morning)
• definitive