Skip to main content

When a Frame Becomes A Box

I'VE ALWAYS VIEWED CONVERSATIONS ABOUT ORGANIZATIONAL VISION as exciting opportunities to put a whole host of ideas and convictions from the sublime to the ridiculous out on the table for everyone to think about.  You never know where a spark might come from that will light the path for an organization's direction and enlighten thinking. 
I've always been puzzled by folks who think visioning is nothing more than silly, unattainable chatter.  I suspect that these naysayers have participated in enough visioning discussions where nothing was done to pin down key concepts so that all of it floated away like a clutch of helium balloons.  I hear that.
The absolute requirement for me is to never leave a visioning discussion without pinning down key concepts or common threads of ideas.  These, then, become the contextual frame which holds all the nuts and bolts discussions of strategies and tactics.  As I've written here, I am believer that the nuts and bolts ought to be driven by vision -- otherwise, you'll never achieve it.
Frames can be complicated, but they can be simple, too.  For most organizations, simpler is probably better -- after all, the bottom line for using contextual frames has got to be because they cut through the clutter to provide clarity of direction and impact.  For the more literal among us, I'm going to suggest a literal frame:  four sides with each side representing a piece of the vision.  If you chose just four key concepts that would define your organization's impact, what would they be?  Civic engagement?  Sustained economic development?  Excellence in education?  Furthering the creative process?
I think there's a lot of merit in being fairly restrictive when converging ideas -- it's much easier to add later than to decide on too many right off the bat only to have to cut back when it's clear you can't move that much forward.
The fine line we all must walk is knowing when a contextual frame becomes more of a restrictive box.  What would the warning signs be?

Photo:  frames from Robert in Toronto, flickr

Comments

Anne, Thanks for these thoughts on visions/vision statements.I agree about the value of discipline in the visioning process. The four-sided frame is a very strong tool for getting at something that is often abstract and so lofty eyes roll.
Striking the balance between the abstract and the concrete is key, Jeanne, otherwise visioning can be a very frustrating experience for many.

Popular posts from this blog

Back in the Saddle

MY LAST POST WAS NOVEMBER 2012, A LIGHT YEAR AWAY it seems, that marked the beginning of a long push toward completing a manuscript on history museum leadership with my co-author, Joan Baldwin.  We finally submitted 350+ pages to our editor at Rowman & Littlefield this week.  If all goes well, we expect the book to be available in early 2014.  It's taken us two years to get to this point, so six more months or so of revision and production don't seem too long to wait until we can hold the final product in our hands (and you can, too!). The project put a lot of things on hold, including this blog.  I'm glad to be back writing about intentional leadership -- leading by design -- for nonprofit boards and staffs.  Certainly, my thoughts are now informed by the forthcoming book, in which Joan and I posit that nonprofits need to focus resources on leadership, not just management.  Most cultural nonprofits are at a crossroad, as is the sector in general, where nothing is qu

Change for Your Board in 2010: A Polling Update

WE'RE A DAY INTO MY LAST POLL (SEE RIGHT) AND the responses are clustering in two areas: 1) removing dead wood from the board and 2) using better/different tools to make decisions/evaluate performance. There are still six days left for your colleagues to cast their vote! In the meantime, those of you who are in need of tools for decision-making might want to check my posts on taking stock here , here and here .

Three Most Important Nonprofit Executive Director Soft Skills

If you were asked to narrow down the list of executive director qualifications to the three most important, which ones would you identify? Would the list consist of soft skills, hard skills, or some combination? Would your list be based on the great ED you are or one you've worked for, or would it be your wish list for the ED you haven't been fortunate yet to work for?  This was an assignment in my recent online class in leadership and administration for the American Association for State and Local History . I asked the class to review three-five advertisements for museum directors and analyze what these listings intimated about the organization’s past experience, current focus and goals, and future aspirations. Then, I asked the class to identify what they consider to be the three most important qualifications they would look for in a director. (Okay, so there's more than three if you dissect my three big groups.)  Soft skills outnumbered hard skills, although