See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/240967359

Organizational Vision: The Other Side of the Coin

Article in Journal of Leadership Studies · September 2001

DOI: 10.1177/107179190100800209

CITATIONS READS
10 961

2 authors:

Ronit Bogler Adam Nir

The Open University of Israel Hebrew University of Jerusalem
37 PUBLICATIONS 2,591 CITATIONS 10 PUBLICATIONS 156 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ronit Bogler on 13 April 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Organizational vision 1

Running head: ORGANIZATIONAL VISION: THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN

Organizational Vision: The Other Side of the Coin

Ronit Bogler 1 and Adam E. Nir 2

Dr. Ronit Bogler is a lecturer in the Department of Education and Psychology at The
Open University of Israel. Dr. Adam E. Nir is a lecturer in the School of Education at
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel.

1
Department of Education and Psychology
The Open University of Israel
P.O. Box 39328, Tel Aviv 61392, Israel
Phone: +972-3-6460617; Fax: +972-3-6465468
E-mail: ronitbo@oumail.openu.ac.il

2
Policy and Administration in Education, School of Educ ation
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 91905, Israel
Phone: +972-2-5882060; Fax: +972-2-5882045
E-mail: msanir@mscc.huji.ac.il
 Organizational vision 2

Organizational Vision: The Other Side of the Coin

Abstract

Vision is the essence of leadership that brings about change in the life of

organizations. The present paper argues that three critical components, the qualities of

an organization’s leader, the attributes of the followers and the nature of the

environment must be taken into consideration by the leader in articulating an

organizational vision. The paper offers a classification of organizational visions and

discusses some likely consequences of disregarding them. Some examples are drawn

from educational settings. Implications and conclusions about the gains and losses

that leaders with different operational orientations may face when articulating a vision

are also discussed.

 Organizational vision 3

Organizational Vision: The Other Side of the Coin

There is no more powerful engine driving an organization

toward excellence and long-range success than an
attractive worthwhile, and achievable vision of the future,
widely shared. (Nanus 1992)

Vision is one of the key elements of effective leadership in organizational settings. As

indicated by Bennis and Nanus (1985), lack of a clear vision is a major cause of the

declining effectiveness of many organizations in recent years. This assertion is shared

by many scholars (e.g., Peters & Waterman, 1982; Terry, 1993) who have argued for

the importance of organizational vision and, as such, for the need to update visions

periodically because of on-going changes that are taking place in an ever -evolving

environment. Organizations should follow the direction set forth in the vision and,

because the vision serves as a compass to the organization’s members, it must not

only be defined in general terms and be inspirational, but must also accurately reflect

the internal qualities of the organization and its interactions with the environment.

Because of its great importa nce, vision has been studied by scholars from both

educational settings (e.g., Bell & Harrison, 1995; Holmes, 1993; Sergiovanni, 1990,

1996) and non-educational ones (e.g., Nanus, 1992; Terry, 1993; Yukl, 1994).

Sergiovanni (1990) argues, that “vision gets the most attention in the leadership

literature” (p. 57) because it has been credited for the success of organizational

leadership on the one hand, and blamed for organizational leadership failure, on the

other. Since a vision is essential for organizational effectiveness and is used as a

major leadership tool, its articulation requires a sufficient degree of clarity.

 Organizational vision 4

Conceptualizing a vision: The vision as a dream

A vision has been conceived variously as “just a vague dream, and at other times …

as concrete as a written mission statement” (Yukl, 1994, p. 363), “a thing of

imagination” (Bell & Harrisonn 1995, p. 2), or as a “mental image” (Holmes, 1993, p.

16). These notions portray a somewhat unrealistic and intangible view of the concept.

Practically speaking, a vision, in organizational settings, is a concrete idea that

describes what needs to be achieved by the organization’s members and how this

should be done (Creemers, 1997). Therefore, a vision that mainly reflects “vague

dreams” or “thing(s) of imagination” may be detached from reality. Conger, Kanungo

and Associates (1989) discuss the notion of a discrepancy between the goal (the

vision) that the leader aspires for the organization to achieve and the status quo (the

circumstances): “The more idealized or utopian the future goal advocated by the

leader, the more discrepant it becomes in relation to the status quo” (p. 85). From their

point of view, the qualities of a vision are determined by the magnitude of the

discrepancy between the future goal and the present circumstances: the greater the

discrepancy, the greater the probability that the vision is exceptional and not ordinary.

Trethowan (1991) elaborates on the analogy of a vision as a dream. He argues

that only a vision that is an “informed dream” can be beneficial to an organization.

Such a vision takes into consideration what both the members of the organization and

its customers think and understand of it and the situation in which it is to be realized.

It is highly important that a vision be based on reality, and discussed and shared by

key people associated with the organization. Holmes (1993) agrees with the assertion

that a vision needs to be realistic, and that it should portray “a picture of a better

future but not of an unrealistic future” (p. 16). Therefore, a vision cannot be mystical

or mysterious. It must be expressed in simple terms that enable everyone related to the
 Organizational vision 5

organization to understand the challenges stated in it, and at the same time inspire the

members to achieve them.

Hence, we argue, formulating a vision is a very complex venture, especially if its

articulator, the organization’s leader, intends to improve the effectiveness of the

organization. For followers, a vision that is consistently or overly vague may be

diffic ult to follow since it lacks a well-defined direction. Thus, it is highly important

that a vision be articulated explicitly, and that it generates enthusiasm, or, in Yukl’s

words: “The genius of the leader is to articulate a vision simple enough to be

understood, appealing enough to evoke commitment, and credible enough to be

accepted as realistic and attainable” (1994, p. 364). This is a complex task since the

leader needs not only to have a well-defined idea of the final objectives and how to

reach them, but also the rhetorical and communicative skills to express them.

To achieve a vision that is a “mental image” of a desirable future position of an

organization, leaders need to describe it using identifiable metaphors and concepts

that unveil the direction for the future and articulate defined mission statements along

with the possibly vague ideas. Most important about the vision is the necessity that it

be realistic and credible, and that it projects a future attractive enough to convince the

followers to invest efforts in pursuing it, rather than simply continuing with the status

quo. This paper describes the qualities and the different types of vision and discusses

their implications for the performance of schools.

The qualities and components of a vision

Most scholars assert that a vision should contain the organization’s mission statement.

Rather than constituting a detailed blueprint for action, a mission statement is a

general picture that reflects the vision’s major themes and values (Yukl 1994, p. 362).
 Organizational vision 6

The mission statement should incorporate the philosophy and ideology of the

organization in such a way that it will direct the organization’s members toward

accomplishing the goals stated in it. Although artic ulated in general ideas and terms, it

should also provide the guidelines as to how the members can fulfill the vision and

accomplish the specific goals. The mission statement should be preceded and

introduced by a description of the vision, and followed by an agenda that states the

priorities in achieving the organization’s goals and the strategies to be used in

achieving them.

To enable organizational effectiveness, the vision should represent the

expectations and the interests of the followers as well as the leader. It has to create a

“sense of commonality” and reflect “a common caring” among all the organization

members (Terry, 1993, p. 158). To ensure that the articulated vision is a shared one,

the leader has to ascertain that the organization’s members are familiar with it and are

motivated to contribute toward the general good of the organization. When the leader

has ensured that the followers are well acquainted with it, the vision becomes a

common reference point. It may be used to increase the motivation and commitment

of the organization members toward achieving higher order goals.

Though a shared vision is meant to encompass everyone related to the

organization, the task of assembling it must remain in the hands of the leader and not

be delegated (Bennis & Nanus, 1985). The leader is looked up to to lead the

organization from present to future and it is his or her role to conceive and articulate

the requisite vision. An effective leader is one who is aware of the needs,

qualifications and expectations of the people involved, both within and outside of the

organization. Such a leader actually embodies the beliefs, philosophy, and goals that

are crucial to the organization’s survival and success.

 Organizational vision 7

The importance of these elements notwithstanding, muc h depends on the leader’s

orientation, motivation and analysis of the circumstances in which the organization

operates, and on the relative significance that the leader denotes to each of these

elements. Different leaders, who ascribe similar values to the organizational

circumstances, may articulate different visions because of disparate values or

perspectives. For example, some leaders may be motivated to articulate their vision in

a manipulative manner, assuming that an idealized goal may enthuse their followers

with “a sense of challenge and a motivating force for change” (Conger, Kanungo et

al., 1989). However, these leaders may misjudge or miscalculate their followers’

attributes or the nature of the organizational environment, or fail to be fully awar e of

their own personal motivations and drives. Whether they do this intentionally or due

to insufficient percipience, leaders who do not take into consideration these qualities

are more likely to articulate a vision that is out of reach and detached from reality.

Trethowan (1991) quotes the headmaster of a grammar school whose description

exemplifies the importance of formulating a vision that is dependent on a harmony

between the leader’s character and vision, and the expectations of both the followers

and the local community.

“You talk about vision. I came to this school with such a vision of a school
with the highest standards of conduct, academic attainment and sporting
achievement. I drew a staff around me who believed in that vision as much as I
did and within a few years we had made that dream a virtual reality. The
vision was communicated to the town through our performance. We were
respected, appreciated and understood by the whole community. When, in the
early ‘70s, they began to make us a comprehensive school I tried to create a
vision of the new school, but I couldn’t. It did not fit either with my beliefs or
with those of my longstanding colleagues. We went through the motions of
organization and rhetoric but what developed was a shadow of the f ormer
school. I gave it all I could for four years, but my retirement was a happy
release. My successor believed wholeheartedly in such schools and except for
a few departures convinced the staff of its value and purpose. To be quite fair,
I would say it is about as good a school recently as it was 20 years ago, but in
a very different way. I tell you this to support what you were saying about the
 Organizational vision 8

need for the head to have a mental image, an objectification, of the school
which is being developed.” (pp. 3-4)

This quote demonstrates not only the importance of formulating a vision, but also the

need for that vision to be realistic and in accord with the expectations, beliefs and

attributes of the followers and with the characteristics of the environment in which the

organization operates. Moreover, it is evident that the leader has to believe in the

vision and its feasibility in order to lead the organization toward accomplishing its

mission and goals. Hence, if it is to enhance the organization’s effectivenes s, a vision

needs to be tailored to the attributes of the followers, the environment and the leader.

Typology of visions

Most definitions of leadership assume that it can be defined as a social interaction in

which one person (the leader) influences the activities of other people (the followers)

within a given frame of circumstances (the organizational environment), toward

achieving a shared goal – the vision. Vision is at the heart of leadership, and since

leadership denotes the interaction between these components, we argue that a leader

who articulates a vision has to take them into account.

Each frame of circumstances, however, may comprise a different combination of

facets, or may have different variations of similar facets. Thus, the “qualities” of a

leader may refer to the strategy she or he adopts in making decisions (i.e., whether the

leader is a people-oriented or task-oriented person; Likert, 1961, 1967); to the leader’s

abilities (i.e., intelligence, knowledge relevant to the tasks to be performed,

competence, social skills), (Hoy & Miskel, 1991); to the leadership style (democratic,

authoritative or laissez-faire) (White & Lippit 1939); or whether the leader is a

transformational or a transactional type of a person (Burns, 1978; Bass, 1985). T he

 Organizational vision 9

vision articulated by the leader has to correspond to that leader’s qualities, style and

capabilities, for if it does not, it is in danger of failing to be materialized.

Second, the attributes of the followers must also be carefully assessed and taken

into consideration to ensure feasibility of the vision. Important are such aspects as

their level of psychological maturity (i.e., ability and willingness to confront obstacles

and complexities) and their job maturity (i.e., ability or competence to perform any

kind of professional activity demanded by the job) (Hersey and Blanchard, 1972), as

well as the qualities of their personalities, and their level of motivation (Hoy and

Miskel, 1991). Mature and experienced followers have acquired more technical skills

and cognitive abilities in coping with difficulties and challenges at work. In

comparison with less mature followers, they are better able to postpone gratification,

deal with long-term commitments, cope with multiple goals, and face abstract and

ambiguous missions more effectively.

The environment, the third crucial element that affects the essence of a vision,

can be viewed as either homogeneous or heterogeneous, and either stable or changing

(Thompson, 1967). (The latter is sometimes termed dynamic (Daft & Steers, 1986, p.

299), diverse (Bolman & Deal, 1991, p. 71) or turbulent (Emery & Trist, 1965)).

These characteristics highly affect the organization’s functioning, the ability to plan

ahead, and the feasibility of pursuing goals steadfastly. Scott (1981) argues that a high

level of heterogeneity leads to a high rate of change and increases the uncertainty that

is perceived by members of the organization with regard to its future. In either case, in

a heterogeneous environment, the leaders’ ability to define long-range mission

statements is constrained, and their perceived risk is greater. In addition, in contrast to

a stable environment, an unstable or turbulent one leaves less freedom for leaders to

articulate abstract missions because of the rapid changes that take place. Thus, leaders
 Organizational vision 10

operating in a turbulent environment need to define mission statements that delineate

exactly what is to be done, how and when. Because of its dynamic nature, a turbulent

environment encourages the formulation of a mission statement that is limited in

scope and is characterized by short-term goals rather than a broader mission statement

that is consisted of multiple, long-term goals.

Based on the followers’ attributes (low vs. high maturity) and the environment

(stable vs. changing), we conceptualize two “pure” and two “mixed” generic types of

visions (Table 1).

<Table 1 about here>

A pure type of a vision implies that there is sufficient congruity between the

characteristics of the situation (followers’ maturity and nature of environment) and

those of the vision in terms of time span, mission clarity, and the quality and the

number of goals defined. For example, leaders may allow themselves to articulate

multiple, long-term goals and use relatively abstract terms when their followers are

mature and when the environment is relatively stable. Although a stable environment

allows the articulation of multiple and relatively ambiguous long-term goals, when the

characteristics of the followers lack congruity with the traits of the environment, a

mixed situation emerges. Since any vision contains a number of factors that may

result in incongruity (time span, clarity, and number of goals), it is the responsibility

of the leader to take the discrepancies into account and to articulate a vision that is

both acceptable and conceivable.

The decision as to how to resolve a “mixed” vision will be affected by the

leader’s personality type, orientation and motivation, which individually and together,

affect the leader’s choice of how to resolve “mixed” situations. For example, the
 Organizational vision 11

leader’s characteristics may directly influence the formulation of organizational goals.

A people -oriented leader will probably first pay attention to the followers’ level of

maturity. Therefore, when the maturity level is low and the environment stable, such a

leader will prefer to articulate a limited number of short-term, operational goals. A

task-oriented leader, however, might behave differently in this same situation and,

positing that such a strategy will generate better consequences for the organization,

emphasize the stability of the environment, and thus choose to articulate multiple,

long-term goals.

The vision as a manipulative tool

Notwithstanding these constraints, visions are a powerful managerial tool. Leaders

may therefore use them, occasionally in manipulative ways, in order to achieve what

they consider to be better results and greater member involvement and dedication.

That is, leaders may be fully aware of their own characteristics, of the specific

attributes of their followers, and of the nature of the organizational environment and,

nonetheless, choose to articulate a vision that intentionally disregards some of these

characteristics. They may be tempted to do so under the assumption, or conviction,

that this strategy will best serve the organization’s purposes. This approach actually

exploits the discrepancy between the given circumstances and the vision as a strategy

to induce followers to apply themselves to achieve the organizational goals. This

raises the question of what happens when this type of manipulative strategy creates a

discrepancy between the vision and the reality.

Assuming that leaders are aware of and take into consideration their personal

motives for work and their leadership styles, there are still several choices that they
 Organizational vision 12

can make. These are based on the other two situational conditions, the followers’

attributes and the nature of the environment, as Table 2 indicates.

<Table 2 about here>

When articulating an organizational vision, a “detached” leader disregards the

two critical elements, followers and environment, that were found to be related to

effective leadership. Though rare, such situations need to be acknowledged. A leader

who ignores these elements may present a mission statement that is of little relevance

for the actual life of the organization. Consequently, the vision becomes an illusion: It

appears that the organization is functioning according to the plan delineated in the

vision’s mission statement, but that vision is actually detached from reality and

therefore, cannot serve as an effective compass for the members of the organization.

The greater the discrepancy between the outlined vision and reality, the greater the

illusion. A vision that has metamorphosed into an illusion ceases to function as a

realistic objective that drives the organization’s members to aspire toward achieving

the organization goals and mission. Rather, such an unrealistic vision constitutes a

stumbling block and is detrimental to the effective operation of the organization.

An “inward” oriented leader is one who is biased toward attending to the interests

of the followers. Such a leader puts much emphasis on maintaining good and close

relationships with operational staff and other people involved in the organization’s

activities when articulating a vision. In the case of schools, for example, the leaders

(the principals) put much emphasis on maintaining wholesome staff relationships and

tend to develop an amiable atmosphere among the students. However, such a principal

might face difficulties when defining the organizational mission statement if the
 Organizational vision 13

conditions of the environment do not correspond to the needs and the demands of the

teachers and other staff. Overlooking these conditions may produce a dysfunctional

vision that lacks its very raison d’être. In a school setting, this would mean, for

example, fulfilling the staff members’ demands at the expense of the students’ or

parents’ needs and expectations. Hence, a school may forgo or defer the opportunities

to incorporate new technologies and instruction methods because the principal is

overly attentive to the teachers who favor the known and familiar over the need to

acquire new technical know-how and teaching methods. A school that surrenders to

such teachers’ resistance and lags behind the changes of its environment may lose its

relevancy. In educational systems where parents have free choice regarding schooling,

schools that do not change and adopt to their environment may lose many of their

students, who opt for other, more dynamic, schools that are responsive to the demands

of its environment.

The “outward” oriented leader is concerned solely with the characteristics of the

environment and tends to put less emphasis on the followers. This type of leader is

concerned mainly with satisfying the environment rather than reacting to the intra-

organizational circumstances and demands. Returning to the school setting, a

principal who strives to implement new ideas and projects that were successful and

praiseworthy in other schools, but does so without taking into consideration the

limitations of the school staff, such as qualifications and motivation, may profess a

vision and a mission statement that are likely to fail in conveying the need for and

feasibility of substantial and significant changes in the school.

Finally, there is the “attentive” oriented leader who takes into consideration the

characteristics of both the followers and the environment. Such an orientation

increases the probability that the articulated vision will correspond to the needs,
 Organizational vision 14

attributes and expectations of the followers, and to the circumstances of the

organizational environment. A vision that incorporates these important conditions is

the optimal one, since it increases the possibility that the vision and its mission

statement will meet and provide the finest possible answer for the three elements of

leadership: the leader, the followers and the environment.

An organization whose leader misjudges or ignores any or all of the three

essentials of leadership may fail to effectively fulfill its mission. A leader’s inability

to observe and correctly analyze the motivation, needs and expectations of the

followers and to accurately map the characteristics of the environment within which

the organization operates may result in a poor, and misleading, understanding of the

situational conditions. Moreover, a leader may deliberately manipulate the

information regarding the followers and the environment in the belief that this will

yield more benefits than costs to the organization. Employing a strategy of this kind

may lead eventually to the very opposite of the desired results, namely —loss of

interest, loss of spirit and, ultimately, organizational under-performance. Whatever

the reason for incongruity between the articulated vision and the reality may be, the

contention of this paper is that too wide a discrepancy between the vision and the

organizational reality might yield a counter-productive mission statement for the

organization.

A vision as an illusion

When the articulated vision is detached from reality, it may become an illusion. A

detached vision allows the leader and the followers to feel confident that they are

moving in a clear and agreed-upon direction toward accomplishing the organization’s

mission. However, it may cause more harm than good to the organization by
 Organizational vision 15

misleading the leader and all the other members of the organization. It is our

perception that a vision that is articulated to fit an idealized image of a non-existent

entity may lose its potential to serve as a leading force to those associated with the

education mission: students, teachers, principals, parents and policy-makers in the

various community and state agencies. Specifica lly, school staff members may lose

their motivation and become indifferent to the missions stated in the vision that

provide the guidelines to materialize the school vision. The sooner the vision is

perceived to be illusory, the more urgent it becomes for the leader to modify or alter it

and to recreate it to correspond to the situational conditions. Consequently, a leader

needs to carefully examine the two situational conditions, (i.e., the followers and the

environment), to be aware of his or her type of personality (i.e., people -oriented or

task-oriented), and to reexamine the characteristics relevant to each condition. This

approach will enable the leader to assess the magnitude of the discrepancy between

the vision and the reality, and to evaluate the possible implications in terms of the

benefits and the risks the vision is likely to create. This notion of a highly discrepant

vision refines the argument presented by Conger, Kanungo et al. (1989), who claimed

that the greater the discrepancy between the future goals and the present

circumstances, the greater the likelihood that the leader will articulate an exceptional

vision regardless if it is reachable or not.

It is likely that each participant in the educational endeavor will conceive and put

different emphases on the various aspects of the organization, and that it is the

principal’s role, as the leader, “to get the vision conversation started, and to keep it

going” (Sergiovanni, 1996, p. 84). Obviously, conflicts of interest and tensions are

likely to surface during the leader’s attempts to accommodate all of the participants in

this conversation. A competent principal who has the capability to articulate a vision
 Organizational vision 16

that incorporates every sector’s concerns is someone who will most likely gain the

appreciation of members both within and outside of the organization. Without a vision

that faithfully represents all the parties involved in the educational process, a school

may fail to operate as a fully effective institution. And if without a vision “even a

stable, surviving school risks much” (Holmes, 1993, p. 20), how much more so a

dynamic school, which has become the prevalent type of learning institution in the

past few decades? Hence, the articulation and on-going refinement of a relevant and

agreed-upon vision is critical to the effective operation of the modern, dynamic

school. Leaders who intentionally articulate an illusionary vision need to be aware

that they are walking on thin ice.

 Organizational vision 17

References

Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations. New York:

Free Press.

Bell, J. and Harrison, B.T. (Eds.) (1995). V ision and Values in Managing Education.

Successful Leadership Principles and Practice. London: David Fulton.

Bennis, W. and Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge. New

York: Harper and Row.

Bolman, L.G. and Deal, T.E. (1991). Reframing Organizations. Artistry, Choice, an

Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Conger, J.A., Kanungo, R.B. and Associates. (1989). Charismatic Leadership. The

Elusive Factor in Organizational Effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Creemers, B.P.M. (1997). V ision that Work. Paper prepared for the American

Educational Research Assoc iation. Chicago.

Daft, R.L. and Steers, R.M. (1986). Organizations: A Micro/Macro Approach.

Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, and Co.

Emery, F.E. and Trist, E.L. (1965). The causal texture of organizational

environments. Human Relations, 18, 21-32.

Hersey, P. & Blanchard K.H. (1972). Management of Organizational Behavior. 2nd

edition, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Holmes, G. (1993). Essential School Leadership. Developing Vision and Purpose in

Management. London: Kogan Page.

Hoy, W.K. & Miskel, C. G. (1991). Educational Administration – Theory, Research,

Practice (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

 Organizational vision 18

Likert, R. (1961). New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Likert, R. (1967). The Human Organization: Its Management and Value. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Nanus, B. (1992). Visionary Leadership. Creating a Compelling Sense of Direction

for Your Organization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Peters, T.J. & Waterman, R.H. (1982). In Search of Excellence: Lessons from

America’s Best-Run Companies. New York: Harper & Row.

Pfeffer, J. & Salancik, Gerald R. (1978). The External Control of Organizations. New

York: Harper & Row.

Scott, R.W. (1981). Organizations. Rational, Natural, and Open Systems. New York:

Prentice-Hall.

Sergiovanni, T.J. (1996). Leadership for the Schoolhouse: How Is It Different? Why

Is It Important? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Sergiovanni, T.J. (1990). Value-Added Leadership: How to Get Extraordinary

Performance in Schools. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Janovich.

Terry, R.W. (1993). Authentic Leadership. Courage in Action. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Thompson, J.D. (1967). Organizations in Action. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Trethowan, D.M. (1991). Managing with Appraisal. Achieving Quality Schools

through Performance Management. London: Paul Chapman Pub.

White, R., & Lippit, R. (1960). Leader behavior and member reactions in three social

climates (1939). In D. Cartwright and A. Zander (Eds.), Group Dynamics , New

York: Haper and Row.

Yukl, G. (1994). Leadership in Organizations. 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice

Hall.
 Organizational vision 19

Table 1: Classification of visions based on situational conditions

Leader’s type of personality

People– oriented Task– oriented

Followers’ maturity

Low High Low High

Type Stable Mixed Pure Mixed Pure

Of
Environment
Unstable
Pure Mixed Pure Mixed
 Organizational vision 20

Table 2: Typology of leader’s orientations

Leader’s Followers’ Environment

Orientation characteristics

“Detached” - -

“Inward” + -

“Outward” - +

“Attentive” + +

The “+” sign implies that the condition is being considered.

The “-” sign implies that the condition is being neglected.

View publication stats