Vision Statement Generator

Where the modern vision statement comes from

Most advice on vision statements traces back to one article: "Building Your Company's Vision" by Jim Collins and Jerry Porras, in the Harvard Business Review in 1996¹. It grew out of the research for their book Built to Last. Their point was that lasting companies keep a fixed core while their strategies and practices keep changing¹.

In their model, a vision has two parts:

• Core ideology, which does not change: the organization's core values and its core purpose, the reason it exists beyond making money¹.
• Envisioned future, which is what most people mean by "vision": a BHAG (a Big Hairy Audacious Goal) set 10 to 30 years out, plus a vivid description of what reaching it would look and feel like¹².

Two things in the original are often lost. First, Collins's own workbook for the method says plainly that it is "not a wordsmithing exercise"². The goal comes first, and the sentence is just one way to say it. Second, the vivid description is a test in itself. If it "does not create a clear picture in your mind's eye," the workbook says, "then it is not vivid enough"². A single polished line that no one can picture fails that test.

Why concrete images beat abstract words

There is research behind the advice to be vivid. J. Robert Baum, Edwin Locke and Shelley Kirkpatrick followed 183 pairs of founder-CEOs and employees in one industry over time. They reported in the Journal of Applied Psychology in 1998 that the qualities and content of a leader's vision were linked to later venture growth, both directly and through how the vision was communicated in speech and writing³.

Andrew Carton, Chad Murphy and Jonathan Clark went further in the Academy of Management Journal in 2014. They studied 151 hospitals and ran an experiment with 62 groups of full-time employees⁴. Visions full of image-based words helped people form the same picture of the goal, which helped them coordinate and perform. Image-based words are ones you could see: "children" rather than "customers," "smile" rather than "enjoy"⁴.

Two findings from that paper are worth remembering:

• Most visions have almost no images. The hospital statements averaged about sixteen abstract words for every image-based one. In a sample of 30 Fortune 500 companies, only 3 described anything a person could observe⁴.
• Too many values blur the picture. The benefit of imagery held only when leaders stated four or fewer values. The hospitals averaged 4.9⁴. Keep the values list short, and keep it separate from the vision.

An abstract vision and a concrete one

The business below is invented for illustration: a regional home plumbing and heating company.

The concrete version names people you can see ("families," "a plumber") and an outcome you can check ("hot water by noon"). Ask each person on the team to describe what the statement looks like when it comes true. If the answers match, the picture is doing its job.

Vision vs mission

There is no single agreed definition of either word, and authors use them differently. Collins and Porras do not split things into "vision" and "mission" at all. Their lasting core is purpose and values, and they describe a BHAG as going on a mission². A split that works for most teams:

Write the mission first if you are unsure what you do today. The mission statement generator drafts one, and the core values generator covers the values half of the core.

Common mistakes, and where a vision struggles

• Describing the company, not the world. "Be the number one provider" is about you. A vision describes what changes for the people you serve.
• Stacking values into the vision. "Built on integrity, innovation and teamwork" adds abstract words and, by the Carton study, blurs the picture⁴.
• Putting hopes into the core. Collins warns against listing a trait you want, such as innovation, as a core value. It belongs in the envisioned future instead².
• Treating it as a slogan. A line that could hang in any lobby gives no one a reason to act differently on Monday.

Keep the evidence in proportion. Built to Last studied successful companies and looked back at what they shared. Phil Rosenzweig argued in California Management Review in 2007 that this kind of study can mistake the glow of success for its cause⁵. The studies above link vivid visions to growth and performance. They do not show that a vision alone produces results.

A vision also does not say where to compete, what to do this year, or how you will know you are on track. Those need a plan.

Connecting the vision to a plan

A vision set 10 to 30 years out only matters if this year's work moves toward it. Work backward in steps:

• Pick a long-range goal. Name the one result that would prove the vision is coming true. Scaling Up ties its BHAG to a single number.
• Set a three-year picture. What must be true in three years to be on the way?
• Choose this year's few priorities, each with an owner and a measure.
• Check it every quarter. If no current priority moves toward the vision, either the plan or the vision is wrong.

Several planning methods start from a vision and carry it down to goals and measures. V2MOM puts the vision first and adds values, methods, obstacles and measures. Hoshin Kanri turns a long-range vision into yearly breakthrough goals. See the framework comparison to choose one that fits your team.