Steward Leaders: How does your organization fascinate others?

Posted by Matthew Thomas

Subscribe to  Sustainable Vision

matthew-thomas-2I recently took an assessment through Sally Hogshead's How to Fascinate. Unlike other personality assessments, which look at how I see myself, How to Fascinate emphasizes how others see me. 

Turning the tables like this certainly showed me a lot about myself!

Fascination is based in how you add value to those who listen to you. 

So I got to thinking - how might this apply to organizations. 

Here's my first thought:

How others see our organization is often different than how we see it. 

Like what you're reading? Subscribe Now! Many times, when we go through a vision-mission-values assessment, gather ourselves together, and prepare to move forward in a new, updated, revised, or entirely different direction, we have done all of that work internally. Often, we have a different perception of ourselves than others do for our organization. 

(Related: 6 Reasons why Changing your Mission Statement Didn't Work)

Steward leaders know that reputation and others' perception are valuable resources not to be squandered. As leaders, we can design feedback systems that allow for honest reflection of others on their first impressions of us. This can help us do our work with excellence and provide innovative ways of doing our work to reach our target audiences. 

How does your organization add value? How does it fascinate and engage others?

Tao of action-reflection, primer on process

Read More ›

Topics: vision statement, steward leadership, Vision and mission, organizational strategy

Steward Leadership: Brand, Identity, and Agility

Posted by Matthew Thomas

matthew-thomas-2Over time, an organization's brand can become damaged. This can happen for a variety of reasons. In the mission-driven world (and especially in the Christian denomination and religious organization sphere) brand and identity are very closely intertwined.


In many of these groups, identity and brand have been used to identify a historical tradition, a longstanding relationship or association between entities, a particular theology or philosophy, and a particular set of services provided to others. The brand identifies in-group / out-group as well as history, tradition, and mode of doing business at the same time.


Add to this difficulty, then, when the damaged brand is part of a damaged brand class - not just our restaurant, and its other franchisees, but all of "fast food" altogether, for instance. This makes transformation all the more difficult. The same could be true of a church identified with a particular Christian denomination in its name and core identity, where not only that denomination, but denominationalism in general, has experienced some level of brand damage.


In these cases, identity is so intertwined with the brand that many organizations cannot break in to emerging demographics where the brand does not have any power. The fear is (and justified, to an extent, by historical experience) that a change of brand would cause a loss of identity, which would cause a shift away from core mission and purpose to something that the enterprise cannot or should not do or be. In many cases, the emerging demographics now outnumber the existing demographics, and the brand-loyal demographic is shrinking. Moreover, in many of these same cases, the capacity of the brand to deliver services is decreasing. What can be done?


The trick is in many of these cases for steward leaders to use identity differently to re-brand to reach emerging demographics without losing core essence. When identity has formed around history, tradition, (historical) relationship, core theology/philosophy, or business mode, loyalty outside of established relationships will be difficult, if not impossible. This is especially true when the existing demographic is shrinking. Instead, clearly defining the core identity from the perspective of vision, direction, and values, and defining the enterprise by what it will be and become rather than what it has been, or how it contrasts with others, will propel the enterprise forward and help it develop new branding and connect with new demographics. (Note that this may, or may not, require a name change, depending on the level of brand damage. However, just changing the name without doing the vision work probably won't do much.)


In essence, this shift is about shifting from using identity as boundary setting to using identity as a platform. When we use identity to set boundaries, we often identify ourselves in contrast to others, and spend much of our time ruling on who (or what) is in and who (or what) is out. When we use identity as a platform, we use who we are (and have clearly defined and developed deeply) to launch into new space (whether blue ocean or a competitive space). Once identity, based in vision and forward direction, becomes a platform from which to operate, the enterprise can become significantly more agile in responding to new challenges. In this case, this shift in the use of identity can help the enterprise gain both organizational flexibility and strategic responsiveness - in this case, often gaining responsiveness by gaining flexibility.


In the end, steward leadership of brand and identity doesn't require forgetting or losing history, tradition, (historical) relationship, core theology/philosophy, or business mode, but there will be a different emphasis with them, and they will be used differently. Every brand has a story - every brand IS a story. Shifting from a historical story to a visionary story, and using the story as a platform rather than as boundary-setting allows for the story to reach new people. And for any enterprise to exist long term, it must have a constant pipeline of new people connecting to the story. What story are you telling? What do you need to tell?


Wheel or Spiral? Which is your organization?

Read More ›

Topics: vision statement, Identity-Vision-Core Values, Matthew Thomas, steward leadership, Mission and vision, Vision and mission, antifragility, agility

Steward Leaders: 6 Reasons changing your mission statement didn't work

Posted by Matthew Thomas

Subscribe to  Sustainable Vision

matthew-thomas-2When they get stuck, many organizations and their leaders try to get things moving again by refreshing, re-examining, or otherwise transforming their mission, vision, and values statements (or at least one or more of the three). While this often works, other times the organization ends up just as stuck as it was in the first place. Here are a few common reasons we see as to why:


  1. Recycling: it's really the same statement we had before, but in new or different words.Like what you're reading? Subscribe Now!
  2. Alignment: it was an alignment problem in the first place. That means it's probably still an alignment problem now.
  3. No filter: it pulled everyone's ideas together, but didn't do the (often conflicted) work of narrowing it down and honing it. So it's too broad, too detailed, too long, too unfocused, etc.
  4. SixReasonsMissionStatementDidntworkIvory tower: it's what a core group wants the organization to be, but it's rather disconnected from reality.
  5. Internal-external perception disconnect: it is unlikely that an environmental scan has taken place outside of the core group working on the mission/vision/values, so only the insider perspective is at the table. A good scan picks up on social, technological, economic, environmental, and political (STEEP) trends and applies them to any strategy that develops. This can alert steward leaders to how others perceive them, or how others are treated by them. It could also be as basic as a business model that doesn't fit well with the target audience.
  6. Blame-shifting: the blame for why things are stuck is always someone else, not our fault. This contrasts with the reality, which is that good steward leadership takes responsibility to invite others to care, rather than blame them for not seeing our own relevance. (For more on blame-shifting, see our previous article, Organizational Transformation: Survive or Thrive).

Steward leaders can deal with these six areas by identifying which ones are in play. Each area may require a different approach for resolution, so being clear on what is happening is essential.



Here's a free resource we would like to offer you and your organization in the area of strategic development. Click the button below for more information.

Wheel or Spiral? Which is your organization?

Follow, Like and Connect!

Read More ›

Topics: vision statement, Identity-Vision-Core Values, steward leadership, Vision and mission

Organizational Transformation: Survival and Vision

Posted by Matthew Thomas

One of the most marked signs of an organization in survival mode, long before its balance sheet shortens and its deficits turn the black ink first to pink and then to deeper and deeper shades of red, is how the organization views vision. Some might say that an organization in survival mode doesn’t have a vision. One could also argue that the survival-mode organization doesn’t have a sustainable or effective vision.

Survival KitLack of effective or sustainable vision can hide in plain sight. An organization can have a vision statement (at least so-called) that is either completely disconnected from practice or reflective of such a severe and significant inward-orientation and focus that it primarily gives direction and perspective on how deeply the organization can reinforce the status quo or have high-level conversations about the lint that is gathering in the organization’s navel. Or it can be so overused (or even old) that its impact is minimal and its capacity for direction-shaping drastically diminished.

Organizations live and die by vision – but not necessarily by a vision statement. If an organization has a vision statement, but practices one or more of a variety of competing directions and purposes, then the vision statement is not worth all the wordsmithing in the world. The other visions are driving the organization.  Are they sustainable? Will they build life?  Do they reach far enough beyond the present circumstance? Or are they merely avoiding death, tough decisions, reinforcing the present malaise, or spreading blame?


Read More ›

Topics: vision statement, Matthew Thomas, Organizational Leadership, strategic planning, Design Group International