CEO of Air New Zealand, Rob Fyfe, is not a fan of vision, mission and values. Welcome to the club!
In the April edition of North and South magazine, Rob Fyfe, the CEO of Air New Zealand, is interviewed. Towards the end of the portrait of a man highly regarded by his peers who certainly has an excellent track record to date, he comments on vision and values.
"One of the first things I did as CEO was outlaw things like ‘mission’ and ‘vision’ and ‘values,’ because I don’t see those concepts as really connecting with people at the front line. A vision is a personal thing; you can’t have it imposed on you, or articulated to you by someone else." Hear hear.
The interview goes on to say that instead, Fyfe asked a single question: "Who are we?"
I’m loving this. Let’s not get caught up in abstractions like vision and values and the associated semantics. Instead, let’s notice and reflect on what’s going on around us right now ("Who are we?").
I too am not a big fan of vision, mission and values and stopped using them in our work and organization some time ago. However I do not so much like the question “Who are we?” either in that it tends to objectify identity into a ‘thing’ that can be found and that is a static entity. I prefer the question, “What are we becoming?” as it keeps identity as an emergent process and for me fits Mead’s concept of gesture/response and the meaning (identity) that emerges from interaction. Nice to have a CEO challenging the so often unassailable concepts of vision mission and values though!
Comment by Tom Gibbons — July 22, 2009 @ 11:46 am
Tom you are pointing out that identity (who we are) can be seen as a static thing. Hence your preference for the “who are we becoming?” question. However, identity is not necessarily static, and in fact I don’t see it that way at all. That’s why I love Rob Fyfe’s question so much. “Who are we?” invites a story of who we are, and this story will always change, even if only in minute ways, every time it is told. And so the we-identities of those involved in the conversations about who we are will be constantly shifting. I don’t know if that’s what’s in Rob Fyfe’s mind when he asks this question, but nevertheless I think it is very elegant.
Just a point about Mead’s idea about meaning and identity emerging, the question that is asked does not stop, prevent or otherwise counteract meaning and identity emerging from each gesture / response conversation. It doesn’t matter what the conversation is, what questions are asked, meaning will still be generated from the gesture and response taken together. So having a less elegant question will not stop meaning from emerging – a different question and/or different response will lead to different meaning emerging, but nevertheless the process will continue.
Comment by Stephen — July 24, 2009 @ 12:46 am