J - In case you were wondering, I am John and this is Kathy. K – We’re here to talk about shared vision.
J - Shared Vision as an organizational concept has been around for over 20 years … K – But what does it really mean? J – Do you know of an organization that has a strong/compelling ‘Shared Vision’ ? K – Apple?, J - Patagonia! Or how about Toms Shoes.. K –What word comes to your mind when you think of shared vision? J – Vital, K – That’s a good one but I bet some people think its UNNECCESSARY. J - Let’s examine a common understanding of shared vision…
J - Some of you may recall The 1970’s sitcom, Sanford & Son , which ran for 7 years on NBC. K - Comedian Redd Foxx played Fred Sanford and Demond Wilson played Fred’s son, Lamont. J - For you trivia fans in the audience, Redd Foxx’s real name was John Sanford . K – I did not know that, … J - The series revolved around a father and son working as co-owners of a small salvage business in South Central LA. K – Let’s see how the show depicted a very common understanding of shared vision.
Before clip- - Kathy - The first scene involves Fred’s reaction to a discussion he and Lamont are having with their accountant… The father expresses HIS vision, expecting his son AND their accountant to SHARE it. Watch his son’s body language. After clip– John - Based on what we saw in this scene, it appears that Lamont does NOT share his father’s vision. I’m sure some of you in the audience know of a family business that uses this type of shared vision. But in the interest of confidentiality, we won’t ask you to name them.
J – read heading: Shared Vision versus Ought Vision K - What you have just seen is an example of “ ought vision .” Read 1 st slide sentence. It is not a true Shared Vision but one where you are told what you “ought” to believe. J - “Ought vision” is a term used to describe a dysfunctional vision. K – because: read middle Paragraph in slide. J – read the last sentence on slide.
Before slide : K - Here is another scene where Fred attempts to build a shared vision, as Lamont contemplates taking a job outside the family business. J - Notice there are two different visions in this scene and watch how each reacts to the other’s vision. After slide: K - Lamont does not seem to buy into Fred’s vision- except when Fred offers to make him president - which makes Lamont feel like he would be able to realize his own vision. J – Again, Fred’s attempt to create a shared vision doesn’t work here. The differences in their visions are not even recognized, let alone reconciled.
Before slide : K – Just prior to this next scene, Lamont took a job outside Sanford and Sons, but it doesn’t pan out. Disillusioned with his poor employment prospects, he decides to remain with Sanford & Son. When we watch this scene, see how Lamont tries to express his vision for the business… After slide : John – As you saw, Lamont expresses his vision and expects his father to accept it. Kathy – The Ought Vision can go both ways. Fathers tell sons what visions should be shared and sons tell fathers what vision to share. And in this clip, Fred reveals a secret vision – not naming Lamont as President. That also happens in family businesses.
K – These scenes demonstrate the difficulty of creating a shared vision and the difference between ‘Shared Vision’ and a dysfunctional ought vision. J – read middle sentence. K – read last sentence J – Yes, but with all these complexities what is a family to do? K - Let’s see how to create a truly Shared Vision…
Kathy - Let’s change tracks for a minute and look at South Africa,,, immediately after the end of apartheid. John - Certainly a more complex and difficult situation from most family firms. Change is required on a grand scale - How does he go about it? Kathy – After spending 27 years in prison at the hands of the minority white Apartheid government in South Africa, Nelson Mandela was elected President in 1994. John - He chose to use their rugby team, known as the Springboks, as a tool for bringing the two antagonistic societies together.
John - Mandela creates a shared vision but IT IS VERY intentional. Here we will see a scene where Mandela walks into the National Sports society that is now dominated by South Africa’s new black majority. K - They have just voted unanimously to disband the Springboks, the team beloved by white Afrikaner society but symbolized oppression to black South Africans. As you watch the Invictus movie Clip notice in particular the metaphors, the positive tone, the choice of words… SHOW CLIP
AFTER CLIP K – we are going to borrow from Boyatzis’ Intentional Change Theory to analyze how Mandela creates a shared vision. J – Intentional Change Theory begins with creating a vision.
K- Mandela constructed a shared vision by first creating a core identity. J –” I know what they did to us .” “ We prevailed, did we not. All of us here, we prevailed”. K- Next, Mandela inspired hope J – “ The Afrikaner is our fellow South African, our partner in democracy”. K- Continuing his message of hope, Mandela referred to the implications of taking away the Springboks. J - “… we have to be better than that. We have to surprise them with Compassion, Restraint and Generosity”. K- Finally, Mandela creates an Image of a desired future – J -“This is not the time for petty revenge. This is the time to Build our Nation , using every brick available to us. Even if that brick comes wrapped in the green and gold of Springbok rugby. K – He uses these three elements to create Positive emotional attractors J – Positive Emotional Attractors???
K – reads first Paragraph J – reads last sentence. IF NEEDED: J-Recall that Jane Hilburt-Davis presented at last year’s FFI conference on new developments in neuroscience and its application to family firms.
Alternate reading beginning with John reading the Title
John reads first paragraph Kathy reads second
J-Kathy and I each conducted studies that tested the importance of shared vision to family businesses K-John will show how shared vision affects firm performance J- Kathy will show how shared vision predicts daughter succession
Purpose of this study was to expand on a previous qualitative study to identify non-financial indicators of family firm performance Key question: What Family Firm organizational traits or attributes drive/predict overall firm financial performance? This study supports Shared Vision as a key construct leading to better firm performance.
J – Shared Vision, as we have discussed earlier in this presentation, was one of the Qualitative Study Themes. The themes were revealed using a critical incident approach, where interview participants described times when their respective firms were ‘very successful’ and other times when they were ‘less successful’. J – In addition to Shared Vision, other revealed themes included personal development/learning, Trust, Growth orientation, confidence in abilities of fellow employees, etc. J – Interestingly, some ‘family’ dimensions did not appear to differentiate performance across firms. For example, “Family Harmony” was not associated only with higher performing firms. (seemed to be more prevelant among older firms versus younger firms though.)
From the findings of an earlier qualitative study, the quantitative study being presented sought to not only identify non-financial factors but to test whether some subset of non-financial factors might form a type of performance index which influences firm financial performance. This study emphasized non-financial metrics as attempt to broaden performance metrics for family firms. Purely financial measures of family firm performance are problematic due to … - unavailability of financial data - Reported financial results impacted by other factors: Tax minimization, other family goals – employment, compensation, etc.
J - The purpose of this slide is merely to illustrate the overall model structure used in this study. J – Could an index of non-financial organizational traits or measures constitute an index, which I termed “Effective Family Business Culture” which in turn drives overall firm performance? J – Financial performance DVs used in this study represented several measures (Overall growth, revenue increases and profitability) and from two different perspectives (historical and Competitive). In this way, an attempt toward a well rounded assessment of financial performance.
The data analysis approach used structural equation modeling or SEM. Specifically, the Partial Least Squares method. This approach was selected for several reasons – - SEM accommodates complex model relationships and multiple DVs. - PLS is useful for index construction and assessment of model predictive value.
The model Relationships indicated are statistically significant with the width of the lines indicating the statistical significance. The heaviest lines are significant at the .001 level and the thinnest line is significant at the 0.10 level. Findings of the study support the importance of a truly shared vision and its positive impact on firm performance. Working backwards from the right of the model, the financial performance DVs were positively impacted by the Index termed “effective Fam Bus Culture”. Not only was the relationship highly significant but also carried a strongly positive influence. There were 4 IV constructs which comprised the index – Shared Vision, Confidence in Mgt, Role Clarity and Networking/Learning. Shared Vision was significant at the .01 level and exhibited the strongest positive influence on the index. The confidence and network/learning constructs also had positive though lesser impact and a lower significance level. Finally, the highly significant Role Clarity construct had a strong but unexpectedly negative impact on the index. As the firms in the study were all family firms, the inclusion of the family functionality construct revealed highly significant and strongly positive impact on three of the four IVs. Family functionality did not exhibit a direct impact on the ‘Effective Culture Index’. Family Function – APGAR scale, Smilkstein scale, late 70s. Clinical tool to assess ‘functionality of family relationships’; 5 items. Shared Vision – Boyatzis scale, to be discussed, 8 items. Confidence in Mgt. – Mayer, Davis & Shoorman scale from the late 1990s. Role Clarity – Rizzo, House & Lirtzman scale (Role Clarity and Role Conflict, 1970) – 6 items. Networking/Learning – Networking behavior scale, Forret & Dougherty in 2001. Model controls – Firm age, size and industry.
Future research opportunities: Further development of non-financial indicators of family firm performance. Extend this research using multiple respondents per firm. Perhaps comparing family to non-family firms – what role might Shared Vision play for non-family firms?
Here is more quantitative evidence that shared vision is important to family businesses. I’d like to talk about Vision as a Crucial Mediator in Predicting Daughter Succession in Family Businesses. Collette Dumas Literature sparse Let me give an example that illustrates…
Model is based on results from our qualitative study where gender norms and self-efficacy emerged as important factors in the selection and self-selection of successors. 3 IVs impact on succession. VISION IS SUGGESTED AS A MEDIATOR BECAUSE ENCOMPASSES THE ASPIRATIONS OF BOTH FATHERS AND DAU. Gender O-perceptions of abilities and career options. S ucc. Eff. Daughters asked to rate selves. Father asked to rate daughters. Sexism-subtle and covert. Vision-desired goals for future of company.
We used SEM and PLS software to test our model. We hypothesized separately. For both models conducted our analysis both with and without mediator. PLEASE NOTE Gender orientation 2 components Examining first the daughters’ model, we found that when vision was introduced, all 4 relationships between IV and DV Not significant. However, vision fully mediated. Absorbed effects. And Vision had indirect effect relationship tween efficacy and succession.
Vision has Indirect Effect on SuccessorEfficacy and SEX. VISION IS NECESSARY BEFORE Successor Efficacy SIGNIFICANTLY INFLUENCES SUCCESSION. VISION HAS A TRANSFORMATIVE EFFECT ON THE IVS AND DV
John - There are a total of 8 items in the shared vision scale.
Shared Vision vs. “Ought” Vision <ul><li>Lamont “ought” to believe that Sanford & Son is the “greatest pile of junk in the world”… </li></ul><ul><li>When people in an organization or team adopt the vision of a boss or leader it often conflicts with their own ideal vision, creating discord or even dissension. </li></ul><ul><li>This inhibits change, particularly in family businesses. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Akrivou, Boyatzis, McLeod, 2006 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Boyatzis, Soler, 2011 </li></ul></ul>
Shared Vision in Family Firms… <ul><li>Generating a Shared Vision in any organization is complex but… </li></ul><ul><li>In Family Firms, close family ties and divided ownership may further complicate the realization of an organizational Shared Vision. </li></ul><ul><li>Actual or perceived status of family members may cause them to advocate their own “ought vision” to others in the Family Firm. </li></ul>
Shared Vision – in challenging circumstances <ul><li>Post Apartheid South Africa… </li></ul>
Creating a Shared Vision <ul><li>Springbok Rugby emblem & Green and Gold Colors </li></ul><ul><li>Video – National Sports Council votes to disband the Springboks… </li></ul><ul><li>Mandela addressing the need to keep the team as a symbol of a unified South Africa… </li></ul>
How does Mandela create a shared vision? Core Identity Hope Positive Emotional Attractors Image of a Desired Future
Positive Emotional Attractors & Shared Vision <ul><li>The term Positive Emotional Attractors (PEA) comes from neuroscience research. These emotional attractors pull people towards a shared vision by arousing the parasympathetic nervous system, which In turn, opens more neural circuits enabling learning and change (Boyatzsis, 2006). </li></ul><ul><li>Therefore, Positive Emotional Attractors are necessary for building a sustainable shared vision. </li></ul>
Key Elements of Sustainable Shared Vision <ul><li>Identity </li></ul><ul><li>Hope </li></ul><ul><li>Image of Desired Future </li></ul><ul><li>+ Believable (not Fred Sanford’s ‘greatest pile of junk…’) </li></ul><ul><li>+ Passion/Calling </li></ul><ul><li>The Litmus test for Shared Vision… </li></ul><ul><li>Is it inspiring? </li></ul><ul><li>Is it Memorable? </li></ul><ul><li>Is it a picture that provides clarity? </li></ul><ul><li>Is it tied to individual’s personal vision? </li></ul>
We Propose -- <ul><li>The creation and sustainability of a Shared Vision is a cognitive/emotional process. As a result, a deeply held Shared Vision within an organization is a powerful force. </li></ul><ul><li>When Shared Vision is conceptualized as a driver of intentional change (Boyatzis, 2006) it leads to firm financial performance and may predict succession in family firms. </li></ul>
Quantitative Evidence of the Value of Shared Vision in Family Businesses <ul><li>Firm Financial Performance – John Neff </li></ul><ul><li>Daughter Succession – Kathy Overbeke </li></ul>
Non-Financial Indicators of Firm Financial Performance in Family Firms <ul><li>John E. Neff, D.M. </li></ul><ul><li>Family Enterprise Consulting, LLC. </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul>
Shared Vision and Financial Performance <ul><li>Quantitative Research, based on findings of a qualitative study of ‘success’ indicators in family owned firms. </li></ul><ul><li>These Qualitative findings revealed several themes which seemed to differentiate ‘highly successful’ firms from ‘less successful’ firms. </li></ul>
<ul><li>Research Questions </li></ul><ul><li>what non-financial factors influence family firm financial performance? </li></ul><ul><li>Could a set of non-financial measures form an index of family firm performance? </li></ul><ul><li>Why non-financial measures? </li></ul>
Research Sample and Methods <ul><li>Study sample, 110 senior executives of private firms that self identified as ‘family owned’ and ‘family managed’ </li></ul><ul><li>Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) – PLS approach (SmartPLS) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>SEM - complex relationships and accommodates multiple DVs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>PLS useful for index construction and predictive assessment </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Controls for firm size, age and industry </li></ul>
For Research and Practice: <ul><li>Development of non-financial organizational metrics. </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>- Shared Vision’s impact on organizational performance. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>- Non-Financial Success measures of organization sustainability or effectiveness. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Shared Vision in Family Firms, further Research – </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>- Extend – using multiple stakeholders per firm. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>- Compare the role of Shared Vision between family and non-family firms. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Examine non-linear relationships. </li></ul>
Vision as a Crucial Mediator in Predicting Daughter Succession in Family Businesses in the United States <ul><li>Kathy Kessler Overbeke, D.M. </li></ul><ul><li>Generational Planning Strategies, Inc. </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul>
<ul><li>Research Question </li></ul><ul><li>Under what circumstances do daughters become successors? </li></ul><ul><li>How do the family and business influence one another? </li></ul><ul><li>Sample: 50 Father/Daughter Dyads </li></ul>
No No Ind Med --0.21 0.12 --0.04 0.11 0.49 0.39 0.07 0.32 0.12
Dir No Ind Ind --0.01 0.64 --0.26 --0.02 --0.15 0.46 0.13 0.23 0.04
Father-Daughter Conclusions <ul><li>Gender expectations and sexism may impede daughters’ construction of a vision for the future of the business. </li></ul><ul><li>Fathers with traditional views of women may find it difficult to imagine that their daughter may have a vision for the company. </li></ul><ul><li>When daughters believe they can lead the company and develop hopes and dreams for the company’s future, and fathers share the vision, succession is possible. </li></ul>
For Research and Practice: <ul><li>Reconceptualize Succession </li></ul><ul><li>Succession = Generation Integration </li></ul><ul><li>Predecessor = Alpha </li></ul><ul><li>Successor = Delta </li></ul>
Research and Practice: Shared Vision Scale <ul><li>Shared Vision Scale Item themes: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The future will be better than the past </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Inspirational nature of the vision </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Future possibilities discussed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The vision is the focus of work </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>For more details and information on this construct scale: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>please contact Richard Boyatzis: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul></ul>
Shared Vision in Family Firms <ul><li>Summary and Takeaways… </li></ul><ul><li>Shared Vision Impacts Succession and Performance. </li></ul><ul><li>Shared vs. Ought Vision. </li></ul><ul><li>Positive Emotional Attractors are key to building a truly Shared Vision. </li></ul><ul><li>Recently developed Shared Vision Scale is available for future research. </li></ul>
Research Findings Summary <ul><li>Family Firm Performance – Shared Vision is a key driver of family firm financial performance, broadly defined. Combined with other non-financial metrics, may predict firm performance. </li></ul><ul><li>Daughter Succession - Shared Vision is transformative. When daughters’ self-efficacy leads to hopes and dreams for the future of the business, and fathers recognized and share her vision, she becomes a successor. </li></ul>