Why do I place so much emphasis on vision? Why is a well-defined corporate strategy simply not enough? It's because my experiences have led me to this conclusion, sometimes in very obvious, no-question-about-it ways.
The detrimental effects of a lack of vision were never so clear to me as when I recently worked for Mike Corp. The company had been around for about two years, and was based around users providing reviews for other users in their area. The product hadn't changed dramatically for about a year before I came on, because the product was being re-engineered using a different technology (which they truly needed). The new technology being used would allow for more rapid development of new features, which everyone agreed was a good thing.
Unfortunately, the company had lost its vision. The website was not profitable, our user growth was not doing the "hockey stick thing" that most website companies are looking for. We developed and released a new feature that would encourage user participation, but actually had very little to do with the core product. We had trouble deciding how to integrate it with the rest of the system, and while its release did give a minor bump in user traffic, it was not very significant. We spent some time as a whole, attempting to brainstorm what we should do next.
During this time, we started running out of money. Our CEO was focused on raising a second round of financing to give us time to try to move towards profitability (or at least to become a more interesting acquisition target). Suddenly, one day, we were told our CEO had stepped down. Depending on who you talked to, the board of directors, made up of our existing investors, had asked him to step down -- others said he wasn't interested in continuing.
The three vice presidents became a de facto CEO, a three-headed beast in charge of the company. We embarked on a company-wide brainstorming session to figure out where we'd go from here, and our investors wanted them to put together a plan for the company, to be presented to them, before they'd decide to re-invest in the next round of funding. Without their reinvestment, it was all but inevitable that there'd be no second round, and the company's future would be very short.
As a result of the brainstorming going on, and seeing a plethora of ideas, I emailed the veeps to see if we had a mission statement, and if so, what was it? The result was uninspiring. I was told we did, but that nobody knew what it was. After some pushing, I got back something dug up from some very early board notes. The mission statement went something like, "Our mission is to be the best." It was utterly content-free.
As a result, there were troubles with the brainstorming. There was no vision communicated throughout the company -- there was no specific target we wanted to hit. We had some great ideas floating around, but no one could say if they were actually applicable to our product. Ultimately, the plan became to bolster user participation in our existing product by adding a contest element; the more you contribute, the more chances you have to win something. It was a great way to convince people contributing content was worthwhile. Of course, I also have to say that I proposed the idea on a Friday, and the vice presidents announced this course of action the next Monday as being a result of their "weekend long strategy sessions". And to answer your next question, no, I don't take kindly to people using the suggestions of others without crediting them.
During this company-wide discussion, I posed the question again -- how do this factor into our vision? I said specifically that all we have now is a project plan, but we've not set down any further refinement in strategy or vision for the company, and these are the things that the investors are going to look for before giving us more money. I was told that this was, in fact, what the board of directors had asked for, and I should "trust them".
Monday, the veeps were in talks with the investors. Tuesday morning, we gathered the company (which had by now already gone through a significant round of layoffs to try to stretch our remaining capital) and were presented with the results of the meeting.
"Our board has decided not to reinvest in a second round," we were told. "They said our proposal lacked a clear strategy and vision." The vice president relating this information looked me straight in the eye when he said this; his only acknowledgment that my worries were well founded. It was extremely difficult to stand there and not smirk. On the one hand, my instincts were dead-on, my feelings about how the company should have been run were completely vindicated. On the other hand, I knew the company was in a significant death spiral.
Less than a week later, a second round of layoffs were made, and I was one of the victims. The company was reduced from 17 people to 10. All product plans were scrapped in favor of overloading the site with advertising, hoping to improve the bottom line enough to sell it off to someone. It was acquired about six months later, with the investors only barely making back their initial investments, three years after the company was started.