Ciberataques sociales

Vision is a central concept in all leadership theories which are in any way connected to CHARISMATIC orTRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP. It will not be possible in this short excursus to cover this topic adequately. The purpose of this section is merely to highlight some of the ethical challenges related to the concept of vision.

Vision has to do with imagining, with creating pictures in the minds of leader and follower, “images that excite people” (Zaleznik 1977:72). As to the content of this vision, leadership scholars have differing ideas. Conger and Kanungo, as explained previously, see the need for the vision to be radically different from the status quo (Conger & Kanungo 1989a:82), and the more the vision would divert from the status quo the better the chances for creating excitement among followers. Others, like Heifetz (2000:24), feel that to make it more than a dream, “a vision must track the contours of reality”. These differing definitions can partly be explained by their proponents’ stress on the different effects of visions. Boal and Hooijberg (2000:527) explain that visions have cognitive and affective components, with the cognitive component addressing the practical question of reaching a goal, and the affective component impacting the values of the follower and thus producing motivation and commitment. This last point is taken up by Hybels, who in the field of Christian leadership considers vision “the fuel that leaders run on, [...] the energy that creates action” (Hybels 2002:31). For him true leadership within a Christian context is not possible without a clear vision of the future, since vision is what motivates people into action.¹⁴⁶

146 Kessler describes how the concept of vision took root within Christian leadership parallel to the developments in secular management literature: Even though in Biblical accounts “vision” always had to do with divine revelation, on the basis of a mistranslation of Proverbs 29:18 in the King James Version (“Where there is no vision, the people perish”—the Hebrew original talks about prophetic revelation in

Parallel to the differing content of the vision, the process of how a leader develops the vision is described: either as the leader conceiving of a radically new idea (as Conger would suggest) and convincing others to follow this idea, or as the leader collecting ideas in communication with the followers and incorporating them into a new vision. A good leader in this case notices opportunities that present themselves in the interaction with followers. This process would be one in which Kiechel (1995:125) could see a reconciliation of the servant leader and the visionary leader: The servant leader as one who listens to others with the desire to help them live their vision will let his/her own vision be challenged and revised by the contributions of followers.¹⁴⁷ But apart from using opportunities, a leader will create opportunities useful for developing the vision (Sashkin 1989:127).

What a vision is¹⁴⁸ seems easier to describe than how the vision actually works to achieve this.¹⁴⁹ Beyer, consistent with her approach, is convinced that for a vision to be attractive, there has to be a crisis situation; Boal and Bryson (1988:16ff), while by no means negating the role of crisis, yet do not limit the effect of vision to crisis situations. Rather, they feel that by addressing inherent values of the followers a vision is not dependent on a crisis situation to be attractive. The glimpse of a possible future, which a vision offers, helps people overcome the biggest hindrance to success: their own unbelief and hesitation (Tichy & Devanna 1986:142). Generally, there is consensus that the development of a vision is just the first step, effective communication of the vision is as important: “Charisma is a consequence of effective behavior expressed by leaders to communicate their visions” (Sashkin 1989:142).

The result of such visionary leadership is a “transformational process that characterizes continuous improvement” (Kroeck 1994:178). In the case of the Wycliffe Global Alliance, the momentum which a sharpened vision can create could be observed in the impact “Vision 2025” had on the organisation: It instigated deep structural changes and influenced the value system of a whole organisation (see section 1.5.2).

this instance) Christian leaders increasingly started to reconstruct the concept of vision for use in Christian leadership (Kessler 2013:4–7).

147 Kim et al. would not share this opinion. They defined CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP along three behavioural dimensions: vision-related behaviour, personal behaviour, and empowering behaviour. In a next step they compared current leadership models against their definition of CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP. What distinguishes a servant leader from a charismatic leader is, in their estimation, the lack of vision-related behaviour (Kim, Dansereau & Kim 2002:147, 150ff).

148 For example, “a picture of the future that produces passion” (Hybels 2002:32); “a deep dissatisfaction with current reality and a clear picture of what could be” (Stott 1988:133); a way to “travel ahead of [people] in your mind’s eye and see their future before they do” (Maxwell 1997:131).

149 One does find poetic explanations of how a vision works, for example: “Vision is like a magnifying glass which creates focus, a bridge which takes us from the present to the future, a target that beckons” (Ford 1991:100), or comparing the vision to the spark that “puts the match to the fuel that most people carry around in their hearts and yearn to have ignited” (Hybels 2002:46). However, the focus here is actual investigation of the processes through which these poetic descriptions can happen.

A vision is a powerful instrument in the hands of a leader, even though it is not a panacea (Bryman 1993:150). Far more often than the rosy picture in the literature would suggest, inappropriate visions which were nevertheless fervently, if not obsessively, pursued contrib-uted to organisational disaster; the reason being that “a preoccupation with a vision may engender a loss of grip on other aspects of organizational reality” (:152). But it is not just organisational failure which is at stake, but equally ethical failure. Considering ethical aspects relating to vision, two points shall guide the discussion:

Content of the vision. According to Blanchard et al., “a clear vision has four aspects:

purpose, values, image, and goals” (Blanchard, Hybels & Hodges 2001:122). Each of these aspects is deeply intertwined with ethical questions. So it is really surprising that in the literature there is so little reference to ethical aspects of vision building. There are numerous discussions on how to build a vision, and there is the demand to not just dream up a vision, but rather give it careful consideration, to reflect not only on personal strengths and weak-nesses, but also on the whole system (Mumford & Strange 2002:138),¹⁵⁰ to make sure that the vision is “in tune with the times” (Bryman 1993:150). The underlying assumption in all of this is: A vision needs to be successful! A true statement. However, the difficulty of defining what this “whole system” constitutes, and the danger of organisations to ignore their responsibil-ity in the wider system (as introduced in section 2.3.5 in Figure 5) has been mentioned. If one tacitly accepts the success of the organisation as the unchallengeable goal, one is in great danger of compromising one’s integrity by sharing in this inadequate perception of ethical responsibility. In contrast to this, a Christian leader is called in the midst of considerations for the success of the organisation, to not lose sight of God’s concern for the disadvantaged and marginalised and question the validity of an organisational vision against God’s value system. Keeping these aspects in mind will help the leader to avoid the trap Neuberger mentioned of a one-sided portrayal of the vision, only mentioning positive results without consideration for the side effects.

Use of the vision. Visioning is about “instilling new principles” (Bryman 2004:149)—again one has entered clearly the area of ethics. The question of how a leader employs the vision is determined by the menschenbild of the leader, by his/her character and, following from these, by the intention s/he has in interacting with the followers. Avolio mentions an industrial president’s remark that “the leader creates a vision that gives meaning to the employee’s job”

150 The person of the leader versus the system is important for Strange and Mumford (2002), in that they make a distinction between ideological leaders who are concerned with their personal goals, and charismatic leaders who use a vision for social good and the good of the system. They start with Howell’s socialised and personalised charismatic leaders, but then propose that each of these can appear in an ideological, charismatic, or mixed form.

(Avolio 1994:131). At the same time the charismatic leadership situation simplifies the process by which the individual becomes part of a collectivity (Shamir 1991b:93). These two aspects together carry a great risk to foster manipulative interactions and ongoing depend-encies,¹⁵¹ instead of helping people develop as mature characters. Furthermore, if a leader communicates with the followers concerning the development of the vision, s/he needs to ask him/herself, with what intention this communication takes place. Is it really to get input and feedback, or is this “communication” a pleasant way to make sure that people accept what the leader has decided anyway? Analogous to Ciulla’s bogus empowerment this could be denominated “bogus communication”—and would be just as degrading and disregarding of the dignity of human beings. A leader can choose whether s/he wants to include the followers in the process of developing the vision or not. But if they are included, an ethical leader will make sure it is out of respect for the followers and not for hidden self-serving motives.

This discussion does not in any way try to imply that visionary leaders have bad inten-tions. What it tries to stress, however, is the need to define ethical aspects and be aware of pitfalls. Scandals during the last years have shown that ethical aspects should not be taken for granted. They need to be brought into the discussion to make sure that leaders in general, and Christian leaders in particular, do not—even unwittingly—slide into a situation where they compromise their ethical convictions and character.