As a leader, you recognize the importance of inspiring your team with a compelling vision. Yet, you may find that your company’s vision statement, despite its lofty aspirations, fails to inspire meaningful change. How can you craft and communicate a future that genuinely motivates your team to take action?

The Challenge of an Inherited Vision Statement

Imagine you’re a newly promoted CEO. Among the many responsibilities you’ve inherited is a vision statement. While it might look passable on paper, it has yet to inspire you, let alone your team, to embrace new behaviors or think differently.

It’s not that you lack vision yourself—after all, your success is built on envisioning possibilities and pursuing them. But translating that personal energy into an organizational vision that resonates with others is a different challenge altogether. Should you simply rewrite the vision statement, or is there a better way to achieve meaningful impact?

Here’s a fresh approach to this age-old leadership dilemma.

Understanding How Vision Truly Works

A powerful vision fundamentally transforms how we experience the present. Think about the difference between a Friday afternoon in the office and a Sunday afternoon. The former often feels better—not because of the immediate circumstances but because of our anticipation of the weekend. This sense of future anticipation changes how we perceive the present moment.

That’s the kind of shift you want to inspire in your stakeholders. You want them to feel energized by the future you’re describing, just as you are. The hallmark of success is when individuals take initiative, make sacrifices, and go beyond their job descriptions—not because they’re told to, but because they’re inspired to.

But here’s the hard truth: a traditional vision statement alone cannot deliver this kind of transformative impact.

Rethinking Vision: Introducing the Three Levels

Most organizations begin with what can be termed a “Level 1 Vision”: a concise, polished statement, often a few sentences or paragraphs, that attempts to summarize the future. However, these statements are frequently vague, generic, and uninspiring. They might sound nice but leave people either indifferent or skeptical. Some may even feel the statement describes what the organization has already achieved, rendering it irrelevant.

A better approach is to think of the Level 1 Vision as just the “headline” of a more detailed vision framework. Here’s how to expand it.

Building a Level 2 Vision

To create a meaningful vision at this level, gather your leadership team for an offsite retreat and focus on a specific long-term horizon—typically 15 to 30 years in the future. Work together to describe a vivid picture of what success looks like at that time. This Level 2 Vision goes beyond a brief statement; it provides several pages of detail, potentially including visuals, videos, or other media to bring the future to life.

The key here is collaboration. By involving your leadership team, you not only create a shared sense of ownership but also tap into a wider pool of creativity and ambition. A well-crafted Level 2 Vision should reflect the aspirations of your entire C-suite, energizing everyone involved.

However, many organizations stop at this stage. While the Level 2 Vision is more compelling than a simple statement, it often becomes an overwhelming list of aspirations. Without prioritization (and reduction), it risks becoming unrealistic, leading to cynicism rather than inspiration. Some employees may even dismiss it as “the CEO’s wish list.”

To avoid this pitfall, you must take the next step.

Evolving to a Level 3 Vision

The “Level 3 Vision” transforms lofty aspirations into a credible, actionable plan. This involves narrowing down the vision to a focused set of achievable targets supported by a strategic roadmap.

This process requires tough conversations. Your leadership team will need to negotiate priorities, confront trade-offs, and align on a clear path forward. Engaging a skilled facilitator can help ensure these discussions are productive and lead to consensus.

The outcome is a vision that stands apart from your competitors. A Level 3 Vision includes:

– Specific, measurable results: Clearly defined goals with tangible metrics.

– Milestones: Key achievements along the journey to the ultimate vision.

– A strategic pathway: A roadmap showing how to get from the present to the desired future.

– Team alignment: Full buy-in from your leadership team, ensuring commitment to execution.

With this, your vision evolves from an abstract dream into a realistic plan that inspires action.

Communicating Across the Three Levels

Once your Level 3 Vision is established, it’s crucial to communicate it effectively. Each level of vision—Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3—has a role to play depending on your audience and context.

For example, a Level 1 Vision offers a concise, memorable summary. Think of Vision 2030 Jamaica’s tagline: “…the place of choice to live, work, raise families and do business.” It’s short, evocative, and easy to recall.

A Level 2 Vision, on the other hand, provides more depth. Vision 2030 Jamaica expands on its tagline with four National Goals and 15 Outcomes, offering stakeholders a richer understanding of the country’s aspirations.

Finally, a Level 3 Vision delivers the detailed roadmap necessary to ensure credibility and guide execution.

By mastering these three levels, you can tailor your communication to inspire stakeholders while maintaining clarity and focus. Avoid the mistake of using the wrong level for the audience or situation, which can lead to confusion or disengagement.

Conclusion

Transforming vision statements into actionable, inspiring frameworks requires more than polished language. By embracing a three-level approach, you can align your team, inspire stakeholders, and chart a credible path to the future. Choose the right level of vision for the right moment, and you’ll not only communicate your aspirations—you’ll make them a reality.

Imagine you’ve joined a board, only to discover it’s deeply mediocre. This is your third meeting, and it’s becoming clear that the issues you sensed in the first two weren’t incidental—they’re ongoing. How do you address this underperformance?

Luckily, you aren’t the only one who’s noticed. Some members recognize that long-standing issues have held the board back for years, and while they’ve tried initiating change, nothing has stuck. These are complex, systemic challenges that won’t be resolved by casual discussions, pep talks, or a thoughtful email. Swift, strategic action is needed. But how?

I recently encountered insights from consultant A. Cecile Watson that shed light on why boards need their own strategic approach. Her perspective inspires these key reasons for why your board must implement a self-care plan.

Why Boards Should Prioritize Self-Examination

Boards are often envisioned as serving the organization’s needs. If all members align with this vision, things should function smoothly. Small differences can be ironed out, much like in the “Form-Storm-Norm-Perform” teamwork model, which illustrates the stages groups move through to achieve high performance.

However, boards today face a high-pressure environment, dealing with complex VUCA (Volatile, Uncertain, Complex, and Ambiguous) issues from the outset. While they might receive briefings, individual and group development often gets overlooked in the rush to deliver.

This traditional expectation—that boards serve swiftly, even if under-informed—faces scrutiny in Watson’s latest article. She argues that boards must practice self-reflection and strategy if they’re to excel. Smart people on a board don’t guarantee a high group IQ or EQ; in fact, group performance can suffer if proactive measures aren’t in place.

What does your board need? A new level of self-care. Watson suggests that boards operate as a kind of strategic unit, managing their performance preemptively. Failing to do so only perpetuates mediocrity.

The Case for Board Self-Strategy

Typically, boards focus on “strategic planning” for their organization’s future. Watson’s approach takes this one step further: boards must also strategize for themselves. As a unit, they need the space to address their own evolution.

This doesn’t mean ignoring corporate planning. In fact, I’ve previously recommended that board members actively engage in their organization’s strategic retreats, where they contribute to shaping long-term goals.

Yet, once these retreats end, some boards must adapt as well. For instance, one board I worked with chose to refresh its membership, reducing both the average age and tenure of its members to bring new perspectives aligned with the strategic plan.

In another case, a board had grown complacent. Members showed up sporadically, often unprepared. This lack of accountability permeated the organization, undermining its standards and culture.

Unfortunately, board evaluations alone rarely spark transformation. Instead, Watson advocates for a written Board Strategy, a guiding document that steers the board’s actions.

Creating a Strategy for the Board

Watson advises boards to define a vision for themselves and set measurable milestones to ensure the plan stays on course. While this may sound overwhelming for already busy board members, it’s ultimately about cultivating the right mindset, not rigidly following a checklist.

Adopting these principles can help your board become resilient, better equipped to navigate future challenges, and able to avoid the slow slide into mediocrity that affects many corporate teams.

---

Enjoying this short post? Consider joining the JumpLeap Long-Term Strategy and Podcast, full of long-form content on game-changing strategic planning.

This post was based on an article published in the Jamaica Gleaner.

If you’re part of a large public-sector organization or a multi-divisional private company, you probably operate within a framework of a “master plan.” This overarching strategy is meant to guide your organization towards its long-term objectives. Yet, despite the hard work, key milestones and targets may still be missed. How can you ensure that your organization achieves significant, measurable results?

In the case of Jamaica’s Vision 2030, the top priorities are clear: establishing Jamaica as a preferred place to live, driving economic growth, and reducing crime. These priorities are fundamental components of Jamaica’s strategic vision. But despite progress in some areas, many still feel that these indicators have not improved significantly at the ground level.

There’s still time to make headway, but achieving these goals before 2031 begins requires overcoming fundamental obstacles. These objectives are ambitious because they necessitate collaboration across various Ministries, Departments, and Agencies (MDAs), each of which was structured during a time when objectives were simpler and more siloed. Bridging these organizational gaps is challenging, but a new approach to master planning offers a pathway forward.

Master Planning in a New Context

The concept of “master planning” dates back to urban development projects of the 1950s, where the goal was to unite stakeholders from diverse fields to create a shared, long-term vision. This vision might span 10, 20, or even 50 years. Once the overarching vision was clear, cross-functional teams could then develop actionable plans—short, mid, and long-term projects that would turn vision into reality.

In recent years, however, master planning has evolved, often influenced by external consultants. These outsiders offer a streamlined approach, claiming that their expertise and global experience can produce superior plans. In practice, consultants often interview key stakeholders, gather perspectives, and compile these into a comprehensive document. While the final report may appear impressive, it often amounts to little more than a wishlist, lacking the practical decisions and prioritization needed to move from strategy to execution.

This brings us to a crucial insight: effective master planning cannot be outsourced. Instead, it must come from within, led by the organization’s own top leadership. Consultants can provide guidance and support, but the real work—deciding which projects to pursue, setting timelines, and allocating budgets—must be done by those who are most committed to the organization’s success.

Master Planning on Steroids: A Bold New Approach

Dwight D. Eisenhower famously said, “Plans are nothing; planning is everything.” The real power of master planning lies not in the document itself, but in the process of bringing leaders together to make tough decisions. This is the core of what we might call “Master Planning on Steroids.”

This approach is not about generating a long list of aspirational goals. Instead, it requires assembling the organization’s top leaders, putting them in a room with the data, and challenging them to make hard choices together. Rather than outsourcing difficult decisions to consultants, the organization’s key stakeholders must confront these choices head-on, weighing priorities and making the necessary trade-offs.

The reality is that this kind of intense, collaborative planning can be emotionally and mentally taxing. However, it’s essential. Consultants might create polished reports with recommendations for “more capacity” or “enhanced resources,” but these generalized solutions often sidestep the most crucial decisions. In contrast, Master Planning on Steroids forces leaders to reach consensus on specific projects, resources, and timelines.

An important advantage of this approach is its immediate applicability. Because the leaders are already aligned on priorities and resources, implementation can begin as soon as the plan is finalized. This prevents the usual delays associated with lengthy approval processes and keeps momentum alive.

Implementing a Master Plan with Staying Power

In the public sector, maintaining momentum on strategic initiatives can be particularly challenging. Political changes, reorganization within ministries, or disruptions like pandemics can derail even the most well-laid plans. Therefore, Master Planning on Steroids is as much about change management as it is about strategy.

For example, a comprehensive strategy to reduce crime in Jamaica would require collaboration across several ministries, including National Security, Education, and Social Security. By using a backcasting approach—starting with the desired future outcomes and working backward to the present—leaders can outline clear, actionable projects with defined timelines, budgets, and resource allocations. This approach also includes identifying existing initiatives that may need to be discontinued to make room for higher-priority projects.

Achieving buy-in from all stakeholders is critical. When leaders are involved in the decision-making process, they are more likely to be committed to the plan’s success. Difficult, face-to-face discussions among peers foster a sense of ownership that cannot be created through an outsourced report. This ownership is crucial for ensuring that leaders do not just implement the plan, but champion it.

Creating a Culture of Accountability

Another key outcome of Master Planning on Steroids is the establishment of a culture of accountability. When leaders are deeply involved in setting priorities and making trade-offs, they are more likely to feel personally responsible for the plan’s success. This sense of responsibility drives them to monitor progress closely and make adjustments as needed, ensuring that the plan remains relevant and effective even as circumstances change.

In the end, a Master Plan on Steroids may not be bigger in terms of aspirations. Its strength lies in its grounded, actionable nature, which is far more likely to yield tangible results. Leaders who engage in this process are not just following a blueprint—they are creating a path forward that they are fully committed to pursuing.

A Roadmap to Remarkable Results

For any large organization, especially in the public sector, achieving breakthrough results requires more than a list of goals. It demands a disciplined, hands-on approach that prioritizes collaboration, accountability, and adaptability. Master Planning on Steroids provides this framework, turning strategy into action and vision into reality.

Imagine: You are a newly minted executive in a strategic planning project and notice that a single, strong person is hijacking the process. They are intelligent, but should you be relieved, or dismayed, as they take over?

Backstory: Ever since your promotion to the C-Suite, you have eagerly anticipated your inaugural corporate planning retreat. Why? This should be the place where the most realistic, impactful discussions occur.

However, near the beginning of the workshop, everyone seems to be holding back. Then, all of a sudden, the CEO, Chair or even a hired consultant announces: “I have already figured this out.”

Unfortunately, the rest of the meeting slips into a power struggle as the hijacker attempts to persuade participants that no further deliberations are necessary. Why? He’s already given the right answer. Should you resist?

Consider that even if his reasoning is brilliant, you are now caught in a fake retreat. Here’s why.

1. Key Inputs Are Being Ignored

Contemplate these classic matchups:

• Kodak vs. FujiFilm
• Blackberry or Nokia vs. iPhone
• Cable and Wireless Mobile vs. Digicel

In each competition, opposing companies prepared rival strategic plans. Today, many years later, we know that the plans on the left were failures.

From years of experience I can attest: it takes a supreme team effort to produce a plan on the right. In other words, these pre-emptive, long-term, game-changing efforts are not dreamt up by single actors.

Instead, given our complex world, they require the combined insights of subject matter experts from all parts of your company. In a strategy discussion, they bring data only they can understand.

The “strong” person who thinks today’s problems are simple is wrong. Therefore, for the sake of the organisation’s future, you must be prepared to make this point whenever your retreat slips into a one-man show. But that’s only a single way it can happen.

Another is via stonewalling. A CEO begs her team to engage in fruitful discussion, only to be met with dead silence. Her colleagues are being cautious, lazy or selfish. She’s forced to jump in to fill the gap.

Don’t let this unhappy outcome occur, either. Prepare your entire team, including the leader, for an interactive offsite beforehand.

2. The Most Consequential Discussions are Avoided

After a few months’ study, a new chairman has decided he has already mastered the top issues. During a retreat, he presents his agenda of topics to be discussed, selling his point of view convincingly.

However, the conversation takes a left turn. New data emerges, and the discussion heads in a direction he never anticipated. To respond, he tries to get things “back on track” but the energy has shifted. In his official role as chair, he gavels the discussion to order, using Robert’s Rules.

A revolt breaks out. Participants are convinced there is no greater priority than the current issue being discussed. Some become incensed, ready to walk out. They argue, “If this topic isn’t of strategic importance, then nothing is.”

Unfortunately, the chair is stuck following a bad process. He doesn’t understand that he’s undermining the freedom participants need to explore hard-to-appreciate problems. Without it, he’s turned a strategic planning opportunity into the wrong kind of struggle.

But what’s the right kind? If the team can focus on the hardest challenges, it could achieve the breakthrough their situation requires. However, he’d have to abandon his preset picture of success and go along with the flow.

3. Lack of Ownership

Ultimately, a strategic plan which fails in the above two ways will fall apart in implementation. Why? The plan won’t have the true buy-in of those who attended.

It’s a paradox. When you allow an open, messy discussion, you authorise those involved to own the outcome.

Furthermore, they’ll commit to more than you imagined, simply because you have allowed a group dynamic to build. Now they are ready for disruptive, breakthrough solutions even if it involves a personal sacrifice. They are a team.

The best approach requires your use of neutral facilitators, sourced from either inside or outside. They’ll balance the inevitable tussles a workshop is intended to stir up. It’s easier for them to do so because they don’t have a pre-set agenda.

What kind of result should they be trying to produce? Full, engaged accountability and a plan which has a high likelihood of being game-changing.

But don’t follow this advice for a “placeholder” retreat intended to preserve status quo thinking. While it will ruffle feathers, you can expect the above formula to generate superlative results.

Francis Wade is the author of Perfect Time-Based Productivity, a keynote speaker and a management consultant. To search his prior columns on productivity, strategy, engagement and business processes, send email to columns@fwconsulting.com.