Journal Assignment: Organizational Vision and Extending Influence. Assignment Instructions: Write a 400-500 word


Journal Assignment: Organizational Vision and Extending Influence.
Assignment Instructions: Write a 400-500 word substantive journal entry describing the analytical view. Describe how you extend the Commanders vision and influence in your organization as a future SGM/CSM?

Note 1: Rubrics attached.

Note 2: Please use/cite the attached military sources, Source J1 and Source J2, for this assignment. You may also use/cite one other source in addition to the sources attached.

Developing Organizations and Leaders


Followership and Understanding your Boss

Like many topics in the Army education system, it is not so much an issue of studying lessons learned, it

is more like relearning lessons that have been forgotten. Followership is one such lesson.

The subject of followership may seem like a new subject to many, however it is a concept that

noncommissioned officers (NCOs) have practiced for years. The military rank and command structure is

built around this concept of followers exercising leadership. In fact, it is expected that followers provide

leadership. Take for example the platoon sergeant and platoon leader relationship. The average platoon

leader is a Second Lieutenant with less than one year in the Army while the average platoon sergeant is a

Sergeant First Class who has between 8 and 12 years in service. The platoon leader is the senior ranking

Soldier, yet it is the platoon sergeant that runs the platoon. The platoon sergeant is the follower in the

relationship and also the one who provides the most leadership to the Soldiers in the platoon. It is also

worth noting the most junior Lieutenant in the Army outranks the Sergeant Major of the Army. While

many believe that to be unfair, it is the Army system. This is an important aspect of the officer/NCO

relationship and one Sergeants Major must truly understand as they move into more senior leadership


Followership is a defined as followers of character and commitment acting to support the needs

and goals of the team. This is accomplished through the capacity and willingness of individuals to follow

their leader. The key to this relationship is “the willingness to follow a leader”. This is a commitment

focused relationship, not one of compliance. In the military system, compliance will be achieved.

However, compliance requires more time and effort than commitment and drains the most precious

resource of a leader which is their time. As the old adage goes, “leaders spend 90% of their time on 10%

of the Soldiers.” This 90% figure usually involves enforcing compliance of the 10% or dealing with the

associated issues and actions resulting from their lack of compliance. While it is the responsibility of a

leader to ensure the successful accomplishment of tasks and missions they assign, it is a much quicker

and thorough process when their subordinates are exercising the principles of followership. This is why it

is critical Sergeants Major truly understand and exercise the tenants of followership.

A Sergeant Major serving as an operations Sergeant Major will never outrank their boss. They

may be more experienced and possess more technical and tactical expertise than their boss, but they will

always be the follower in the relationship. Additionally, a Command Sergeant Major does not command

anything nor do they have any command authority. The title Command Sergeant Major only means they

are the Sergeant Major for “the command” whatever that command may be (i.e. battalion, brigade, etc.)

Couple these facts with the knowledge that Sergeants Major exercise a great deal of responsibility and

authority in the positions they hold and the necessity for them to understand and embrace the tenants of

followership become evident.

To be an effective followers, Sergeants Major must understand their bosses. In the decentralized

command structure utilized by the military services, the president as Commander in Chief issues orders

and directive throughout the military services via the chain of command. While it may be a simple and

obvious fact, this is why the chain of command extends through commissioned officer from the

Commander in Chief down to platoon leaders and why commissioned officers are the only Soldiers with

punitive authority under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). In the same way commanders

exercise authority down the chain of commander through subordinate commanders, followers provide

their commitment and support to the Army (or their respective service) through the exercise of

followership up the chain of command beginning with their bosses. To be clear, any Soldier or other

military members owes their primary loyalty to the Constitution of the United States, followed by the

President of the United States (as Commander in Chief), their branch of military service and then the

officers appointed over them (their bosses).

As stated earlier, to be effective followers Sergeants Major must understand and support their

bosses. To facilitate this understanding Sergeants Major need to understand the following:

1. Their boss’s goals and objectives. The best method to accomplish this is to ask your boss for a

copy of their Officer Evaluation Report (OER) support form. This form details the goals and

objectives he/she has established for their rating period and those he/she will be evaluated on.

2. The pressures and deadlines your boss is under. Pressures and deadlines will drive work

priorities. When a Sergeant Major does not understand these pressures and deadlines it may cause

divided priorities which could negatively affect the organizations ability to successfully

accomplish its mission.

3. Your boss’s strengths, weaknesses and potential blind spots. Some bosses are very organized and

some are not. Some are very eloquent speakers and others are not. Some are exceptionally

proficient with power point while others are not. Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of a

boss will enable Sergeants Major to better support their boss’s strengths and help mitigate their


4. Your boss’s preferred work style. Some delegate a great deal of authority to their followers while

others may be more directive in nature. Some bosses prefer detailed power point briefings while

others are more informal. There is no one style that is the correct style to use. The most important

fact for a Sergeants Major to remember is they need to adapt and adjust to their boss’s style of

leadership, their boss does not need to adapt to theirs.

In addition to understanding their bosses, Sergeants Major must exercise self-awareness and assess

themselves and their needs. Major areas Sergeants Major should assessments are:

1. Their strengths and weaknesses. Just as they seek to understand the strengths and weaknesses of

their boss, Sergeants Major must also understand the areas they are strong in and areas they need

to improve. Knowing this information will help them better compliment the strengths and

weaknesses of their boss.

2. Their own personal leadership style. A Sergeant Major that believes in taking the initiative and

doing what they feel needs to be done may have conflicts with a boss that is more hands on and

directive in nature. Understanding their own leadership style will help a Sergeant Major and

adjust and adapt their leadership style to their boss’s.

3. Their predisposition towards their dependence on authority figures. Does a Sergeant Major feel

all guidance must come from their boss? Does a Sergeant Major feel his/her responsibilities are

only to do what they are told to do or do what they agree with?

Once a Sergeant Major has conducted a self-assessment and gained an understanding of his/her boss,

they will be better able to develop and maintain a relationship that:

1. Fits both needs and styles.

2. Is characterized by mutual expectations

3. Keeps their boss informed.

4. Is based on dependability and honesty

5. Selectively uses their boss’s time and resources.

It is important to understand that followership is not a concept that advocates passive behavior.

Embracing followership does not make a Sergeant Major a “yes man” nor is not is it designed to treat

followers as door mats that encourages leaders to walk all over them. Followership means putting the

needs of others in front of your desires and building a relationship of trust and loyalty to your leader and

your team. Followership has been established when a follower shares a common purpose with the leader,

believes in what the organization is trying to accomplish, and wants both the leader and the organization

to succeed.



Criteria Far Exceeds Standards Exceeds Standards Meets Standards Does Not Meet

Standards Unsatisfactory

20 18 14 10 0

Ideas, Arguments,

& Analysis

Ideas expressed in

discussion posts include

original thought,

substantial depth, and

are relevant to topic.

Viewpoint shows strong

logical thinking,

reasoning, and analysis

with evidence and

examples. Provided an

external resource

supporting student’s

discussion (as required

in the post instructions)

Ideas expressed in

discussion posts

are applicable and

relevant to topic;

some original




thinking, and/or

analysis with an


Viewpoint is

supported with

evidence and/or

examples (as

required in the

post instructions)


presents thoughtful

opinions that

connect to the ideas

analyzed. Presents

concepts with

minimal connections

to course content.

Ideas expressed in

discussion posts show a

minimal understanding of

the discussion topic.

Comments are general in

nature and/or

occasionally may not be

relevant. Repeats or

summarizes ideas with

limited analysis, original

thought, and/or

supported viewpoints.

No entry by

student or

submission turned

in late.

Connection to

Course Materials

Strong, direct

connections are made

to readings and/or other

course materials.

Content of lesson is

clearly articulated

through the use of

direct citing or

paraphrasing of the

module subject area

Some direct

connections are

made to readings

and/or other course


(references, media,

resources, etc.) and

are clearly stated for

the most part.

Connected ideas to

course content;

however, a lack of

deep understanding

is evident.

Minimal direct

connections are made to

readings and/or other

course materials

(references, media,

resources, etc.).

Connections are largely

inferred and somewhat

unclear at times.

No entry by

student or

submission turned



media, resources,

etc.), and/or if

made, are not

clearly stated and

are largely

personal opinions.

Writing Quality Journal entry is well

written and clearly

articulated using

standard English,

characterized by

elements of a strong

writing style with

correct grammar,

punctuation, usage, and


Journal entry shows

above average

writing style that is

clear using standard

English with minor

errors in grammar,

punctuation, usage,

and/or spelling.

Journal entry

displays average

writing quality with

more than one error

in grammar,

punctuation, and


Journal entry shows an

average and/or casual

writing style using

standard English that is

generally clear but

contains some errors in

grammar, punctuation,

usage, and spelling.

No entry by

student or

submission turned

in late.

Plagerism and

Direct Quotes

No plagiarism or

excessive use of direct


No plagiarism.

Journal Entry

consists of less than

10% use of direct


No plagiarism.

Journal Entry

consistes of less

than 15% use of

direct quotes.

ANY plagiarism or more

than 25% of essay

consists of direct quotes

(word count).

No entry by

student or

submission turned

in late.



Met all assignment

requirements. (Word

count between 300-500)

Met all assignment

requirements. Word


Essay does not meet

more than one


identified in the



Journal entry does not

meet the assignment

length requirement AND

was submitted after the

due date.

No entry by

student or

submission turned

in late.


Vision Process_20190329.pdf


Developing Organizations and Leaders

Implementing an Organizational Vision

The Vision Process: Seven Steps to a Better


“Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?”

“That depends a good deal on where you want to get to,” said the Cat.

“I don’t much care where–” said Alice.

“Then it doesn’t matter which way you go,” said the Cat.

– Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, by Lewis Carroll


In the military, we are familiar with the concept of commander’s intent.1 Though the definition has

changed over the years, the underlying principle has not. It is a statement by the commander that

provides the purpose and desired end state for an operation. It clearly articulates the conditions required

for mission success, which increases shared understanding within the organization and drives individual

initiative. Everyone is charged with understanding the commander’s intent.

Intent statements, however, are for specific missions and operations. How can leaders cast a wider

net and shift the focus to the organization as a whole? How can they improve the organization while still

operating to accomplish the mission? It is through a seven-step vision process.

Army Leadership, ADRP 6-22, is replete with references on the importance of sharing a vision to

provide organizations a sense of purpose, inspiration, long-term direction, and goals. It comes up short,

however, on the mechanics of creating one and is deathly silent on the critical step of implementing a

vision. This paper describes a process for creating and implementing a vision as part of a change strategy.

It incorporates a seven-step methodology for tackling the very challenging—but very important—task of

bringing meaning to the idea of an organizational-level vision.

An organizational-level vision is defined as: “A picture of the future framed by a values-based

purpose that creates a path to drive behavior, change and motivation.” This definition is comprehensive,

encompassing major concepts from the field of leadership studies and organizational development. It also

provides leaders a valuable tool to lead developmental efforts in the organizations they lead. For ease of

understanding, we deconstructed the definition into three components.2

 What: A picture of the future.

 Why: Framed by a value-based purpose (Answers the question, “What does the organization value?”)

 How: Creating a path to drive behavior, change, and motivation.

* By Carey W. Walker and Matthew J. Bonnot, the Department of Command and Leadership for the CGSC – not to be further

reproduced – 2012.


The first four steps of the process cover the formulation of the organizational vision. It is written

from a leader’s perspective since leaders, especially commanders, are inherently responsible by virtue of

their position for the first two components of the vision, the “what” and “why.” This does not preclude

collaboration by the leader, which is expected and encouraged. It simply recognizes the office of the

person in charge and the associated decision-making authority that rests with the boss.

Steps 5 and 6 focus on developing the strategy for implementing the vision. At this point in the

process, use of collaboration in the form of a guiding coalition is critical.3 The leader is transitioning the

plan from concepts to constructive actions and needs a committed and collaborative team to formulate the


The final step of the process is the execution of the plan. You will see a number of references to our

class on Leading Organizations in Change. You cannot implement a vision without effecting change, so

the fundamental ideas from that lesson are closely entwined within the discussion.

One final point. As you study the steps in the process, remember that implementing a vision is

fundamentally a form of problem solving. You identify your future state or objective (the “what”),

explain the purpose for going there (the “why”), determine obstacles blocking the way (as part of your

assessment), figure out how to take down the obstacles (the “how”), and then execute the plan. We tend

to mystify the vision process because, typically, it is not done well. It is not rocket science. But it is hard.

It takes time, persistence, and thought.



Organizational-level leaders usually begin assessing organizations prior to arrival based on previous

knowledge, experience, unit reputation, research, and study. This preparation forms the foundation for

the initial “what” and “why” of the vision. More experienced leaders identify these components before

setting foot within the organization. Less experienced ones, unfamiliar with the organization’s culture

and operational focus, need time on the ground to gain situational understanding.

Upon arrival, working with key members of the organization, leaders continue their initial

assessment. Earlier expectations are confirmed or denied based on personal impressions and continued

gathering of information to form or revise a preliminary “what” and “why.” This is critical. Having a

“what” and “why” allows leaders to better focus their initial assessment. If they know where they are

going—unlike Alice in the opening quote—they can better determine problems that impede movement to

this future state.

Thus, a primary purpose of the initial assessment is to identify the obstacles, the “bumps in the road,”

which organizations must overcome to navigate the way ahead. From a problem-solving perspective,

without the “what,” the initial assessment has little focus or direction. You will identify plenty of

potential problems as you analyze the organization but true problems are the ones that block your path,

not detritus on the side of the road.

Remember, the initial assessment continues throughout the first four steps of this process. It does not

consist of walking around an organization for a day or two and suddenly seeing the light. Few people

have a “eureka moment” when figuring out the “what” and “why” for their organization. It takes time

and analysis as we will discuss in the next step.


As mentioned earlier, leaders do not typically walk into organizations with preformed visions in their

heads. But they should, based on their experience and background, have some initial ideas developed on

the “what” (a picture of the future) and “why” (framed by a value-based purpose) components of the

vision. They then refine these ideas as discussed below during their initial assessment of the organization.


The challenges with describing a picture of the future for an organization are twofold. The leader

must first have a “picture” of a future state. “Where are we going?” “What must we look like?” This is

often easier said than done. Immediate demands tend to drive our thinking and overwhelm any thoughts

for long-term development. The ability to step back and reflect is a deliberate act and does not occur by

happenstance. But it is what organizational-level leaders get paid to do, and it takes an incredible amount

of persistence to force a separation from the here-and-now and look into the future. To do it, the leader

must have a good understanding of the organization—its mission and functions, its relationship to sister

and parent organizations, and how it fits within the operating environment—all within a future timeframe

nested with the boss’ vision (if he or she has one). Gaining this situational understanding can take time.

Many leaders want to formulate the initial “what” prior to arrival so they can hit the ground running.

Depending on their experience, this may be unrealistic and, as a minimum, requires validation and

adjustment as they go through their initial “on-the-ground” assessment (Step 1).

The second challenge with describing a picture of the future is ensuring the “what” is meaningful.

Simply stating the organization will be “the best” is equivalent to saying “everyone is a winner.” It does


little for motivation. Everyone wants to be the best or already thinks they are. The “what” should inspire

others by providing an organization-specific purpose that ideally ties to the operating environment.

For example, should an organization be the “best infantry battalion” in the division or the division’s

“911 Force” for operational missions? They both have the same end state but “911 Force” is more

memorable and provides an emotional tie or hook for the organization.

For an example closer to home, should the Department of Command Leadership be “the best teaching

department in USASMA” or “Serve as the Army’s premier organizational-level leadership resource?”

The first one might provide short-term gratification for instructors, but it would not sit well with other

departments in the school; plus, it has a finite end state. What do you do when you become the best?

You probably spend more time worrying about the performance of other organizations than your own.

The second designation casts a much wider net; it is very challenging but still attainable.


The concept of “a value-based purpose” means focusing on what is of value, worth, or importance to

the organization when describing why we want to achieve some future state. It answers the question,

“What does the organization value?” For example, a teaching organization finds value in career-long

learning and critical thinking. An artillery battalion finds value in effects on target in support of

maneuver forces. What an organization holds in value is inextricably linked to its culture. It forms the

underlying assumptions that drive thinking and behavior in organizations.4

Army values are critical touchstones in ensuring an ethically aligned organization but they typically

do not tie to the purpose of an organization. Ethical behavior describes how we want people to act as

they navigate the path to a future state; therefore, Army values are better addressed in the “how”

component of the vision.

A “value-based purpose” usually centers on the operational focus of the organization. Returning to

the teaching organization example, the “why” component of the vision could be: “To instill a desire in

others, both in an out of the schoolhouse, to be better leaders.” This directly links to the two

aforementioned attributes of critical thinking and life-long learning.

The challenge in formulating the “why” is moving beyond trite, formulistic statements (“accomplish

all assigned missions”) to something that has meaning and “sticking power” in the organization. Putting

the “why” within a specific operational context (future deployments for example) helps do that.


As you should see now, implementing a vision is grounded in the fundamentals of problem solving.

The “what” provides the end state or objective and the initial assessment identifies the obstacles blocking

the path. The missing link is the goals, the broad general actions for navigating the path and

circumventing the obstacles. Once identified, the goals form the foundation for the “how” component of

the vision.

Most leaders fail at implementing a vision because they never get beyond Step 2. They formulate the

“what” and “why” prior to arrival, publish it as a vision statement once on the ground, and then move on

to more pressing issues. Some make tweaks to the “what” and “why” of the vision based on their initial

assessment. Most skip the third step because they do not understand the goal-setting process or suddenly

realize how hard it is. Step 3 is the transition point from words to action. Leaders must identify goals for

the organization, and these goals must address the problems that impede forward movement.


Leaders that do get this far often struggle because they make the goals too broad and not problem

specific. “It’s all about training, maintaining, and taking care of people.” These might, in fact, be very

good words for a vision statement but if the leader cannot identify a cause and effect relationship between

an objective, obstacles, goals, and associated tasks, the unit probably is not headed in the right direction.

For our teaching institution example, a school might identify the following three goals based on the

initial assessment listed below:

Goals Initial Assessment

Growing talent The school has weak professional development programs and fails to

promote from within

Generating ideas Tendency towards group thinking and over reliance on dated curriculum

Using systems thinking An inability to integrate new processes and procedures into the




The “how” is the path people must follow in achieving the picture of the future in the organization.

As we just discussed, formulating the “how” begins with the leader’s initial assessment of the

organization and the identification of organizational goals. Simply put, the leader must determine where

the organization is, where it needs to go, and the barriers or obstacles that must be overcome to move the

organization to that future state. Overcoming these hurdles requires driving change within the

organization and motivating others by providing direction, intensity, and persistence to behavior.5 The

“how” therefore, based on the identified goals, describes in general terms “…a path for driving behavior,

change, and motivation.”

If the leader has done a good job identifying the goals for the organization, the major challenge with

the “how” is packaging. The leader must communicate these ideas within a vision that is short, concise,

and meaningful. This is more important than you might think. The primary purpose is not having a

vision statement you can publish and post (though that may happen). It is having a statement people can

remember, talk about, and hopefully internalize. Here is an example using the teaching organization


Serve as the Army’s premier organizational-level leadership resource by instilling a desire in

others, both in and out of the schoolhouse, to be better leaders. We do this by growing talent,

generating ideas, and using systems thinking to drive excellence in the department.

NOTE: We will provide you an operational example in class using the 12 O’clock High case study.


The perception to this point is that leaders conduct the first four steps primarily on their own. That is

rarely the case. Depending on the organization, leaders begin building a guiding coalition of key and

influential members prior to arrival if possible. As discussed in class, to affect change within an

organization, a vision must be shared. This requires gaining commitment from the guiding coalition

because it will lead the implementation plan and help foster a sense of urgency in its execution.


Gaining this buy-in means giving the members a voice in the process, especially in establishing the

implementation strategy (Steps 5 and 6). Obviously, the coalition must be on board with the “what” and

“why” of the vision—they get a voice in this as well—but their most important input is with refining the

goals. As discussed in the team-building lesson, leaders require the skill, expertise, and experience of

team members to improve problem solving. Members must validate cause and effect relationships to

ensure the correct problems are identified and the corresponding goals move the organization on a path to

overcome these identified obstacles to achieve the future state. This is a difficult task. As FM 5-0 states,

“Understanding how cause and effect works requires careful consideration and shrewd judgment.”6 The

leader cannot do this in isolation; it requires a team effort.

A sense of urgency is a condition that must exist throughout the vision implementation process.

There are a number of ways to do this as discussed in the Leading Organizations in Change lesson. One

of the most viable is through the use of dissatisfaction, a powerful catalyst for overcoming resistance to

change.7 Leaders have to increase dissatisfaction to the point where followers are willing to take action

but not tip the organization into apathy. This could be through awareness—the intrinsic motivation of a

better future to gain commitment—but the implementation plan most likely will include extrinsic

motivation techniques as well to gain compliance.


While goals form the building blocks of the implementation strategy, prioritized tasks represent the

concrete and measurable programs and activities required to support the goals. What makes this step

especially difficult is the issue of resourcing. Material, manpower, and time come at a cost and leaders

must carefully plan and prepare their strategy using a systems thinking perspective as they weigh and

prioritize tasks.

How you define the terms in this step (tasks, activities, programs) is up to you. The key point is that

the strategy must translate the goals into integrated actions, and in this framework we use the term

“prioritized tasks” to represent the process. As in Step 5, this step requires a collective effort and the

guiding coalition must be at the heart of the action. Additionally, as discussed in Step 2, these goals and

prioritized tasks must be nested with the vision of higher headquarters. Initiating actions that run counter

to the intent of your boss is the quickest way to stop an implementation strategy in its tracks.


Executing an implementation strategy for an organizational-level vision is all about leading change.

Throughout this discussion, we have highlighted key components of the change models discussed in class

(sense of urgency, guiding coalition, dissatisfaction, and resistance) that relate to implementing a vision.

Two important components remain: empowering others and generating short-term wins.

These components are critical because they tie to intrinsic motivation, the engine of commitment.

Three primary factors drive intrinsic motivation.8 The first is having a sense of purpose, a “big picture”

idea, that provides direction that is both worthwhile and satisfy. We use the what, why, and how of the

vision to appeal to this factor.

The second factor is autonomy. People like being self-directed, doing actions on their own initiative

to achieve a measurable outcome without micromanagement or excessive supervision. Empowering

subordinates is an important component of execution and, if done properly, will greatly enhance

performance, motivation, and commitment. But it must be done deliberately and thoughtfully to set

people up for success. The steps to empowering others include:


 Sharing of power, typically in the form of position power to allow decision making

 Training to provide necessary skills

 Demonstrating trust in subordinates by leaders to build confidence

 Providing resources, especially time, to foster professional development and growth

 Being perceived as fair to avoid the perception of passing on work to subordinates

 Giving feedback to improve performance

The third factor that drives intrinsic motivation is mastery. People like to get good at what they do; it

provides a sense of pride and satisfaction. It also leads to success, a key indicator of mastery. Leaders

that understand this dynamic use short-term wins during the execution of a vision strategy to gain buy-in

for the plan, build momentum, enhance self-direction, and strengthen commitment. Without short-term

wins, followers become disillusioned, dissatisfaction grows, and resistance overwhelms the change effort.

A final point to consider is the importance of continued assessment. An organizational-level vision is

not a static document. It is an active and dynamic process that requires continuous monitoring,

evaluation, and adjustment. As the operating environment changes, so must the strategy and execution,

which could require additional refinement of goals and prioritized tasks.


This paper provides an overview and methodology to guide your thinking. You will undoubtedly

revisit a number of the steps during the process as you refine your thinking and consider

recommendations from your guiding coalition.

While this paper is written for new leaders arriving in organizations, the process works as well for

those serving in current leadership positions. In fact, it is easier for incumbent leaders to execute the

seven-step vision process because of their familiarity with organizational culture. This could be an

important selling point when you arrive at your next organization and attempt to convince your boss of

the need for an organizational-level vision.

Remember, the vision process takes significant time, substantial planning, and continuous

assessment. Change is not easy and performance typically decreases in the short run as people struggle

with new ways of thinking. You must remain resilient, maximize short-term wins, and foster a learning

environment that sets the conditions for long-term success. “Improving while operating” is not easy but it

is your charge as an organizational-level leader. The Seven-Step Vision Process will take you there.

1 Department of the Army, FM 3-0, C1, Operations (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, February 2011),

5-8. 2 Peter M. Senge, The Fifth Discipline (New York: Doubleday, 2006), 208. Senge uses the words “what,” “why,”

and “how” to describe the “governing ideas” that guide organizations. He equates the “what” to the vision, the

picture of the future we seek to create. The “why” is the purpose or mission of the organization and answers the

question, “Why do we exist?” The “how” are the core values of the organization and answer the question, “How do

we want to act, consistent with our mission, along the path toward achieving our vision?” We have adopted Senge’s

“governing ideas” and transformed them into a single concept, a seven-step vision process. While we use the same


definition for the “what”—a picture of the future—we use a slightly different perspective for the “why” and “how”

to better capture the nuances of military culture and the role of problem solving in implementing a vision. 3 John P. Kotter, Leading Change (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1996), 21. This leadership classic is a

“must read” for all organizational leaders. It discusses the dynamics of change, the challenges of recognizing when

change is necessary, and an eight-stage process for implementing lasting organizational change. We reference five

of the eight stages in this paper: 1) Establishing a sense of urgency, 2) Creating a guiding coalition, 3) Developing a

vision and strategy, 5) Empowering broad-based action, and 6) Generating short-term wins. 4 Edgar H. Schein, Organizational Culture and Leadership, 3d ed., (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2004), 31. 5 Richard L. Hughes, Robert C. Ginnett, and Gordon J. Curphy, Leadership: Enhancing the Lessons of Experience

(New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin, 2006), 243. 6 Department of the Army, FM 5-0, C1, The Operations Process (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,

March 2011), 6-6. 7 Michael Beer, “Leading Change,” Harvard Business School Publishing (January 2007): 1. 8 Daniel H. Pink, Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us (New York: Riverhead Books, 2009),

Chapters 4, 5, and 6. The author does an excellent job of explaining the factors that influence intrinsic motivation.

You can watch an excellent summary of his book on YouTube .


nding Your Boss_20190329.pdf

The post Journal Assignment: Organizational Vision and Extending Influence. Assignment Instructions: Write a 400-500 word appeared first on mynursinghomeworks.


Source link