See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/303206652

Vision or Psychic Prison?

Article · June 2012

CITATIONS READS
2 874

1 author:

Khuram Shahzad
University of Management and Technology (Pakistan)
31 PUBLICATIONS   155 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Performance Evaluation Framework and Critical Success Factors of Industrial Cluster Initiative View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Khuram Shahzad on 05 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

2012 Khuram Shahzad 207

VISION OR PSYCHIC PRISON

Khuram Shahzad
Lecture/PhD Scholar
University of Management & Technology, Lahore, Pakistan
Email: [email protected]

Abstract
Psychic prison-Plato’s cave metaphor introduced a compelling concept that how organizations can get trapped by their favored ways
of thinking and thus fail to adapt to the environmental changes and demands. This metaphor provides organizations with a subjective
clue that how organizations can be trapped in their favored ways of thinking and mental models which ultimately lead them to a state
of psychic prison. However, little is known about the antecedent(s) which might lead organizations to this psychic prison mentality.
Therefore, this paper aims to identify the factor(s) which objectively contribute toward this psychic prison mentality. This paper holds
the view that despite its initial success and utility, “organization’s vision” after a certain period of time creates an internal environment
which limits organization to see outside of the vision’s boundaries and thus leads organization toward a state where organization becomes
psychic prison of its vision. Key words: Vision; Psychic Prison; Favored Ways of Thinking; Mental Models; Organization Memory;
Failure of Unconscious; Vision Failure.

In his book “Images of organization” Morgan (1986) Reality of Vision

introduced a metaphor of Psychic Prison–Plato’s Cave.
Metaphor views organizations as socially constructed In a fast-changing world, where survival and growth of
realities that emerge out of the unconscious preoccupations organizations is continuously under the attack of complex
of organizational members (Morgan, 1986). These and dynamic environment, a fundamental question that
socially constructed realities construct organization’s “what needs an organization to stay competitive and
culture which is experienced by organizational members profitable” arises. To different scholars and consultants,
usually as confining and problematic. Morgan (1986) probably the only answer of this daunting question is
further explains that these preconceived realities become organization’s vision (Kantabutra & Avery, 2010). Among
unconscious traps for people that eventually force them researchers it has widely been acknowledged that vision is
to think in certain favored ways, prevent them to look indispensible for effective leadership, change, and strategy
at the other possible worlds, and thus lead them to a implementation process in organization. Through a unified
psychic prison mentality. These imprisoned mentalities direction and sense of purpose, vision, helps organizational
can be observed in organizational decision making members to develop flexible systems and to integrate the
process where narrowed strategic directions result in the whole organization (Orton & Weick, 1990). Vision has
failure of organization to adapt to the wider and multiple also been found positively correlated with organizational
direction seeker environment. Indeed, this metaphor performance (Baum, Locke, & Kirkpatrick, 1998).
sheds a powerful light on an area that over time becomes Although much emphasis has been given by scholars and
a trap for organization, however this metaphor provides management consultants to the dire need of espousing an
organization with a very subjective insight and hence does organizational vision (Kantabutra & Avery, 2007), no one,
not objectively determines the factor(s) that might lead so far has looked at some disadvantages that this popular
organizations to this psychic trap. This paper however phenomenon might carry. When it comes to vision, it’s
aims to specifically identify the dynamics of this psychic important to let organizations know that how they can go
prison phenomenon, and aims to identify the factors which terribly wrong as how they can go remarkably right. In
tangibly lead organizations to failures because of their order to ensure growth and sustainability organizations
inability to match to the environmental demands as a result need to understand the difference between ‘‘positive’’ and
of psychic prison mentality. In this study it is hypothesized ‘‘negative’’ visions (Senge, 1990) as well as the difference
that “organization’s vision” (also called leader’s vision) has between ‘‘strong’’ and ‘‘weak’’ visions (Rafferty & Griffin,
great potential to serve as a determinant of organization’s 2004). According to a saying “everything carries within
psychic prison mentality. it the seeds for its own destruction”. Since, everything
Shahzad K. - Vision or Psychic Prison
208 Business Intelligence Journal July

contains positives as well as some negatives; aim of this this definitional variance is not new, however for this paper
paper is not to deny or reduce the glory of vision, instead it seems critical to look into the definitional variance as the
the aim is to highlight the potential drawbacks of vision. way vision is defined has a great bearing on the vision’s
propensity to make organizations think in their preferred/
Research Gap favored ways and thus fail to respond to environmental
changes competitively. It is pertinent to mention here that in
Indeed, focusing on the negative side of ‘vision’ is a this paper the word “organization” depicts the accumulative
dicey business; however it’s essential to acknowledge that thinking patterns of all organizational members.
‘vision’ can have its darker side. This paper holds a view Despite the presence of definitional issue of vision most
that despite of the importance and great utility of vision in of the scholars have developed a consensus that vision is not
organizations, it at the same time leads organization toward something unachievable instead it is a fascinating desired
a state where organization becomes psychic prison because state for individuals, groups, or organizations which they
of its vision. Psychic prison is a stage, as stated earlier, have resources to reach at. For instance Stewart (1993)
where organizations get trapped in their consciously/ defines Vision as “the concept of creating a description of
unconsciously built favored methods, beliefs, perceptions, what we could be in the future.” Parikh & Neubauer (1993)
mental models, processes, and ways of information define vision as an appearance of a desired future state, an
processing which eventually limit organizations to see answer to the question “What do we want to create?” Parikh
into the more relevant and contemporary realities of the & Neubauer (1993) further posit that, “unlike a traditional
dynamic business world. strategic planning approaches, a vision is a future to be
Since the phenomenon of organizational vision holds created, and not a forecast.” Synder & Graves (1994) have
the potential to raise the problem of psychic prison, this defined vision and its delivery in a more comprehensive
paper begins by addressing the definitional issues involved and objective way. According to Synder & Graves vision
in linking the definition with the proceeding stages of vision is a discussable image of the future (target) towards which
development, vision articulation, and vision implementation. organization/leader aims its whole resources and energies
Paper then, through the established concepts and theories, (i.e. strategies, structures, processes, technologies etc.).
discusses the processes through which ‘vision’ is Contrary to the above definitions Ziegler (1991) however
articulated and implemented within organizations and role states that vision is only a metaphor for human visualization,
of leaders in getting individuals/groups aligned with their not a desired future “out there”. However for present study
vision by establishing cognitive and structural artifacts definition proposed by Parikh & Neubauer (1993) will be
of organizations. Finally, paper explains that how as a used to prove study’s claim that vision eventually leads
natural outcome of ‘vision’ organizations start looking into organizations to a psychic prison mentality.
environmental opportunities/threats through ‘vision lenses’ Several points can be made from above definitions. These
and become unable to capture realities outside the vision definitions in common try to capture the distance between
lenses’ focus. Since the vision development and vision existing and desired states of organization and acknowledge
articulation have been seen as the primary responsibilities the ability of organization to accurately gauge and achieve
of organization’s leader (Hirai, 1995; Kolzow, 1999; this distance through the rational decision making. Desired
Oshagbemi & Gill, 2003), the role of vision as determinant state, like a painter, is shaped but not explored and at the
of organization’s psychic prison will be discussed both from given point in time holds the very objective future picture
vision and leader perspective. No scholarly effort has been of all the strategic, functional and operational destinations
made in this regard before to gauge the potential drawbacks of the organization. However, advocates of complexity
of ‘vision’. theory, argue that due to the missing link between the cause-
and-effect of existing and future state, it is impossible for
Defining Vision organizations to depict a specific desired future and then
connecting that future back to the required organizational
For almost three decades, despite the clear importance actions (Stacey, 2007). Similarly McMaster (1996) posits
of vision in organization (Blanchard & Stoner, 2004) any that “survival (of an organization) is contingent on a design
consensus among scholars regarding the definition of vision that balances the forces of an ecology in such a way that a
has not been built so far (Kantabutra, 2008; Kantabutra & stable base identity is created—an identity with enormous
Avery, 2002). Like various previous management concepts flexibility in its specifics and applications.”
Business Intelligence Journal - July, 2012 Vol.5 No.2
2012 Khuram Shahzad 209

From the above discussion it can also be deduced that compelled to interpret its actions through a unified and
the future picture is based on the knowledge and realities of commonly shared reality. Individuals interpret information
present age. Desired future is something which is relative, according to their mental construction of reality by using
and not absolute. Since the vision demonstrates a difference their cognitive constructs (Reger, Gustafson, Demarie, &
between existing and desired state, on the basis of previous Mullane, 1994). Construction of mental models is greatly
knowledge, wisdom, experiences and cognitive abilities influenced by the ‘cognitive style’ which is the way
organizational leaders only try to shape a fascinating people acquire, process, and disseminate information in
future of the organization in relation to present state. It is organizations (Hayes & Allinson, 1998). Organizations (led
worthwhile to note here that the effectiveness and greatness by vision) intend to develop a ‘collective cognitive climate’
of shaped future is still very subjective in its nature and where the information conflicting with or challenging to
solely based on the meanings given to current realities by vision’s priorities is filtered, and only opportunities/threats
the leader. From symbolic interactionists’ view vision is aligned with vision’s priorities are considered. Most of the
developed as a result of the interaction between leader’s researchers have acknowledged this stage as disastrous and
personal thinking, insights, and socially constructed predictor of organization failure. Various scholars have
meanings. It is also pertinent to understand that one thing prescribed a solution of this problem that organizations
which looks little or obsolete today, might have been should constantly stay connect with their environments
viewed as very fascinating and big in previous times. and should always question their established business’s
philosophies and assumptions. However the application
Vision Development & Implementation of this fancy recipe carries some daunting questions.
For instance, is the organization’s interpretation of
Since present study claims that despite its initial success environmental threats/opportunity objective or subjective?
vision gradually over a period of time limits organization’s Is the individual’s process of challenging or questioning to
ability to capture multiple realities, it is pertinent to the current realities objective or subjective? Are there some
understand the process through which it over a period mediating/moderating factors that might influence the way
of time happens. One of the key assumptions taken in individuals/organizations interpret their environments and
this study is the effective development, communication, make sense for future actions? The only possibility of the
and implementation of the vision in organizations. application of above-said recipe is the ‘Yes’ answer of
Organizations where the vision is symbolic, or is not well atleast first two questions, which of course cannot be the
communicated, or is not implemented, or is not reflected in case. Similarly the ‘yes’ answer of third question also proves
organizational activities/actions, the phenomena of vision the very subjective nature of individuals/organizations’
as psychic prison will not be applicable. information-processing or interpretation system. While
Vision arises to encode and provide the necessary deciding on what information should be acquired and
interpretations for the organizational members by how it should be interpreted the role of individuals is very
developing their mental models aligned with vision’s important as they make these decisions in the light of
priorities (Burton & Ramiller, 1997). Mental model is one’s organization’s previous events, experiences, and insights
cognitive process of making sense about the world (Wind (James & Gerardo, 1991). Neustadt & May (1986) have
& Crook, 2005). Mental model consists of the adaptive suggested that organizations must realize the fact that “the
belief constructs, values system, deep-seated assumptions, future has no place to come from but the past.”
pictures/images, and generalizations which individual’s It is argued that, for individuals/organizations, looking
use to make sense about the world around them (Burns, into new realities without being influenced by already
2005; Senge, 1990). These mental models also serve as a established realities is almost impossible or atleast very
base for people to make further sense about organizational difficult. It is also pertinent for someone to understand
as well as personal actions and initiatives. Alignment of that mental models, once developed, sustain for a longer
individual’s mental model with vision’s priorities is the period of time irrespective of their further usefulness (Wind
key in effective vision realization. However it is argued & Crook, 2005). Since mental models are fundamentally
that this alignment is won at the cost of the submission of required for human reasoning, it is argued that people often
organizational member’s thoughts conflicting with vision get stuck with their old mental models even though when
priorities. This is one of the factors which leave organization those models do not reflect the accurate reality. Although the

Shahzad K. - Vision or Psychic Prison

210 Business Intelligence Journal July

individuals have their own mental models the development their leader. Because of the delegated authorities these
of these mental models however is based on the interaction selected people can greatly influence other organizational
with others (Hayes & Allinson, 1998). The danger involve members and thus can expedite the vision articulation
in this interaction process is the natural emergence of process. It is therefore argued that the selection of loyal
‘like-minded groups’ having the mental models resisting and committed individuals/groups by leader is, by and
divergent thinking but inspiring stereotypical thinking large, based on the individuals/groups tendency to show
(Hayes & Allinson, 1998). In order to bring any change adherence to the leader’s vision about the organization
in organization’s course it is necessary to change the old future. In simple words when leaders communicate their
mental models of people (Wind & Crook, 2005) however, vision to organizational members, those having ‘yes’ notion
people strongly disregard any information conflicting with are selected and those having ‘no’ notion are rejected to be
their old mental models. They deny to consider any option the inner-group members of the leader.
which is not explained by their existing mental reality It is pertinent to understand that organizations are
(Wind & Crook, 2005). information-processing systems (Tushman & Nadler, 1978),
Due to the strong influence of personal as well as where previously stored information called ‘organizational
environmental characteristics visions vary from person memory’ has great bearing on the way organizations further
to person. Leaders usually develop their vision in a very acquire, process, and retain information for present as well
specific way sometimes by being totally rationale or as future actions (James & Gerardo, 1991; Richardson-
intuitive, sometimes by being totally subjective or objective, Klavehn & Bjork, 1988). Organization’s memory consists
and sometimes by using a unique mixture of these. of past events, strategic orientation, commitments, goals,
However, all the leaders frequently intend to influence their assumptions, behaviors, and standard operating procedures
followers to adopt and act on the leader’s vision by using (Hall, 1984) that, when converted into mental and structural
multiple practices such as exercising authority, through artifacts, have consequential impacts on organizational
intellectual stimulation, by setting goals, by punishing and outcomes (James & Gerardo, 1991).
rewarding, through team building, or by restructuring the It has widely been acknowledged that the acquisition
jobs. The danger involved in this process is the tendency and retrieval of knowledge and experience from memory
of leaders to consciously or unconsciously uplift people largely influence individuals’ behaviors (Anderson, 1980).
having ‘yes attitude’ and natural passion toward the Organizations use information to resolve problems and to
leader’s vision. This ‘yes’ surrounding often leaves leaders make future decisions, however organization’s cognitive
unable to receive information important for organizational structures (accumulative effect of employees’ cognitive
change and survival. Just like so many other imaginative structures) form the way that information is acquired and
and fascinating leadership characteristics purposed by processed (James & Gerardo, 1991). Although information
scholars, leaders, in this case as well, are usually advised is acquired and interpreted at individual level however the
to avoid building such kind of ‘yes’ surrounding and individuals’ interpretations become institutionalized through
are advised to encourage diversity of thoughts in their sharing and enforcing. This institutionalization enables
followers. However it is pertinent to know that it is easier organization to preserve the past knowledge, learning,
said than done. Developing such kind of normative abilities and behaviors, even in times when major employees leave
in leaders become impossible as sometimes because of the the organization (Weick & Gilfillan, 1971). It is therefore
paradoxical nature one trait can be developed only at the argued that these institutionalized cognitive structures
cost of other. It is argued that for a visionary leader it is consequently restrict organizations to feel the variance that
always important to have individuals/groups committed gradually takes place between the organization’s desired
with their leader’s vision. Leader-member exchange theory destinies and emerging environmental actualities. This
(Deluga, 1998) explains the way leaders develop their blindness from emerging aspects of environment causes
relationships with individuals/groups that they lead. Theory organizations to compromise their effectiveness (Walsh
posits that leaders always develop relationships with & Fahey, 1986) and thus leads organizations to the full-
specific individuals/groups in unique ways and delegate blown crises (Nystrom & Starbuck, 1984). March (1972)
high level responsibilities, decision making, and access has declared memory as an ‘enemy of organizations’, an
to resources to those in close relations. These individuals/ enemy that fortifies the status quo by underpinning the
groups are expected to be fully devoted and faithful to single-loop-learning (Argyris & Schon, 1978).

Business Intelligence Journal - July, 2012 Vol.5 No.2

2012 Khuram Shahzad 211

Vision as Psychic Prison In order to stay competitive organizations intend to

continuously develop links between their past and present
It is pertinent to note that visions are abstract and are by utilizing their acquired knowledge and past experiences
not one-time specific goal or behavioral change that can to device future strategies. However, this decision making
be easily accepted and then discarded. Instead, vision is a process confirms that there are atleast more than one futures
generic guideline for a wider range of business activities that an organization can shape and pursue, and that selection
and people behaviors for an extended period of time. of one desirable future (vision), by and large, is based on
Organizational vision may function in its early stage by past and usually results in an elimination of alternative
providing organizational members with a platform to futures. Similarly, vision depends upon the availability or
develop their sense making and by asking them to surrender attainability of organizational resources, cognitive path
their previous meanings and self-defined realities. dependence, and the collective consciousness of the larger
Organizations are created and sustained by conscious social environment. According to a saying “what we see
and unconscious efforts. People develop conscious and means what we don’t see” vision leaves organizations
unconscious patterns of constructing realities which are compelled not to see realities other than their own created
ultimately reflected in organizations. Since, vision provides ones.
organizations with a powerful framework of desired future Similarly, vision at its articulation phase breeds another
to construct realities, people of the organizations become organizational phenomenon of groupthink (Janis, 1972).
imprisoned or confined by the images, ideas, thoughts, Groupthink arises when organizational members develop
and actions derived from the vision. Vision embraces the shared illusion as a result of unconscious self-affirming
implicit images and leads organization to view, analyze and process in order to develop conformity and cohesiveness. It
respond in a distinctive yet partial order. is not necessary that driving force of groupthink will always
Vision by relating present to some futuristic ideal and be vision but in most cases after a reasonable period of time
by building fascinating expectations can/should become vision becomes culture of the organization. According to
an aspiration for individuals and organization. These Freud unconscious processes are created by the culture,
expectations then establish a conceptual framework and and that the unconscious and culture are thus really two
a sensible image for the people (Tushman & Romanelli, sides of the same coin. Because of the deep-rooted shared
1985). Similarly, vision provides organizations with realities among organizational members culture, in case
strategic frameworks in order to answer various key of any change, strongly resists (Chin et al., 2002, p. 366).
strategic questions such as “what business/es are/can we Organization becomes psychic prison when its members
in” and “which business can we safely avoid”? How and make their sense about realities through the glasses of
with what will we compete? (Sull, 1999). These strategic vision and thus discourage thinking damaging the shared
answers are ultimately reflected in mental models and vision.
cognitive patterns of organizational members through which Based on the Morgan’s psychic prison’s metaphor
they see in complex environment and fit the information following elements can be noticed:
into an established framework. Indeed these frameworks • Cave people are chained in a way that they cannot move
help members to see, but also blind organizations by • The only thing that they can see is the wall in front of
consolidating on certain things with firm believe that only them
these things matter. Consequently, these cognitive frames • Behind them fire throws shadows on the wall
also called mental models constrict organizations by • Cave people associate shadows with reality which is
preventing them from noticing new realities and paradigm only reality they know
shifts. This is the point where organizations become • One member gets exposed to another world, and
trapped in their favored ways of thinking and doing things explains the new reality to others
because of the initial success brought by past patterns. • Cave’s members resist
However, any change in environmental composition This paper views both vision and organizational
coverts their previously winning formulas into failures. It members chained on the floor of cave. Vision is the only
is pertinent to remember that this conversion of beacon reality which they believe in and act on. Both organization
frames into blinders or psychic prison is not the exception and its members have become so enamored of the idealized
in organizational social system; instead “it is rule”. future that they are unable to see competing and more

Shahzad K. - Vision or Psychic Prison

212 Business Intelligence Journal July

successful realities. In addition they are highly committed Hirai, Y. (1995). Information processing in vision and
to expend enormous amount of energy, passion and memories: Baifukan.
resources to get that reality. The higher their commitment, James, P. W., & Gerardo, R. U. (1991). Organizational
the less willing they are to see the viability of competing Memory. The Academy of Management Review,
realities. Whatever they see on the wall is a shadow thrown 16(1), 57-91.
by the vision. Since, vision is the only defined reality for Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: Houghton
them exploration of any new world would be resisted. Mifflin Boston.
Vision as psychic prison depicts a natural outcome of Kantabutra, S. (2008). Vision effects in Thai retail
organizational vision that is a result of unconscious process stores: Practical implications. International Journal
yet uncontrollable by nature. After knowing the role of of Retail & Distribution Management, 36(4), 323-
unconscious in organization, efforts might be taken to 342.
manage the unconscious. However, it seems impossible as Kantabutra, S., & Avery, G. C. (2002). Proposed
unconscious by nature is uncontrollable.”(Morgan, 1986). model for investigating relationships between
vision components and business unit performance.
References Journal of Management & Organization, 8(2), 22-
39.
Anderson, J. R. (1980). Cognitive psychology and Kantabutra, S., & Avery, G. C. (2007). Vision effects
its implications: San Francisco: Freeman and in customer and staff satisfaction: an empirical
Company. investigation. Leadership & Organization
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1978). Organizational Development Journal, 28(3), 209-229.
learning: A theory of action perspective: Reading, Kantabutra, S., & Avery, G. C. (2010). The power
MA: Addison-Wesley. of vision: Statements that resonate. Journal of
Baum, J. R., Locke, E. A., & Kirkpatrick, S. A. Business Strategy, 31(1), 37-45.
(1998). A longitudinal study of the relation of Kolzow, D. (1999). A perspective on strategic planning:
vision and vision communication to venture what’s your vision? Economic development review,
growth in entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Applied 16(2), 5-10.
Psychology, 83(1), 43-54. March, J. G. (1972). Model bias in social action.
Blanchard, K., & Stoner, J. (2004). The vision Review of Educational Research, 42(4), 413-429.
thing: Without it you’ll never be a world-class McMaster, M. D. (1996). The Intelligence Advantage:
organization. Leader to Leader, 31, 21-28. Organizing for Complexity: Newton, MA,
Burns, K. (2005). Mental models and normal errors. In Butterworth, Heinemann.
H. Montgomery, R. Lipshitz & B. Brehmer (Eds.), Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization. Beverly
How professionals make decisions (pp. 15-28): Hills: Sage Publications.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Neustadt, R. E., & May, E. R. (1986). Thinking in
Burton, S., E., & Ramiller, N. C. (1997). The time: The uses of history for decision makers: New
Organizing Vision in Infortnation Systems York: Free Press.
Innovation. Organization Science, 8(5), 458-474. Nystrom, P. C., & Starbuck, W. H. (1984). To avoid
Deluga, R. J. (1998). Leader-member exchange quality organizational crises, unlearn. Organizational
and effectiveness ratings: The role of subordinate- Dynamics, 12(4), 53-65.
supervisor conscientiousness similarity. Group and Orton, J. D., & Weick, K. E. (1990). Loosely coupled
Organization Management, 23(2), 189-216. systems: A reconceptualization. Academy of
Hall, R. I. (1984). The natural logic of management Management Review, 15(2), 203-223.
policy making: Its implications for the survival of Oshagbemi, T., & Gill, R. (2003). Gender differences
an organization. Management Science, 30(8), 905- and similarities in the leadership styles and
927. behaviour of UK managers. Women in Management
Hayes, J., & Allinson, C. W. (1998). Cognitive style and Review, 18(6), 288-298.
the theory and practice of individual and collective Parikh, J., & Neubauer, F. (1993). Corporate visioning.
learning in organizations. Human Relations, 51(7), International review of strategic management, 4,
847-871. 105-116.
Business Intelligence Journal - July, 2012 Vol.5 No.2
2012 Khuram Shahzad 213

Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin, M. A. (2004). Dimensions Synder, N. H., & Graves, M. (1994). Leadership and
of transformational leadership: Conceptual and vision. Business Horizons(January-February), 1-7.
empirical extensions. The Leadership Quarterly, Tushman, M. L., & Nadler, D. A. (1978). Information
15(3), 329-354. processing as an integrating concept in
Reger, R. K., Gustafson, L. T., Demarie, S. M., & organizational design. Academy of Management
Mullane, J. V. (1994). Reframing the organization: Review, 3(3), 613-624.
Why implementing total quality is easier said than Tushman, M. L., & Romanelli, E. (1985). Organizational
done. Academy of Management Review, 19(3), evolution: A metamorphosis model of convergence
565-584. and reorientation. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw
Richardson-Klavehn, A., & Bjork, R. A. (1988). (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp.
Measures of Memory. Annual Review of 171-222): Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Psychology, 39, 475-543. Walsh, J. P., & Fahey, L. (1986). The role of negotiated
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: Mastering belief structures in strategy making. Journal of
the five practices of the learning organization: Management, 12(3), 325-338.
Doubleday, New York, NY. Weick, K. E., & Gilfillan, D. P. (1971). Fate of arbitrary
Stacey, R. D. (2007). Strategic Management and traditions in a laboratory microculture. Journal of
Organisational Dynamics: The Challenge of Personality and Social Psychology, 17, 179-191.
Complexity (5 ed.): Pearson Education, Prentice Wind, Y., & Crook, C. (2005). The power of impossible
Hall, Financial Times. thinking: Transform the business of your life and
Stewart, J. (1993). Future state visioning--A powerful the life of your business: Upper Saddle River, NJ:
leadership process. Long range planning, 26(6), 89- Wharton School.
98. Ziegler, W. (1991). Envisioning the future. Futures,
Sull, D. N. (1999). Why good companies go bad. 23(5), 516-527.
Harvard Business Review, 77(4), 42-56.

Shahzad K. - Vision or Psychic Prison

View publication stats