When Vision does not Equal Reality, Innovate

Mitchell Phoenix believe that organisations should Govern Change, which means anticipating and responding actively and flexibly to the changing circumstances in which businesses operate. In doing so, companies create an advantageous, profitable future for themselves. Blind adherence to past processes and procedures, failure to ask searching questions about our business and the environment in which it exists, and unwillingness to really listen to those around us are all factors which can prevent us from Governing Change successfully.

In Innovation and Entrepreneurship Peter Drucker explores a number of situations where there was an incongruity between business’s vision of reality – of what they thought was happening – and the actual reality which was unfolding around them. In the following three examples, Drucker shows how certain businesses identified gaps between their vision and the true reality, and then responded creatively to effectively Govern Change.

1. Incongruity Between Reality and Assumptions About It

When erroneous assumptions are made about reality, businesspeople are not concentrating their efforts on areas which will generate results. Those who see the true reality may also see the opportunity to innovate.

For example, in the early 1950s ocean freighters were thought to be dying. They were a slow, high cost method of transport. Why was this? The shipping industry had made an incorrect assumption – they had focused their efforts on reducing the cost of running fully loaded freighters at sea, by developing smaller, faster ships which ran on less fuel and required fewer crew. But the reality was that as a piece of capital equipment a ship is most expensive when it is not working, and ships were spending significant periods of time queuing at ports waiting to load or unload. This time spent queuing was the main reason why freighters were deemed to be so slow and expensive.

So instead of focusing on reducing the already low cost of running a fully loaded ship at sea, it was decided to uncouple loading from stowing, and container and roll-on, roll-off ships were born. Queuing time at ports was reduced, and freighters became more profitable. Crucially, the techniques for doing this were already in use in the railroad and trucking industries; they simply had to be applied to shipping.

2. Incongruity Between Perceived and Actual Customer Values and Expectations

No customer is as immersed in or committed to the product as the supplier, and therefore often what the customer buys is not what the supplier thinks the customer is buying.

Drucker argues that the prime motivation of those who work in the large financial institutions on Wall Street is to get rich, and that they therefore assume that this is the prime motivation of all their customers. He then charts the rise of a securities firm which appealed not to customers who wanted to become rich, but to customers who wanted to protect their money. These customers included local professionals, small businesspeople and substantial farmers. The firm’s strategy was based on protecting its clients’ money, and because of this only one eighth of its business was stock exchange business.

Drucker goes on to underline the power of those who see a mismatch between what suppliers think customers want and what they actually want:

“The big Wall Street houses cannot even imagine such customers [who want to protect their money rather than get rich] exist because they defy everything the houses believe in and hold true.”

If your competition cannot even imagine your customers exist, it will be difficult for them to steal your market share.

3. Incongruity Between the Rhythm or Logic of a Process

A manufacturer of lawn care products had a similar catalogue to its competitors, composed of fertilisers, pesticides and the like. All the competition promised ‘scientific’ products which had been extensively tested and would make your lawn look fantastic. Precise instructions were given on how much of each product should be applied to your lawn, depending on soil conditions and the desired effect.

Customers bought the products because of the promised benefits, and were receptive to the idea that each fertiliser had been scientifically developed to deliver those benefits. But when it came to actually applying the products, the logic of the process fell down. Customers found it difficult to be as scientific as they felt they should be in putting the correct amounts onto their lawns. Then one particular manufacturer produced a ‘Spreader’. This was a lightweight wheelbarrow with adjustable holes which would deliver exactly the right amount of product as the customer walked over the lawn. The ‘Spreader’ boosted sales significantly.


What can we learn from Drucker’s examples? Asking open questions about the environment in which we operate, listening, and remaining open to new ideas and approaches will all help us to capitalise on situations where the vision of what is happening around us does not match the reality. How close is the relationship between your vision of what is happening in your business environment and the reality? Which of your past processes and procedures are holding your organisation back? What can you change tomorrow in order to take advantage?