[Adapted from “Spinning on Symbolism: Imaging Strategies”, Journal of Management, 1985, 11, 2:63, co-authored with Frances Westley]
If you think about it, strategy is a “position.” But if you experience it, strategy is a “perspective,” bound up with images, including metaphors. Good strategists are, after all, visionaries. Of course, images in an organization extend beyond strategies, to the aesthetics of its products, its architecture, its logo, and its and internal decor.
Might we conclude that organizations rich in tangible imagery are more inclined to pursue more interesting strategies, while those poor in such imagery will pursue more ordinary ones? Does a name change from About Better Care to ABCorp fortell a troubled future? Does the redesign of a corporate logo from an elaborate coat of arms rich in symbolism to a nondescript rectangle lead to an equally nondescript strategy?
When unique beautiful buildings become uniform glass boxes, when paintings of the founders or of intricate production facilities are replaced by contemporary abstract art, when ” railway” or ‘”telephone” or “ice cream” are removed from the corporate name and symbols so that no one can know what the organization produces (including its executives), docs the strategy become as impoverished as the imagery?
Even if the tangible imagery does not influence the strategy per se—if it only reflects it (so to speak), or if both have fallen victim of some broader … of blandness—can we nevertheless reinvigorate strategic vision, and the energy of communityship by reinvigorating the tangible imagery? In other words, to enrich strategy, and success, should organizations return to warm architecture, rich logos, names that suggest style and individuality? imagine the consequences.