Philosophers in the social sciences have often bent their intelligences to understanding knowledge and how we know what we know.

This science of knowledge is called epistemology, and it is about the distinctions between opinion and what can be objectively and justifiably determined.

One of the most famous social science philosophers, Thomas Kuhn, argued that established paradigms progress from periods of normal science to times of extraordinary science.

The latter state is distinguished by the lack of acceptance of a previously established convention; out of seeds of doubt new ideas emerge and compete for primacy, the winning one eventually dominating future thought until that becomes obsolete and a new period of extraordinary science comes again.

In this way Aristotelian thought dominated astronomy for centuries before the efforts of Nicolas Copernicus, who was in turn refuted years later by Galileo Galilei, who discovered that the earth was part of the solar system.

This has informed astronomy to the present day.

Business paradigms

What we define as ’truth’ is often subject to revision as we find out more about the world we live in.

The premise of a flat world informed military strategy, shipping, travel and much else prior to Columbus (at least in Europe).

Once this belief was punctured, a new paradigm emerged and knowledge was built up within the boundaries of this new set of ’truths’ that the world is round.

So much of what we thought we knew is now revised.

Not too long ago, plants needed water at the root not on the leaves, Pluto was a planet, smoking was fine (and cool) and tertiary education was for the gifted.

All of these have gone from accepted fact to ignorant belief in a generation.

The study of business is still relatively young, being just about a century old, so we have only seen a proliferation of business truths recently.

One of the most interesting relates to Vision and Mission where management theorists posited that the most successful firms were those that knew where they were going, and could express this by way of a Vision or Mission statement.

This evolved with two interesting corollaries.

One was that these expressions of direction needed to be shared.

Second, that both types of statements were needed.

Vision vs Mission

The debate about the difference has hardly been resolved, even years after they were first mooted.

Different academics locate them differently, either atop the other.

So the terms have become in some ways interchangeable.

The purposes of both however remain broadly the same - to form general agreement on direction, to communicate this direction and therefore to manage the resource priorities of the organisation.

But there are times when the free-range, idealistic thinking of management academics should be challenged because there are exceptions to the vision rule.

In other words, there are some instances where Vision doesn’t matter.

Management academics have created a Utopian view of organisations.

To them, all firms should strive for greatness.

All firms should seek to endure, should try to be something more than money.

Businesses should be something more than a flash in the economic pan.

A good vision statement is an indispensable part of this paradigm.

But none of this is true.

There are many perfectly well-run businesses, making a contribution to economy and community, which do not have a vision or mission statement.

They exist to meet the economic needs of the families that own them.

These entrepreneurial firms do not start with vision statements.

Many of them simply facilitate living.

These actually constitute the majority of business in Trinidad and Tobago and the world.

The SME sector is filled with them, and the model works just fine.

Stora, perhaps the world’s oldest limited liability corporation, did not have a vision for hundreds of years.

Of course, many smaller businesses have visions for where they want to go or what they want to achieve - they just don’t write them down.

This is not as big a sin as MBAs seem to think because these businesses rely less on shared vision or can communicate the vision verbally.

Another circumstance during which a vision is not required is when a firm is dying.

The emergency room surgeon does not concern herself with quality of life - her primary objective is to preserve life. Similarly, when a business is in trouble, the worst thing you can do is engage in a lofty visioning exercise.

First priority is survival, then comes direction.

Of course the dichotomy is also false, and one can and should focus on survival with an eye on direction if the recovery is to be sustained.

But in terms of emphasis and importance, a grand vision is not always necessary when the company is fighting to survive.

Lou Gerstner, former IBM CEO was one of the first who articulated this by saying ’the last thing IBM needs now is a vision’.

He was roundly criticised for this, but he was also right.

Companies in trouble need to focus on execution, on getting things done and on leadership and processes.

These things need not exclude thinking about the future - no exercise in survival excludes contemplation about what you will be doing on the other side.

So for those of you in a recession-injured business, think again about Vision, and focus on what it takes to survive.

When death is imminent, Vision might be less important than escaping the hangman’s noose.

Eventually, the management paradigm will catch up with this sensible reality, and we can all stop forcing vision statements and vision retreats on businesses that don’t need them.

One can always hope.

Dr Rolph Balgobin is chairman of The Competitiveness Company, a think tank.

He can be reached at rolph@quicksilvertt.com