Case Study Discussion:
Role of Vision at Mentor Graphics

1. How would you describe the way vision was used at Mentor Graphics?

This analysis can help students understand why vision is necessary and how it can be best created. Discussions in this area look at the way vision was initially used to interpret Mentor Graphics position and role in the marketplace. Later on, the vision became a reflection of market “fads” and had no real use or meaning – this is an important point to realize. The less useful the vision became the more distanced employees and customers felt from the organization.

2. Did it strengthen or weaken the company? How? Why?

This question asks students to highlight positive and negative aspects of the visions used at Mentor Graphics. Although some may view the changing vision as having strengthened or weakened the company there are arguments for both sides. Removing the focus from the core competencies weakened the company’s vision. This resulted in management not being able to make sound business decisions. Using a consultant may have also weakened the identity of the organization for employees by removing them completely from the process of creating the vision. It strengthened the company by eventually renewing focus on the core business at Mentor Graphics and where they wanted to be. The process of creating a new vision led the organization full circle and re-emphasized why they are in business.

3. Of the reasons covered in this chapter relating to why visions may fail, which ones are applicable to Mentor Graphics?

Students could discuss the many reasons why visions fail from the text and analyze their applicability to this case. Some reasons are as follows: * Irrelevant: over time the vision became increasingly irrelevant to the employees of Mentor Graphics * Holy Grail(pg. 267): the “six boxes” vision could not allow the company to change with the times – it restricted how management was able to respond to change. * Too abstract: the customers did not understand the company’s vision which made it difficult to relate to Mentor Graphics. * Little participation: the vision was instigated and appeared to be largely created by the president of the organization – this meant there was little participation in the process of creating the vision by employees and other management. * Too vague: the vision was too vague for employees to relate to, which leads to the failure of the vision. * Too unrealistic: being unrealistic, as well as being irrelevant and vague, does not allow employees to relate to the vision nor believe that it can be achieved. * Applicability of vision over time: the vision at Mentor Graphics did not stand the test of time. The number of times that the vision changed at Mentor Graphics meant that its applicability was undermined by its excessive evolution. One can therefore question whether the vision statements at Mentor Graphics were really visionary.

4.
Discuss issues of vision content, context, and process in how vision was introduced and changed at the company. What emerges from this?

For this question students should be able to differentiate between the characteristics of vision, the relationship vision has with the organizational culture when it is articulated, and the process through which it is developed and modified. The different stages of vision from this case study give a variety of insights into how these three issues affected the vision. Themes center around the following:

Vision Content: Two major components of vision – cognitive and affective – highlight the characteristics of vision. * Initially vision at Mentor Graphics was focused on outcomes – to build what customers would buy, or to beat Daisy * Over time this became too abstract and focused neither on change outcomes nor on motivating staff.

Vision Context: Four generic features that relate to how vision was introduced and changed at Mentor Graphics are as follows. * Possibility: towards the end of the case study vision was positioned to encourage more innovative practices, but employees were unable to relate to the vision and the innovative possibilities it suggested. * Desirability: the need for a new vision came from employees, but it did not draw on their values and norms. * Actionability: the later visions did not make necessary actions clear. * Articulation: the way vision was communicated did not create a clear vision of where the organization was headed because it had little to do with the actual business.

Process of Introducing and Changing Vision: One classification for this process is outlined in Table 9.7 of the text. This highlights five different methods for creating vision. Mentor Graphics can be evaluated on each of these. * Telling: management creates the vision and passes it onto the staff – because of this employees lacked a connection to the vision and they could not identify with it. * Selling: The frequent change in vision would suggest that management-initiated visions were not sold to the staff – if this were the case there would have been evidence of staff or customer buy-in to the new vision. * Testing: There appears to have been little in the way of testing or providing feedback channels for new visions. The final stages of change suggest, however, that some feedback was given and that it was taken into account, as their initial vision of building things that people would buy was taken up again. * Consulting: There is little evidence of creative input given by other staff members in the process of creating change. * Co-creating: As with the previous method, there is little evidence of the alignment of vision within the organization.

5. Based on what happened in this company, what are the implications in terms of the three debates about vision discussed in this chapter (whether vision drives change or emerges during change, whether vision helps or hinders change, and whether vision is an attribute of heroic leaders or heroic organizations?)

By using these debates to stimulate discussion, students become aware of the three key debates that link vision and organizational change. These debates illustrate how this association influences the process of change. The key issues that emerge in each of these debates are listed below.

1. Vision drives change or emerges during change: * Vision appears to have driven change initially, then it seems to have emerged during change at Mentor Graphics. * It can be assumed that Mentor Graphics became more influenced by external pressures over time. * It seems that Mentor Graphics employees rely on their vision for motivation and direction – this is more common when vision drives change rather than vice versa.

2. Vision helps or hinders change: * Vision was used to help change and enhance organizational performance – creating more focused outcomes for Mentor Graphics. * Later modifications of vision “disrupted the ability to make sound financial judgments” and hindered change. It made Mentor Graphics blindly focus on the future. The existing resources of the company were overlooked as they were thought to be too conventional.

3. Vision as an attribute of heroic leaders or heroic organizations: * Langeler was successful in framing and communicating the vision initially. He became the heroic leader of the organization. * Mentor Graphics was not a “heroic organization” in the sense that it did not have an embedded vision that was lasting. It is interesting to note, however, that the organization reverted to its original vision suggesting that the “inner voice” of the organization may have had an influence.

6. Of the six change images outlined in Table 9.1, which images of vision can be applied to this case study? What lessons emerge from this?

This question can be used to encourage students to work through each of the images of change and find the applicable points in the case study. The case would suggest that the director image is most dominant but ask students to look beyond this. This will increase their understanding of the multiple images that can be applied to every situation.