Established frameworks for shared understanding and autonomous action
1 Introduction
A university vision should help people make decisions when the leader is absent. The challenge is to communicate an aspiration clearly enough that middle managers, lecturers, students and staff can interpret its implications for their own responsibilities. Detailed instructions may secure compliance, but they can also make people dependent on approval. An inspiring statement, on the other hand, may leave the practical meaning unresolved.
This paper offers a focused narrative comparison of five established frameworks. It examines what each asks leaders to do, the mechanism through which it connects vision with action, and the limits of its evidence. It is not a systematic review or a ranking of universal effectiveness. The central argument is that commitment, interpretation and operational alignment are distinct requirements. A framework should be chosen according to the requirement that needs strengthening.
2 Established frameworks
2.1 Transformational leadership
Transformational leadership explains how leaders influence commitment and development through idealised influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualised consideration. Leaders model values, give meaning to collective goals, encourage questioning and new approaches, and attend to followers’ development. Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) also distinguish authentic transformational leadership from influence that uses attractive language without an ethical foundation.
The mechanism relevant to vision communication is that followers connect an aspiration with credible leadership and are encouraged to exercise thought rather than depend solely on instructions. This theory does not specify a complete process for allocating resources or translating strategic priorities into departmental plans.
Judge and Piccolo (2004) analysed 626 correlations from 87 sources and found an overall positive relationship between transformational leadership and the criteria examined. Their findings support its relevance to leadership outcomes, but do not establish that a particular vision message causes autonomous execution. Positive evidence for contingent reward leadership also cautions against treating inspiration and explicit expectations as mutually exclusive.
2.2 Sensemaking and sensegiving
Gioia and Chittipeddi (1991) studied the first year of strategic change in a large public university. They identified four phases: envisioning, signalling, re-visioning and energising. Their framework explains change initiation through the interaction of sensemaking, or developing an understanding, and sensegiving, or seeking to influence how others understand the change.
The implication for leaders is that meaning does not simply travel intact from a speech to its audience. Leaders communicate a direction; organisational members interpret it and respond; these interactions can reshape the developing vision and the mobilisation around it. Communication therefore includes listening and interpretation, rather than transmission alone.
This framework is especially relevant when people use the same words but attach different meanings to them. Its university setting makes it pertinent to higher education. However, it is an explanatory framework from an ethnographic case study, not a prescribed sequence proven to produce the same result in every institution (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991).
2.3 Kotter’s change framework
Kotter’s original formulation identifies eight stages: establishing urgency, forming a guiding coalition, developing a vision, communicating that vision, empowering action, generating short-term wins, consolidating improvements, and institutionalising the new approaches. His account draws on observations of more than 100 organisations attempting transformation (Kotter, 1995).
For communication, Kotter emphasises repeated use of existing channels and consistency between leaders’ words and behaviour. For autonomy, he connects the vision with removing obstacles that prevent people from acting. Communication is therefore supported by changes to organisational conditions, rather than treated as a speech-writing problem.
The framework is useful when the aspiration requires a substantial change in established practices. Its organisational observations provide practical grounding, but are not a controlled test of the eight-stage sequence. Its relevance to IIUM should therefore be assessed against the scale and nature of the proposed change.
2.4 Hoshin Kanri
Hoshin Kanri addresses strategic deployment: connecting organisational direction with priorities, targets, means and work at different levels. Tennant and Roberts (2001) examine catchball, the consensus-building process through which strategic goals are translated into policies and working-level processes. Their paper describes a process design and a case at Rover.
Catchball involves discussion across levels and functions about goals, proposed approaches and feasibility. Senior direction is tested against operational knowledge, while proposed local contributions are tested against strategic priorities. The agreed response links corporate strategy with annual planning. The mechanism is negotiated alignment, rather than an assumption that every unit will independently reach the same interpretation.
Hoshin Kanri is relevant when managers accept a vision but cannot connect their unit’s work to it. It requires participation and planning discipline; it does not remove the work of developing operational plans. The Rover case supports its practical application, but does not establish effectiveness for every university or every educational aspiration (Tennant & Roberts, 2001).
2.5 Strategy maps and the Balanced Scorecard
Kaplan and Norton (1996) describe four strategic management processes: translating the vision, communicating and linking, business planning, and feedback and learning. The Balanced Scorecard connects strategic objectives with measures and targets across financial, customer, internal process, and learning and growth perspectives. Their later strategy-map approach makes relationships among strategic objectives visible; the published example includes Mobil North American Marketing and Refining (Kaplan & Norton, 2000).
The communication mechanism is explicit strategic logic. People can understand how improvements in capabilities and processes are expected to contribute to stakeholder outcomes. Unit objectives can then be connected to the organisation’s direction, making the contribution of different areas easier to discuss.
For a university, the perspectives and outcome definitions would need to reflect its educational and public purposes. A map expresses proposed relationships that require examination; drawing an arrow does not prove causation. A scorecard can also become a collection of targets detached from meaning. These are reasons to use the approach as a basis for strategic discussion, with review of the assumptions and measures chosen.
3 What distinguishes the frameworks
3.1 Different mechanisms and different problems
These frameworks are not five alternative names for the same communication method. Transformational leadership is a theory of leadership influence and development. Sensemaking and sensegiving explains the formation and negotiation of meaning. Kotter provides a framework for organisational change. Hoshin Kanri is a system for strategic deployment. Strategy maps and the Balanced Scorecard connect objectives, proposed strategic relationships and review. Comparing them only by whether they “communicate vision” hides these differences.
For practical selection, this paper distinguishes five possible gaps: people may not value the aspiration, may interpret it differently, may not see how their work contributes, may lack an aligned local plan, or may encounter barriers to action. This diagnostic distinction is the paper’s synthesis. It is not a new construct claimed to have been validated by the original authors.
Transformational leadership is most relevant to credibility, motivation and development, through its four components (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999). Sensemaking and sensegiving is relevant to interpretation through interaction (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991). Strategy maps clarify the proposed contribution of capabilities and processes to outcomes (Kaplan & Norton, 2000). Catchball aligns strategic direction with operational proposals (Tennant & Roberts, 2001). Kotter connects communication with the conditions and reinforcement needed for change (Kotter, 1995). These are complementary functions, although using all five is not automatically necessary.
3.2 What autonomy means in each framework
Encouraging independent thought is different from transferring authority. Transformational leadership encourages questioning and development but does not itself define decision rights. Sensemaking allows people to contribute to interpretation, without necessarily giving them control over resources. Hoshin Kanri gives operational proposals a place in strategic alignment. Strategy maps help people judge whether a proposed contribution fits the strategy. Kotter addresses obstacles to action. None of these descriptions warrants assuming that understanding the vision alone creates competence, resources or permission.
3.3 How evidence should be interpreted
The evidence is not equivalent. Judge and Piccolo (2004) provide a quantitative synthesis of relationships with leadership outcomes. Gioia and Chittipeddi (1991) explain a university change process through an ethnographic study. Tennant and Roberts (2001) examine catchball implementation through a process design and a Rover case. Kotter (1995) draws lessons from organisational observations, while Kaplan and Norton (1996, 2000) explain management approaches with organisational examples. These sources support different kinds of inference. They do not establish which framework is best for producing balanced IIUM staff and graduates.
3.4 Comparative mechanisms and implementation risks
The comparison below is an analytical interpretation of the cited frameworks. Failure signs and checks are proposed for practical use; they are not additional original model components.
| Framework | Core mechanism and communication focus | Conditions for useful autonomy | Failure sign and diagnostic check |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transformational leadership Bass and Steidlmeier (1999); Judge and Piccolo (2004) |
Credible leader behaviour gives the aspiration meaning; inspiration builds commitment; intellectual stimulation and individual development support independent thought. | People require development and consistent leadership. Encouragement to think must be accompanied by explicit authority where decisions are delegated. | People endorse the vision but imitate contradictory leader behaviour. Check whether leadership and rewards embody the stated qualities. |
| Sensemaking and sensegiving Gioia and Chittipeddi (1991) |
Interaction shapes how the direction is interpreted. Members’ responses can inform the developing meaning and mobilisation. | There must be room for questions and feedback. Agreement on wording needs examination of what people understand it to mean. | Everyone repeats “balanced” but proposes incompatible outcomes. Compare explanations of what would count as success. |
| Kotter’s change framework Kotter (1995) |
Communication sits within mobilisation, barrier removal, early wins and reinforcement of changed practices. | People need organisational conditions that permit the intended action, rather than a message contradicted by routines or incentives. | People understand and want to act but established systems prevent them. Identify the specific barriers and who can remove them. |
| Hoshin Kanri Tennant and Roberts (2001) |
Catchball builds agreement on targets and means, linking strategic direction with working-level processes and planning. | Operational knowledge must influence plans; priorities and resources need alignment across levels and functions. | Local projects multiply without a clear contribution to shared priorities. Examine the proposed link, feasibility and resource agreements. |
| Strategy maps and Balanced Scorecard Kaplan and Norton (1996, 2000) |
Explicit objectives, strategic relationships and measures explain how different contributions are expected to produce outcomes. | Objectives and measures must reflect the mission. Proposed causal relationships require review and learning. | Activity targets are achieved while intended development is absent. Check whether indicators capture outcomes and whether the assumed relationships hold. |
4 A proposed sequence for communicating vision
The following six-stage sequence is this paper’s proposed synthesis of the reviewed frameworks. It is not an established model attributed to any one author. The stages connect definition, shared interpretation, strategic explanation, local planning, enabling conditions and learning. They can be revisited when interpretation or evidence changes. Leaders need not introduce every framework’s terminology to staff; the frameworks provide the reasoning behind the process.
4.1 Define the intended people and outcomes
Top management first states the purpose and the qualities the university seeks to develop. For the IIUM example, the proposed aspiration is staff and graduates whose professional competence, adab and Islamic commitment shape their daily decisions together. “Balanced” should not remain an undefined adjective. Competence concerns sound knowledge and dependable performance. Adab concerns respectful, honest and responsible conduct. Islamic commitment includes learning and practising Islam, worship and amanah. This is a proposed interpretation of the example, not a quotation from official policy.
The communication at this stage answers what kind of person the university seeks to develop and why that matters. The output is an agreed statement of intended qualities and the institution’s responsibility for supporting them. This draws on translating vision into actionable meaning in Kaplan and Norton (1996), while the ethical grounding of leader influence is relevant in Bass and Steidlmeier (1999).
4.2 Establish shared interpretation through dialogue
Top management and middle managers discuss how they understand those qualities. Middle managers then facilitate the same interpretation with staff and appropriate student representatives. People explain what the aspiration means in their own responsibilities and identify tensions or ambiguities. Leadership distinguishes institutional principles from local choices about how to pursue them. Dialogue can refine interpretation and action without treating every foundational principle as negotiable.
The output is demonstrated understanding, including resolved differences about the intended outcome. Repeating the vision statement is insufficient evidence of this. The framework basis is sensemaking and sensegiving (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991); the proposed use of explanations to check understanding is this paper’s application.
4.3 Explain how the university can contribute
Leadership and managers make the proposed strategic relationships explicit. What should teaching, supervision, service practices, student support and the campus environment contribute to the intended qualities? Staff and students can then see where their responsibilities fit. The output is a concise strategy map or written explanation of those relationships, with its assumptions stated. This applies Kaplan and Norton (2000). It does not require a central list of every activity.
4.4 Develop local responses through catchball
Each middle manager works with the unit to propose its contribution: the outcome it will pursue, its rationale, the approach, resources, authority and evidence of progress. Proposals are discussed with top management and relevant neighbouring units. Leadership checks alignment, feasibility and dependencies; the unit contributes its knowledge of the work. Agreements may require changes to targets, means or resource commitments. This applies catchball in Hoshin Kanri (Tennant & Roberts, 2001).
For example, a dean might propose improving the integration of professional judgement, adab and Islamic reflection in supervision. An administrative manager might propose improving reliable and fair service as an expression of competence and amanah. These are illustrative local choices, not centrally required programmes. The output is a local plan that explains its contribution to the shared aspiration and records the decisions the unit can make.
4.5 Enable action and embody the aspiration
Top management addresses barriers beyond a unit’s authority. Middle managers address local obstacles, develop people and clarify delegated decisions. Leaders at both levels must demonstrate the qualities they communicate. This combines Kotter’s emphasis on empowerment and barrier removal with transformational leadership’s emphasis on example and development (Kotter, 1995; Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999).
Staff should then be able to initiate appropriate improvements within their authority. Students should be able to take ownership of learning and conduct and contribute through suitable channels. The output is workable authority, support and conditions for action. If workloads, incentives or observed leadership contradict the aspiration, another round of communication alone is unlikely to resolve the problem.
4.6 Review outcomes and improve the response
Units review whether their actions contribute to the intended qualities and communicate their findings upward. Staff and students contribute experience and feedback. Leaders examine both local results and the strategic assumptions. This draws on feedback and learning in Kaplan and Norton (1996). The response may be to refine an approach, develop capability, change a measure or remove a newly identified barrier.
Evidence should distinguish activity from outcome. Numbers attending a programme describe participation; they do not by themselves establish growth in competence, adab or Islamic commitment. Relevant evidence might include professional assessment, observed conduct, reflective work and feedback about the learning environment. These are proposed evidence types for the example, not a validated measurement instrument. Inward faith should not be treated as directly measurable by institutional scoring.
The output is an evidence-informed decision about what to continue, change or support. A weak result should prompt diagnosis of the specific gap: meaning, commitment, capability, authority, conditions or the approach itself. It should not automatically be attributed to a failure to communicate.
5 Worked application to balanced IIUM staff and graduates
This example makes the six-stage proposal concrete. Professional competence, adab and Islamic commitment are intended to develop together. Local responses remain open to discussion; the table does not prescribe a uniform programme for every unit.
| Stage and framework basis | Top management communicates or enables | Middle managers translate with their units | Staff and student response and evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Define outcomes Translating vision; ethical leadership |
Explain the intended qualities and educational purpose. Clarify that “balanced” concerns everyday judgement and practice. | Connect the qualities to the people and responsibilities within the unit. Identify unclear terms. | Explain the aspiration in relation to work or study. Output: a common statement of intended development. |
| 2 Agree interpretation Sensemaking and sensegiving |
Invite explanations, questions and tensions. Clarify principles and room for local interpretation. | Discuss what the qualities mean in supervision, service, learning and campus life. Bring unresolved differences upward. | Contribute interpretations and concerns. Evidence: people explain the intended outcome consistently, using their own responsibilities. |
| 3 Explain contribution Strategy maps |
Show how university capabilities and processes are expected to support the qualities. State assumptions. | Explain the unit’s place in those relationships. Identify where practice supports or contradicts them. | Identify how their choices contribute. Output: a clear rationale linking work or learning with intended development. |
| 4 Align local plans Hoshin Kanri catchball |
Discuss proposed outcomes, feasibility, resources and dependencies. Agree authority and priorities. | Develop the local response with the team. A dean may address supervision; an administrative manager may address service. | Propose improvements and participate in planning. Output: an agreed local contribution with outcomes and authority. |
| 5 Enable and model Kotter; transformational leadership |
Remove institutional obstacles and demonstrate the intended qualities in decisions and conduct. | Provide coaching and local support. Delegate appropriate choices and address contradictory practices. | Take initiative within authority; practise competence, adab and Islamic commitment in daily work and learning. |
| 6 Review and learn Balanced Scorecard feedback |
Review evidence and assumptions; resolve barriers affecting several units; adjust support. | Discuss outcomes and feedback. Distinguish participation counts from demonstrated development. | Report experience, reflect on progress and suggest changes. Evidence informs the next response rather than proving inward faith. |
6 Responsibilities and communication between levels
Communication moves downward as purpose and priorities, upward as interpretation, proposals and evidence, and across units where responsibilities depend on one another. The responsibilities below apply the synthesis to IIUM. They are not verbatim instructions from the original frameworks.
| Level | Responsibilities | Communication or expected response |
|---|---|---|
| Top management | Clarify intended qualities and institutional principles. Set priorities and decision boundaries. Model the aspiration. Review proposals, allocate support and remove barriers beyond units’ authority. Examine evidence and strategic assumptions. | Explain the purpose and intended outcomes. Listen to managers’ interpretations, proposals and constraints. Resolve conflicts. Accept different local approaches when they support the agreed aspiration. |
| Middle managers | Interpret the direction with the unit. Identify gaps and develop a contribution through catchball. Coach staff, delegate decisions and organise review. Include relevant student perspectives. Address local barriers and escalate wider ones. | Translate purpose into the unit’s responsibilities without merely forwarding a slogan. Communicate authority and support. Explain proposals and evidence upward, and coordinate dependencies with other units. |
| Staff | Connect professional responsibilities with competence, adab and Islamic commitment. Propose and pursue improvements within agreed authority. Develop relevant capabilities, model conduct and provide feedback about obstacles. | Act with responsible judgement rather than await instructions on every detail. Explain the rationale for choices, report relevant outcomes and seek guidance when obligations or boundaries conflict. |
| Students and future graduates | Take ownership of learning, conduct, worship and responsibilities to others. Practise honesty and adab; pursue professional and Islamic learning. Participate in appropriate feedback and student channels. | Use the aspiration to guide choices in study and campus life. Ask questions, seek help and raise contradictions. Students contribute as learners and community members, not as subordinate employees. |
7 Conclusion
The five frameworks address different mechanisms. Combining them requires an explicit account of what each contributes, rather than simply collecting their terminology. This paper proposes six connected stages: define intended outcomes, establish shared interpretation, explain strategic contribution, develop local plans through catchball, enable and model action, and review outcomes. Top management carries responsibility for direction and enabling conditions; middle managers translate and align; staff and students contribute through responsible initiative and feedback. The proposal is a synthesis for the IIUM example, not a model whose effectiveness has been established. Its practical test is whether people understand the intended development, can explain their contribution, have conditions for action and use evidence to improve their response.
8 Key points
1. A vision should guide decisions when the leader is absent. Effective communication helps people understand the intended direction and their contribution.
2. Commitment, shared interpretation and operational alignment are different requirements. Frameworks should be compared according to which requirement they address.
3. Transformational leadership emphasises modelling values, inspiring commitment, encouraging independent thought and developing people.
4. Sensemaking and sensegiving explains how people interpret a vision, respond to it and contribute to its developing meaning.
5. Kotter connects vision communication with mobilisation, removal of barriers, early results and reinforcement of change.
6. Hoshin Kanri uses catchball dialogue to align strategic priorities with locally developed operational responses.
7. Strategy maps and the Balanced Scorecard explain how objectives and contributions connect, and link them to measures and review.
8. For balanced IIUM staff and graduates, the proposed sequence is to define outcomes, agree interpretation, explain contribution, align local plans, enable action and review development.
9. Communication must be supported by leadership behaviour, authority, resources and organisational practices that enable the intended action.
10. Established use does not prove effectiveness in every context. Evidence, interpretation and proposed applications should be clearly distinguished.
9 References
Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 181–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00016-8
Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12(6), 433–448. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250120604
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755–768. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. Harvard Business Review, 74(1), 75–85. https://store.hbr.org/product/using-the-balanced-scorecard-as-a-strategic-management-system/R0707M
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2000). Having trouble with your strategy? Then map it. Harvard Business Review, 78(5), 167–176. https://hbr.org/2000/09/having-trouble-with-your-strategy-then-map-it
Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 59–67. https://hbr.org/1995/03/leading-change-why-transformation-efforts-fail-2
Tennant, C., & Roberts, P. (2001). Hoshin Kanri: Implementing the catchball process. Long Range Planning, 34(3), 287–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(01)00039-5