Abstract
Vision communication plays a crucial role in leadership, strategic management, and organizational change. However, current research on vision communication is fragmented, leading to a limited understanding of the topic. To advance this topic, this paper synthesizes the existing literature on the dimensions, theoretical mechanisms, moderators, and outcomes of vision communication, drawing on 150 papers. In particular, we identify four key dimensions of vision communication: vision attributes (e.g., imagery, metaphor), vision content (e.g., emphasis on profits or product quality), vision communication frequency (e.g., infrequent vs. frequent), and non-verbal delivery (e.g., emotional displays, eye gaze). Furthermore, we integrate four theoretical perspectives—motivation-based, identification-based, affect-based, and cognition-based—to explain the effects of vision communication. In essence, vision influences various outcomes by ensuring that employees are motivated and feel confident in their ability to achieve them (i.e., motivation-based), identify with the vision or leadership (i.e., identification-based), experience emotional inspiration or positive affect (i.e., affect-based), or understand the vision (i.e., cognition-based). Based on these mechanisms, we outline four categories of moderating factors that shape their impact (e.g., leader factors, follower factors, leader-follower relationships, and contextual factors). Finally, we outline future research directions to further advance research on vision communication.
Vision communication, the act of conveying images of a collective future, plays a crucial role in implementing firm strategy (Westley & Mintzberg, 1989), promoting change (Carton, Knowlton, Coutifaris, Kundro, & Boysen, 2023), inspiring others (Carton, 2018), and spurring performance (Kirkpatrick, Wofford, & Baum, 2002). Recognizing its significance, scholars in leadership, strategic management, communication, and organizational change have shown tremendous interest in studying vision communication. Similarly, in practice, managers, CEOs, and presidents seek to master vision communication, and it remains a popular topic in leading management press like Harvard Business Review, MIT Sloan Management Review, and Forbes.
Despite significant interest from both scholars and practitioners, current research on vision communication is “surprisingly fragmented” (van Knippenberg & Stam, 2014: 242), with diverging focuses (Stam, Lord, van Knippenberg, & Wisse, 2014). For instance, some study the frequency of vision communication (Kearney, Shemla, van Knippenberg, & Scholz, 2019), while others explore the use of imagery-laden words (Carton & Lucas, 2018) or metaphors (Mio, Riggio, Levin, & Reese, 2005) in communicating a vision. Some focus on whether the vision pertains to change (Venus, Stam, & van Knippenberg, 2019) or producing high-quality products (Westley & Mintzberg, 1989), while others investigate the use of non-verbal behaviors, such as facial expression, during vision communication (Awamleh & Gardner, 1999). Additionally, some focus on leaders “having a vision” rather than “communicating a vision” (Ashford, Wellman, Sully de Luque, De Stobbeleir, & Wollan, 2018). What makes the existing literature even more scattered is the use of different terms when studying vision, such as “ultimate goal” (Carton, Murphy, & Clark, 2014), “mission” (Kopaneva & Sias, 2015), or “visionary leadership” (Berson & Halevy, 2014). Given these diverging focuses and terms, it is challenging to form an overarching picture of what we have learned about vision communication.
Another challenge in mapping out the existing knowledge on vision communication lies in the limited understanding of its underlying mechanisms and boundary conditions. Although research on mediators and moderators explaining the impact of vision communication was initially limited (van Knippenberg & Stam, 2014), it has expanded significantly over the past decade. Therefore, a systematic review of these studies is both necessary and timely to gain a comprehensive understanding of why and when vision communication works effectively. This will not only enhance our theoretical understanding of how vision exerts influence but also provide practical guidance for effectively communicating vision to employees.
To address these challenges and advance vision communication research, our work aims to systematically review the literature and provide an overarching framework that distinguishes the various dimensions of vision and the theoretical mechanisms underlying their effects. Although four reviews on vision communication exist, their focus differs from ours. Specifically, they emphasize conceptual and methodological issues of vision research (van Knippenberg & Stam, 2014), the practical implications of vision for Human Resource managers (Zaccaro & Banks, 2004), the conceptual development of vision (Kantabutra, 2010), and how to develop and implement a vision to enhance its influence (O’Connell, Hickerson, & Pillutla, 2011). In addition to these differences, the most recent comprehensive review of vision communication by van Knippenberg and Stam (2014) is over a decade old. Since then, a substantial body of new research has emerged, comprising about 45% of the papers we reviewed. While two recent reviews exist, their coverage of vision communication is not comprehensive, drawing on only a few articles on vision communication to illustrate their focused topics, such as leadership (Carton, 2022) or leader communication (Liu, Chambers, & Moore, 2023). Our review differs by providing an updated and comprehensive review on vision communication. Overall, our review offers unique contributions beyond these existing reviews.
Drawing on 150 papers, our review contributes to the literature in the following ways. First, we categorize research with diverse focuses into four dimensions, providing a structure to organize existing knowledge on vision communication. This structure allows scholars to gain an overarching understanding of vision literature, providing insights into how fragmented research is interconnected. Second, we offer a comprehensive review of the theoretical mechanisms explaining the effects of vision communication. We categorize these mechanisms into four theoretical perspectives and organize the boundary conditions accordingly. As a whole, this framework deepens our theoretical understanding of why and when vision communication exerts its influence. Third, our review identifies key opportunities for future research. It reveals which dimensions of vision communication require more research, what issues remain in theoretical development, and how to enhance our understanding of its antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. These future research directions serve to attract more interest among scholars and provide guidance on expanding our knowledge of vision communication.
Method and Coverage
We define vision communication as the act of articulating images of a collective future. This definition was developed through a careful review of existing definitions, followed by the exclusion of elements that conflate vision communication with its desired outcomes, in line with best practices in conceptualization (MacKenzie, 2003; van Knippenberg & Stam, 2014). These steps ensure that our definition preserves the core themes while avoiding confounding elements. 1 In adopting this definition, we acknowledge that scholars often use terms such as “ultimate goal” (Carton et al., 2014) or “mission” (Kopaneva & Sias, 2015) interchangeably with “vision,” and treat “visionary leadership” (Berson & Halevy, 2014) as synonymous with vision communication. While some researchers have sought to distinguish these concepts (e.g., Collins & Porras, 1996; Levin, 2000; Stam et al., 2014), many studies on goal, mission, or visionary leadership operationalize these constructs in ways that closely align with our definition of vision communication. To ensure comprehensive coverage, we included search terms such as “vision*,” “mission,” “ultimate goal,” and “organization* goal.”
To balance the comprehensiveness of our review with quality, we limited our literature search to certain journals. First, we included journals listed in the Financial Times Top 50, which are widely regarded as representing top quality in the business and management field (Acar, Tarakci, & van Knippenberg, 2019). Additionally, we included five journals specializing in leadership or management communication, given their high relevance to vision communication. These five journals are The Leadership Quarterly, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Group & Organization Management, International Journal of Business Communication, and Management Communication Quarterly. Finally, we included three journals suggested by recent reviews on leadership and management communication (Gao, Yu, & Cannella, 2016; Liu et al., 2023; Lockwood, Giorgi, & Glynn, 2019): Academy of Management Annals, Journal of Management Inquiry, and Journal of Organizational Behavior. Conducting our literature search across these 58 journals ensures coverage of key disciplines, including leadership, strategic management, communication, and organizational change.
We adopted three steps for the search. First, we searched for the four terms in the selected 58 journals using Web of Science (as of October 2024), resulting in 1,253 articles. Second, we carefully reviewed the abstracts, excluding articles that did not focus on vision communication. We also excluded articles on transformational or charismatic leadership. Although vision communication is a key aspect of these leadership styles (House, 1998; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990), these articles concern broader leadership behaviors rather than vision communication per se. This process resulted in 125 articles. Third, we thoroughly examined these articles and their references to identify additional relevant articles from other journals, book chapters, or dissertations on vision communication, resulting in a total of 150 papers. Among them, 92 were quantitative, 40 were conceptual or theoretical, 13 were qualitative (case studies or interviews), and five were review papers. 2
In analyzing these articles, we first identified the following aspects: terms used to reflect vision communication, operationalization of vision communication, antecedents, outcomes, mediators, moderators, cited theories, core theoretical arguments, and findings. Second, two coders—one of the authors and a trained research assistant—categorized the various focuses on vision communication into four dimensions. These dimensions were identified by integrating prior research on vision communication dimensions (e.g., Baum, Locke, & Kirkpatrick, 1998; Kantabutra, 2010). Third, the two coders categorized the cited theories and theoretical arguments into four theoretical perspectives. These theoretical perspectives were synthesized through discussions among the author team, with the goal of ensuring clear distinctions among them and encompassing cited theories in the reviewed articles.
We conducted the coding process in four steps. First, we trained the coders to ensure a clear understanding of the four vision dimensions and the four theoretical perspectives. Second, the coders independently coded 10 articles, then met to compare results and resolve any disagreements. This step was repeated with another set of 10 articles. Third, they independently coded the remaining articles. Interrater reliability was .75 for vision dimensions and .70 for theoretical perspectives, both meeting the recommended threshold of .70 (Hayes & Krippendorff, 2007). Finally, the coders met to resolve any remaining discrepancies. This process informed the integrated model presented in Figure 1. We elaborate on the vision dimensions and theoretical perspectives in the section below.
Overview of Vision Communication
Dimensions of Vision Communication
Prior research has identified different dimensions of vision and proposed multiple frameworks (e.g., Baum et al., 1998; Holladay & Coombs, 1994; Kantabutra, 2010). Integrating prior work, we synthesize four key dimensions of vision communication: vision attributes, content, communication frequency, and non-verbal delivery. These four dimensions respectively reflect how the vision is framed, what the vision is about, how often the vision is communicated, and the non-verbal behaviors of those who communicate the vision. Table 1 presents an overview of these four dimensions. In the following sections, we elaborate on each dimension by discussing its definition, major findings, operationalizations, and limitations.
Vision Communication Dimensions
Vision Attributes (How)
Vision attributes refer to the characteristics of a vision, encompassing both the features of the language used and the rhetorical devices employed. Language features are characteristics of the language, such as clarity (e.g., language is clear and easy to understand), brevity (e.g., language is concise and brief), and future orientation (e.g., language is forward-looking). Rhetorical devices are techniques used to inform and persuade audiences, described as “tools for framing” (Den Hartog & Verburg, 1997; Fairhurst & Sarr, 1996). Examples of rhetorical devices include imagery, contrast, and storytelling (Atkinson, 1984; Den Hartog & Verburg, 1997; Heritage & Greatbatch, 1986). Vision attributes focus on how to frame messages with the use of different language features and rhetorical devices, rather than what the messages concern. This contrasts with vision content, which focuses on the content of the messages or what the organization aims to achieve, such as a high-quality product or customer satisfaction.
We identified 62 articles (51%) that examined over 30 different vision attributes. Among these, the most studied vision attributes include temporal orientation, imagery, and clarity. Temporal orientation, which refers to the extent to which a vision’s language is oriented toward the past, present, or future (Shipp, Edwards, & Lambert, 2009), is an important attribute because a vision typically outlines an organization’s future goals, inherently linking it to time-based characteristics. Consequently, scholars often examine “future orientation” as one important vision attribute (Baum et al., 1998; Fanelli, Misangyi, & Tosi, 2009; Fiset & Boies, 2019). Additionally, some scholars argue that beyond future orientation, leaders should connect the future to the past and present by using historical rhetoric (Suddaby, Israelsen, Mitchell, & Lim, 2023) and emphasizing vision continuity (Venus, Stam, et al., 2019), which can help gain support from employees and motivate collective action.
Another frequently studied vision attribute is imagery, which refers to the use of sensory-based words (e.g., images, sounds, smells, or tastes) that can evoke mental sensations in the audience (Carton et al., 2014; Emrich, Brower, Feldman, & Garland, 2001). An example of imagery vision is “make customers laugh,” which enables individuals to form a vivid mental picture. Including imagery in vision is impactful because people are more likely to retain vivid images than abstract words (Collins & Porras, 1996). Multiple studies have demonstrated the positive impact of vision imagery, such as increased positive affect, leader charisma attribution, goal clarity, and improved performance among employees (Carton & Lucas, 2018; Carton et al., 2014; Emrich et al., 2001; Naidoo & Lord, 2008).
Finally, clarity, the third most studied vision attribute, refers to how understandable and well-defined a vision is. Many studies consider clarity to be one of the key features of an effective vision (Baum et al., 1998; Cole, Harris, & Bernerth, 2006; Oswald, Mossholder, & Harris, 1994). Empirical research has demonstrated that vision clarity is linked to positive outcomes, such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment (Cole et al., 2006; Heine, Stouten, & Liden, 2023), and employee engagement (Eldor, 2020). Interestingly, scholars have also found that the opposite—vision ambiguity—can sometimes be advantageous. For example, Gioia, Nag, and Corley (2012) found that an ambiguous vision can facilitate organizational change by allowing employees to apply their own interpretations.
In terms of operationalizing vision attributes, scholars have employed a variety of methods, including expert coding (N = 13), experimental manipulations (N = 13), field survey measures (N = 12), and dictionary-based text analysis (N = 10). Expert coding is commonly used to analyze written vision statements or public speeches on vision. Scholars typically develop coding schemes based on their conceptualization of a vision attribute and then rely on the coding consensus of at least two experts to quantify it (e.g., Carton et al., 2014, Study 1). Experimental designs have been used to manipulate vision attributes. For example, Venus, Stam, et al. (2019) manipulated vision continuity by varying whether traditions were maintained despite the changes expressed in a vision.
For dictionary-based text analysis, researchers rely on dictionaries with well-defined attributes to analyze the frequency of words representing a specific attribute within a message. There have been established dictionaries like Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC), which categorize words into emotional, cognitive, and social concerns, among others (Pennebaker, Mehl, & Niederhoffer, 2003). For example, Bono and Ilies (2006) used LIWC to assess leaders’ use of positive emotion words (e.g., happy, good) in their vision statements. In addition to using established dictionaries, scholars also develop their own dictionaries for specific attributes. For example, Carton et al. (2023) developed three linguistic dictionaries to assess “concreteness” in CEO speeches, whereas Stam, van Knippenberg, Wisse, and Nederveen Pieterse (2018) created a list of words reflecting promotion and prevention focus to measure the regulatory focus of presidents’ inaugural speeches. Finally, field survey measures were commonly used in studies that focused on followers’ perceptions of vision attributes. For instance, field surveys have been employed to assess followers’ perceptions of vision clarity (Heine et al., 2023; Zhang, Zhang, & Law, 2022) and vision continuity (Venus, Stam, et al., 2019).
The methods of expert coding and field survey measures may, to some extent, conflate objective enactment with subjective perceptions of vision attributes, as both coders’ and participants’ ratings are susceptible to perceptual biases (Antonakis, Bastardoz, Jacquart, & Shamir, 2016). To address this concern and ensure robustness, recent research increasingly adopts multiple methods to capture vision dimensions. For instance, Carton et al. (2023) combined both dictionary-based text analysis and experimental designs to examine vision concreteness. Similarly, Venus, Stam, et al. (2019) employed both field surveys and experiments to study vision continuity.
Limitations and future directions
There are three notable limitations in research on vision attributes. First, scholars examine a wide range of attributes—over 30 distinct attributes across 62 papers—with limited replication attempts. Only a few attributes have been examined in multiple studies, while most attributes have been examined only once. Second, even when examining the same vision attribute, scholars often conceptualize and operationalize it differently, making it difficult to integrate findings. For example, although both Carton et al. (2014) and Emrich et al. (2001) studied vision imagery, they defined it differently and adopted different dictionaries to operationalize it. Such inconsistencies hinder the accumulation of knowledge and the ability to draw clear conclusions about the effects of vision imagery. Third, about half of the studies examine multiple vision attributes by lumping them into a higher-level construct. For instance, Oswald et al. (1994) examined vision salience, which comprises three attributes: (1) the clarity of the vision, (2) the extent to which the vision is shared among leaders, and (3) the degree to which the vision is appropriate. Given the distinct meaning of each vision attribute, combining them into a single construct complicates both its interpretation and the identification of its antecedents and outcomes. To address these limitations, we recommend conducting more replication studies to enhance the robustness of existing findings, being mindful of the varied operationalizations of similar constructs, and focusing on one specific attribute at a time to draw clearer conclusions about its influence.
Vision Content (What)
Vision content describes the outcomes an organization aims to achieve, such as producing high-quality products, increasing the company’s market share, or benefiting society and the community (Westley & Mintzberg, 1989). Unlike vision attributes, which focus on how to use the language features and rhetorical devices to communicate the vision, vision content concerns what the vision is about. Visions with the same content can exhibit different attributes. For instance, compare “Our vision is to ensure customer satisfaction” with “Our vision is to make every customer leave with a smile on their face.” While both share the same vision content of ensuring customer satisfaction, they differ in vision attributes: The latter involves the imagery attribute through its use of imagery-based words (i.e., “a smile on their face”). Conversely, visions can differ in content but share the same attributes. For example, compare “Our vision is to make every customer leave with a smile on their face” with “Our vision is to make every employee leave work with a smile on their face.” Both visions share the same imagery attribute through the use of imagery-based words, but differ in content: The former aims to satisfy customers, while the latter focuses on employee satisfaction.
According to our review, 47 papers (39%) studied over 10 different types of vision content. The commonly studied vision content include dealing with change (e.g., adapting to advancements in technology; Paine, Byron, & Higgins, 2024; Venus, Johnson, Zhang, Wang, & Lanaj, 2019), venture growth (e.g., expanding the organization size; Baum & Locke, 2004; Baum et al., 1998; Haque, TitiAmayah, & Liu, 2016; Preller, Patzelt, & Breugst, 2020), customer focus (e.g., ensuring customer satisfaction; Bartkus & Glassman, 2008; Kantabutra & Avery, 2007; Lewis & Clark, 2020), social visions (e.g., creating a greater good for society; van Balen & Tarakci, 2024), and follower focus (e.g., addressing followers in the vision; Stam, van Knippenberg, & Wisse, 2010a). Beyond such commonly studied vision content, some scholars explore vision content specific to certain contexts. For example, Raffaelli, DeJordy, and McDonald (2022) identified two distinct visions within the watchmaking industry: a modernization vision (focusing on the mass production of watches) and a preservation vision (centering on maintaining the traditional craft of watchmaking).
Early studies on vision content have two primary focuses. The first is identifying similarities among the vision content of different organizations (Dvir, Kass, & Shamir, 2004; Kendall, 1993; Larwood, Kriger, & Falbe, 1993). For example, Dvir et al. (2004) found that the vision content of high-tech firms often includes contributions to the community, social responsibility, and striving for excellence. The second focus is linking specific vision content to corresponding outcomes. For instance, research shows that visions emphasizing growth, product quality, excellence, and customer satisfaction are positively related to corresponding results in organizations’ venture growth (Baum et al., 1998; Baum & Locke, 2004), performance quality (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996), organizational performance (Kirkpatrick et al., 2002), and customer satisfaction (Kantabutra & Avery, 2007).
Recent studies have advanced research on vision content in several ways. First, emerging work has begun exploring how vision content influences audiences beyond internal employees. For example, Van Balen and Tarakci (2024) examined how startups’ social vision (e.g., promoting societal, environmental, or community well-being) impacts job seekers’ application intentions, extending beyond traditional outcomes like employee performance or perceived leader effectiveness. Second, recent work goes beyond quantitative methods (e.g., surveys, experiments) by incorporating qualitative ones, such as inductive interviews, case studies, or both (e.g., Lewis & Clark, 2020; Raffaelli et al., 2022). Third, studies have adopted a typology approach to examine vision content. For instance, Paine et al. (2024) examined both whether a vision involves change (“change” vs. “no change”) and its regulatory focus—specifically, whether it aims to gain positive outcomes or prevent negative outcomes (“gains” vs. “losses”), resulting in four types: change with a focus on gains, change with a focus on avoiding losses, no change with a focus on gain, and no change with a focus on avoiding losses.
To operationalize vision content, scholars have employed expert coding (N = 7), experimental manipulations (N = 5), and field survey measures (N = 4). Similar to how expert coding is used to assess vision attributes, researchers typically develop coding schemes based on their conceptualization of a specific vision content and then rely on the coding consensus of at least two experts to quantify it. For example, Van Balen and Tarakci (2024) operationalized startups’ use of social vision by asking two trained graduate assistants to code whether a vision statement addressed social or environmental concerns. Additionally, experimental manipulations have also been used. For instance, Stam et al. (2010a) manipulated follower-focused vision by varying the extent to which leaders address followers personally and encourage followers to reflect on their role in the vision. Finally, scholars use survey measures to capture vision content, such as the extent to which the vision concerns profit growth (Haque et al., 2016) or community (Kim, Waldman, Balthazard, & Ames, 2023).
In addition to these existing methods, research on vision content could benefit from adopting dictionary-based text analysis, as it offers a more objective approach to capturing vision content compared to expert coding or field survey measures, which are often susceptible to perceptual biases (Antonakis et al., 2016). Furthermore, the emerging use of qualitative methods employing analysis approaches such as axial coding and interactive process has yielded valuable insights into vision content (e.g., Lewis & Clark, 2020; Raffaelli et al., 2022). Future research could further benefit this work by adopting the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). This approach extends beyond coding and analyzing previously collected data; it also informs ongoing data collection by allowing emerging insights from earlier analyses to shape subsequent inquiry (Boeije, 2002), thereby facilitating the systematic development of theory grounded in qualitative data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
Limitations and future directions
We identify two limitations in the current research on vision content. First, as with research on vision attributes, scholars have covered a wide range of vision content with limited replication efforts. As a result, it is unclear whether the study findings are unique to the study context or generalizable. Second, existing studies tend to focus on specific vision content and how it enhances relevant outcomes, suggesting that a vision should cover as much content as possible to bring about positive outcomes in all aspects (e.g., being both customer- and employee-focused to enhance both customer and employee satisfaction). However, this implication has been challenged by recent research. For example, Myrick (2017) found no evidence that increasing the coverage of content in a vision enhances performance. Additionally, a lack of focus due to excessive content is a key reason for vision derailment (Ready & Conger, 2008). Rather, studies on vision attributes suggest that vision brevity—keeping the message concise and brief—is crucial for effective vision communication (Baum et al., 1998; Kantabutra, 2009). Future research should examine how a vision can optimize the amount of content covered while avoiding information overload.
Vision Communication Frequency (How Often)
Vision communication frequency refers to how often an organization communicates its vision. It focuses solely on the frequency vision is communicated, regardless of other factors. Organizations can communicate their vision very frequently (e.g., several times a day) or infrequently (e.g., once a year). Frequent communication helps employees keep the organization’s vision at the forefront of their minds (Villa, 2024). Vision communication frequency is independent of other vision dimensions; leaders can choose how often to communicate the vision—very frequently or not at all—regardless of its attributes (e.g., clarity, brevity) or specific content (e.g., high-quality product, customer satisfaction).
We identified 26 papers (21%) studying vision communication frequency in our review. Scholars used different terms to describe this concept, such as vision communication (Venus, Johnson, et al., 2019), vision articulation (Ashford et al., 2018), and visioning (Jennings, Lanaj, Koopman, & McNamara, 2022). We also categorized studies on visionary leadership that define it as the frequency with which a leader talks about the future (Kearney et al., 2019; Kipfelsberger, Raes, Herhausen, Kark, & Bruch, 2022), as this aligns with our definition of vision communication frequency. Experimental studies that operationalized visionary leadership based on attributes or content (e.g., Halevy, Berson, & Galinsky, 2011; Hunt et al., 1999) were excluded. However, we acknowledge that some items in the visionary leadership measure capture dimensions beyond frequency, such as vision attributes (e.g., “my leader expresses a clear direction for the future of the unit,” House, 1998). Additionally, some items capture whether leaders possess a vision rather than how often they communicate it (e.g., “my leader has a clear understanding of where the organization is heading,” Podsakoff et al., 1990).
Frequent vision communication is linked to various positive outcomes, especially employee performance. This is because it enhances employees’ understanding of the direction and their task goals (Kearney et al., 2019; Maran, Baldegger, & Klösel, 2022), boosts team members’ confidence (Ashford et al., 2018), and encourages extra effort from followers (De Luque, Washburn, Waldman, & House, 2008). Additionally, some studies suggest that frequent vision communication enhances followers’ perceptions of leader effectiveness (Groves, 2006) while also reinforcing leaders’ self-identity and sense of influence (Jennings et al., 2022).
With regard to operationalizing vision communication frequency, all papers rely on field survey measures. Commonly used scales include those developed by Podsakoff et al. (1990), Conger and Kanungo (1994), and House (1998). Typically, employees are asked to report how often their leader communicated the vision within a specific time frame, such as in the past day (e.g., Jennings et al., 2022) or over the past three weeks (e.g., Guo, Mao, Huang, & Zhang, 2022), with a rating scale ranging from “did not exhibit this behavior at all” to “five or more times.”
Limitations and future directions
A common issue with survey measures of vision communication frequency is that they often conflate behavior with its outcomes (van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013; van Knippenberg & Stam, 2014). For example, measures of visionary leadership include items such as “my leader provides inspiring strategic and organizational goals” (Conger & Kanungo, 1994) and “my leader creates an exciting and attractive image of where the organization is going” (House, 1998). Terms like “inspiring” and “exciting” capture the desired outcomes of vision communication rather than the behavior itself. To address this concern, researchers have excluded such terms and focused solely on the frequency of a leader talking about the future (Kearney et al., 2019). This approach enables scholars to measure the construct more accurately. We therefore recommend that future studies use fine-grained measures (e.g., Kearney et al., 2019; Venus, Johnson, et al., 2019) that capture only the frequency of vision communication. This approach would help reduce confounding effects and provide stronger evidence for the impact of vision communication frequency.
Non-Verbal Delivery (Who)
Non-verbal delivery refers to the non-verbal behaviors used in communicating a vision. Non-verbal communication differs from verbal communication in that it relies on non-linguistic cues (Bonaccio, O’Reilly, O’Sullivan, & Chiocchio, 2016). Examples include gestures, facial expressions, body movements, eye contact, and voice (Bonaccio et al., 2016; Burgoon, Guerrero, & Manusov, 2001). Non-verbal behaviors play a significant role in vision communication, affecting the extent to which a vision achieves its full impact (Den Hartog & Verburg, 1997). Unlike vision attributes and content, which emphasize the message, non-verbal delivery focuses on the person who delivers the message (Den Hartog & Verburg, 1997). This means that the speaker can vary their non-verbal delivery even when presenting the same vision speech.
We identified 12 papers (10%) examining different kinds of non-verbal delivery. Among these, some focused on specific non-verbal behaviors, such as eye gaze (Maran, Furtner, Liegl, Kraus, & Sachse, 2019) and emotional expression (Naidoo, 2016; Venus, Stam, & van Knippenberg, 2013). Others studied multiple non-verbal behaviors simultaneously, using umbrella terms such as strong vision delivery (Awamleh & Gardner, 1999; Holladay & Coombs, 1993, 1994), charismatic communication (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996), or expressive delivery (Johnson & Dipboye, 2008). 3 For instance, Holladay and Coombs (1993) define strong vision delivery as maintaining eye contact with the audience, gesturing freely and naturally, using facial expressions, altering pitch, and maintaining vocal fluency.
A key finding from research on non-verbal delivery is that it enhances employees’ perceptions of leader charisma (Awamleh & Gardner, 1999; Caspi, Bogler, & Tzuman, 2019; Holladay & Coombs, 1993, 1994). However, the theoretical mechanism of this effect remains unclear. One exception is Caspi et al. (2019), who drew on the dual-process model (Stanovich, 1999) to explain that nonverbal delivery can have a stronger and more immediate impact on followers’ perceptions of leader charisma compared to vision content. This is because non-verbal cues are primarily processed through System 1, a faster, automatic, and low cognitive effort pathway. Meanwhile, the impact of non-verbal delivery on employee performance remains mixed. On the one hand, research has shown that leaders’ non-verbal delivery, such as emotional displays, enhances followers’ performance and creativity (Naidoo, 2016; Venus et al., 2013). On the other hand, some studies found no evidence of the relationship between leaders’ non-verbal delivery and employee performance (Johnson & Dipboye, 2008; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996).
Regarding the operationalization of non-verbal delivery, scholars typically employ experimental designs. For instance, Maran et al. (2019) manipulated eye contact by using video-recorded leader speeches that vary in the number and duration of the leaders’ eye fixations. They found that followers attribute greater charisma to leaders who maintain eye contact. Similarly, other studies on non-verbal delivery have adopted videotaped speeches to manipulate leaders’ emotional displays and examine participants’ reactions (e.g., Naidoo, 2016; Venus et al., 2013).
In addition to experimental manipulations, research on non-verbal delivery could benefit from leveraging new technologies. For instance, Niebuhr, Voße, and Brem (2016) used computer-based analysis to examine the vocal traits of former Apple CEO Steve Jobs in videos of his Apple product launch presentations. They found that his animated tone and fluent speaking were key drivers of his charisma. As technology advances, we anticipate an expanding research focus on non-verbal delivery (Liu et al., 2023).
Limitations and future directions
Non-verbal delivery research has received relatively limited attention compared to other vision dimensions. Yet, emerging evidence suggests that non-verbal delivery may be more important than other dimensions. For example, non-verbal delivery has been found to have a stronger effect on perceptions of leader charisma compared to vision content (e.g., Caspi et al., 2019). To encourage more research in this area, scholars could draw on emerging non-verbal behaviors identified in leadership and communication research. For instance, studies on leader charisma have identified cues such as leader clothing (e.g., Maran, Liegl, Moder, Kraus, & Furtner, 2021), tone of voice, and speaking fluency (e.g., Niebuhr et al., 2016).
Summary
In summary, scholars have examined various aspects of vision, which we classified into four dimensions: attributes, content, communication frequency, and non-verbal delivery. Differentiating these dimensions not only provides a structure to understand existing vision research but also offers insights into how fragmented work on vision communication connects along these dimensions. While most studies fall within these four dimensions, a small number also studied additional dimensions, such as communication styles, including two-way communication (Kohles, Bligh, & Carsten, 2012), participatory communication (Helpap, 2016), and friendly or dominant communication styles (Den Hartog & Verburg, 1997; Holladay & Coombs, 1994). However, due to the limited number of such articles, we did not include them in our framework. While we discuss each dimension independently, some research examines multiple dimensions simultaneously. For instance, some studies have examined both vision attributes (e.g., vision continuity) and vision content (e.g., change; Venus, Stam, et al., 2019), while others conceptualize vision as a construct combining multiple attributes (e.g., temporal orientation) and content (e.g., change; Baur et al., 2016; Davis & Gardner, 2012).
Relationships among the dimensions
The relationships among different vision dimensions are intriguing topics. Existing research has explored these relationships in four ways. First, some studies explored how different dimensions affect one another. For example, certain vision attributes, such as being inspirational and future-oriented, can lead employees to perceive a higher level of vision communication frequency (Baum et al., 1998; Fiset & Boies, 2019).
Second, some research examined the interactive effects of different dimensions. For example, Venus et al. (2013) studied how non-verbal delivery (emotional expressions like enthusiasm or agitation) interacts with vision attributes (promotion vs. prevention-focused language features). Consistent with regulatory fit theory, they found alignment between vision attributes and non-verbal delivery (e.g., promotion-focused language with enthusiastic emotional expressions) resulted in higher follower performance.
Third, some studies compared the effects of different dimensions. For instance, some studies showed that non-verbal delivery has a stronger effect on perceptions of leader charisma compared to vision content (Caspi et al., 2019; Holladay & Coombs, 1993, 1994). However, this finding has been questioned, as the evidence relied on experimental designs that might have made the non-verbal delivery manipulations more effective than those of vision content (Den Hartog & Verburg, 1997).
Finally, some scholars explored the synergistic effects of multiple dimensions. For example, Baur et al. (2016) found that a vision was most successful in eliciting followers’ support when it combines some vision attributes (e.g., temporal orientation, less concrete language) with some vision content (e.g., collective focus, follower focus).
These initial findings regarding the relationships among different vision dimensions are captivating. However, with only 11 articles examining these relationships, each finding was based on a small number of studies, often lacking both theoretical foundations and consistent supporting evidence. Therefore, further research on the relationship among the dimensions is warranted. Further discussion can be found in the future research directions section.
Mechanisms and Theoretical Perspectives of Vision Communication
We identify four categories of theoretical perspectives that explain the influence of vision communication: motivation-based, identification-based, affect-based, and cognition-based. These perspectives primarily account for effects on follower outcomes such as follower performance and job attitudes, as well as leader outcomes such as leader effectiveness and charisma. Figure 1 presents an integrated framework. We discuss each perspective in turn.
Motivation-Based Perspectives
Motivation-based perspectives focus on how a vision influences outcomes by fostering followers’ sustained effort and commitment toward achieving the vision. Given the essential role of motivation in successful vision implementation (Bass, 1985; Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Nanus, 1992), it has been one of the most extensively studied mechanisms. Our review identified 34 papers (38%) that have adopted a motivation-based perspective, drawing on theories such as regulatory fit theory (Higgins, 2000), construal fit theory (Trope & Liberman, 2010), goal setting theory (Locke & Latham, 1990), and self-related theory (e.g., Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). In the following, we discuss these four key theoretical perspectives and how each is used to explain the impact of vision communication.
The first key motivation-based theoretical perspective builds on regulatory focus theory, which suggests that individuals pursue goals with two distinct focuses: a promotion focus, concerned with promoting positive outcomes and maximizing gains, and a prevention focus, concerned with preventing negative outcomes and minimizing losses (Higgins, 1997). Regulatory focus theory further suggests that motivation and performance are enhanced when there is an alignment between an individual’s regulatory focus and their goal pursuit strategies (Higgins, 2000, 2005). In the context of vision communication, followers’ performance improves when an enthusiastic leader adopts a promotion-focused speech (Venus et al., 2013) or when leaders make a promotion-oriented appeal toward promotion-focused followers (Stam et al., 2010a). Similarly, followers are more engaged when the orientation of a change-focused vision (pursuing opportunities vs. avoiding threats) aligns with followers’ regulatory focus (promotion vs. prevention focus) (Paine et al., 2024).
However, contrary to the notion that regulatory fit always produces positive outcomes, regulatory misfit can sometimes be beneficial. For example, Stam et al. (2018) argue that while prevention-oriented communication fits a crisis situation, such a fit may reinforce the negative feelings caused by the crisis, thereby reducing endorsement of the vision. Supporting this view, their findings show that when leaders used promotion rather than prevention-oriented communication during a crisis, followers experienced less negative affect, which in turn increased their performance and endorsement of the leader.
The second key motivation-based theoretical perspective builds on construal level theory, which suggests that psychological distance affects how individuals mentally conceptualize objects, with distant objects being conceptualized more abstractly and closer objects more concretely (Trope & Liberman, 2010). Psychological distance reflects a subjective perception of the distance between oneself and others, which can be affected by temporal (e.g., present vs. future), spatial (e.g., nearby vs. distant locations), social (e.g., self vs. others similarity), and hypothetical factors (e.g., real vs. imagined scenarios; Trope & Liberman, 2010). Building on construal level theory, Berson and Halevy (2014) defined construal fit between leaders and followers as the alignment between a leader’s behavior (e.g., communicating abstract vs. concrete messages) and the psychological distance between the leader and follower. They argue that experiencing a construal fit enhances followers’ motivation by fostering their psychological engagement and greater interest in the vision. Relatedly, research on vision communication suggests that when a vision, as an abstract message, is conveyed by psychologically distant leaders, followers demonstrate greater motivation (Berson, Halevy, Shamir, & Erez, 2015) and report higher job satisfaction and participation in collective action (Berson & Halevy, 2014).
The third key motivation-based theoretical perspective builds on goal-setting theory, which suggests that setting goals that are specific, challenging, and coupled with feedback leads to higher productivity and task accomplishment (Locke & Latham, 1990). While vision describes long-term, general outcomes, goals focus on shorter-term, specific outcomes (Berson et al., 2015). Scholars have proposed that vision can affect how employees set their goals. For example, Kirkpatrick and Locke (1996) suggest that a vision focused on quality prompts followers to set quality goals, thereby enhancing performance, even though this mediation was not empirically supported in their research. Similarly, Baum and Locke (2004) found that the more challenging a CEO’s vision for venture growth, the higher the growth goals the CEO sets, as they must establish challenging goals at each step to achieve a challenging vision.
Finally, self-related theory is the last key motivation-based theoretical perspective, which suggests that vision can be motivating by affecting self-related constructs, such as ideal self, self-efficacy, and team potency. In particular, Shamir et al. (1993) theorize that leaders’ actions can change followers’ self-concept and self-evaluations, which in turn affect their attitudes and behaviors. Building on this framework, scholars have found that leaders’ vision communication help employees form an ideal self (Stam et al., 2010a, 2014), envision their future work selves (Guo et al., 2022), and look beyond personal interests (Fiset & Boies, 2019). Similarly, Kirkpatrick and Locke (1996) propose that vision communication enhances followers’ self-efficacy and thereby improves their performance, though they did not find empirical support. In contrast, Ashford et al. (2018) found that vision communication enhanced team confidence by fostering a sense of purpose and optimism about the future, ultimately leading to improved performance. Given these self-related mechanisms, Kipfelsberger et al. (2022) found that vision had a greater impact on followers with lower leader-follower dyad tenure, as these followers have a less clearly defined and more easily influenced self-concept at work.
In addition to these four key theories, other theoretical perspectives have also been used to explain why vision communication motivates employees. For example, scholars have used job characteristic theory to suggest that vision influences work meaningfulness (Qin, DiStaso, Fitzsimmons, & Heffron, 2023), as well as job demands-resource theory to suggest that vision influences employee engagement (Eldor, 2020).
Limitations of motivation-based perspectives
Despite identifying several commonly used theoretical frameworks, about one-third of the papers employing motivation-based perspectives did not adopt a specific theoretical framework to justify the proposed mediators or moderators. Considering the richness of motivation-based theories, future research may incorporate more theoretical frameworks, such as self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2008) and control theory (Carver & Scheier, 1981), to enrich our understanding of when and why vision communication motivates.
Identification-Based Perspectives
Identification-based perspectives suggest that vision communication influences outcomes by affecting employees’ identification with their group or their perception of the leader as a representative member of their group. We identified 19 papers (21%) using identification-based perspectives. Most of these papers apply social identity theory (Ashforth & Mael, 1989) or social categorization theory (Hogg, 2001; Hogg, van Knippenberg, & Rast, 2012) as their theoretical framework. Based on these frameworks, current research has two primary focuses. First, aligned with social identity theory, research focuses on how vision communication affects employees’ organizational or group identification (i.e., a sense of oneness with or belonging to an organization or a group; Ashforth & Mael, 1989), which in turn affects their work engagement and performance (Qin et al., 2023; Seyranian, 2014). Second, grounded in social categorization theory, research examines how vision communication affects leaders’ group prototypicality (i.e., the extent to which members regard their leader as embodying group values), which in turn affects their attitudes and reactions to the leaders (Seyranian, 2014). We elaborate on each of these perspectives below.
More specifically, social identity theory suggests that people define who they are based on the groups they belong to (Turner, 1985). As people perceive that they share similarities with members of a group and possess unique characteristics that distinguish them from outsiders, they are more likely to develop identification with the group (Haslam & Platow, 2001). Building on this theoretical perspective, vision communication scholars have proposed and found that when a vision presents a compelling and unique collective self (Seyranian, 2014), aligns employees’ personal values with those of the organization (Qin et al., 2023), or emphasizes shared values of the group (Berson, Waldman, & Pearce, 2016), it enhances group or organizational identification among employees. As a result, employees tend to demonstrate greater support for the vision (e.g., organizational change or diversity initiatives; Kukula, Reinwald, Kanitz, & Hoegl, 2024; Venus, Stam, et al., 2019), increased work engagement (Qin et al., 2023), greater involvement in vision formation (Berson et al., 2016), and improved team performance (Kim et al., 2023).
Social identity theory also suggests boundary conditions for the effects of vision communication. Particularly, research has suggested that social identity is more likely to be formed during situations of uncertainty (Drury, 2018). This is because the shared experience of uncertainty tends to intensify perceived similarities among group members and uniqueness from external others, reinforcing their collective identity. Building on this view, research has shown that vision communication is more likely to increase group or organizational identification when an organization is undergoing change (Seyranian & Bligh, 2008; Venus, Stam, et al., 2019) or starting a diversity initiative (Kukula et al., 2024).
Extending social identity theory, social categorization theory explains how individuals categorize people into social groups based on shared characteristics and values (Hogg, 2001). When an individual is perceived as embodying the group’s shared characteristics and values, they are regarded as in-group members, possessing group prototypicality. Applying this view to the leadership context, leaders who are perceived as prototypical of their group, embodying group characteristics and values, are more likely to be seen as effective and gain support from followers (Hogg et al., 2012). Accordingly, vision scholars have proposed and found that vision communication that uses inclusive language (e.g., terms like “we,” “society,” or “community”; Seyranian, 2014), emphasizes leaders’ similarity with followers (Seyranian, 2014), highlights group values and importance (Galvin, Waldman, & Balthazard, 2010), or stresses the uniqueness of the vision (Halevy et al., 2011) enhances leaders’ group prototypicality. Once followers perceive leaders as representing prototypical members of their group, they regard their leaders as more charismatic, likable, trustworthy, persuasive, and effective.
Limitations of identification-based perspectives
A key limitation is that more than half of the studies did not directly test the identification mechanism, despite theorizing about it (e.g., Halevy et al., 2011; Kim et al., 2023; Kukula et al., 2024; Molenberghs, Prochilo, Steffens, Zacher, & Haslam, 2017). Moreover, among the relatively few studies that explicitly tested the mechanism, the empirical support is mixed. For instance, while some research found support for the mediating role of identification (Qin et al., 2023), others did not (e.g., Seyranian, 2014). These limitations raise concerns about the validity and generalizability of identification-based perspectives. To address these concerns, more empirical research with appropriate methods is needed to examine identification mechanisms and their boundary conditions. For example, because identification may require more time to develop than is typically allowed in experimental settings, it may not reliably emerge as a mediating mechanism in such designs (Seyranian, 2014).
Affect-Based Perspectives
Affect-based perspectives focus on how vision communication influences followers’ affective and emotional experiences, such as positive and negative affect, inspiration, and anxiety. The ability to evoke strong emotions, such as feelings of attraction or excitement, has long been regarded as a hallmark of an effective vision (Conger, 1991; Strange & Mumford, 2005; Watts, Steele, & Mumford, 2019). Our review identified 17 papers (19%) that adopt an affect-based view to explain the influence of vision communication. Most of these studies did not adopt any specific theoretical framework, with the exceptions of one incorporating affective events theory (Naidoo & Lord, 2008) and three others adopting emotion contagion theory (Bono & Ilies, 2006; Holladay & Coombs, 1993; Naidoo, 2016).
Affective events theory suggests that specific work events can trigger emotional responses, influencing attitudes and behaviors (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Drawing on this theoretical perspective, vision scholars argue that vision communication can serve as an affective event that elicits positive affect, particularly through the use of rhetorical devices like imagery and metaphor (Naidoo & Lord, 2008). For instance, imagery provides a vivid description of the future that can evoke strong affective reactions, such as positive emotional arousal (Carton & Lucas, 2018; Emrich et al., 2001). Similarly, metaphors can create emotional connections with the vision, making it more inspiring (Mio et al., 2005). However, despite this strong theoretical grounding, few studies have empirically tested these specific affect-based mechanisms.
Another affect-based theoretical framework, emotion contagion theory, suggests that emotions can spread from one person to another through the synchronization and mimicry of facial expressions, movements, and posture (Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1994). Applying this perspective, Bono and Ilies (2006) found that followers were more likely to experience positive emotions when leaders expressed positive emotions during vision communication. Similarly, Holladay and Coombs (1993) argued that strong vision delivery, characterized by energetic and expressive communication through eye contact, gestures, and facial expressions, facilitates emotional transfer from leaders to followers. These experienced emotions explain why strong vision delivery enhances followers’ perceptions of leader charisma. Finally, Naidoo (2016) showed that leaders’ expression of approach-oriented emotions (e.g., elation, sadness) can spread to followers through emotional contagion, which in turn contributes to followers’ creativity.
Although not grounded in a specific theory, several studies have examined various affect-based mechanisms. Some focus on how vision communication shapes discrete emotional states. For example, visionary leadership can instill hope and reduce negative emotions like anxiety and helplessness during a crisis (Halevy et al., 2011), and vision communication can foster employee inspiration—a strong positive belief in the vision (James & Lahti, 2011). Other research examines how vision communication builds broader, more enduring emotional attachments. It can facilitate an emotional bond with stakeholders, particularly when it aligns with the audience’s temporal orientation (e.g., oriented toward the past, present, or future; Suddaby et al., 2023). Moreover, vision communication can increase employees’ affective commitment or emotional attachment to the organization (Dvir et al., 2004).
Limitations of affect-based perspectives
There are two limitations in research using affect-based perspectives. First, although various affect-based mechanisms (e.g., hope, inspiration) have been identified, there is a lack of theoretical frameworks to systematically explain why these mechanisms matter and what the corresponding boundary conditions are. Future research could build on theoretical advancements on affect and emotions, such as appraisal theories (Lazarus, 1991) and emotion as social information theory (Van Kleef, 2009), to further our systematic understanding of affect-based mechanisms. Second, our review reveals that existing research is marked by an asymmetric focus on positive affective experiences. The role of negative affect or emotions has received limited attention, presenting an opportunity for future research. We provide further discussion in the future research directions section.
Cognition-Based Perspectives
Cognition-based perspectives emphasize that vision influences outcomes by affecting individuals’ or teams’ understanding of and attention toward organizational goals. Vision, as a depiction of a collective future, is expected to provide employees with a clear direction. A clear understanding of direction is the first and most critical step for leaders in guiding and influencing employees (Carton, 2022). Indeed, employees can only take effective action on information that they understand (Emrich et al., 2001; Locke, 1999). We identified 40 papers (45%) that employ cognition-based perspectives to examine the impact of vision communication, focusing on four aspects: individuals’ understanding of the vision, team members’ shared understanding of the vision, the vertical transition of a vision from higher-level managers to lower-level employees, and how vision communication can shift employees’ attention and cognitive processes.
Individuals’ understanding of the vision includes knowing what actions to take in their roles (i.e., goal clarity; Maran et al., 2022) and using vision to guide their behaviors and decisions at work (i.e., vision integration; Kohles et al., 2012). Research suggests that frequent vision communication (Maran et al., 2022), as well as two-way communication between managers and employees, can enhance employees’ understanding of the vision (Kohles et al., 2012). With a clear grasp of the vision and their roles, employees exhibit higher performance (Kearney et al., 2019; Kohles et al., 2012; Maran et al., 2022), as well as greater job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Kohles et al., 2012). However, some scholars argue that vision communication alone is insufficient, highlighting the role of boundary conditions. For example, research suggests that only intrinsically motivated employees will use vision to guide their daily work, and such intrinsic motivation can stem from empowering leadership (Kearney et al., 2019) or individual factors like self-efficacy and openness to change (Griffin, Parker, & Mason, 2010).
Moving beyond individuals’ understanding of the vision, a complementary stream of research emphasizes the importance of creating a shared understanding of the vision, ensuring all team members are “on the same page.” This concept has been explored under various labels, including shared ultimate goal (Carton et al., 2014), team mental model similarity (Marks, Zaccaro, & Mathieu, 2000), and team members’ strategic consensus (Ateş, Tarakci, Porck, van Knippenberg, & Groenen, 2020). Research suggests that such shared understanding of the vision can be facilitated by using vision imagery in leader rhetoric, which fosters a similar picture of the future among team members (Carton et al., 2014), and by communicating team goals, opportunities, the importance of different elements for the task, and work prioritization (Marks et al., 2000). Once a shared understanding is established, employees tend to increase their effort and support in implementing strategies aligned with the vision (Ateş et al., 2020), resulting in enhanced team and organizational performance (Carton et al., 2014; Marks et al., 2000). Scholars have also studied conditions that enhance the effect of vision communication on team members’ shared understanding of the vision. For example, Carton et al. (2014) found that communicating fewer core values enhances the effect of vision imagery on team members’ shared understanding because it reduces the chance of information overload.
Regarding the vertical transition of a vision, studies examine how leaders effectively communicate the organization’s ultimate aspirations to lower-level employees (Carton, 2018; Margolis & Ziegert, 2016; Mayfield, Mayfield, & Sharbrough, 2015). While vision offers a broad picture, it often lacks the granular details needed for lower-level employees to connect it to their daily tasks (Gioia, Price, Hamilton, & Thomas, 2010). As a result, vision can be “lost in translation” (Kopaneva & Sias, 2015). To examine the vertical transition of a vision, scholars have adopted various theoretical frameworks. For instance, Carton (2018) builds on construal level theory to posit that the same vision can be explained at varying levels of abstractness, ranging from concrete, short-term objectives to broad, timeless aspirations. His analysis of President John F. Kennedy’s “sending a man to the moon” vision demonstrates how a high-level vision can be made specific and concrete for lower-level employees (e.g., emphasizing the importance of “mopping the floor” for janitors at NASA).
Additionally, Margolis and Ziegert (2016) adopt a sensemaking and sensegiving framework to analyze processes transferring a vision from higher to lower levels within an organizational hierarchy. They argue that vision first influences supervisors’ sensemaking and perceptions by enhancing their sense of accountability and self-direction. These enhanced perceptions then foster empowering leadership behaviors among supervisors, which in turn encourage subordinates to act autonomously. Through this cascading process, a shared vision is ultimately cultivated among lower-level team members. Beyond the vertical transition of a vision, scholars have also explored the implications of misaligned visions across hierarchical levels (Ateş et al., 2020) and the conditions under which sub-organizational units may operate independently, thereby losing alignment with the organization’s vision (Lewis & Clark, 2020).
Finally, scholars have examined how vision communication can direct employees’ attention and shift their focus. For example, research has shown that by communicating a new vision, leaders can direct employees’ attention to change, thereby promoting their readiness for the change (Haque et al., 2016). Highlighting the abstract and long-term aspects of a vision also encourages employees to focus on the broader organizational goals (Maran et al., 2022). Additionally, presenting an ambiguous vision can prompt employees to question their existing knowledge, which ultimately fosters knowledge revision and adaptation (Gioia et al., 2012).
Limitations of cognition-based perspectives
A key limitation of research using cognition-based perspectives is the lack of theoretical frameworks to explain observed effects. Most studies rely on prior empirical findings rather than grounding their arguments in established theory, resulting in a fragmented body of literature. Notable exceptions include Lewis and Clark (2020), who build their research on construal level theory; Margolis and Ziegert (2016), who draw on sensemaking theory; and Carton (2018), who integrates both theories. The absence of theoretical foundations limits our understanding of the why and how of vision communication and impedes the integration of the substantial volume of research findings in this area. This issue, previously highlighted by van Knippenberg and Stam (2014), remains pertinent. We will further address this limitation in the section on future research directions.
Summary
While we have summarized four categories of theoretical perspectives by presenting each separately, we note that vision communication may simultaneously affect multiple categories of mechanisms. For instance, Emrich et al. (2021) suggest that vision imagery operates through both cognition- and affect-based mechanisms, such as capturing attention and appealing to employees’ emotions. Similarly, Fiset and Boies (2019) draw on both a motivation-based (i.e., collective efficacy) and an affect-based perspective (i.e., experienced positive affect) to explain the influence of vision frequency. Additionally, some theoretical perspectives can be interpreted through multiple lenses. For example, the self-related theories proposed by Shamir et al. (1993) include components that align with both motivation-based and identification-based perspectives.
Linking vision dimensions to theoretical perspectives
Our review reveals that research on the vision attributes dimension has applied all four theoretical perspectives, with cognition-based perspectives being the most prevalent, followed by motivation- and affect-based perspectives, and identification-based perspectives the least. In contrast, research on non-verbal delivery has rarely drawn on any of these theoretical perspectives—no more than five articles for each category of theoretical perspectives, and identification-based perspectives are entirely absent. Research on vision communication frequency has mainly used motivation-based perspectives, with some reliance on cognition-based perspectives, while research on vision content predominantly draws on cognition-based perspectives. Overall, these findings highlight two needs: The first is to incorporate a broader range of theoretical perspectives for research on non-verbal delivery and vision content. The second is to fully integrate identification-based perspectives to explain effects across all four vision dimensions. Doing so will enrich our understanding of why various dimensions of vision communication have effects and what additional outcomes they may enable. For example, by incorporating identification-based perspectives to examine the effects of non-verbal delivery, we may discover that its impact extends beyond the currently focused leader outcomes to team and organizational outcomes, because it increases followers’ identification with the team or organization.
Boundary Conditions
While we reviewed several boundary conditions within each theoretical perspective, our review was not comprehensive because most studies did not apply a theoretical lens to explain the relevance or impact of moderators. To provide a more complete overview, we categorized the identified moderators into four groups: leader-related factors, follower-related factors, leader-follower relationships, and contextual factors (see Figure 1). Below, we provide examples of moderators within each group and summarize the observed moderating patterns (i.e., strengthening, weakening, or reversing effects; Gardner, Harris, Li, Kirkman, & Mathieu, 2017). 4 Regarding the type of moderation analysis, only one study (Kirkpatrick et al., 2002) assessed the strength of relationships using subgroup analysis, while the remainder examined the form of relationships using interaction terms (Venkatraman, 1989).
Leader-Related Factors
Leader-related factors have been examined as moderators in 11 articles. Many focus on leaders’ behaviors, such as the number of values communicated (Carton et al., 2014) and various leadership styles like empowering leadership (Kearney et al., 2019). Beyond leaders’ behaviors, research has also examined factors like leaders’ position in the organizational hierarchy (Bilgin, 2024) and their in-group versus out-group membership (Molenberghs et al., 2017).
Regarding moderating patterns, most articles reported strengthening effects. For example, research shows that the positive effect of vision communication becomes stronger when leaders exhibit higher levels of empowering leadership (Kearney et al., 2019), paradoxical leadership (Zhang et al., 2022), or emotional expressivity (Fiset & Boies, 2019; Groves, 2006). One article identified a weakening effect, showing that the positive effect of vision communication is weakened when leaders communicate an excessive number of values (Carton et al., 2014). Two articles reported reversing effects. For instance, Venus et al. (2013) found that a promotion-focused vision enhanced follower performance when expressed with enthusiasm and excitement, but had a negative effect when expressed with anxiety.
Follower-Related Factors
Follower-related factors have been examined as moderators in six articles, primarily focusing on followers’ personality traits such as regulatory focus (Stam et al., 2010a; Stam, van Knippenberg, & Wisse, 2010b), openness to change, and self-efficacy (Griffin et al., 2010). Additional follower-related factors include followers’ perception of their strategic involvement (Oswald et al., 1994) and prior crisis experiences (Stam et al., 2018).
Analysis of moderating patterns reveals that certain factors, such as followers’ self-efficacy and openness to change (Griffin et al., 2010), strengthen the positive effect of vision communication. A few papers identified reversing effects with factors such as regulatory focus (Stam et al., 2010a, 2010b) and power distance orientation (Helpap, 2016). For instance, Stam et al. (2010b) found that a leader’s promotion-focused appeal has a positive effect on followers with a promotion focus, but a negative effect on those with a prevention focus.
Leader-Follower Relationships
Leader-follower relationship factors have been examined as moderators in two articles: leader-follower psychological distance (Berson & Halevy, 2014) and leader-follower dyad tenure (Kipfelsberger et al., 2022). Regarding moderating patterns, psychological distance was found to strengthen the positive effect of vision communication (Berson & Halevy, 2014), while longer leader-follower dyad tenure weakens the positive effect (Kipfelsberger et al., 2022).
Contextual Factors
Contextual factors have been examined as moderators in 11 articles, with examples including organization type (e.g., entrepreneurial vs. government service organization, Kirkpatrick et al., 2002), organizational hierarchical strength (Carton et al., 2023), and organizational climate (e.g., competitive climate, Eldor, 2020). Most articles identify factors that strengthen the positive effect of vision communication, such as greater organizational hierarchy (Carton et al., 2023), heightened environmental uncertainty (Venus, Stam, et al., 2019), or increased competitiveness (Eldor, 2020). Notably, one article found that a bottom-line mentality, which reflects an organization’s emphasis on financial outcomes at the expense of other priorities, strengthens the negative effects of vision communication (Resick, Lucianetti, Mawritz, Choi, Boyer, & D’Innocenzo, 2023). Additionally, one study examined the strength of vision communication by comparing its effects across different organizations (Kirkpatrick et al., 2002).
Outcomes of Vision Communication
Although previous sections have addressed some outcomes of vision communication, this section provides a comprehensive overview by categorizing outcomes according to their valence (positive or negative), level of analysis, and connections with specific vision communication dimensions and theoretical mechanisms. In general, our review suggests that existing research has predominantly focused on the positive outcomes of vision communication. Most studies examine how vision attributes, content, communication frequency, or non-verbal delivery contribute to improved employee performance, heightened perceptions of leader charisma and effectiveness, and enhanced team and organizational outcomes (N = 85 out of 88 papers reviewed focused on such outcomes). While this focus on positive outcomes is unsurprising, it highlights the need to consider potential negative effects. A limited number of articles have discussed this potential, suggesting that detrimental impacts are not uncommon (Kantabutra, 2009), especially given the frequent misalignment between employees and the organization regarding what the vision is (Kopaneva & Sias, 2015).
Our review also reveals that the effects of vision communication span across multiple levels—individual (employees and leaders), team, and organizational. Most papers focus on individual-level effects, particularly follower performance (N = 37) and perceptions of leader charisma or effectiveness (N = 19). Organizational-level (N = 15) and team-level outcomes (N = 11), primarily centered on performance, are also frequently examined. A smaller number of studies (N = 9) investigate the impact of vision on external audiences, such as analysts, investors, customers, and job applicants.
Linking vision dimensions to outcomes
Our review suggests that vision attributes have been predominantly linked to follower and leader outcomes, with organizational outcomes receiving secondary emphasis. Fewer studies have examined their impact on teams or other audiences. Research on vision communication frequency shows a similar pattern, albeit with greater emphasis on team outcomes and less on leader or organizational outcomes. Research on vision content has primarily focused on follower outcomes, while research on non-verbal delivery has primarily focused on leader outcomes. Overall, our review suggests a need for further research on non-verbal delivery, especially regarding its effects on outcomes beyond leaders. For example, non-verbal delivery, such as leaders’ emotional displays, may affect team performance, especially when team members are motivated to understand a situation (van Kleef, Homan, Beersma, van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, & Damen, 2009). Additionally, further research on vision content is encouraged, particularly regarding its effects beyond followers. 5 For instance, vision content may affect other audiences, such as analysts’ recommendations, given the accessibility of public speeches. This effect is likely to be stronger when the public speech is first released, reflecting the salience effects in information processing (Treue, 2003).
Linking theoretical mechanisms to outcomes
The four categories of mechanisms tend to explain different outcomes. Cognition- and motivation-based perspectives often explain performance-related outcomes such as individual and team performance. In contrast, affect-based perspectives typically explain followers’ reactions to the vision and leader, such as support for change and perceived leader charisma and effectiveness. Identification-based perspectives explain both followers’ performance and perceived leader charisma and effectiveness. Overall, these mechanisms primarily emphasize vision’s influence on internal (individual, team, and organizational level) rather than external organizational members.
Directions for Future Research
In discussing each dimension and theoretical perspective of vision communication, we have identified their limitations and suggested directions for future research. Here, by examining vision research in a more holistic manner, we further summarize our findings and propose future research directions. Particularly, we discuss potential research extensions on the dimensions of vision, the theoretical mechanisms explaining how vision exerts influence, the outcomes of vision communication, and the boundary conditions (see Table 2).
Future Directions of Vision Communication
Taking a Broader View of Vision
Uncovering additional vision dimensions
Our review suggests that existing research has mostly focused on four dimensions of vision communication: vision attributes, content, communication frequency, and non-verbal delivery. As mentioned previously, among these four dimensions, non-verbal delivery has received much less research attention. This is surprising given its potential importance relative to verbal counterparts of vision communication (Holladay & Coombs, 1993, 1994) and scholarly calls for greater attention to this dimension (Venus, Stam, et al., 2019). Future research should expand our understanding of additional non-verbal behaviors that matter. Moreover, with the rise of remote work and digital communication, future research may explore new forms of non-verbal expressions. For example, the use of emojis has been found to influence followers’ attitudes toward leaders (Liegl & Furtner, 2024). It is possible that the presence of emojis in leaders’ vision communication may make a difference.
In addition to the four dimensions we have identified, a limited number of studies have examined communication styles (e.g., Berson & Avolio, 2004; Helpap, 2016; Holladay & Coombs, 1994; Kohles et al., 2012). This line of research should be largely expanded, given the important role communication styles play in influencing others (Norton, 1983). For example, leadership research has shown that leaders’ communication styles can influence followers’ commitment to change (Luo, Song, Gebert, Zhang, & Feng, 2016) and reduce their free-riding behaviors (Boulu-Reshef, Holt, Rodgers, & Thomas-Hunt, 2020). Building on this research, it is reasonable to expect that certain communication styles (e.g., participatory communication style) may make a vision more understandable or motivating to employees, thereby eliciting more commitment and support from them. Moreover, considering the regulatory fit and construal fit theoretical perspectives, future research may examine whether a certain communication style is more effective with employees of a specific regulatory focus or construal level.
Similarly, research may explore how communication direction (downward, upward, or lateral communication) may affect the effectiveness of a vision. Most vision research assumes a downward direction, focusing predominantly on leaders conveying their vision to followers. Interestingly, however, Kohles et al. (2012) found that bottom-up communication can enhance vision understanding. Future research could extend this line of work to further examine why a certain communication direction is more effective and under what situations, and what facilitates bottom-up vision communication if it proves more effective than top-down communication.
Furthermore, we encourage future research to explore dimensions beyond those identified in our review. For example, broader communication research has highlighted how different communication channels—such as face-to-face interactions, text messages, videos, emails, and more—may affect communication effectiveness (Garner, 2017; Lee, 2022). While existing studies have examined vision communicated through various channels, including online websites (van Balen & Tarakci, 2024), speeches (Mio et al., 2005), and videos (Kukula et al., 2024), they often assume the same effects without considering the potential differences created by these different channels. Considering that different channels may offer varying levels of media richness (i.e., the capacity to simultaneously handle multiple information cues; Lengel & Daft, 1988), future research could systematically compare vision communicated through different channels to suggest the most effective use of each channel.
Finally, we encourage future research to examine the dynamic nature of organizational vision and its influence. Most existing studies treat organizational vision as a static construct, unchanging over time or across situations. However, in reality, organizational vision is dynamic and evolves in response to changes in products, technology, or policy. This dynamic perspective aligns with research on a related construct, mission drift, which describes shifts in an organization’s mission over time (Grimes, Williams, & Zhao, 2019). Beyond the evolution of vision itself, leaders may also adjust how they communicate it based on the occasion, audience, or communication channel. Investigating the impact of consistency or misalignment in vision communication across different occasions, audiences, or communication channels presents a promising avenue for future research. For instance, Bilgin (2024) found that a misalignment of vision between internal and external audiences can undermine the legitimacy of the vision.
Examining the relationship and interplay of different vision dimensions
Although 11 articles have examined the various relationships among vision dimensions, there is still greater potential to explore additional relationships. For example, prior research suggests that vision attribute (e.g., promotion-focused message) interacts with non-verbal delivery (e.g., leaders expressing enthusiasm) such that performance is amplified when both are promotion-oriented. However, interactive effects may exhibit other patterns as well. For instance, one might infer that the use of imagery words and metaphors might diminish each other’s impact, as both enhance understanding by making vision easy to comprehend. Considering the various dimensions of vision and the vast number of vision attributes, content, and non-verbal delivery behaviors, we encourage further research to explore their potential interplays and interaction patterns.
Another approach to understanding how different dimensions interact is to develop typologies based on various configurations of attributes, content, or non-verbal delivery. For example, Blair-Loy, Wharton, and Goodstein (2011) found that organizations could be categorized into three clusters based on vision content. The first cluster focuses on employees (e.g., teamwork, employee development), the second on products and services (e.g., quality service, growth), and the third on the organization (e.g., community, integrity). They also found that these different clusters are associated with different organizational practices. Specifically, organizations that prioritize employees are more likely to implement work-life balance practices. Similarly, Baur et al. (2016) used cluster analysis to explore the combination of different leadership rhetoric styles. Finally, a “person-centered” approach could also be used to examine how multiple dimensions of vision communication operate together (Gabriel, Campbell, Djurdjevic, Johnson, & Rosen, 2018). This approach can identify individuals with distinct profiles in vision communication. For instance, Larwood et al. (1993) analyzed vision statements from 128 deans and identified three profiles: proactive visionaries, who described their visions as inspirational, long-term, and action-oriented; reactive loners, who kept their visions private with little formal expression; and reactive communicators, who described their visions as less adaptable and resistant to change. These approaches offer valuable insights into vision configurations and their impact.
Uncovering Mediating Processes
Strengthening the theoretical foundations of the mediating mechanisms
Although research on mediating mechanisms has expanded over the past decade, there remains room for advancement. First, studies focusing on cognitive- and affective-based mechanisms rarely build on theory. This raises questions about why certain variables were chosen as the mediators and whether there are other critical mediating mechanisms that help explain the influence of vision communication. While some theories, such as construal level theory, sensemaking theory, affective events theory, and emotional contagion, have been adopted, additional theories could be applied to explain the effects of vision communication. For example, emotion as social information theory (van Kleef, 2009) may help explain why dissatisfaction expressed during vision communication can enhance employees’ effort (Fiol, Harris, & House, 1999). According to this perspective, negative emotions convey a significant gap between the ideal and current state, signaling the need for greater employee effort. Integrating such theoretical perspectives could identify new pathways linking vision communication to outcomes and deepen our theoretical understanding of why specific vision dimensions influence outcomes.
Second, we encourage research to not only integrate additional theories within our framework but also draw from broader fields, such as communication and strategic management literature. For instance, by adopting media richness theory (Daft & Lengel, 1986), scholars could examine how different media affect the effectiveness of vision communication. Information conveyed through rich media may be more complete, enabling employees to process it more thoroughly (Cable & Yu, 2006). Furthermore, scholars could adopt macro-level theories like signaling theory (Spence, 1973) to explore the impact of vision communication on broader audiences. Signaling theory suggests that signals can provide credible information about some unobservable qualities when audiences do not have complete information (Connelly, Certo, Reutzel, DesJardine, & Zhou, 2025). Applying this theory to vision communication can address questions such as how competitors, customers, investors, or the public react differently based on signals conveyed through vision communication. This approach would significantly expand the scope of vision research, as current research primarily relies on micro-level theories and focuses predominantly on outcomes related to internal organizational members.
Third, we encourage future research to directly test the proposed mechanisms, rather than merely implying them in theoretical arguments. This would better align theory with empirical evidence. Our review revealed that nearly half of the papers referenced mediating processes without direct testing. Directly examining these mechanisms not only advances theoretical development but also helps uncover boundary conditions (van Knippenberg & Stam, 2014).
Adopting a process-oriented framework to understand vision communication
Communication is a dynamic process between communicators over time, and vision communication is no exception. However, the four theoretical perspectives we reviewed do not fully capture the dynamic process of vision communication. Some studies have explored the process of vision communication. For example, Seyranian (2014) identified three phases of vision communication during change: social identity unfreezing, social identity moving, and social identity freezing. In each phase, leaders must prioritize different communication goals. Similarly, other studies have proposed different steps leaders should take to ensure a successful vision implementation (e.g., Carton, 2018; Ready & Conger, 2008).
However, overall, the research on vision communication process remains preliminary. Future research should examine it further, ideally incorporating related theoretical perspectives. For instance, Berlo’s (1960) communication process framework, which includes the message sender, encoding, channel, decoding, message receiver, feedback, and noise, can offer a useful lens. Applying this framework, scholars could examine vision communication as a dynamic process, considering how followers encode the message, how followers’ characteristics influence the reception of information, whether followers or broader audiences of vision provide feedback, and, if so, what role feedback plays in vision communication, and what types of noise—such as misunderstandings or external distractions—might block or distort the vision communication process? Additionally, researchers could shift the focus to the dynamics and roles of message receivers, as current studies predominantly emphasize one-way communication from the leader to followers and leader-centered perspectives.
Considering Theoretically and Practically Relevant Boundary Conditions
Our review reveals that fewer than half of the studies on vision communication have examined its boundary conditions. While some moderators, such as followers’ regulatory focus (Paine et al., 2024) and hierarchical distance between leaders and followers (Berson & Halevy, 2014), are grounded in theoretical frameworks (e.g., regulatory fit theory, construal fit theory), most were not theory-based but exploratory. This lack of theoretical grounding raises concerns about the replicability of findings and the identification of critical moderators with broader theoretical relevance. To enhance generalizability and deepen theoretical insight, we recommend that future research prioritize theory-driven moderators.
Moreover, future research may prioritize boundary conditions that reflect evolving work contexts. For example, remote work has become the “new normal” after COVID-19. What new challenges do leaders face in effectively communicating organizational vision when employees work remotely? Is it more difficult to ensure a clear understanding when vision is conveyed through virtual channels? Will the motivating effects of vision communication be reduced, given that virtual employees feel less engaged with their work (O’Neill, Hambley, & Bercovich, 2014)? Additionally, the percentage of female leaders has increased in recent years (Buss, Andler, & Tiberius, 2024). As communication effectiveness may vary by leader gender (Von Hippel, Wiryakusuma, Bowden, & Shochet, 2011; Zahn, 1989), an interesting research question is whether or how leader gender affects the outcomes of vision communication.
Similarly, as the workforce becomes older and more diversified, the impact of demographic variables, such as age and race, should also be examined. For example, research suggests that younger-looking leaders are more likely to be endorsed for change-oriented initiatives, whereas older-looking leaders tend to be favored for stability-oriented leadership (Spisak, Grabo, Arvey, & van Vugt, 2014). These findings from non-vision communication contexts suggest that a leader’s age can serve as a boundary condition on the effects of different types of vision communication. Finally, scholars may also consider other emerging contexts, such as constant organizational change due to new technologies (e.g., artificial intelligence; Burke, 2023), multinational corporations (Harmon & Mariani, 2024), and the emergence and use of social media in the workplace (Leonardi & Vaast, 2017).
Expanding Outcomes to Consider Potential Negative Influences and Broader Audiences
Attending to potential negative influences of vision communication
Despite extensive research on the influence of vision communication, most studies focus on its positive effects, leaving potential negative effects underexplored. Our review indicates that only a few studies have discussed the downside of vision communication (e.g., Ateş et al., 2020; Greer, Homan, De Hoogh, & Den Hartog, 2012; Resick et al., 2023). For instance, team managers’ visionary leadership can harm the shared understanding of vision when it misaligns with the CEO’s vision (Ateş et al., 2020), and vision communication can increase unethical behaviors when leaders prioritize financial performance (Resick et al., 2023). These preliminary examinations of the potential negative consequences provide a more balanced view of the impact of vision communication, but further research is needed. By doing so, we can expand our understanding of the impact of vision communication in a more comprehensive manner and address the question, “What should leaders avoid doing,” in addition to “What should leaders do?”
Examining the influence of vision on broader audiences
Extant research has primarily focused on the impact of vision communication on employee performance, organizational outcomes, and perceived leader charisma and effectiveness. In recent years, however, a growing body of literature has begun to explore its influence on broader audiences, such as investors’ reactions (Logue & Grimes, 2022), leaders’ own attitudes and behaviors (Jennings et al., 2022), and job applicants (van Balen & Tarakci, 2024). Beyond these audiences, future research could examine additional groups, including competitors, government entities, and the general public (Gao et al., 2016). Understanding the responses of these diverse audiences is essential for gaining a more comprehensive view of the impact of vision communication. It is also intriguing, as the effects may vary or even contradict across different audiences. For example, while research shows that vision clarity is positively associated with employee performance (Zhang et al., 2022), there is also evidence that a lack of clarity can be advantageous by delaying rivals’ response speed (Nadkarni, Pan, & Chen, 2019). Given such contradictory findings, it becomes important to examine how firms can balance these trade-offs when communicating their vision.
Exploring Antecedents of Vision Communication
Our review identified around 20 empirical papers on the antecedents of vision communication, with most (about 80%) focusing on leader-related factors. 6 These include leaders’ future orientation—thinking and acting toward future outcomes (Guo et al., 2022), high construal levels—emphasizing superordinate and long-term goals (Venus, Johnson, et al., 2019), thinking strategies—focusing on opportunities, threats, or both (Antes & Mumford, 2012), transformational leadership (Berson et al., 2014), and leaders’ perception of work meaningfulness—regarding their work as positive and significant (Kipfelsberger et al., 2022). The limited number and narrow focus of these studies highlight the need for future research to explore a broader range of antecedents, especially those beyond leader-related factors. For instance, based on research suggesting that high centralization—where power and decision-making authority is concentrated rather than distributed—decreases communication frequency (Hage, Aiken, & Marrett, 1971), leaders may communicate vision less frequently in organizations with high centralization. Additionally, audience characteristics may also play a role. For example, followers with a high need for closure—a preference for definite answers—may prompt leaders to enhance vision clarity in order to meet this need (De Grada, Kruglanski, Mannetti, & Pierro, 1999).
Furthermore, we encourage future research to explore interventions that facilitate effective vision communication. There has been some initial research on interventions (Carton & Lucas, 2018; Frese, Beimel, & Schoenborn, 2003; Jennings et al., 2022; Partlow, Medeiros, & Mumford, 2015; Shipman, 2010). For example, Carton and Lucas (2018) found that leaders who were instructed to mentally project themselves into the future and envision their company as having already achieved its vision used more vivid imagery in their vision communication. Additionally, Jennings et al. (2022) found that a “best possible leader self” intervention—where leaders imagine themselves as their best possible future selves in a leadership role—could increase the frequency of vision communication through enhanced positive affect. As intervention studies can offer practical solutions to increase the frequency or quality of vision communication, we encourage further research efforts in this area. For instance, as perspective-taking can foster a sense of “oneness” (Ku, Wang, & Galinsky, 2015), an intervention aiming to enhance leaders’ perspective-taking may enable them to use more inclusive language when communicating vision.
Conclusion
Vision communication has long attracted considerable interest from both scholars and practitioners, with its literature expanding rapidly over the past decade. Despite this growth, research on vision communication remains fragmented, underscoring the need for a systematic review. In this paper, we synthesize existing research with diverse focuses into four key dimensions of vision. Moreover, we provide a comprehensive review of the theoretical mechanisms, identifying four major perspectives that explain how vision communication exerts its influence. Based on our findings, we propose several directions for future research. We hope this review provides a solid foundation for future studies, advancing both the theoretical and practical implications of vision communication.
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-1-jom-10.1177_01492063251390851 – Supplemental material for Vision Communication: A Systematic Review
Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jom-10.1177_01492063251390851 for Vision Communication: A Systematic Review by Qinglin Zhao and Huiwen Lian in Journal of Management
Footnotes
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
