The myth of "vision" without structure

In recent years the word vision has become a kind of universal pass. It is used to justify delays, confusion, continuous changes of direction, and decisions that keep being postponed.

It is worth saying it clearly though: a vision that does not translate into structure does not orient. It creates ambiguity.

Vision is important, of course. It serves to give direction, meaning, perspective. But when it remains only a story — not accompanied by clear roles, processes, priorities, and responsibilities — it stops being a guide and ends up becoming an alibi.

It happens often in contexts that call themselves “visionary,” but struggle to function. Decisions are always pushed forward, priorities change continuously, it is never clear who decides what. Everything seems urgent, but nothing is stable. Work proceeds by improvisation more than by method. In these cases vision does not help with orientation: it covers a structural void.

Recently I happened to work in a context strongly centred on vision. The words were big, the prospects fascinating, the promises always projected a little further into the future. What was missing, however, was something else: clear decisions, role boundaries, working tools, explicit responsibilities.

The result was a growing load on the most competent people, continuous and disconnected urgencies, energy spent on compensating rather than building. And a constant feeling of fatigue, despite the declared enthusiasm. It is there that an uncomfortable truth becomes evident: vision, on its own, does not sustain daily work.

There is another misunderstanding that often accompanies these contexts: the idea that structure suffocates creativity. In reality, the opposite happens. Structure is what allows ideas to become reality. Without structure, the most competent people end up plugging holes, working in continuous emergency, and taking on responsibilities that have never been clarified. And sooner or later, they get tired.

When clear processes, adequate tools, and defined responsibilities are missing, the weight does not disappear. It moves. It falls on the most motivated and available people, on those who “give it their all.” This is how stressful, confusing, and emotionally demanding environments are born, even when the external story remains exciting.

If you find yourself in a very “visionary” context, it can be useful to stop and ask a few simple questions: how are decisions made? Who is responsible for what? What are the real priorities, not just the declared ones? Which tools sustain daily work?

If there is no answer to these questions, vision alone is not enough.