I have read countless mission, vision, strategy, and intent documents — particularly those related to education and the creative industries. The more I read, the more I question whether these produce real value. In the age of AI, this concern is even more pronounced: many documents read as interchangeable, with the same aspirational language and commitments to excellence, innovation, collaboration, and impact. The lived reality within organisations often tells a different story.
Having led teams throughout my career, the biggest disconnect I have encountered is these documents frequently fail to address the actual problems organisations need to solve. They are often written for a broad external audience rather than for the people delivering the work. As a result, they rarely translate into clear priorities, behaviours, or decisions teams can act on day to day.
Even more critically, they seldom acknowledge capability gaps. Strategy is not just about where you want to go; it is about whether you have the people, skills, systems, resources, and structures to get there. Ignoring this creates frustration for teams because expectations land without the support required to meet them. Over time, this erodes trust in leadership and in the planning process itself.
I am not suggesting that planning, direction, or shared intent are unimportant. But the ability to respond to change in real time is more valuable than a crafted document. Organisations operate in dynamic environments — funding shifts, technology evolves, workforce expectations change, communities redefine their needs. Static plans quickly become outdated unless they are designed to be adaptive.
The most effective organisations I have worked in treat vision, mission, intent and strategy as day-to-day ‘business as usual.’ They focus on immediate priorities and developing a culture capable of responding to change in real time rather than lengthy vision narratives. They invest in leadership capability at all levels and create milestones and feedback loops that enable adjustment rather than assuming certainty from the outset.
So, what does this look like in practice? Focus on the problems you need to solve now rather than the aspirations you hope to reach in five years. Organisations do not have the benefit of a crystal ball. Allocate resources to the capability required to action milestones and evaluate outcomes and be honest about what you cannot do yet.
Accept ambiguity. Real progress rarely follows a neat linear pathway. Circumstances shift, assumptions prove wrong, opportunities emerge unexpectedly. Organisations that thrive normalise iterative learning, adjustment, and recalibration as part of everyday operations, not as signs that the strategy has failed.
In practice, organisational impact is shaped far more by what people do each day than by what is written in a document.
