Vision
Providing direction when the future is still uncertain.
Competency 5: Vision
Vision is the ability to step back from everyday practice, place relevant facts and developments in a broader context, and develop and communicate a picture of the future. At the operational level, people connect mission and strategy to their own work. At the tactical level, developments are translated into proposals, plans and behaviour. At the strategic level, people develop their own direction, weigh broader developments and involve others in shaping policy.
In this article
A familiar workplace situation
A management team is discussing its direction for the coming year. The market is shifting, AI is changing work processes, and employees want clarity. Yet the conversation stays focused on projects, staffing and priorities for the next quarter. Each decision is defensible, but nobody names the picture of the future they are meant to achieve together.
Then someone asks a different question: what do we want to stand for in three years, and which choices should we therefore make differently now? The conversation shifts. The participants no longer discuss only what is urgent, but also which developments they expect, which position they want to take and which activities no longer fit that direction.
This is where vision becomes visible. It appears in the ability to step back from everyday practice, connect meaningful developments and articulate a picture of the future that guides action. A vision does not offer certainty about what will happen. It clarifies what an organisation wants to prepare for and which choices it is willing to make under uncertainty.
What is vision?
Nieuwenhuis defines vision as developing and communicating a picture of the future. This involves stepping back from everyday practice, recognising facts, trends and future developments, and placing them in a broader context and a long term perspective on one’s own area of work, profession or organisational unit. He lists imagination, communicating a vision, developing a vision and taking a helicopter view as related terms. In his classification, vision belongs to the managerial and organisational competencies (Nieuwenhuis, 2010).
This definition contains four connected movements. First, people create enough distance to avoid being driven entirely by immediate events. They then select relevant facts and developments. Next, those signals acquire meaning within a broader context. Finally, a picture of the future emerges that is expressed and connected to choices. Collecting trends alone does not demonstrate vision. Neither does telling an attractive story about the future without facts, context or consequences.
Vision also differs from prediction. A prediction states what is likely to happen. A vision describes a desirable future or one that provides direction, and how a person or organisation wants to relate to it. Scenarios can explore different possible developments; strategy determines how resources and activities are deployed; goals make desired results concrete. Vision identifies the broader picture of the future that connects those scenarios, strategy and goals.
Vision is therefore cognitive, normative and social. It is cognitive because information must be interpreted and connected. It is normative because choosing a direction also means deciding what matters and what is desirable. It is social because a vision gains organisational meaning when others can understand, test, influence and translate it into behaviour.
A role, a skill or a behavioural competency?
More than a job role
Vision is often associated with executive leadership, strategy, entrepreneurship or governance. That is understandable, but too limited. A role may demand considerable vision, yet a job title does not prove that someone demonstrates it in their behaviour. Professionals without a formal strategic mandate can also recognise relevant developments, question established practices and connect their own work to a broader picture of the future.
More than a single skill
Vision is not a single skill either. Analysis helps investigate facts and patterns. Creativity helps imagine alternatives. External awareness brings developments from outside into the organisation. Judgement helps substantiate choices. Communication skills and persuasiveness make a picture of the future discussable. Planning and organising, decisiveness, initiative and results orientation are needed to turn direction into action. None of these skills alone constitutes the competency of vision.
A behavioural competency
As a behavioural competency, vision becomes visible in a recurring combination of knowledge, attitude, skills and behaviour. People step back from daily pressure, investigate developments, connect the short and long term, articulate a direction, discuss its consequences and remain willing to revise their picture of the future when assumptions no longer hold. For HR and recruitment, the question is therefore which future oriented behaviours the role requires and in which specific situations a candidate has demonstrably shown them.
Scientific foundations
Vision is not a uniform psychological construct with a single generally accepted measurement scale. Its workings are explained through several research traditions: future oriented cognition, goals, leadership, meaningful work, learning and organisational change. This combination fits Nieuwenhuis’s competency definition, which brings together observation, perspective, developing direction and communicating it.
Van der Helm (2009) describes visions of the future as images that connect perception, values and possible courses of action. In this approach, a vision is a way of interpreting the present and opening up possibilities for action. This explains why the same development can lead to different visions: facts constrain what is plausible, while values and choices determine which direction people consider desirable.
Research into prospection, the human ability to imagine possible futures, explains why thinking about the future can guide practical behaviour. Baumeister, Vohs and Oettingen (2016) describe how people use future situations to form goals, anticipate obstacles and organise present action. Thinking about the future becomes functional when it affects attention, preparation and choice.
Locke and Latham’s goal setting theory (2006) helps explain the translation into action. Specific and challenging goals can support performance when people commit to them, receive feedback and have sufficient opportunities and resources. This research does not directly prove that a vision is effective. It does explain why a picture of the future without concrete goals has little influence on behaviour. Vision provides meaning and direction; goals make the required progress visible.
In leadership research, vision appears mainly in transformational and visionary leadership. Judge and Piccolo’s meta-analysis (2004) found positive associations between transformational leadership and outcomes including leadership effectiveness, follower satisfaction and motivation. This does not mean that every inspiring story causes these effects. Transformational leadership involves more than vision, and the associations are averages across varied contexts. Research by Liu et al. (2022) also indicates that visionary leadership can support employee initiative when psychological mechanisms and context enable it. The relevant lesson is that vision takes effect through credibility, identification, room to act and concrete behaviour.
Psychological safety is an important condition for testing a vision. Edmondson (1999) showed that teams learn more effectively when people feel able to discuss questions, mistakes and concerns. Detert and Edmondson (2011) described implicit beliefs that can stop employees from speaking up, even without an explicit prohibition. An organisation may therefore contain considerable strategic thinking that remains invisible. Vision requires both someone who articulates a direction and a climate in which assumptions, objections and alternatives can genuinely influence it.
Vision relates to happiness at work and commitment through meaning, although care is needed here too. Frémeaux and Pavageau (2022) describe how leaders can contribute to meaningful work through values, community, support and moral role modelling. A credible vision can connect daily work to a larger purpose. A vision that conflicts with decisions, workload or reward systems can instead provoke cynicism. The determining factor is the perceived consistency between words, values and action.
Personal development also has a future dimension. Reviews by Kooij and colleagues show that future time perspective is associated with motivation, career choices and adaptation at work (Kooij & Van De Voorde, 2017; Kooij et al., 2018). People differ in the future possibilities they perceive and the goals that consequently become meaningful. Developing vision therefore involves exploring the future someone sees, the assumptions underlying it and the behaviour needed to take responsibility for it today, alongside learning to analyse or present.
Why this competency has so much impact
Vision brings order to complexity, provides meaning and helps establish priorities. Organisations constantly receive new information about technology, the labour market, customers, legislation and societal expectations. Without direction, every new signal can become a new priority. A vision provides a criterion: which developments affect the future we are trying to achieve, and which do not?
This ability to establish priorities has direct consequences for effectiveness. Strategy, innovation and workforce policy compete for the same time, people and resources. A clear picture of the future helps connect decisions and prevents departments from optimising separately without a shared direction. It also makes stopping possible. Activities that once made sense can lose their justification when the desired future changes.
Vision also provides meaning. Employees understand both what is expected of them and why a change is needed, as well as how their contribution fits. This can support motivation and commitment, provided the vision is credible and recognisable in the organisation’s choices. Meaning without feasibility leads to disappointment; feasibility without meaning can easily produce compliance without ownership.
The competency works within a network
Informing the content
Analytical ability, external awareness, judgement and creativity inform the content of a vision.
Building credibility
Organisational awareness, communication skills, persuasiveness, courage and integrity determine whether it becomes discussable, credible and workable in governance.
Putting direction into action
Planning and organising, decisiveness, initiative, results orientation, leadership and entrepreneurship turn direction into action.
These connections are widely recognisable. The specific combination varies by person, role and context.
Vision also carries risks. A strong direction can focus attention, but it can also push contrary evidence out of sight. Charisma can mask uncertainty. An inspiring story can overshadow interests or implementation problems. Staying on course can gradually become rigidity. Mature vision therefore combines direction with the ability to test it: clear assumptions, room for conflicting information and agreed moments to reassess the course.
The three levels of vision
Nieuwenhuis distinguishes three levels: looking ahead, translating developments into policy proposals, and developing and communicating a picture of the future.
Operational
Operational signals keep vision connected to the work.
Tactical
Tactical translation makes direction achievable.
Strategic
Strategic vision connects developments and values to policy choices for the longer term.
The levels describe different functions within one process, rather than a ranking from weak to strong.
Each level explained in detail
Operational
For Nieuwenhuis, operational vision means knowing the mission and strategy of one’s organisational unit, contributing ideas about them and connecting that strategy to one’s own activities. This level remains close to everyday work while looking beyond the individual task. Typical behaviour includes asking how an activity contributes to the direction, noticing when a working method no longer fits and drawing on practical experience in conversations about the unit’s future.
Main strength
The main strength is realism. Operational vision shows what an abstract picture of the future means for processes, customer contact and professional practice. Employees close to delivery often notice early where policy clashes with changing needs or where new opportunities emerge.
Relevant pitfall
The pitfall is that this behaviour may not be recognised as vision, or that people confine themselves to the existing direction. Knowing the mission and strategy is not the same as examining whether they remain viable. Conversely, every practical problem can too quickly be presented as a strategic signal.
Practical example
A recruiter notices that candidates increasingly ask about internal mobility and working with AI. She compares these questions with the labour market strategy and discusses whether the current employer promise still fits. Her vision is visible in connecting recurring practical signals to the chosen direction, without needing to predict the entire labour market.
Tactical
Tactical vision means contributing to the vision of one’s organisational unit in connection with the organisation’s overall vision. Nieuwenhuis also mentions communicating the vision internally and externally, translating professional trends into opportunities and developing concrete proposals with attention to their effects over the medium term.
Main strength
The main strength is translation. Tactical vision connects a picture of the future to policy, priorities, collaboration and resources. It prevents strategy from remaining a separate story and teams from acting solely on their own immediate concerns.
Relevant pitfall
The pitfall is being excellent at translating someone else’s direction without developing one’s own substantive judgement. Another pitfall is apparent concreteness: starting many projects without clarifying which assumption they test or which picture of the future they bring closer.
Practical example
A team manager is asked to make the team more customer focused. She connects the direction to work processes, role clarity, feedback, customer data and measurable behavioural goals. She also identifies the consequences for capacity and collaboration with other departments, making the change more than an isolated training course.
Strategic
According to Nieuwenhuis, strategic vision means taking the initiative in developing strategic policy. People weigh legal, political and societal developments, translate them into strategic choices and actions for the organisation, and encourage others to contribute to policy development. This level therefore requires both one’s own picture of the future and the ability to organise collective thinking.
Main strength
The main strength is providing direction under uncertainty. Strategic vision connects developments that are not yet fully established to a reasoned position. This creates time to develop options before change can only be addressed reactively.
Relevant pitfall
The pitfall is losing contact with implementation or conveying too much certainty. A vision is not a prediction. Participation can also become symbolic when others are invited to contribute but their information cannot actually influence the direction. The opposite risk is that constant consensus building blunts the vision.
Practical example
An executive team concludes that AI changes roles, customer expectations and required competencies as well as speeding up processes. It therefore formulates principles for human oversight, learning, task design and value creation alongside choosing a tool. HR, employees, customers and experts contribute information. The executives remain responsible for the final direction and explicitly identify which assumptions will be tested again later.
The three levels reinforce one another
Operational vision provides concrete signals and tests whether the direction is recognisable in the work. Tactical vision translates direction into plans, priorities and collaboration. Strategic vision determines the future the organisation pursues and which broader developments matter for it.
When one level is missing
When one level is missing, an imbalance emerges. Strategy without operational observation can become elegant but unrealistic. Operational insight without a strategic perspective notices many things but offers no criterion for prioritising them. Tactical strength without a direction of one’s own can lead to efficient implementation of a course that no longer fits. Conversely, a strong strategic voice without tactical translation remains dependent on isolated initiatives.
Mature vision therefore means being able to move between a picture of the future, its translation into policy and everyday reality, with feedback flowing in both directions. It does not require thinking permanently at the highest level of abstraction.
Effective use starts with the right fit
Different roles require different forms of vision.
Operational strength
In roles close to customers, technology or delivery, value often lies in operational foresight: knowing the current direction, connecting practical information to it and identifying emerging tensions early.
Tactical strength
In project leadership, HR, advisory work and middle management, tactical vision is more important because direction must be translated into plans, interests and behaviour.
Strategic strength
Executive, innovation and policy roles more often require strategic vision because they involve choices over longer time horizons and broader developments.
A high strategic score is therefore not automatically better than an operational or tactical score. The relevant questions concern the behaviour required, the decision making latitude available and the consequences of a judgement about the future. An organisation seeking maximum strategic vision for every management role may select people who enjoy articulating direction but are less strong at translating or implementing it.
Personal future perspective also matters. People may see many possibilities but experience little authority, or be responsible for strategy without sufficient access to practical signals. Effective use therefore requires alignment between the person, role and decision making environment. Vision depends both on what people can do and on the information, safety, time and influence available to them.
Why organisations often misjudge this competency
Organisations often confuse vision with charisma, abstract language, seniority or persuasiveness.
People who speak confidently about the future can easily appear visionary. Yet a convincing story may rest on selective information, borrowed language or untested assumptions. Conversely, people can demonstrate vision through a sharp question, a well supported scenario or consistent policy translation without drawing attention to themselves on a stage.
A second assessment error is recognising only strategic behaviour as vision. Operational and tactical forms then disappear from view. The professional who connects practical developments to the direction early and the manager who makes an abstract picture of the future achievable both contribute essential vision behaviour.
A third error is treating outcomes as proof after the event. A successful result may partly reflect chance; a well grounded vision may turn out differently because of unexpected events. Assess the process as well: which facts and trends were used, which alternatives were considered, which values shaped the direction, which consequences were identified and which information would prompt an adjustment?
In selection, a concrete case is more useful than asking where candidates see themselves in five years. Ask them, for example, to choose a development in their profession and explain what it could mean at operational, tactical and strategic levels. Then ask which assumptions are uncertain, whom they would involve and which first choice they would make now. This reveals whether someone can actually develop and translate direction as well as tell an attractive story.
Why vision matters today
Vision matters today because organisations face technological, demographic, geopolitical and social change simultaneously. The World Economic Forum (2025) reports that employers expect 39% of current core skills to change by 2030. Analytical thinking, leadership and social influence, creative thinking and systems thinking remain important building blocks. These figures do not measure vision directly, but they describe a labour market in which current task proficiency is less sufficient for assessing future contribution.
Cedefop uses skills forecasting and foresight to explore possible developments in work and learning. Preparing for 2040 presents alternative scenarios for continuing skills development and the influence of AI. These scenarios help reveal the assumptions, risks and policy choices associated with different futures (Cedefop, 2025). ESCO supports this at another level by providing a European language for transversal skills and competencies (European Commission, n.d.). For HR, the question consequently expands from current role suitability to the combination of employability, learning capacity and direction in changing work.
Organisations themselves also feel pressure to move faster. In its 2026 Global Human Capital Trends report, Deloitte states that seven in ten surveyed leaders name speed and agility as their primary competitive strategy for the coming years. Yet speed and constant adaptation without vision can lead to fragmentation. Vision clarifies what an organisation is adapting to and which value it wants to preserve in doing so (Deloitte, 2026).
The need for direction exists alongside low engagement. Gallup reports that 20% of employees worldwide were engaged at work in 2025. This figure does not prove a lack of vision, but it shows the context in which organisations must make their story about the future a reality. A vision that is not recognisable in leadership, work design and decision making will build little credibility (Gallup, 2026).
Microsoft offers an illustrative example described by the company itself. The direction under Satya Nadella was linked to a shift from internal competition towards learning, collaboration and a growth mindset. The case matters because of the connection between a strategic picture of the future, leadership behaviour and organisational practices. The vision became usable as it acquired consequences for collaboration, technology and culture (Microsoft Inside Track, 2026).
Vision is also under pressure from short accountability cycles, dashboards and rapid technology adoption. When every quarter must show immediate results, long term questions are easily postponed. AI can accelerate scenarios and analysis, but it does not make the value based choice: which future does the organisation want to help create, whose interests count and which boundaries apply? As information becomes available more quickly, distinguishing observation, interpretation and desired direction becomes more important.
An example: from profile to development direction
First assessment
50% operational | 100% tactical | 0% strategic
Later assessment
50% operational | 50% tactical | 50% strategic
The first profile has a clear emphasis on tactical vision. This professional is particularly strong at translating direction: understanding what the organisation wants to achieve, creating plans and proposals, and helping people find their contribution. Strategic vision also emerges in the later profile. Developing and communicating a direction of their own now sits alongside translating the existing course.
The operational score remains 50% in both assessments. The tactical score shifts from 100% to 50%, and the strategic score from 0% to 50%. This produces a more even distribution across the three levels. To understand what makes that valuable, we look at the qualities supporting the different forms of vision.
The strength of translating direction
Tactical vision connects a picture of the future to what people and teams need to organise today. Analytical ability helps examine the consequences of a direction. Organisational awareness helps identify the interests, roles and dependencies involved. Planning and organising makes the translation concrete. Communication skills and collaboration help others understand what the direction means for their work.
This combination makes someone valuable as an adviser, project leader or manager who helps make an organisational direction achievable. The strength lies in connecting ideas to practice: what does this direction require of us, who needs to be involved and which choices must we make now? That is a substantial contribution to vision, even when someone places little emphasis on formulating a strategic picture of the future themselves.
Adding a direction of your own
The strategic score of 50% in the later profile reveals an additional contribution. The question expands beyond how an existing direction should be implemented. Which developments matter for our future? What opportunities do we see? And which direction do we consider desirable ourselves?
External awareness feeds these questions with developments beyond everyday practice. Creativity helps imagine different futures. Judgement helps weigh possibilities and choose a direction. Initiative and courage help put that personal direction on the table. Persuasiveness and communication skills make it shareable, enabling others to understand the reasoning behind the choice and how they can contribute.
The insight that brings clarity
The shift reveals a broader contribution to vision: from translating the course to also helping determine it. The development task is to connect this personal direction to the coordination and practical translation that previously stood out so strongly.
What the shift from Dreamer to Decider adds
The change in learning style provides a recognisable way to discuss this development. The Dreamer often focuses on observing, gathering perspectives and exploring possibilities. This can enrich a picture of the future and help reveal what different people value. Tension arises when exploration continues for a long time and a personal choice remains unspoken.
The Decider places more emphasis on testing a direction through action. What do we choose, what do we do first and what do we learn from the result? This fits the emergence of a personal strategic contribution. At the same time, the tactical connection needs attention: do others have sufficient opportunity to contribute ideas, and is the chosen direction translated carefully? Combining both approaches is valuable: look broadly, make a choice and work together to make it achievable.
The Mediator: connecting and taking a position
The Mediator personality emphasis highlights an important tension. Bringing different perspectives together and seeking a direction people can recognise themselves in may be a natural strength. This supports tactical vision: connecting interests, coordinating and building support.
A personal strategic direction sometimes also requires a choice that not everyone welcomes. Courage, decisiveness and persuasiveness then become important. The development step is to keep seeking connection while expressing one’s own position clearly. For example: “I understand that people have different preferences. I propose this direction, for these reasons. Let’s discuss what we need to implement it responsibly.” In this way, the ability to connect also gains a voice that provides direction.
A suitable development exercise
Choose one question about the future from your own work. Gather relevant developments and formulate your own proposal for the desired direction. State why it matters, which trade-off it involves and which first step is needed. Discuss the proposal with the colleagues involved and incorporate their information. Then clarify which choice stands, what changes and who takes the next steps.
This exercise brings the three levels together. Operationally, the direction is connected to daily work. Tactically, people, plans and agreements are aligned. Strategically, a personal picture of the future is contributed. The profile therefore helps formulate a development question far more precise than “you need more vision”: dare to express your direction and use your ability to connect to bring it to life together.
What this means for organisations
For recruitment, vision starts with role analysis. Determine which level is actually needed, the time horizon involved and the relevant developments. An operational professional does not need to formulate a vision for the entire organisation. An executive mainly able to translate other people’s direction may not meet the requirements of a role demanding independent strategic policy. Structured questions and comparable cases prevent charisma or job title from dominating the assessment.
For HR, vision means designing talent development around future requirements as well as current performance. Strategic workforce planning, succession planning and internal mobility require a picture of future work and the competencies it will demand. A CIPD case about Unilever describes how HR’s direction around people, place and performance was connected to talent, workplace and performance. As an organisational case, it illustrates how vision acquires meaning through concrete HR practices; it is not independent evidence of effectiveness (Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, 2016).
For team managers, vision is a translation task. They need to connect organisational direction to priorities, roles and behaviour while also feeding signals from the team upwards. This requires psychological safety: employees must be able to explain where the direction does not fit customers, processes or professional values. Agreement is not a reliable measure of support or quality.
For executives, vision is also a governance issue. Make clear who provides information, who challenges assumptions, who decides and when the direction will be re-examined. Rewards should recognise long term behaviour when it is required. An organisation that demands innovation but punishes mistakes, or asks for ownership while discouraging different viewpoints, undermines its own picture of the future.
Career coaching can make vision personal without reducing it to ambition. Relevant questions include: which future within the profession does someone find meaningful, what role do they want to play, what behaviour is already visible and what still requires deliberate development? Vision then connects self-insight to action while recognising that a career is not fully predictable.
How Voice Your Future makes vision visible
Voice Your Future reveals how people give shape to vision. The distribution across operational, tactical and strategic behaviour helps distinguish where the emphasis lies: connecting the direction to one’s own work, translating it into plans and collaboration, or developing and communicating a picture of the future of one’s own. These emphases provide a personal starting point for development.
Connections with other competencies enrich the picture. Analytical ability, creativity and external awareness help explain how people use information and possibilities. Judgement reveals how a direction can be substantiated. Organisational awareness and collaboration connect the picture of the future to people and interests. Initiative, courage, decisiveness and persuasiveness support taking and communicating a personal position.
Learning style and personality emphases deepen insight into someone’s approach. Do they spend considerable time exploring perspectives? Do they quickly turn a direction into action? Does connecting come easily while choosing creates tension? Bringing these profile elements together clarifies how strengths support one another and where additional behaviour is needed.
From a score to a recognisable development story
The difference lies in the connections: how does your picture of the future emerge, how do you make it shareable and how do you translate it into choices? The profile helps identify where your contribution is already strong and which step could strengthen it further.
The score begins the conversation. Examples from one’s own work reveal what feels recognisable and where development could add value. Vision becomes personal and practical: people understand their own way of providing direction and see how to use it more effectively in their role.
The essence of vision
Vision is the ability to step back from everyday practice, place relevant facts and developments in a broader context, and develop and communicate a picture of the future. At the operational level, people connect mission and strategy to their own work. At the tactical level, developments are translated into proposals, plans and behaviour. At the strategic level, people develop their own direction, weigh broader developments and involve others in shaping policy.
A strong vision does three things at once: it provides meaning, guides choices and remains open to testing. Without meaning, direction becomes a planning exercise. Without choices, it remains a wish. Without testing, staying on course can easily become blindness.
The essence is providing direction responsibly while certainty is lacking, and acting today in ways that credibly bring the desired future closer.
References
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Oettingen, G. (2016). Pragmatic prospection: How and why people think about the future. Review of General Psychology, 20(1), 3-16. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000060
Cedefop. (2025). Preparing for 2040: Four AI-powered scenarios for the future of continuing skills development. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2801/2114554
Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. (2016). Valuing your talent: Unilever. https://www.cipd.org/en/knowledge/case-studies/value-talent-unilever/
Deloitte. (2026). 2026 Global Human Capital Trends. https://www.deloitte.com/global/en/insights/topics/talent/human-capital-trends.html
Detert, J. R., & Edmondson, A. C. (2011). Implicit voice theories: Taken-for-granted rules of self-censorship at work. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 461-488. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.61967925
Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
European Commission. (n.d.). Transversal knowledge, skills and competences. ESCO. https://esco.ec.europa.eu/en/about-esco/escopedia/escopedia/transversal-knowledge-skills-and-competences
Frémeaux, S., & Pavageau, B. (2022). Meaningful leadership: How can leaders contribute to meaningful work? Journal of Management Inquiry, 31(1), 54-66. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492619897126
Gallup. (2026). State of the Global Workplace 2026. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/697904/state-of-the-global-workplace-global-data.aspx
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755-768. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755
Kooij, D. T. A. M., & Van De Voorde, K. (2017). Future time perspective in the work context: A systematic review of quantitative studies. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 413. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00413
Kooij, D. T. A. M., Kanfer, R., Betts, M., & Rudolph, C. W. (2018). Future time perspective: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(8), 867-893. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000306
Liu, M., Zhang, P., Zhu, Y., & Li, Y. (2022). How and when does visionary leadership promote followers’ taking charge? The roles of inclusion of leader in self and future orientation. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 15, 1917-1929. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S366939
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2006). New directions in goal-setting theory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(5), 265-268. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00449.x
Microsoft Inside Track. (2026). Digitally transforming Microsoft: Our IT journey. https://www.microsoft.com/insidetrack/blog/digitally-transforming-microsoft-our-it-journey/
Nieuwenhuis, M. A. (2010). The art of management 1: Strategie en structuur (10e druk). M. Nieuwenhuis.
Van der Helm, R. (2009). The vision phenomenon: Towards a theoretical underpinning of visions of the future and the process of envisioning. Futures, 41(2), 96-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2008.07.036
World Economic Forum. (2025). The Future of Jobs Report 2025. https://www.weforum.org/publications/the-future-of-jobs-report-2025/
