Election Reflection: When Does a Vision Become Lost—or Was It Never Realized in the First Place?
Following last week’s Presidential Election, I wanted to share insights on the Harris loss (and subsequently, Trump’s win). Like many, I've spent the past week consuming various perspectives to better understand how we ended up here. I've listened to podcasts, read columns, and heard round table discussions, trying to analyze this historic election objectively. Despite my personal concerns, the insights emerging from experts have been fascinating. While I usually limit my news intake, a landmark election like this reignited my curiosity as a student of human behavior to explore the "why’s."
Throughout the campaign, one issue that kept resurfacing for me was the Harris campaign’s lack of a clear, compelling vision. I’ll admit, I didn’t see all her speeches, nor am I a political strategist. But months ago, I shared with my wife, “She’s spending a lot of time focusing on her opponent's weaknesses without really sharing a vision of what America would and could look like under her presidency.” I didn’t know who she was and what she stood for (other than some buzzwords and pre-approved campaign slogans). Whereas, I did know who Trump was and I knew what he stood for - he conveyed his vision to his followers better than her. Hoping that we would eventually see a vision emerge from her campaign, I was reminded of Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign, which was rooted in hope and vision, even as other candidates focused on critiquing the previous administration. Obama’s focus on a positive, future-focused vision was instrumental to his victory.
I believe there’s value in exploring when and why a vision becomes lost—and how leaders can avoid that trap. A vision is a clear, compelling picture of a desired future state or outcome that serves as a guiding principle for individuals, organizations, or movements. It reflects core values, beliefs, and goals, and acts as a motivator and unifying force by providing direction and purpose. A well-defined vision inspires action, aligns efforts, and helps people stay focused on long-term objectives, especially during challenging times.
One of my favorite frameworks to discuss a more systematized and thoughtful vision process is the change formula. Originally created by David Gleicher, published by Richard Beckhard in the early 1960s, and later refined by Kathie Dannemiller, the change formula asserts that three key elements must be present for meaningful change to occur:
D x V x F > R
D stands for dissatisfaction with the current state.
V is a clear and compelling vision for the future.
F represents the first steps taken toward that vision.
R is resistance to change.
This formula simply illustrates that for change (or a new path forward) to succeed, acknowledging dissatisfaction, creating a vision, and performing actionable first steps must be strong enough to overcome the natural resistance to change. In the case of Harris's campaign, I think this model could have structured a more systematic approach to presenting a new vision for America, similar to what Reagan accomplished in the '80s.
Effective vision statements are simple, relatable, and actionable. They are not bogged down by jargon or overloaded with statistics (which was a constant criticism of the Harris campaign in the post-election analysis). Instead, visions paint a picture so clear that everyone knows what it looks like to achieve it; it is like a guiding star that aligns efforts and keeps everyone focused.
Where Vision Gets Lost: Lessons from the Campaign
We haven’t created enough dissatisfaction with where we are: Harris attempted this with telling us why electing her opponent would be worse off for the country, often referencing his former presidency, but she didn’t capture the true, underlying dissatisfaction- that most Americans were dissatisfied with a lot of things happening in their personal lives (regardless of the height of the stock market, low unemployment and minimum wage).
We lack a clear and compelling vision of where we are going: This is where I think the Harris campaign really suffered. It had no clear and compelling vision of what America was meant to be and was going to be in the future. The campaign needed to explain to all of us the purpose of her Presidency, the picture of what that future would look like under her leadership, what her plan was in 3 big ideas, how was she going to measure the success of her administration, and finally, the part we all needed to play in that “big, hairy, audacious” vision she had.
We lack leadership & people to support it and get us there: As reports have come out in the aftermath of the election, the Democratic party is in a scramble for relevancy. To some degree, I do think this is where the Harris campaign did the best they could - bringing out the very best in our nation (A-list politicians, celebrities, world leaders, and even key Republicans) - to encourage people to vote for Harris. Unfortunately, it was couched in fear of Trump and not in hope for a more prosperous future for all. As we learned on Wednesday morning, literally there were not enough people or voters behind the Harris campaign to edge out a win. Additionally, if we are following the change formula, there were no “First Steps” for her voters to get working on; there were unclear policies and little understanding on what her first “100 days” would look like.
In Harris's case, it might have helped if her campaign had addressed these key questions in shaping her vision:
What beliefs and assumptions do we need to embrace, and how do they align with our collective vision for America?
How can we create systems and processes that reinforce those beliefs?
What behaviors and patterns will support this vision?
What tangible events would signify that we’ve reached this vision?
If we use Obama’s 2008 campaign as a reference point:
Beliefs and Assumptions: Obama’s campaign was built on a core belief in “hope and change.” This idea tapped into an assumption that America was ready to turn the page on old divisions and confront new challenges with unity and optimism. His message aligned with a collective vision for an America that was more inclusive, forward-thinking, and resilient, embracing diversity as a strength and a commitment to economic reform, healthcare access, and global leadership.
Systems and Processes: Obama’s team pioneered new campaign systems, leveraging technology to engage supporters and enable them to participate directly in the campaign. His team created one of the most sophisticated digital networks in campaign history, using social media, email, and online platforms to reach people directly. By doing so, he reinforced the belief in an accessible, inclusive approach to leadership, giving supporters tools to fundraise, organize, and spread his message.
Behaviors and Patterns: Obama’s campaign emphasized unity and shared responsibility, encouraging Americans to participate in the political process and support one another. His slogan, “Yes We Can,” underscored the power of collective action, inspiring behaviors of cooperation and active citizenship. Obama promoted the idea that change was everyone’s responsibility, encouraging a pattern of civic engagement and mutual support that extended beyond the campaign.
Tangible Events: Obama’s election as the first Black president was a landmark moment in American history, symbolizing a shift in racial dynamics and a collective move toward equality and inclusivity. His tangible achievements, such as the Affordable Care Act, delivered on his vision of “hope and change” by addressing healthcare access and economic recovery, offering proof of progress to Americans. Additionally, his focus on diplomacy and climate action through initiatives like the Paris Agreement reestablished America's role as a collaborative global leader, expanding his vision to the international stage.
Understanding the Bell Curve of Support
In any change effort the race is on to bring potential converts over to your side before the other side brings them to their side. It’s helpful to imagine a bell curve where the vertical axis represents the number of people, and the horizontal axis represents support for the vision and the following is happening:
Vision Champions (15%): On our right side of the bell curve we have our advocates who will work tirelessly to support the vision, acting as ambassadors, volunteers, and community builders. They represent about 15% of the population.
Resistors or “Toxic Few” (15%): On our left side, the resistors will never support the vision, regardless of its merit. They are entrenched in opposition, resisting change for personal or ideological reasons. They, too, only represent 15% of the population and it’s best not to waste time trying to convert this group.
Bystanders (60-70%): In the middle, this is the majority group at 60%-70%, who may not be invested either way. They wait to see which vision resonates with them the most. They are undecided but can be persuaded, making them a critical group to influence. This is where the use of the change formula is paramount in moving Bystanders to the Champion side.
The campaign's role was to move as many “Bystanders” over to the Vision Champion side of our Bell Curve of Support. The goal from the beginning of the Harris campaign should have been to create a clear and compelling vision, one that differed from her predecessor President Biden, acknowledging a dissatisfaction with where the country currently was; sharing her “case for change” and commitment to the Bystanders’ plights.
Unfortunately, people are often more motivated by fear of loss than by potential gain. Resistors will emphasize what could go wrong, fueling fear, while champions of the vision focus on hope and opportunity. Research shows that, unless adequately prepared, hope and opportunity can be easily overshadowed by fear - we saw this last week. This is why campaigns and leaders must meticulously plan and articulate a compelling vision—one that prepares people to believe in hope as strongly as they would in fear.
In the end, the failure of the Harris campaign underscores the importance of a clear, powerful vision in leadership. Trump, on the other hand, had a clear and compelling vision based on fear. Without clear, compelling, and hopefully vision, even well-meaning efforts struggle to inspire change or make a lasting impact.
