> This may provide some clarity on what Keith says:
>
> > >I would further qualify that a useful vision must capture the "essence"
> > >of what an organization is ALREADY about, to be effective. It must be
> > >simple and reflect commonly-held beliefs. It cannot introduce new
> > >concepts and be effective.
>
> In this case, the USA was already pursuing space exploration. The vision
> statement provides context and the mission statement provides focus.
> And by doing that, named a field of possibility and legitemized its
> exploration. And brought inspiration to an existing field of endeavour.
> It didn't "introduce new concepts" (nor did the mission statement) but it
> allowed for, maybe even called for, new concepts to be developed in its
> unfolding.
>
> One of the actions that Kennedy took that is instructive as well is that he
> included on the team pursuing the mission - in a key post - some of those
> who kept saying "its impossible". Fit that into your existing theories!
>
> I suggest its more instructive to look at what happened to the whole space
> effort _after_ its initial success. We have an almost dead programme that
> has little respect, little drama and not much more than "business as
> usual". What happened?
>
> We might say they didn't have new missions that were as worthy, demanding
> or challenging as the initial one. We might also say that the vision
> statement disappeared. Having focussed on the mission - which is easier
> to do - the vision statement faded and was never revived. Or we might say
> that the conversation - the dialogue - which had produced a field of
> possibility ceased and, when the dialogue ceased, the space died. And the
> rest is just work.
This is the absolute key. The mission was achieved and there was no
follow-on because there was NO Vision as you describe it. Because no
leader filled this vacuum after the achievement of the immediate goal
(man on the moon and back) the program degenerated into an expensive way
to launch and fix commercial satellites!
So we have the seeds of failure sewed in the success of the immediate
goal. How often do we see this with corporations. Look at Apple - a leader
that set the pace but lost the battle!
And IBM that legitimized the industry so that Microsoft could succeed (and
Compaq, Dell,...)
...Keith
-- Keith Cowan Phone: (416)565-6253 FAX: (905)858-7131 Toronto Internet: cowan@pci.on.ca Compuserve: 72212,51