Dave Buffenbarger recenty raised some interesting points and here are my
comments:
>Not sure why an organizations mission should not be clear. I
>read some inference about clear missions not being possible
>in today's world? I fear for those folks who won't spend time on
>it. Tell us more where and how this can occur.
While I do not agree that clear missions are not possible
in today's world, the rate AND nature of change is making it
harder to pin down and stick to a mission.
Look at what is happening in the telecommunications and
media worlds. Companies are having to decide-- and then
redecide when a new alliance pops up -- if their mission
is as a carrier of "stuff", such as with cable or phone companies,
or a developer of the "stuff", such as many TV companies,
or both. Then there is the issue of what "stuff" you carry or develop
and who are likely competitors. Some of the biggest objectors
to Microsoft acquiring Intuit were banks - who would have forecast
banks having to consider Microsoft as a competitor?
Incidentally, this complexity is starting to affect the military.
I have just watched the news over breakfast and the UN military
commander in Bosnia was reflecting on whether their mission
had now changed, given the air raids against the Bosnian Serbs.
Is their mission now to use force to make the Serbs come
to the negotiating table?
>The part of military I was a member of 23 years ago was less
>centralized and with a clearer mission than most of today's
>organizations. From my spot as a first line supervisor to the
>commander of the Army was 8 layers of people. This was so in a
>HUGE organization, 23 YEARS AGO. Perhaps the fascination
>with the military is that they have done and continue to do some
>very right things.
>In some LO circles, we ache for scenario development. For those
>of us who have seen a war room, or participated in simple
>military planning, we wonder why the military can do it for the
>sake of learning (planning as learning)
A key problem with using the military as an example is that,
outside of a full war, they spend virtually ALL of their time planning
and practicing. The corporate analogy would be having a new
salesforce and new products ready in case a competitor came out
with a new product or sales strategy. All this salesforce would be
doing is planning and practicing. We know that orgs cannot
afford such overhead.
Yes, the military has done and continues to do some
right things but an organization that
- spends most of its time getting, and being, ready to
engage (but a limited amount of its organizational life in
engagement)
- has a very clear contract with it employees about employment
terms and whose employees cannot simply move on to
the next army
- has a culture that fully accepts hierarchy and its related
behaviors
will always be limited in offering lessons to today's corporate
world.
-- Peter A. Smith Orbis Learning Corporation 74363,3637@compuserve.com