Clyde uses Kennedy's statement as an example of vision in a way that
reveals something more clearly to me than I'd previously seen. That is,
what seems to appeal to people in this "vision thing" is the feelings,
emotions, emotive possibilities. (I think this is one of the errors
which the use of "mental models" often falls into - a very loose,
non-rigorous use of terms where rigour might be useful.)
It may be that a conversation that generates this kind of emotional state
is useful. There are also many cases where it is used merely for
exhortation. Context, intention and interaction will determine the result.
The language of vision as currently constituted doesn't provide much
enlightenment regarding its meaning and use in such matters. Let's use the
Kennedy example to reveal this frequent confusion - which I think can be
traced to this confusion between emotion-value statements and making
distinctions in vision, mission, etc. (There's nothing wrong with making
the emotion-value choice as long as we've defined it that way
operationally so that the "rules of the game" are consistent with our
definition.)
To use Kennedy's statements to assist in making distinctions in vision and
mission:
"Putting a man on the moon and bringing him home safely in a
decade" is a mission statement and, no matter how inspiring it may be, can
hardly qualify as a vision statement. It has a specific target in specific
time with measureable result. In my definition, those are qualities that
do not belong to "vision" statements.
"Exploring space for the benefit of mankind" (contained in a speech
before congress) was (IMHO) the relevant vision statement and provided the
context for the mission.
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.
--
Mike McMaster <Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk>
"Intelligence is an underlying organisational principle
of the universe. The 'logos principle' is hidden and
perceptible only to the intelligence." Heraclitus