Audacious Goals

One of the common themes in venture capital is that you need a big, audacious vision to build a big company. When I built a billion dollar company in Indonesia the goal was "to be the Wal-Mart of Indonesia" or "to build 1000 stores", all of this in country with annual per capita income of US$ 600. Microsoft and Google both had big, audacious goals. Microsoft's goal was "to put a computer in every home". Google's goal was "to organize the world's information". None of these goals appeared realistic at the outset, but they definitely qualified as audacious and are well on their way to being realized in less than 20 or 30 years.

Lots of companies have visions but only the audacious goals inspire people by their special nature. These goals all put every one in the company on a journey. We may not know where we are going but it is going to be something "special". It is that mystery that moves us to join the project, to believe it can be realized and to put in super-human effort to achieve it. Not everybody needs to drink this Kool-Aid but the top people all should be addicted.

Large, resource rich countries like the U.S. or China also need audacious goals to give their populations a direction and something for the many to believe in. In my lifetime the U.S. has had two audacious goals:

1. to defeat communism
2. to put a man on the moon

"To defeat communism" was probably established by President Eisenhower.  It was a big, audacious goal that asked everyone to sacrifice to preserve our democracy, which had just been put at risk by Hitler and was then threatened again. In May 1961 President Kennedy made his audacious speech that we "need to put a man on the moon...and return him safely...within a decade". Both of these goals were achieved, although it took until 1989 for President Eisenhower's "defeat of communism" to be achieved.

Since 1989 the U.S. has had no audacious goals. We have become a country largely of self-interested politicians and citizens. Why has this happened? In part the reason is that no President since Father Bush has had any moral authority. Clinton squandered any moral authority he may have had and President Bush appears to not consider morality in his decision making or to think in terms of larger, national goals. Furthermore, the national dialog has focused on issues with no sense of a journey or a cause to take pride in or be motivated by. Despite people's keen interest in gay rights, abortion or gun control, none of these issues "move" a large part of the population to go on a journey which is moral and worthy of extraordinary efforts to achieve it.

The popularity of the Internet and Web 2.0 may also be making it difficult for the U.S. to find an audacious new goal. With these technologies commonly available, everyone is a spokesman and people are increasingly following the output of more and more minor functionaries (yes-there is a certain irony here). Consequently, it becomes more and more challenging for an audacious goal to be communicated and accepted by the general population. Never the less, the U.S. must adopt a new, larger goal that galvanizes the population. Failure to do so will leave this country at risk from countries with the ability to move their populations, achieve audacious goals and command the world's respect.

There are two reasons to be optimistic about the U.S. despite the 19 year hiatus in establishing a new goal:

1. Both Presidential candidates appear to have a moral compass albeit formed through very different circumstances and both are inclined to look at the bigger picture
2. Cleantech, alternative energy, or "green" America is the most obvious issue since World War II around which this country could come together to achieve a moral, audacious goal

Now all we need is for a President to recognize the need for such a goal, to articulate it and for this country to come together around the goal. Maybe there are other candidates for this goal but we can not succeed as a country without such a goal.

Comments

[Kevin Otway]

How about the "Audacity of a Goal" as the title? ;-)

Obama seems to be showing more intestinal fortitude than McCain even though we know how tested McCain is (US Naval Academy, USN, POW). He is now calling for allowing drilling off the coast of even FL - for example. Don't forget the gas tax holiday. As a fellow Alumnus of John McCain(USNA), I'm weary of his meanderings with this issue. Hmmm...Keating Five??? :(

Anyhow, I couldn't agree more on the audacious goal of "Greening America." Whether it's Energy Independence or Environmental Sustainability, the path is many and varied yet the outcome is undoubtedly possible. They say the first step to going/being "Green" starts with Energy.

Here is how Energy Independence will occur (in no particular order):
1)Fuel Cell/Hydrogen (Think Honda)
2)Hybrid Technology (Not just the Prius)
3)Cellulosic Ethanol (NOT feed stock)
4)Biodiesel
5)Energy Efficiency (Demand Side Mgmt)
6)Energy Conservation (Supply Side Mgmt)
7-10)Renewable Energy (Supply Side Mgmt): Wind, Solar, Geothermal, Hydro Energy, etc.

This is already happening. Energy Independence is already being achieved!!!

Stand By For Heavy Rolls...!!!

Blog: http://www.sparkplugg.blogspot.com/
My Website: http://www.ves1.com

[Luis]

I don't necessarily agree with "Greening America" as an audacious goal....but certainly:

"Energy Independence by 2020" should be a candidate. The benefits of accomplishing this goal appeal to many constituencies (economic, environmental, moral) and should not be a hard sell.

I hope whoever wins this electoral go around develops some long-term vision. Bush II really squandered a golden opportunity back in 2000-2006 when the GOP had a majority.

[Robert Hacker]

Luis
I actually think Father Bush was the first President who squandered the opportunity to establish a new, audacious goal for the U.S. in 1989. When the Berlin Wall fell he had the opportunity to set the country on a new quest and totally missed the opportunity. Every President since has missed his chance.

The only people who don't know what the goal should be are the politicians. A very sad bunch of schmucks. Personally I would prefer energy independence through alternative energy.
Bob

[Kevin Otway]

Luis,

"Greening America" doesn't mean tearing everything down and building it back up and making it "Green". It seems like too many folks think that we have to go back to caveman days in order to be "Green."

Here is a little bit more about Green:
It could be buying wood locally instead of shipping it here from Washington State.

It could be building with awareness of air quality in the home, etc and creating a balance.

It could be planting a tree to create shading on a home to lower the need for cooling within a home.

It could be using less materials and/or recycling materials.

All it takes to Go "Green" is for someone to be mindful. Mindful of the environment, Mindful of the impact of their action. In essence, taking into account another variable in their decision-making mecahnism.

When I lived on a boat growing up in St. Thomas (Paradise), we couldn't just dump trash overboard because we knew that this would harm the environment below. We were mindful of putting oil in a container to dispose of properly. Not because of the potential $5,000 fine but because we knew all too well what oil in the water is like.

I'll leave you with a story:

I was talking to a friend not too long after the hurricanes of not-so-long-ago. He had completely renovated his home. He spoke of how he'd change things around and was really proud of how smart he was and the good deals he'd gotten, etc. He even talked about his new whole-house generator for the power outages after hurricanes. When he was done talking about the generator I asked him: "What about solar"? And he stopped dead in his tracks. He even had a look of a deer in headlights. By asking that, it seems he realized that he missed a big item. In short, he wasn't mindful of what he was doing. But he had many questions that led me to believe he wouldn't let anyone he knew do the same thing. That generator has sat unused since 2005. Aside from short runs for servicing, etc it hasn't done anything useful. This wasn't an investment; it couldn't qualify. If it were a solar system, the story would have been different.

That is all.

[Kevin Otway]

Bob,

As a country, we've been meandering without a meaningful goal to achieve for some time. But I think you forgot about the Bush Mars Initiative. j/k! ;-)

By the way, a kind reporter from Miami New Times wrote about Russ & I:

http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2008/06/twin_vets_helping_people_go_gr.php

GO NAVY!

[John Fleming]

Bob, strongly agree with the thought in the post. I think what is true is the baby-boom generation is just amoral. Clinton and Bush are visible examples. We just doesn't understand or accept the concepts of sacrifice and saving for the greater common good and, unlike Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy, none of the political leadership of our generation was willing to take the chance to call for it to accomplish an audacious goal. The math here is simple. We use twice the energy we currently domestically produce every year. Instead of agreeing that everything is on the table ... including major changes to the American lifestyle to conserve, drilling wherever we can domestically, using tax policy for retrofitting the car fleet and its fuel distribution system, building nukes, solving the fission problem, building viable wind and solar industries ... we spend our time saying the "other side" is wrong. The last generation of Americans who acted like this managed to argue themselves into a civil war that almost destroyed the country. Hopefully the generation born after we landed on the moon will be able to solve the mess we have created for them.

[Sara Goldstein]

I think the other thing that's often forgotten about big audacious goals, is that you never get consensus that they're possible until after you've achieved them -- and even then, there still isn't consensus that it was worth doing.

To have any hope of achieving an audacious goal, somebody has to take some risks. They have to be willing to risk their credibility on the goal: to look you in the eye and say (in our case) "we're going to change the way people buy clothing -- and the way they relate to it too". In the early days, the person who does this will be greeted with much skepticism and possibly be thought crazy.

(Which is completely understandable: it's much easier to articulate an audacious goal than to actually get there.)

So the person/people that come up with the goal have to care passionately enough about it to endure a certain amount of social censure along the way. If you like a big committee to sanction your decisions at every step, an audacious goal is not for you.

The upside is that the best and brightest are attracted to an audacious goal; it's worthy of their time and intellect. A great rallying cry attracts great people.

It's also amazing when the goal starts to take shape into something real. Watching our team each fall in love with our audacious goal and start to make it happen has been wonderful.

So if you don't mind being perceived as crazy, I highly recommend audacious goals ;)