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:
- to defeat communism
- 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:
- 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
- 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.