Abstract
The mission statement of an organization is a statement of organizational intent: What it is going to do? The idea of creating an organizational mission originated in the private business sector, seems relatively straightforward, and may even ring as simplistic. Surely, an organization should have a statement that outlines what it does. However, there is more to this seemingly elementary idea. The mission not only serves as a stated objective for the organization but also has other clandestine and duplicitous functions: It is both a call to action and a homing beacon; both direction and destination itself; and both a seemingly obtuse statement and an acute secret agent of double-loop learning. When perceived in this manner, the ubiquitous nature of the organizational mission becomes simultaneously more elusive, whereas the benefits of its usage can become quite clear to the adept strategist. As in the business sector, with the proper implementation, it can become an internal driving force for civil and public organizations. It is this wily essence of the mission and any other contributing factors that may serve as internal and intangible driving forces within organizations that Charles Goodsell attempts to capture in his study of the various well-performing public agencies in Mission Mystique: Belief in Public Agencies.
Goodsell opens up with the argument that the field of public administration is not in decline as some may believe. He believes that now is a time for the field to redirect itself, and the point of Mission is not to “dwell on public administration’s supposed decline, but to consider how its highest possible potential can be reached”(p. 1). He goes on to explain that the high potential of which he speaks requires that bureaucracies become “honest, lawful, efficient, responsible, ably led, and adequately financed” (p. 1). Furthermore, he observes that public agencies that have gained a reputation of containing the above-standard qualities were those whose employees were “turned on,” or fully engaged with the mission of the organization. He calls this complete engagement the “mission mystique.”
Goodsell offers further explanation of his usage of the word “mystique” and gives the reader the two definitions as given by Random House dictionary: (a) A framework of doctrines, ideas, beliefs, or the like, constructed around a person or object, endowing him or it with enhanced value or profound meaning; (b) An aura of mystery or mystical power. Goodsell believes both denotations of the word are befitting for the model.
Goodsell provides an extensive literature review. He covers organizational and institution literature and credits Selznick’s Leadership in Administration: A Sociological Interpretation (1957) as the largest contributing source in this category by presenting the idea of “distinctive competence.” From that work sprang another by Terry, Leadership of Public Bureaucracy that introduced the idea of “administrative conservatorship” and elaborated on Selznick’s “distinctive competence.” The category covered is leadership: the works of Boin and Christensen which contested the “great man” ideal of leadership, and Dym and Hutson who developed the idea of organizational leadership. The next category is organizational theory in which Goodsell goes into extensive research.
The categories in the literature review section concentrate specifically on organizational mission and include, the works of Campbell and Nash who developed a model for maximizing organizational motivation and output; Pascarella and Frohman, who explored the importance of gradual change and of a persistent sense of purpose within the organization; Knauft, Berger, and Gray, who transplanted the idea of mission into the nonprofit sector; psychologist Weiss, who explained the psychological motivations that mission instills in workers; Wiener, who measured organizational commitment by the three variables of personal sacrifice, heightened persistence and long tenure, and mental preoccupation; Wamsley’s idea of an institution constitution; Rainey and Steinbauer’s vivid description of large, well-running organizations as “galloping elephants,” and how a strong culture can create them; Kotter and Heskett’s study on how culture can enable or disable organizational effectiveness; and finally, Wright’s work that showed that workers do best when their organization and work is considered important, and their personal jobs are viewed as significant. The literature review details the progression of the field, demonstrates the importance of the role of the mission in an organization, and aids the reader into understanding the assumptions of his proposed model.
Goodsell explains three prerequisites or assumptions for understanding his model. The first is acceptance of the Constitution and laws of the land, as well as responsiveness to legal enactments of the two political branches of government and to the judicial interpretations of the third branch. In short, belief in, and the will to act within the confines of the American political system is imperative to the integrity of the model. Second, whereas the template incorporates qualified or limited policy autonomy, this independence must be within reason and confined to realms where political superiors have not spoken to the practice of advocacy and not outright disobedience or sabotage. When top executive, officials, or legislative bodies countermand exercise of such autonomy, the agency must yield. In short, if one accepts the solidity of the first prerequisite, one must accept that the American governmental system can justly and rightly override interorganizational decisions. Finally, empirical research on bureaucratic behavior offers ample evidence that agency officials are aware of their responsibilities to elected officials and tend to support a new administration in power even when the changes are contrary to personal views. In this qualification, Goodsell acknowledges the age-old politics-administration dichotomy and reminds the reader that it persists still today and reinvigorates it by giving it place in this very contemporary model.
Goodsell then develops a conceptual map of the mission mystique as a 3 × 3 matrix, the columns of which are prime qualities, essential elaborations, and temporal aspects, and the rows are a purposive aura, internal conflict, and sustaining features. Each cell represents a pivotal characteristic an organization must exemplify to have a mission mystique: direction, importance, confidence, dedication, community, identity dissent, policy space, and renewal. After explaining each cell of his matrix, Goodsell moves into the study of six governmental agencies, which he uses to support the mission mystique concept: U.S. National Park Service; U.S. National Weather Service; U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Department of Social Services, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina; Virginia State Police; and U.S. Peace Corps. These agencies were chosen, because they were believed to contain all the elements of the mission mystique. In his analysis, Goodsell rates each of the six organizations on the nine characteristics of mission mystique, on a scale of 0 to 3. He concludes that all of the six agencies contained the elements it takes to form a mission mystique. The range of scores was 1 to 3, the range of the means of the totals was 2.6 to 2.9, and the average of the means was 2.8.
Overall, the literature review builds a stalwart foundation for the theoretical framework, the matrix makes a harmonious sense of the descried elements, and the stories of the agencies within the study create a compelling case for the mission mystique. However, there were a few weaknesses to be addressed. First, as Goodsell admits, he doesn’t “use a uniform format for (the) study” (p. 5). This poses an issue for the internal validity of the study. The use of a more structured format for his study may have afforded authentically parallel data and given the study more sturdy data. In addition, the rating style used by Goodsell would have benefited from a greater variation than a 3-point scale. Another weakness is his assumption as related to the politics-administration dichotomy. The assumption that the politics-administration dichotomy is nonexistent may not be acceptable to many scholars. Although I understand the position of the author that the discharging of the dichotomy needs to be a prerequisite of the model, I do not think it is wise to assume that this can be done so easily in the minds of the reader. Goodsell’s assumption that all his readers can accept his stance on this issue is capricious, presumptuous, and risky, as it leaves the framework open to instant dismissal by many. Last, the fact that these organizations were chosen because they seemed to have mission mystique is another concern. In actuality, he uses his data set to prove his model’s accuracy, and then relates it back to the same organization. I would have liked to see a paired data set. Perhaps this may not have changed the validity of the arguments set forth in the book, but it would have offered a more evenly represented viewpoint for the novice reader and may have imparted a greater sense of credibility to their arguments for the scholars in the field of public administration.
In his book, not only does Goodsell present seminal research of six monolithic public agencies (the size of which gives the research a voluminous scope that lends to the viability of his model) but also does he proffer a comprehensive theoretical framework for the mission mystique that can profit all types of organizations. For the casual, disinterested, or forced participant, the work may read as simple conceptualizations which lend themselves to simple common sense, and to which he feels practically detached. Mission Mystique is for the reader who loves his work in the fields of public administration, strategic HR management, industrial/organizational psychology, or other closely related interest. The practitioner reader with a genuine interest in the subject likely will experience an enhanced familiarity and intimacy that can be drawn on to garner a meaning greater than a surface understanding of the material, and an operable interpretation of the writer’s work. Reading Goodsell’s Mission Mystique: Belief Systems in Public Agencies will be akin to looking into a mirror through a magnifying glass, and the information will be applicable to the day-to-day understanding of events within his organization.
In summation, what Goodsell’s theoretical framework offers is a veritable recipe for organizations create a mission mystique. The parameters which studies the agencies does not employ the most scientific methods, and the terminology of “mystique” further removes the framework from a scientific center; however, the assumptions of the model and the outcomes of the analysis are reasonable. Furthermore, I would venture to say that because of the elusive nature of an organizational mission, these qualitative measures were more befitting than any quantitative counterpart that he could have used. I would definitely recommend Goodsell’s Mission Mystique as a reading for federal, state, and local public administrators who are in a position to help create, affect, and change the cultural environment of their organizations.