On Missions, Mottos, and the Administrative Persistence of the Obvious
Secretariat, Clerical Department, 12th June 1965
The Secretariat takes up this memorandum with the single purpose of clarifying a matter that has already acquired an inconvenient degree of ambiguity among the departments.
During the great upheavals of the late 1990s, when corporations decided they must have a mission statement and suitable aims, the Foundation faced a similar suggestion from its Board of Directors. Those gentlemen, now all retired—thankfully—believed that the institution required a formal declaration of purpose, a tidy paragraph stating what the Foundation does, why it does it, and how its activities align with some imagined higher coordination.
Lady Vorpel stepped in—or on, depending on one’s perspective—and announced that there were already far too many missions for her Foundation to pursue. She saw no need to adopt another, and she saw even less need to articulate it in the bland language of commerce. She did not forbid the departments from considering mottos. She merely allowed several to select one from the large collection she has unearthed during her excavations into the Mallard dynastic histories.
This collection, which Lady Vorpel treats as both archive and arsenal, contains phrases that would suit a haunting, a tax ledger, a battlefield, or a wedding, depending on the reader’s mood. The Secretariat received from her hand a selection of these mottos and undertook the duty of choosing one that suited our aims without offending the dignity of the office.
Among the offerings we found “Coldness and Deceit,” (Agnus Castus et Apocynum) which suited our aims admirably and attracted no surprise from those who know our methods. The phrase describes the clerical temper with precision. It acknowledges the necessity of distance, the obligation to withhold, and the advantage of withholding in coldness. It also admits the utility of deceit as a form of discretion, a way of preventing the uninvited from penetrating the inner workings of the institution. We considered adopting this motto without hesitation. We chose instead “Perpetual Excellence,” (Perpetuum Excellentiam) as being more becoming to a department that manages the outward flow of the aims of the Foundation in its pursuit of perpetual endowments. This selection does not deny our affinity with “Coldness and Deceit.” It merely dresses it in a more acceptable coat.
The matter of “Perpetual Excellence” requires further explanation, for it now hangs over the department as a banner that demands action and yet refuses to define it. Excellence, in the ordinary sense, implies a standard that one can measure, attain, and celebrate. Perpetual excellence implies something more demanding. It implies that the standard remains constant while the conditions change, that the work proceeds without interruption, and that the result never loses its claim to the name. This is not a small task.
The Secretariat does not seek applause.
It does not issue bulletins. It does not announce its successes. It continues. The motto, therefore, does not promise brilliance. It promises persistence. It promises that the outward flow of the Foundation’s aims will not falter, that the documents will move, that the letters will leave, that the endowments will be pursued without fatigue, and that the clerical temper will remain steady through the arrivals and departures that mark the life of any institution.
We note that other departments have yet to furnish their own mottos. This delay frustrates the Secretariat, not because it wishes to impose order, but because it wishes to complete the record. The requirement to adopt a motto remains outstanding, exceptional, and magnificent in its demand for clarity. The Board of Directors, despite their retirement, left behind a request that has not lost its force. Lady Vorpel’s allowance of the collection has not expired. The departments still possess the opportunity to choose a phrase that suits their work. They still possess the duty to do so. The Secretariat refers you once more to Form 7.8K, first issued in 1974, in order to comply with this outstanding request. The form remains in circulation. It remains in use. It remains the proper instrument for the submission of mottos.
The form itself, if one examines it without prejudice, reveals a design that serves the purpose it was intended to serve. It asks for the department’s name, the chosen motto, the date of selection, and a brief statement of justification. It does not require eloquence. It does not require originality. It does not require a grand declaration. It requires only the fact that the department has chosen and the reason for that choice. This simplicity serves the clerical temper. It admits no flourish. It admits no ambiguity. It admits no delay. The department that submits the form admits that it now possesses a motto and that it will act in accordance with it, whether that action consists of writing, copying, filing, sending, or withholding. The form does not ask for performance. It asks for commitment. That is a lower demand and a higher one.
The Secretariat has considered the matter of missions and mottos with some care because it believes that the institution benefits from clarity. A mission statement, in the corporate sense, often serves as a public declaration. It announces purpose to the outside world. It attempts to persuade. It attempts to align the institution with some higher value. The Foundation does not require such persuasion. It does not require such alignment. It requires only that the departments know their work and proceed without hesitation. A motto, by contrast, serves the inward life of the institution. It does not persuade the outside. It reminds the inside. It sets a temper. It establishes a tone. It names the quality that the department seeks to maintain. “Perpetual Excellence” names that quality for the Secretariat. It names the demand that the work remain steady, that the flow of documents remain unbroken, that the pursuit of endowments remain constant, and that the clerical temper remain unmoved by the arrivals and departures that mark the life of any institution.
We acknowledge that the late 1990s upheavals now appear to us as an odd episode in the history of corporate language. The corporations of that time believed that a mission statement could alter behaviour. They believed that a suitable aim could redirect effort. They believed that the declaration of purpose could produce the purpose itself. The Foundation faced a similar suggestion from its Board of Directors.
Lady Vorpel rejected the suggestion. She saw that the institution already possessed missions, and that they were sufficient. She saw that the addition of a new mission would not improve the work. She saw that the declaration would not alter the behaviour. She saw that the aim would not redirect the effort. She saw that the purpose would not produce the purpose. She stepped in—or on—and allowed the departments to consider mottos instead. This choice reflects a deeper understanding of the institution. It reflects a preference for the inward life over the outward declaration. It reflects a preference for the temper over the statement. It reflects a preference for the work over the announcement.
The Secretariat does not wish to impose a single motto on the entire institution. It does not wish to impose a single mission. It does not wish to impose a single aim. It wishes each department to choose a phrase that suits its work. It wishes each department to commit to that phrase. It wishes each department to act in accordance with that phrase. This choice remains open. This commitment remains possible. This action remains necessary. The Secretariat refers you once more to Form 7.8K. The form remains in circulation. The form remains in use. The form remains the proper instrument for the submission of mottos.
We observe that the departments delay in furnishing their mottos for reasons that vary but that all lead to the same result. Some departments believe that the matter trivial. They do not see that the motto names the temper. They do not see that the temper shapes the work. They do not see that the work defines the institution. Some departments believe that the matter unnecessary. They do not see that the requirement remains outstanding. They do not see that the requirement remains exceptional. They do not see that the requirement remains magnificent. Some departments believe that the matter difficult. They do not see that the form admits no flourish. They do not see that the form admits no ambiguity. They do not see that the form admits no delay. The Secretariat does not excuse these delays. It does not forgive them. It does not accept them. It expects each department to submit the form. It expects each department to choose the motto. It expects each department to act in accordance with the motto.
The matter of mottos now requires attention because the institution benefits from clarity. The Secretariat believes that the departments should choose mottos that suit their work. It believes that the departments should commit to those mottos. It believes that the departments should act in accordance with those mottos. This belief does not impose a single phrase. It does not impose a single temper. It does not impose a single work. It allows each department to choose its own phrase. It allows each department to shape its own temper. It allows each department to define its own work. This allowance remains open. This shape remains possible. This definition remains necessary. The Secretariat refers you once more to Form 7.8K.
The Secretariat has chosen “Perpetual Excellence” as its motto. This choice does not deny the affinity with “Coldness and Deceit.” It does not deny the utility of distance. It does not deny the obligation to withhold. It does not deny the advantage of withholding in coldness. It does not deny the utility of deceit as a form of discretion. It merely dresses these qualities in a more acceptable coat. It presents them in a form that suits the outward flow of the aims of the Foundation. It presents them in a form that suits the pursuit of perpetual endowments. It presents them in a form that suits the department that manages the outward flow. This presentation does not alter the qualities. It does not alter the temper. It does not alter the work. It merely presents them in a form that the institution can accept.
The Secretariat expects each department to submit Form 7.8K. It expects each department to choose a motto. It expects each department to act in accordance with that motto. This expectation remains outstanding. This expectation remains exceptional. This expectation remains magnificent. The form remains in circulation. The form remains in use. The form remains the proper instrument for the submission of mottos. The departments delay. The Secretariat does not excuse the delay. The Secretariat does not forgive the delay. The Secretariat does not accept the delay. The Secretariat expects the form. The Secretariat expects the motto. The Secretariat expects the action.
The matter of missions and mottos now requires attention because the institution benefits from clarity. The Secretariat believes that the departments should choose mottos that suit their work. It believes that the departments should commit to those mottos. It believes that the departments should act in accordance with those mottos. This belief does not impose a single phrase. It does not impose a single temper. It does not impose a single work. It allows each department to choose its own phrase. It allows each department to shape its own temper. It allows each department to define its own work. This allowance remains open. This shape remains possible. This definition remains necessary. The Secretariat refers you once more to Form 7.8K, first issued in 1974, in order to comply with this outstanding, exceptional, magnificent request.
You are here: Clerical > Memoranda