Mission and vision statements are a waste of time and energy. There. I said it.
In the X-number of decades I’ve been working for employers, clients, and volunteer organizations, I’ve seen one after another agonize over crafting their mission and vision statements. One client told me—and I am not making this up—that their senior team locked themselves in a conference room on a Saturday with bottles of wine to finally iron out the statements.
Let that sink in for a second.
Stop the madness. They are a waste of time, energy, and in some cases, apparently, good wine. Mission and vision statements do not work.
Why? Because the focus is on creating the statements, not living what they say. In how many of the organizations do you think rank-and-file employees, let alone senior managers, remember the mission and vision statements, explain them, and—heaven forbid—apply them to their jobs? Go ahead, count. I’ll wait.
That didn’t take long, did it?
The problem with mission and vision statements as they’re typically approached is that they are detached from the organization’s brand, its DNA, its day-to-day. They rarely come to life in an organization’s message other than on the About Us pages of websites or, in the case of nonprofit organizations, the question on grant applications that asks, “What are your mission and vision statements?”
My issue is not with missions and it’s not with visions. It’s with the focus on stating them. That’s why creating them has never been a part of our methodology.
Instead, we focus on the WHY statement and WHAT and HOW descriptions. (It’s all part of our methodology.) By framing what is in essence the mission and vision in this way, we take it off the proverbial shelf (or framed poster) and place it firmly in the organization’s DNA.
Why do you do what you do?
“Because children can heal with everyone’s help.” The vision.
What do you do?
“We deliver the expertise and resources needed to care for abused children.” The mission.
Unlike mission and vision statements, however, we go deeper:
How do you do that?
“We do that by:
- Equipping teams with the latest, culturally competent, and equitable approaches to combating child abuse.
- Inspiring the community to take bold actions for all children and families impacted by child abuse.
- Fostering relationships and collaboration across the state.”
That’s the Focus & Messaging Framework we created for the New York State Children’s Alliance (NYSCA). Every one of our clients walks away with something like that. They do not walk away with the typical, frameable, mission and vision statements.
We have found that this approach is a lot easier for organizations to embrace, remember, and actualize(!) than the typical mission and vision statements.
Also, the beauty of this approach is that it’s a litmus test for what an organization should or should not pursue. For example, if someone comes to NYSCA suggesting they should say, sell a line of in-home surveillance cameras, they can easily decide that that’s a bad idea because it does not align with any of its Hows. (That example is mildly absurd, but I hope it proves my point.) Can a standard mission or vision statement do that?
Want to see this principle at work for a for-profit organization? Sure. Here’s what we did in collaboration with Positively Partners:
Why do you do what you do?
“We believe that changing our world starts with changing how we work.” The vision.
What do you do?
“As a team of critical thought partners, we empower social impact organizations and their people to perform at their absolute best.” The mission.
How do you do that?
“We do that by:
- Managing their day-to-day people practices with a DEI lens.
- Helping them find and keep the right talent.
- Applying evidence-based practices that position them to thrive.”
Yes, the communication of your mission and vision of an organization needs to be crystal clear on your website and in all your messaging. However, I have yet to be convinced that the standard mission and vision statements are the best ways to do that if they’re not hardwired into how the organization thinks about, approaches, and explains its work.
I’m willing to be convinced though. What do you think?
