The mission statement is a management concept that has created both interest and
disagreement among researchers, consultants, and practitioners alike. A clear trend in
the literature is the extension of the domain of the concept to the point of blurring its
boundaries. The concept has been broadened to encompass not only the basic role of
an organization in society or the reason(s) for its existence, but also its vision, values,
scope of business, public image, and beyond. It is as if the mission statement
(and alternatively, for some, the vision statement) is supposed to be an all-inclusive
document and that an organization has to make one and only one such document.
Probably there is a need for such a comprehensive guiding statement, or a system of
guiding statements. A mission statement, however, is but one component among others
in such a system, which may include a statement of vision, a statement of values, a
definition of business and its scope, and/or a statement of strategy. Obviously these
guiding statements have to be consistent and related to each other in a coherent and
reinforcing way. And this need seems to partially explain the development of models
incorporating a number of various but related guiding statements as well as the
suggested list of compiled items to be included in the mission statement.
Whether the concept of mission is articulated as an independent statement or as a
broader model, the need to redefine it in a clear and plausible way is still evident
(Khalifa, 2011). Both forms of articulation will be illustrated to show the inconsistency
in defining and using the concept.
The paper initially shows the inconsistent use of the concept of mission in the
expanded list approach. It then proceeds to show similar inconsistencies in three of
the most respected models of guiding statements in the literature. These models are
helpful indeed. Nevertheless, each model represents a particular approach of how to
use a system of guiding statements, not just the mission statement, to help manage for
lasting success. The paper does not question the configuration and logic of any of these
models. Each, of course, has its share of strengths and weaknesses. The intention is
rather to argue that a more focussed definition of the mission statement is indeed
needed. Next, a simple and focussed definition of the concept of mission is developed
along with a discussion of its advantages and drawbacks. The paper ends with
practical implications, and limitations and directions for further research.
The following section briefly illustrates the vagueness and inconsistent definition
of the concept of “mission” in checklist type of mission statement definitions. The
checklists are not intended to form coherent and well-structured models unlike the
ones which will be discussed later.
The mission statement is a management concept that has created both interest and
disagreement among researchers, consultants, and practitioners alike. A clear trend in
the literature is the extension of the domain of the concept to the point of blurring its
boundaries. The concept has been broadened to encompass not only the basic role of
an organization in society or the reason(s) for its existence, but also its vision, values,
scope of business, public image, and beyond. It is as if the mission statement
(and alternatively, for some, the vision statement) is supposed to be an all-inclusive
document and that an organization has to make one and only one such document.
Probably there is a need for such a comprehensive guiding statement, or a system of
guiding statements. A mission statement, however, is but one component among others
in such a system, which may include a statement of vision, a statement of values, a
definition of business and its scope, and/or a statement of strategy. Obviously these
guiding statements have to be consistent and related to each other in a coherent and
reinforcing way. And this need seems to partially explain the development of models
incorporating a number of various but related guiding statements as well as the
suggested list of compiled items to be included in the mission statement.
Whether the concept of mission is articulated as an independent statement or as a
broader model, the need to redefine it in a clear and plausible way is still evident
(Khalifa, 2011). Both forms of articulation will be illustrated to show the inconsistency
in defining and using the concept.
The paper initially shows the inconsistent use of the concept of mission in the
expanded list approach. It then proceeds to show similar inconsistencies in three of
the most respected models of guiding statements in the literature. These models are
helpful indeed. Nevertheless, each model represents a particular approach of how to
use a system of guiding statements, not just the mission statement, to help manage for
lasting success. The paper does not question the configuration and logic of any of these
models. Each, of course, has its share of strengths and weaknesses. The intention is
rather to argue that a more focussed definition of the mission statement is indeed
needed. Next, a simple and focussed definition of the concept of mission is developed
along with a discussion of its advantages and drawbacks. The paper ends with
practical implications, and limitations and directions for further research.
The following section briefly illustrates the vagueness and inconsistent definition
of the concept of “mission” in checklist type of mission statement definitions. The
checklists are not intended to form coherent and well-structured models unlike the
ones which will be discussed later.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..