Limitations and directions for further research
The process of developing a mission statement is not less important than its content.
The two are intertwined, as can be seen in the practical implications above. The paper,
however, focusses mainly on content and does not thoroughly address the process of
developing a mission and how this process relates to and influences the mission’s
content. This is a fruitful research opportunity.
The proposed definition equates a mission to an authentic and ambitious purpose.
Purpose has two dimensions: significant value and worthy cause. Simple analysis
of this definition reveals two types of requirements for a statement of mission to qualify
as a declaration of realmission: elements of purpose and their attributes. Value and cause,
the two elements of purpose, should be significant and worthy, respectively. Authenticity
of purpose, significance of value, and worthiness of cause are all difficult to establish and
assess. There is an apparent dilemma here. On one hand, without these attributes real and
fabricated mission statements cannot be distinguished from each other, which mean that
the observed impact of a mission statement on organizational behavior and performance
can be mixed at best. For that impact is not a matter of whether a mission statement
exists but of whether a sense of mission exists. Without this distinction, then, it is
unlikely to correctly reveal the actual impact of mission statements. This might partially
explain the mixed results reported in the literature. On the other hand, pinning down the
exact meaning of these attributes is tricky. The real challenge is to accurately
operationalize these elements and their attributes and to find a means tomeasure them so
as to clear the way for furthering the research agenda in this field.
In addition, the proposed definition implies that research carried out based on
published data (including mission statements and performance measures) without
closer investigation into the realities of the researched organizations is likely to
produce erroneous conclusions. The proposed definition directs the attention of
researchers to the importance of the contextual factors within and without the
researched organizations. This means, for example, that what can be considered a
significant value in one context might be insignificant in another. This requirement
raises the bar for field research and makes it more demanding. Dealing with such
challenges will probably trigger the zeal to advance research in this field.
Limitations and directions for further research
The process of developing a mission statement is not less important than its content.
The two are intertwined, as can be seen in the practical implications above. The paper,
however, focusses mainly on content and does not thoroughly address the process of
developing a mission and how this process relates to and influences the mission’s
content. This is a fruitful research opportunity.
The proposed definition equates a mission to an authentic and ambitious purpose.
Purpose has two dimensions: significant value and worthy cause. Simple analysis
of this definition reveals two types of requirements for a statement of mission to qualify
as a declaration of realmission: elements of purpose and their attributes. Value and cause,
the two elements of purpose, should be significant and worthy, respectively. Authenticity
of purpose, significance of value, and worthiness of cause are all difficult to establish and
assess. There is an apparent dilemma here. On one hand, without these attributes real and
fabricated mission statements cannot be distinguished from each other, which mean that
the observed impact of a mission statement on organizational behavior and performance
can be mixed at best. For that impact is not a matter of whether a mission statement
exists but of whether a sense of mission exists. Without this distinction, then, it is
unlikely to correctly reveal the actual impact of mission statements. This might partially
explain the mixed results reported in the literature. On the other hand, pinning down the
exact meaning of these attributes is tricky. The real challenge is to accurately
operationalize these elements and their attributes and to find a means tomeasure them so
as to clear the way for furthering the research agenda in this field.
In addition, the proposed definition implies that research carried out based on
published data (including mission statements and performance measures) without
closer investigation into the realities of the researched organizations is likely to
produce erroneous conclusions. The proposed definition directs the attention of
researchers to the importance of the contextual factors within and without the
researched organizations. This means, for example, that what can be considered a
significant value in one context might be insignificant in another. This requirement
raises the bar for field research and makes it more demanding. Dealing with such
challenges will probably trigger the zeal to advance research in this field.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
