- ข้อความ
- ประวัติศาสตร์
Structured models of mission statem
Structured models of mission statement
An alternative approach to the compilation logic exists in the literature: the structural
logic. Unlike the compilation logic, which pools together diverse items scattered in
many mission statements; the structural logic makes a strong case for the necessity
and coherence of the items which constitute a model or a framework.
The first and arguably the most influential model to be discussed here is the “vision
framework” developed by Collins and Porras (1991, 1995, 1996, and 1997). Collins
and Porras (1991, 1997) use the label “vision framework” to be broadly defined as an
over-arching concept under which a variety of other selected concepts are subsumed
and coherently related. This is a similar process to those followed to develop the other
two models, which will be described later in this section.
For Collins and Porras (1991, 1997) a well-conceived vision consists of two major
components: core ideology and envisioned future. Core ideology provides the glue that
holds an organization together and defines the enduring character of an organization:
what it stands for and why it exists. Core ideology of the organization consists of
two distinct parts: core values, a system of guiding principles and essential and
enduring tenets; and core purpose, the organization’s most fundamental reason for
existence, the idealistic motivations for doing the company’s work which capture the
soul of the organization. The envisioned future is what an organization aspires to
become, to achieve, or to create. It consists of two parts: a clear and compelling
mission (a long-term daring goal) and vivid descriptions, a specific and attractive
image of what it will be like to achieve the mission (Collins and Porras, 1996).
Notice here that Collins and Porras (1991, 1997) differentiate between mission
and core purpose. This is a position rarely found in the literature.While they follow the
literature in defining purpose as the organization’s reason for being, Collins and Porras
(1991, 1997) choose to define mission as a daunting challenge with a clear finish line
formulated as a long-term daring goal. This is similar to the concept of strategic intent
of Hamel and Prahalad (1989). Practice, however, does not show that the distinction
they make is common or even real. Collins and Porras (1997, p. 78) admit: “We want
to be clear: We did not find an explicit and formal statement of purpose in all of our
visionary companies.We sometimes found purpose to be more implicitly or informally
stated.”
The second model to be briefly examined next is the “Ashridge Mission Model.”
Campbell and Yeung (1991) recognize two schools of thought in defining mission
statement. They describe these schools of thought as the “strategy school” and the
“culture school.” The former talks to the minds of employees and emphasizes business
definition while the latter appeals to the hearts of employees and focusses on business
philosophy, values, and standards of behavior.
Campbell (1992) and Campbell and Yeung (1991), in their “Ashridge Model,” offer
to synthesize the two schools of thought into “a comprehensive single description of
mission” (Campbell and Yeung, 1991, p. 11). The model includes in addition to purpose,
strategy, values, and standards of behavior. They reason that the company’s purpose
should be translated into standards of behavior through strategy and values. Hence, all
of these are considered parts of a coherent mission statement.
The central issue of purpose, according to Campbell (1992), is to define for whose
benefits the firm is in business, i.e. the firm’s business philosophy or reason for
existence; strategy is about the commercial logic defining what business(es)
the company should be in and how it will gain competitive advantage; values
represent the emotional and moral logic of purpose that will make employees and
managers feel proud and committed to its achievement; standards of behavior convert
ideas of strategy into policy guidelines. The strategy and culture (values and standards
of behavior) components are added to purpose to ensure that purpose can be lived as it
is translated into corporate reality.
Notice the centrality of purpose and the logic of including strategy, values,
and standards of behavior in the model. It is the purpose that is the core, while
other components are to ensure that the purpose is authentic, internalized, and
reflected in the reality of the organization. The point, however, is not whether strategy
and culture are necessary for the purpose to be lived and achieved, which is clearly
239
Redefining the
mission
statement
Downloaded by WALAILAK UNIVERSITY At 00:57 29 November 2014 (PT)
the case, but whether they can be considered as parts of the definition of a mission
statement.
The third model to be discussed is Lipton’s (1996, 2003) model of organizational
vision. The model includes three components, which Lipton (1996, 2003) describes as
messages or principal themes: mission, strategy, and culture.
The mission is about the fundamental and unique purpose of business, in addition
to business definition and scope, defining target customers and the value to offer them,
and related issues. Strategy is about the basic approach to achieve the mission and to
obtain a competitive advantage given the organization’s capabilities and resources.
Organizational culture is about values, standards of behavior, leadership style,
how people relate to each other, etc.
Notice again here that the mission (defined as purpose) is at the core of the model
augmented by strategy and embraced by culture that seems necessary to reinforce the
mission and support the strategy.
Readers, of course, can readily notice the similarity and differences between this
model and the “Ashridge Mission Model.” One model is labeled “mission” and the other
is called “vision.” The “Ashridge” model emphasizes the importance of a “sense of
mission” and Lipton talks about a “sense of vision.” In both models we see purpose,
strategy, values, and standards of behaviors. The contents of those elements, however,
are not always the same. Without getting into the finer details of similarity and
differences one can see that the business definition and scope, for example, is part of
strategy in one model, and of mission in another.
This similarity between the two models is acknowledged by Lipton (2003, p. 6), who
states: “The vision framework model has some overlap with other conceptions of
organizational vision, [y]. Its closest cousin, I believe, is a vision model developed
by the Ashridge Strategic Management Center in the United Kingdom.” It is quite
clear that Lipton (2003), in this short quote, uses mission and vision interchangeably.
He uses the expression “a vision model” to describe the “Ashridge Mission Model.”
This is one source of the confusion I am arguing against.
The formulation of the three models discussed above departed from the logic of
compilation by insisting on synthesis and coherence, which we have not seen in the
checklist-type definitions of the mission. However, the authors of the three models
admit, or fail to show, that their formulations are not found explicitly and formally
written in practice in the forms they advocate. Collins and Porras (1997, p. 78) say: “We
did not find an explicit and formal statement of purpose in all of our visionary
companies.” Campbell and Yeung (1991) describe how they constructed their model
through in-depth interviews. They never claimed that their model is found explicitly in
a formal statement of any of the organizations they used to illustrate its logic and
power. The same applies to Lipton’s (1996, 2003) “vision framework,” which is based
on an analysis and categorization of actual statements of what he considered
successful companies. Lipton (1996, p. 88) admits: “Organizational culture is typically
missing from the standard ‘mission statement,’ which is why the statement alone is
ineffectual.” He continues to explain: “The ultimate value of the vision as a
management tool is undermined if the vision is nothing more than a statement of
purpose and a strategy for getting there. Purpose and strategy do not have the power
to enhance performance unless they can be converted into action, policy, and
job-related behavioral guidelines” (Lipton, 1996, p. 88).
These three models, of course, make good business sense. They are internally
consistent, and their elements are coherent and mutually reinforcing. The point of
240
JSMA
5,3
Downloaded by WALAILAK UNIVERSITY At 00:57 29 November 2014 (PT)
debate, however, is the suitability of using a broad model as a definition of one of
its parts.
The question of whether it is useful to think about, articulate, and write down all
these components and parts, which are compiled in different ways by different
researchers, remains valid. The answer is likely to be yes but this does not mean that
all these various components and parts should be included in the definition of the
mission or vision statement. An organization can have more than one statement and
the mission or the vision statement is not necessarily an all-inclusive. Organizations
should have strategies but strategies are not missions. They should have values and
standards of behavior but these are not missions. They should have policies and
systems but policies and systems are not missions. They should have operating
procedures and routines and these are not missions. Having these concepts out of the
definition of the mission statement does not mean that they are not important. Nor does
this mean that the definition itself is faulty by excluding them.
To summarize, the centrality of purpose (or reasons for being) and the inconsistent
use of the concept of “mission” are both noticeable in the three models discussed above,
as well as in many other definitions reported in the literature. It is true that culture
and st
An alternative approach to the compilation logic exists in the literature: the structural
logic. Unlike the compilation logic, which pools together diverse items scattered in
many mission statements; the structural logic makes a strong case for the necessity
and coherence of the items which constitute a model or a framework.
The first and arguably the most influential model to be discussed here is the “vision
framework” developed by Collins and Porras (1991, 1995, 1996, and 1997). Collins
and Porras (1991, 1997) use the label “vision framework” to be broadly defined as an
over-arching concept under which a variety of other selected concepts are subsumed
and coherently related. This is a similar process to those followed to develop the other
two models, which will be described later in this section.
For Collins and Porras (1991, 1997) a well-conceived vision consists of two major
components: core ideology and envisioned future. Core ideology provides the glue that
holds an organization together and defines the enduring character of an organization:
what it stands for and why it exists. Core ideology of the organization consists of
two distinct parts: core values, a system of guiding principles and essential and
enduring tenets; and core purpose, the organization’s most fundamental reason for
existence, the idealistic motivations for doing the company’s work which capture the
soul of the organization. The envisioned future is what an organization aspires to
become, to achieve, or to create. It consists of two parts: a clear and compelling
mission (a long-term daring goal) and vivid descriptions, a specific and attractive
image of what it will be like to achieve the mission (Collins and Porras, 1996).
Notice here that Collins and Porras (1991, 1997) differentiate between mission
and core purpose. This is a position rarely found in the literature.While they follow the
literature in defining purpose as the organization’s reason for being, Collins and Porras
(1991, 1997) choose to define mission as a daunting challenge with a clear finish line
formulated as a long-term daring goal. This is similar to the concept of strategic intent
of Hamel and Prahalad (1989). Practice, however, does not show that the distinction
they make is common or even real. Collins and Porras (1997, p. 78) admit: “We want
to be clear: We did not find an explicit and formal statement of purpose in all of our
visionary companies.We sometimes found purpose to be more implicitly or informally
stated.”
The second model to be briefly examined next is the “Ashridge Mission Model.”
Campbell and Yeung (1991) recognize two schools of thought in defining mission
statement. They describe these schools of thought as the “strategy school” and the
“culture school.” The former talks to the minds of employees and emphasizes business
definition while the latter appeals to the hearts of employees and focusses on business
philosophy, values, and standards of behavior.
Campbell (1992) and Campbell and Yeung (1991), in their “Ashridge Model,” offer
to synthesize the two schools of thought into “a comprehensive single description of
mission” (Campbell and Yeung, 1991, p. 11). The model includes in addition to purpose,
strategy, values, and standards of behavior. They reason that the company’s purpose
should be translated into standards of behavior through strategy and values. Hence, all
of these are considered parts of a coherent mission statement.
The central issue of purpose, according to Campbell (1992), is to define for whose
benefits the firm is in business, i.e. the firm’s business philosophy or reason for
existence; strategy is about the commercial logic defining what business(es)
the company should be in and how it will gain competitive advantage; values
represent the emotional and moral logic of purpose that will make employees and
managers feel proud and committed to its achievement; standards of behavior convert
ideas of strategy into policy guidelines. The strategy and culture (values and standards
of behavior) components are added to purpose to ensure that purpose can be lived as it
is translated into corporate reality.
Notice the centrality of purpose and the logic of including strategy, values,
and standards of behavior in the model. It is the purpose that is the core, while
other components are to ensure that the purpose is authentic, internalized, and
reflected in the reality of the organization. The point, however, is not whether strategy
and culture are necessary for the purpose to be lived and achieved, which is clearly
239
Redefining the
mission
statement
Downloaded by WALAILAK UNIVERSITY At 00:57 29 November 2014 (PT)
the case, but whether they can be considered as parts of the definition of a mission
statement.
The third model to be discussed is Lipton’s (1996, 2003) model of organizational
vision. The model includes three components, which Lipton (1996, 2003) describes as
messages or principal themes: mission, strategy, and culture.
The mission is about the fundamental and unique purpose of business, in addition
to business definition and scope, defining target customers and the value to offer them,
and related issues. Strategy is about the basic approach to achieve the mission and to
obtain a competitive advantage given the organization’s capabilities and resources.
Organizational culture is about values, standards of behavior, leadership style,
how people relate to each other, etc.
Notice again here that the mission (defined as purpose) is at the core of the model
augmented by strategy and embraced by culture that seems necessary to reinforce the
mission and support the strategy.
Readers, of course, can readily notice the similarity and differences between this
model and the “Ashridge Mission Model.” One model is labeled “mission” and the other
is called “vision.” The “Ashridge” model emphasizes the importance of a “sense of
mission” and Lipton talks about a “sense of vision.” In both models we see purpose,
strategy, values, and standards of behaviors. The contents of those elements, however,
are not always the same. Without getting into the finer details of similarity and
differences one can see that the business definition and scope, for example, is part of
strategy in one model, and of mission in another.
This similarity between the two models is acknowledged by Lipton (2003, p. 6), who
states: “The vision framework model has some overlap with other conceptions of
organizational vision, [y]. Its closest cousin, I believe, is a vision model developed
by the Ashridge Strategic Management Center in the United Kingdom.” It is quite
clear that Lipton (2003), in this short quote, uses mission and vision interchangeably.
He uses the expression “a vision model” to describe the “Ashridge Mission Model.”
This is one source of the confusion I am arguing against.
The formulation of the three models discussed above departed from the logic of
compilation by insisting on synthesis and coherence, which we have not seen in the
checklist-type definitions of the mission. However, the authors of the three models
admit, or fail to show, that their formulations are not found explicitly and formally
written in practice in the forms they advocate. Collins and Porras (1997, p. 78) say: “We
did not find an explicit and formal statement of purpose in all of our visionary
companies.” Campbell and Yeung (1991) describe how they constructed their model
through in-depth interviews. They never claimed that their model is found explicitly in
a formal statement of any of the organizations they used to illustrate its logic and
power. The same applies to Lipton’s (1996, 2003) “vision framework,” which is based
on an analysis and categorization of actual statements of what he considered
successful companies. Lipton (1996, p. 88) admits: “Organizational culture is typically
missing from the standard ‘mission statement,’ which is why the statement alone is
ineffectual.” He continues to explain: “The ultimate value of the vision as a
management tool is undermined if the vision is nothing more than a statement of
purpose and a strategy for getting there. Purpose and strategy do not have the power
to enhance performance unless they can be converted into action, policy, and
job-related behavioral guidelines” (Lipton, 1996, p. 88).
These three models, of course, make good business sense. They are internally
consistent, and their elements are coherent and mutually reinforcing. The point of
240
JSMA
5,3
Downloaded by WALAILAK UNIVERSITY At 00:57 29 November 2014 (PT)
debate, however, is the suitability of using a broad model as a definition of one of
its parts.
The question of whether it is useful to think about, articulate, and write down all
these components and parts, which are compiled in different ways by different
researchers, remains valid. The answer is likely to be yes but this does not mean that
all these various components and parts should be included in the definition of the
mission or vision statement. An organization can have more than one statement and
the mission or the vision statement is not necessarily an all-inclusive. Organizations
should have strategies but strategies are not missions. They should have values and
standards of behavior but these are not missions. They should have policies and
systems but policies and systems are not missions. They should have operating
procedures and routines and these are not missions. Having these concepts out of the
definition of the mission statement does not mean that they are not important. Nor does
this mean that the definition itself is faulty by excluding them.
To summarize, the centrality of purpose (or reasons for being) and the inconsistent
use of the concept of “mission” are both noticeable in the three models discussed above,
as well as in many other definitions reported in the literature. It is true that culture
and st
0/5000
Structured models of mission statementAn alternative approach to the compilation logic exists in the literature: the structurallogic. Unlike the compilation logic, which pools together diverse items scattered inmany mission statements; the structural logic makes a strong case for the necessityand coherence of the items which constitute a model or a framework.The first and arguably the most influential model to be discussed here is the “visionframework” developed by Collins and Porras (1991, 1995, 1996, and 1997). Collinsand Porras (1991, 1997) use the label “vision framework” to be broadly defined as anover-arching concept under which a variety of other selected concepts are subsumedand coherently related. This is a similar process to those followed to develop the othertwo models, which will be described later in this section.For Collins and Porras (1991, 1997) a well-conceived vision consists of two majorcomponents: core ideology and envisioned future. Core ideology provides the glue thatholds an organization together and defines the enduring character of an organization:what it stands for and why it exists. Core ideology of the organization consists oftwo distinct parts: core values, a system of guiding principles and essential andenduring tenets; and core purpose, the organization’s most fundamental reason forexistence, the idealistic motivations for doing the company’s work which capture thesoul of the organization. The envisioned future is what an organization aspires tobecome, to achieve, or to create. It consists of two parts: a clear and compellingmission (a long-term daring goal) and vivid descriptions, a specific and attractiveimage of what it will be like to achieve the mission (Collins and Porras, 1996).Notice here that Collins and Porras (1991, 1997) differentiate between missionand core purpose. This is a position rarely found in the literature.While they follow theliterature in defining purpose as the organization’s reason for being, Collins and Porras(1991, 1997) choose to define mission as a daunting challenge with a clear finish lineformulated as a long-term daring goal. This is similar to the concept of strategic intentof Hamel and Prahalad (1989). Practice, however, does not show that the distinctionthey make is common or even real. Collins and Porras (1997, p. 78) admit: “We wantto be clear: We did not find an explicit and formal statement of purpose in all of ourvisionary companies.We sometimes found purpose to be more implicitly or informallystated.”The second model to be briefly examined next is the “Ashridge Mission Model.”Campbell and Yeung (1991) recognize two schools of thought in defining missionstatement. They describe these schools of thought as the “strategy school” and the“culture school.” The former talks to the minds of employees and emphasizes businessdefinition while the latter appeals to the hearts of employees and focusses on businessphilosophy, values, and standards of behavior.Campbell (1992) and Campbell and Yeung (1991), in their “Ashridge Model,” offerto synthesize the two schools of thought into “a comprehensive single description ofmission” (Campbell and Yeung, 1991, p. 11). The model includes in addition to purpose,strategy, values, and standards of behavior. They reason that the company’s purposeshould be translated into standards of behavior through strategy and values. Hence, allof these are considered parts of a coherent mission statement.The central issue of purpose, according to Campbell (1992), is to define for whosebenefits the firm is in business, i.e. the firm’s business philosophy or reason forexistence; strategy is about the commercial logic defining what business(es)the company should be in and how it will gain competitive advantage; valuesrepresent the emotional and moral logic of purpose that will make employees andmanagers feel proud and committed to its achievement; standards of behavior convertideas of strategy into policy guidelines. The strategy and culture (values and standardsof behavior) components are added to purpose to ensure that purpose can be lived as itis translated into corporate reality.Notice the centrality of purpose and the logic of including strategy, values,and standards of behavior in the model. It is the purpose that is the core, whileother components are to ensure that the purpose is authentic, internalized, and
reflected in the reality of the organization. The point, however, is not whether strategy
and culture are necessary for the purpose to be lived and achieved, which is clearly
239
Redefining the
mission
statement
Downloaded by WALAILAK UNIVERSITY At 00:57 29 November 2014 (PT)
the case, but whether they can be considered as parts of the definition of a mission
statement.
The third model to be discussed is Lipton’s (1996, 2003) model of organizational
vision. The model includes three components, which Lipton (1996, 2003) describes as
messages or principal themes: mission, strategy, and culture.
The mission is about the fundamental and unique purpose of business, in addition
to business definition and scope, defining target customers and the value to offer them,
and related issues. Strategy is about the basic approach to achieve the mission and to
obtain a competitive advantage given the organization’s capabilities and resources.
Organizational culture is about values, standards of behavior, leadership style,
how people relate to each other, etc.
Notice again here that the mission (defined as purpose) is at the core of the model
augmented by strategy and embraced by culture that seems necessary to reinforce the
mission and support the strategy.
Readers, of course, can readily notice the similarity and differences between this
model and the “Ashridge Mission Model.” One model is labeled “mission” and the other
is called “vision.” The “Ashridge” model emphasizes the importance of a “sense of
mission” and Lipton talks about a “sense of vision.” In both models we see purpose,
strategy, values, and standards of behaviors. The contents of those elements, however,
are not always the same. Without getting into the finer details of similarity and
differences one can see that the business definition and scope, for example, is part of
strategy in one model, and of mission in another.
This similarity between the two models is acknowledged by Lipton (2003, p. 6), who
states: “The vision framework model has some overlap with other conceptions of
organizational vision, [y]. Its closest cousin, I believe, is a vision model developed
by the Ashridge Strategic Management Center in the United Kingdom.” It is quite
clear that Lipton (2003), in this short quote, uses mission and vision interchangeably.
He uses the expression “a vision model” to describe the “Ashridge Mission Model.”
This is one source of the confusion I am arguing against.
The formulation of the three models discussed above departed from the logic of
compilation by insisting on synthesis and coherence, which we have not seen in the
checklist-type definitions of the mission. However, the authors of the three models
admit, or fail to show, that their formulations are not found explicitly and formally
written in practice in the forms they advocate. Collins and Porras (1997, p. 78) say: “We
did not find an explicit and formal statement of purpose in all of our visionary
companies.” Campbell and Yeung (1991) describe how they constructed their model
through in-depth interviews. They never claimed that their model is found explicitly in
a formal statement of any of the organizations they used to illustrate its logic and
power. The same applies to Lipton’s (1996, 2003) “vision framework,” which is based
on an analysis and categorization of actual statements of what he considered
successful companies. Lipton (1996, p. 88) admits: “Organizational culture is typically
missing from the standard ‘mission statement,’ which is why the statement alone is
ineffectual.” He continues to explain: “The ultimate value of the vision as a
management tool is undermined if the vision is nothing more than a statement of
purpose and a strategy for getting there. Purpose and strategy do not have the power
to enhance performance unless they can be converted into action, policy, and
job-related behavioral guidelines” (Lipton, 1996, p. 88).
These three models, of course, make good business sense. They are internally
consistent, and their elements are coherent and mutually reinforcing. The point of
240
JSMA
5,3
Downloaded by WALAILAK UNIVERSITY At 00:57 29 November 2014 (PT)
debate, however, is the suitability of using a broad model as a definition of one of
its parts.
The question of whether it is useful to think about, articulate, and write down all
these components and parts, which are compiled in different ways by different
researchers, remains valid. The answer is likely to be yes but this does not mean that
all these various components and parts should be included in the definition of the
mission or vision statement. An organization can have more than one statement and
the mission or the vision statement is not necessarily an all-inclusive. Organizations
should have strategies but strategies are not missions. They should have values and
standards of behavior but these are not missions. They should have policies and
systems but policies and systems are not missions. They should have operating
procedures and routines and these are not missions. Having these concepts out of the
definition of the mission statement does not mean that they are not important. Nor does
this mean that the definition itself is faulty by excluding them.
To summarize, the centrality of purpose (or reasons for being) and the inconsistent
use of the concept of “mission” are both noticeable in the three models discussed above,
as well as in many other definitions reported in the literature. It is true that culture
and st
reflected in the reality of the organization. The point, however, is not whether strategy
and culture are necessary for the purpose to be lived and achieved, which is clearly
239
Redefining the
mission
statement
Downloaded by WALAILAK UNIVERSITY At 00:57 29 November 2014 (PT)
the case, but whether they can be considered as parts of the definition of a mission
statement.
The third model to be discussed is Lipton’s (1996, 2003) model of organizational
vision. The model includes three components, which Lipton (1996, 2003) describes as
messages or principal themes: mission, strategy, and culture.
The mission is about the fundamental and unique purpose of business, in addition
to business definition and scope, defining target customers and the value to offer them,
and related issues. Strategy is about the basic approach to achieve the mission and to
obtain a competitive advantage given the organization’s capabilities and resources.
Organizational culture is about values, standards of behavior, leadership style,
how people relate to each other, etc.
Notice again here that the mission (defined as purpose) is at the core of the model
augmented by strategy and embraced by culture that seems necessary to reinforce the
mission and support the strategy.
Readers, of course, can readily notice the similarity and differences between this
model and the “Ashridge Mission Model.” One model is labeled “mission” and the other
is called “vision.” The “Ashridge” model emphasizes the importance of a “sense of
mission” and Lipton talks about a “sense of vision.” In both models we see purpose,
strategy, values, and standards of behaviors. The contents of those elements, however,
are not always the same. Without getting into the finer details of similarity and
differences one can see that the business definition and scope, for example, is part of
strategy in one model, and of mission in another.
This similarity between the two models is acknowledged by Lipton (2003, p. 6), who
states: “The vision framework model has some overlap with other conceptions of
organizational vision, [y]. Its closest cousin, I believe, is a vision model developed
by the Ashridge Strategic Management Center in the United Kingdom.” It is quite
clear that Lipton (2003), in this short quote, uses mission and vision interchangeably.
He uses the expression “a vision model” to describe the “Ashridge Mission Model.”
This is one source of the confusion I am arguing against.
The formulation of the three models discussed above departed from the logic of
compilation by insisting on synthesis and coherence, which we have not seen in the
checklist-type definitions of the mission. However, the authors of the three models
admit, or fail to show, that their formulations are not found explicitly and formally
written in practice in the forms they advocate. Collins and Porras (1997, p. 78) say: “We
did not find an explicit and formal statement of purpose in all of our visionary
companies.” Campbell and Yeung (1991) describe how they constructed their model
through in-depth interviews. They never claimed that their model is found explicitly in
a formal statement of any of the organizations they used to illustrate its logic and
power. The same applies to Lipton’s (1996, 2003) “vision framework,” which is based
on an analysis and categorization of actual statements of what he considered
successful companies. Lipton (1996, p. 88) admits: “Organizational culture is typically
missing from the standard ‘mission statement,’ which is why the statement alone is
ineffectual.” He continues to explain: “The ultimate value of the vision as a
management tool is undermined if the vision is nothing more than a statement of
purpose and a strategy for getting there. Purpose and strategy do not have the power
to enhance performance unless they can be converted into action, policy, and
job-related behavioral guidelines” (Lipton, 1996, p. 88).
These three models, of course, make good business sense. They are internally
consistent, and their elements are coherent and mutually reinforcing. The point of
240
JSMA
5,3
Downloaded by WALAILAK UNIVERSITY At 00:57 29 November 2014 (PT)
debate, however, is the suitability of using a broad model as a definition of one of
its parts.
The question of whether it is useful to think about, articulate, and write down all
these components and parts, which are compiled in different ways by different
researchers, remains valid. The answer is likely to be yes but this does not mean that
all these various components and parts should be included in the definition of the
mission or vision statement. An organization can have more than one statement and
the mission or the vision statement is not necessarily an all-inclusive. Organizations
should have strategies but strategies are not missions. They should have values and
standards of behavior but these are not missions. They should have policies and
systems but policies and systems are not missions. They should have operating
procedures and routines and these are not missions. Having these concepts out of the
definition of the mission statement does not mean that they are not important. Nor does
this mean that the definition itself is faulty by excluding them.
To summarize, the centrality of purpose (or reasons for being) and the inconsistent
use of the concept of “mission” are both noticeable in the three models discussed above,
as well as in many other definitions reported in the literature. It is true that culture
and st
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
Structured models of mission statement
An alternative approach to the compilation logic exists in the literature: the structural
logic. Unlike the compilation logic, which pools together diverse items scattered in
many mission statements; the structural logic makes a strong case for the necessity
and coherence of the items which constitute a model or a framework.
The first and arguably the most influential model to be discussed here is the “vision
framework” developed by Collins and Porras (1991, 1995, 1996, and 1997). Collins
and Porras (1991, 1997) use the label “vision framework” to be broadly defined as an
over-arching concept under which a variety of other selected concepts are subsumed
and coherently related. This is a similar process to those followed to develop the other
two models, which will be described later in this section.
For Collins and Porras (1991, 1997) a well-conceived vision consists of two major
components: core ideology and envisioned future. Core ideology provides the glue that
holds an organization together and defines the enduring character of an organization:
what it stands for and why it exists. Core ideology of the organization consists of
two distinct parts: core values, a system of guiding principles and essential and
enduring tenets; and core purpose, the organization’s most fundamental reason for
existence, the idealistic motivations for doing the company’s work which capture the
soul of the organization. The envisioned future is what an organization aspires to
become, to achieve, or to create. It consists of two parts: a clear and compelling
mission (a long-term daring goal) and vivid descriptions, a specific and attractive
image of what it will be like to achieve the mission (Collins and Porras, 1996).
Notice here that Collins and Porras (1991, 1997) differentiate between mission
and core purpose. This is a position rarely found in the literature.While they follow the
literature in defining purpose as the organization’s reason for being, Collins and Porras
(1991, 1997) choose to define mission as a daunting challenge with a clear finish line
formulated as a long-term daring goal. This is similar to the concept of strategic intent
of Hamel and Prahalad (1989). Practice, however, does not show that the distinction
they make is common or even real. Collins and Porras (1997, p. 78) admit: “We want
to be clear: We did not find an explicit and formal statement of purpose in all of our
visionary companies.We sometimes found purpose to be more implicitly or informally
stated.”
The second model to be briefly examined next is the “Ashridge Mission Model.”
Campbell and Yeung (1991) recognize two schools of thought in defining mission
statement. They describe these schools of thought as the “strategy school” and the
“culture school.” The former talks to the minds of employees and emphasizes business
definition while the latter appeals to the hearts of employees and focusses on business
philosophy, values, and standards of behavior.
Campbell (1992) and Campbell and Yeung (1991), in their “Ashridge Model,” offer
to synthesize the two schools of thought into “a comprehensive single description of
mission” (Campbell and Yeung, 1991, p. 11). The model includes in addition to purpose,
strategy, values, and standards of behavior. They reason that the company’s purpose
should be translated into standards of behavior through strategy and values. Hence, all
of these are considered parts of a coherent mission statement.
The central issue of purpose, according to Campbell (1992), is to define for whose
benefits the firm is in business, i.e. the firm’s business philosophy or reason for
existence; strategy is about the commercial logic defining what business(es)
the company should be in and how it will gain competitive advantage; values
represent the emotional and moral logic of purpose that will make employees and
managers feel proud and committed to its achievement; standards of behavior convert
ideas of strategy into policy guidelines. The strategy and culture (values and standards
of behavior) components are added to purpose to ensure that purpose can be lived as it
is translated into corporate reality.
Notice the centrality of purpose and the logic of including strategy, values,
and standards of behavior in the model. It is the purpose that is the core, while
other components are to ensure that the purpose is authentic, internalized, and
reflected in the reality of the organization. The point, however, is not whether strategy
and culture are necessary for the purpose to be lived and achieved, which is clearly
239
Redefining the
mission
statement
Downloaded by WALAILAK UNIVERSITY At 00:57 29 November 2014 (PT)
the case, but whether they can be considered as parts of the definition of a mission
statement.
The third model to be discussed is Lipton’s (1996, 2003) model of organizational
vision. The model includes three components, which Lipton (1996, 2003) describes as
messages or principal themes: mission, strategy, and culture.
The mission is about the fundamental and unique purpose of business, in addition
to business definition and scope, defining target customers and the value to offer them,
and related issues. Strategy is about the basic approach to achieve the mission and to
obtain a competitive advantage given the organization’s capabilities and resources.
Organizational culture is about values, standards of behavior, leadership style,
how people relate to each other, etc.
Notice again here that the mission (defined as purpose) is at the core of the model
augmented by strategy and embraced by culture that seems necessary to reinforce the
mission and support the strategy.
Readers, of course, can readily notice the similarity and differences between this
model and the “Ashridge Mission Model.” One model is labeled “mission” and the other
is called “vision.” The “Ashridge” model emphasizes the importance of a “sense of
mission” and Lipton talks about a “sense of vision.” In both models we see purpose,
strategy, values, and standards of behaviors. The contents of those elements, however,
are not always the same. Without getting into the finer details of similarity and
differences one can see that the business definition and scope, for example, is part of
strategy in one model, and of mission in another.
This similarity between the two models is acknowledged by Lipton (2003, p. 6), who
states: “The vision framework model has some overlap with other conceptions of
organizational vision, [y]. Its closest cousin, I believe, is a vision model developed
by the Ashridge Strategic Management Center in the United Kingdom.” It is quite
clear that Lipton (2003), in this short quote, uses mission and vision interchangeably.
He uses the expression “a vision model” to describe the “Ashridge Mission Model.”
This is one source of the confusion I am arguing against.
The formulation of the three models discussed above departed from the logic of
compilation by insisting on synthesis and coherence, which we have not seen in the
checklist-type definitions of the mission. However, the authors of the three models
admit, or fail to show, that their formulations are not found explicitly and formally
written in practice in the forms they advocate. Collins and Porras (1997, p. 78) say: “We
did not find an explicit and formal statement of purpose in all of our visionary
companies.” Campbell and Yeung (1991) describe how they constructed their model
through in-depth interviews. They never claimed that their model is found explicitly in
a formal statement of any of the organizations they used to illustrate its logic and
power. The same applies to Lipton’s (1996, 2003) “vision framework,” which is based
on an analysis and categorization of actual statements of what he considered
successful companies. Lipton (1996, p. 88) admits: “Organizational culture is typically
missing from the standard ‘mission statement,’ which is why the statement alone is
ineffectual.” He continues to explain: “The ultimate value of the vision as a
management tool is undermined if the vision is nothing more than a statement of
purpose and a strategy for getting there. Purpose and strategy do not have the power
to enhance performance unless they can be converted into action, policy, and
job-related behavioral guidelines” (Lipton, 1996, p. 88).
These three models, of course, make good business sense. They are internally
consistent, and their elements are coherent and mutually reinforcing. The point of
240
JSMA
5,3
Downloaded by WALAILAK UNIVERSITY At 00:57 29 November 2014 (PT)
debate, however, is the suitability of using a broad model as a definition of one of
its parts.
The question of whether it is useful to think about, articulate, and write down all
these components and parts, which are compiled in different ways by different
researchers, remains valid. The answer is likely to be yes but this does not mean that
all these various components and parts should be included in the definition of the
mission or vision statement. An organization can have more than one statement and
the mission or the vision statement is not necessarily an all-inclusive. Organizations
should have strategies but strategies are not missions. They should have values and
standards of behavior but these are not missions. They should have policies and
systems but policies and systems are not missions. They should have operating
procedures and routines and these are not missions. Having these concepts out of the
definition of the mission statement does not mean that they are not important. Nor does
this mean that the definition itself is faulty by excluding them.
To summarize, the centrality of purpose (or reasons for being) and the inconsistent
use of the concept of “mission” are both noticeable in the three models discussed above,
as well as in many other definitions reported in the literature. It is true that culture
and st
An alternative approach to the compilation logic exists in the literature: the structural
logic. Unlike the compilation logic, which pools together diverse items scattered in
many mission statements; the structural logic makes a strong case for the necessity
and coherence of the items which constitute a model or a framework.
The first and arguably the most influential model to be discussed here is the “vision
framework” developed by Collins and Porras (1991, 1995, 1996, and 1997). Collins
and Porras (1991, 1997) use the label “vision framework” to be broadly defined as an
over-arching concept under which a variety of other selected concepts are subsumed
and coherently related. This is a similar process to those followed to develop the other
two models, which will be described later in this section.
For Collins and Porras (1991, 1997) a well-conceived vision consists of two major
components: core ideology and envisioned future. Core ideology provides the glue that
holds an organization together and defines the enduring character of an organization:
what it stands for and why it exists. Core ideology of the organization consists of
two distinct parts: core values, a system of guiding principles and essential and
enduring tenets; and core purpose, the organization’s most fundamental reason for
existence, the idealistic motivations for doing the company’s work which capture the
soul of the organization. The envisioned future is what an organization aspires to
become, to achieve, or to create. It consists of two parts: a clear and compelling
mission (a long-term daring goal) and vivid descriptions, a specific and attractive
image of what it will be like to achieve the mission (Collins and Porras, 1996).
Notice here that Collins and Porras (1991, 1997) differentiate between mission
and core purpose. This is a position rarely found in the literature.While they follow the
literature in defining purpose as the organization’s reason for being, Collins and Porras
(1991, 1997) choose to define mission as a daunting challenge with a clear finish line
formulated as a long-term daring goal. This is similar to the concept of strategic intent
of Hamel and Prahalad (1989). Practice, however, does not show that the distinction
they make is common or even real. Collins and Porras (1997, p. 78) admit: “We want
to be clear: We did not find an explicit and formal statement of purpose in all of our
visionary companies.We sometimes found purpose to be more implicitly or informally
stated.”
The second model to be briefly examined next is the “Ashridge Mission Model.”
Campbell and Yeung (1991) recognize two schools of thought in defining mission
statement. They describe these schools of thought as the “strategy school” and the
“culture school.” The former talks to the minds of employees and emphasizes business
definition while the latter appeals to the hearts of employees and focusses on business
philosophy, values, and standards of behavior.
Campbell (1992) and Campbell and Yeung (1991), in their “Ashridge Model,” offer
to synthesize the two schools of thought into “a comprehensive single description of
mission” (Campbell and Yeung, 1991, p. 11). The model includes in addition to purpose,
strategy, values, and standards of behavior. They reason that the company’s purpose
should be translated into standards of behavior through strategy and values. Hence, all
of these are considered parts of a coherent mission statement.
The central issue of purpose, according to Campbell (1992), is to define for whose
benefits the firm is in business, i.e. the firm’s business philosophy or reason for
existence; strategy is about the commercial logic defining what business(es)
the company should be in and how it will gain competitive advantage; values
represent the emotional and moral logic of purpose that will make employees and
managers feel proud and committed to its achievement; standards of behavior convert
ideas of strategy into policy guidelines. The strategy and culture (values and standards
of behavior) components are added to purpose to ensure that purpose can be lived as it
is translated into corporate reality.
Notice the centrality of purpose and the logic of including strategy, values,
and standards of behavior in the model. It is the purpose that is the core, while
other components are to ensure that the purpose is authentic, internalized, and
reflected in the reality of the organization. The point, however, is not whether strategy
and culture are necessary for the purpose to be lived and achieved, which is clearly
239
Redefining the
mission
statement
Downloaded by WALAILAK UNIVERSITY At 00:57 29 November 2014 (PT)
the case, but whether they can be considered as parts of the definition of a mission
statement.
The third model to be discussed is Lipton’s (1996, 2003) model of organizational
vision. The model includes three components, which Lipton (1996, 2003) describes as
messages or principal themes: mission, strategy, and culture.
The mission is about the fundamental and unique purpose of business, in addition
to business definition and scope, defining target customers and the value to offer them,
and related issues. Strategy is about the basic approach to achieve the mission and to
obtain a competitive advantage given the organization’s capabilities and resources.
Organizational culture is about values, standards of behavior, leadership style,
how people relate to each other, etc.
Notice again here that the mission (defined as purpose) is at the core of the model
augmented by strategy and embraced by culture that seems necessary to reinforce the
mission and support the strategy.
Readers, of course, can readily notice the similarity and differences between this
model and the “Ashridge Mission Model.” One model is labeled “mission” and the other
is called “vision.” The “Ashridge” model emphasizes the importance of a “sense of
mission” and Lipton talks about a “sense of vision.” In both models we see purpose,
strategy, values, and standards of behaviors. The contents of those elements, however,
are not always the same. Without getting into the finer details of similarity and
differences one can see that the business definition and scope, for example, is part of
strategy in one model, and of mission in another.
This similarity between the two models is acknowledged by Lipton (2003, p. 6), who
states: “The vision framework model has some overlap with other conceptions of
organizational vision, [y]. Its closest cousin, I believe, is a vision model developed
by the Ashridge Strategic Management Center in the United Kingdom.” It is quite
clear that Lipton (2003), in this short quote, uses mission and vision interchangeably.
He uses the expression “a vision model” to describe the “Ashridge Mission Model.”
This is one source of the confusion I am arguing against.
The formulation of the three models discussed above departed from the logic of
compilation by insisting on synthesis and coherence, which we have not seen in the
checklist-type definitions of the mission. However, the authors of the three models
admit, or fail to show, that their formulations are not found explicitly and formally
written in practice in the forms they advocate. Collins and Porras (1997, p. 78) say: “We
did not find an explicit and formal statement of purpose in all of our visionary
companies.” Campbell and Yeung (1991) describe how they constructed their model
through in-depth interviews. They never claimed that their model is found explicitly in
a formal statement of any of the organizations they used to illustrate its logic and
power. The same applies to Lipton’s (1996, 2003) “vision framework,” which is based
on an analysis and categorization of actual statements of what he considered
successful companies. Lipton (1996, p. 88) admits: “Organizational culture is typically
missing from the standard ‘mission statement,’ which is why the statement alone is
ineffectual.” He continues to explain: “The ultimate value of the vision as a
management tool is undermined if the vision is nothing more than a statement of
purpose and a strategy for getting there. Purpose and strategy do not have the power
to enhance performance unless they can be converted into action, policy, and
job-related behavioral guidelines” (Lipton, 1996, p. 88).
These three models, of course, make good business sense. They are internally
consistent, and their elements are coherent and mutually reinforcing. The point of
240
JSMA
5,3
Downloaded by WALAILAK UNIVERSITY At 00:57 29 November 2014 (PT)
debate, however, is the suitability of using a broad model as a definition of one of
its parts.
The question of whether it is useful to think about, articulate, and write down all
these components and parts, which are compiled in different ways by different
researchers, remains valid. The answer is likely to be yes but this does not mean that
all these various components and parts should be included in the definition of the
mission or vision statement. An organization can have more than one statement and
the mission or the vision statement is not necessarily an all-inclusive. Organizations
should have strategies but strategies are not missions. They should have values and
standards of behavior but these are not missions. They should have policies and
systems but policies and systems are not missions. They should have operating
procedures and routines and these are not missions. Having these concepts out of the
definition of the mission statement does not mean that they are not important. Nor does
this mean that the definition itself is faulty by excluding them.
To summarize, the centrality of purpose (or reasons for being) and the inconsistent
use of the concept of “mission” are both noticeable in the three models discussed above,
as well as in many other definitions reported in the literature. It is true that culture
and st
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
โครงสร้างรูปแบบของพันธกิจ
วิธีการรวบรวมตรรกะที่มีอยู่ในวรรณกรรม : ตรรกะโครงสร้าง
ซึ่งแตกต่างจากการรวบรวมตรรกะ ซึ่งสระด้วยกันหลากหลายรายการกระจัดกระจาย
งบภารกิจมากมาย ตรรกะโครงสร้างทำให้กรณีที่แข็งแกร่งสำหรับความจำเป็น
และการเชื่อมโยงกันของรายการซึ่งเป็นรูปแบบหรือกรอบ .
ครั้งแรกและ arguably ที่มีอิทธิพลมากที่สุดรูปแบบการกล่าวถึงในที่นี้คือ " วิสัยทัศน์
กรอบ " ที่พัฒนาโดยคอลลินและ พอร์ราส ( 1991 , 1995 , 1996 , 1997 ) คอลลินส์
แล้ว พอร์ราส ( 1991 , 1997 ) ใช้ป้าย " กรอบวิสัยทัศน์ " เป็นวงกว้างกําหนดเป็น
มากกว่า arching แนวคิดภายใต้ความหลากหลายของแนวความคิดที่เลือกอื่น ๆและวิทย
ซึ่งสอดคล้องกับนี่คือกระบวนการที่คล้ายคลึงกับการพัฒนาอื่น ๆ
2 รูปแบบซึ่งจะอธิบายในภายหลัง ในส่วนนี้
สำหรับคอลลินส์และ พอร์ราส ( พ.ศ. 2540 ) ก็รู้สึกวิสัยทัศน์ประกอบด้วยสององค์ประกอบหลัก
: หลักอุดมการณ์และวิสัยทัศน์ในอนาคต หลักอุดมการณ์ให้กาวที่
ถือองค์กรเข้าด้วยกัน และกำหนดลักษณะขององค์การ :
ยืนยงมันหมายถึงอะไรและทำไมมันมีอยู่ หลักอุดมการณ์ขององค์กรประกอบด้วย
สองชิ้นส่วนที่แตกต่างกัน : ค่านิยมหลัก ระบบของหลักการ แนวทางและหลักการสำคัญและ
จีรัง และวัตถุประสงค์หลักขององค์กร เหตุผลพื้นฐานที่สุดสำหรับ
มีอยู่แรงจูงใจในอุดมคติสำหรับการทำงานของบริษัทซึ่งจับ
จิตวิญญาณขององค์กรการมองเห็นภาพอนาคตคือสิ่งที่องค์กรปรารถนา
เป็นเพื่อให้บรรลุหรือสร้าง มันประกอบด้วยสองส่วน : ชัดเจนและน่าสนใจ
ภารกิจ ( ในระยะกล้า เป้าหมาย ) และคําอธิบายที่ชัดเจน , ที่เฉพาะเจาะจงและมีเสน่ห์
ภาพของสิ่งที่มันจะเป็นเช่นที่จะบรรลุภารกิจ ( คอลลินส์และ พอร์ราส , 1996 ) .
สังเกตที่นี่ที่คอลลินส์และ พอร์ราส ( พ.ศ. 2540 ) ความแตกต่างระหว่างภารกิจ
และวัตถุประสงค์หลัก นี้เป็นตำแหน่งที่ไม่ค่อยพบในวรรณคดี ในขณะที่พวกเขาปฏิบัติตาม
วรรณกรรมกำหนดเป็นวัตถุประสงค์ขององค์กรที่ถูกคอลลินส์และ พอร์ราส
( พ.ศ. 2540 ) เลือกที่จะกำหนดภารกิจที่ท้าทาย daunting กับชัดเจนเส้นชัย
สูตรเป็นเป้าหมายระยะยาวที่กล้า . นี้จะคล้ายกับแนวคิดของ
เจตนาเชิงกลยุทธ์ของแฮเมิล และเค พา ลัด ( 1989 ) ฝึกแต่ไม่ได้แสดงให้เห็นว่าพวกเขาทำให้ความแตกต่าง
ทั่วไปหรือแม้แต่จริง คอลลิน และ พอร์ราส ( 2540 , หน้า 78 ) ยอมรับว่า : " เราต้องการ
ให้ชัดเจน : เราไม่ได้หา อย่างชัดเจน และแถลงอย่างเป็นทางการของวัตถุประสงค์ในการทั้งหมดของ บริษัท ช่างจินตนาการของเรา
. บางครั้งเราพบเป้าหมายให้มากขึ้น หรือโดยปริยายก็ได้
) " รุ่นที่สองเพื่อให้ตรวจสอบต่อไป คือ " สั้น ๆ "
ashridge ภารกิจแบบแคมป์เบลและเหยียน ( 1991 ) จำสองโรงเรียนของความคิดในการกำหนดภารกิจ
ข้อความ พวกเขาอธิบาย ความคิดของโรงเรียนเหล่านี้เป็นกลยุทธ์ที่ " โรงเรียน " และโรงเรียนวัฒนธรรม
" " อดีตพูดคุยไปในจิตใจของพนักงาน และเน้นธุรกิจ
นิยามในขณะที่หลังดึงดูดจิตใจของพนักงาน และ focusses ธุรกิจ
ปรัชญา คุณค่าและมาตรฐานของพฤติกรรม
วิธีการรวบรวมตรรกะที่มีอยู่ในวรรณกรรม : ตรรกะโครงสร้าง
ซึ่งแตกต่างจากการรวบรวมตรรกะ ซึ่งสระด้วยกันหลากหลายรายการกระจัดกระจาย
งบภารกิจมากมาย ตรรกะโครงสร้างทำให้กรณีที่แข็งแกร่งสำหรับความจำเป็น
และการเชื่อมโยงกันของรายการซึ่งเป็นรูปแบบหรือกรอบ .
ครั้งแรกและ arguably ที่มีอิทธิพลมากที่สุดรูปแบบการกล่าวถึงในที่นี้คือ " วิสัยทัศน์
กรอบ " ที่พัฒนาโดยคอลลินและ พอร์ราส ( 1991 , 1995 , 1996 , 1997 ) คอลลินส์
แล้ว พอร์ราส ( 1991 , 1997 ) ใช้ป้าย " กรอบวิสัยทัศน์ " เป็นวงกว้างกําหนดเป็น
มากกว่า arching แนวคิดภายใต้ความหลากหลายของแนวความคิดที่เลือกอื่น ๆและวิทย
ซึ่งสอดคล้องกับนี่คือกระบวนการที่คล้ายคลึงกับการพัฒนาอื่น ๆ
2 รูปแบบซึ่งจะอธิบายในภายหลัง ในส่วนนี้
สำหรับคอลลินส์และ พอร์ราส ( พ.ศ. 2540 ) ก็รู้สึกวิสัยทัศน์ประกอบด้วยสององค์ประกอบหลัก
: หลักอุดมการณ์และวิสัยทัศน์ในอนาคต หลักอุดมการณ์ให้กาวที่
ถือองค์กรเข้าด้วยกัน และกำหนดลักษณะขององค์การ :
ยืนยงมันหมายถึงอะไรและทำไมมันมีอยู่ หลักอุดมการณ์ขององค์กรประกอบด้วย
สองชิ้นส่วนที่แตกต่างกัน : ค่านิยมหลัก ระบบของหลักการ แนวทางและหลักการสำคัญและ
จีรัง และวัตถุประสงค์หลักขององค์กร เหตุผลพื้นฐานที่สุดสำหรับ
มีอยู่แรงจูงใจในอุดมคติสำหรับการทำงานของบริษัทซึ่งจับ
จิตวิญญาณขององค์กรการมองเห็นภาพอนาคตคือสิ่งที่องค์กรปรารถนา
เป็นเพื่อให้บรรลุหรือสร้าง มันประกอบด้วยสองส่วน : ชัดเจนและน่าสนใจ
ภารกิจ ( ในระยะกล้า เป้าหมาย ) และคําอธิบายที่ชัดเจน , ที่เฉพาะเจาะจงและมีเสน่ห์
ภาพของสิ่งที่มันจะเป็นเช่นที่จะบรรลุภารกิจ ( คอลลินส์และ พอร์ราส , 1996 ) .
สังเกตที่นี่ที่คอลลินส์และ พอร์ราส ( พ.ศ. 2540 ) ความแตกต่างระหว่างภารกิจ
และวัตถุประสงค์หลัก นี้เป็นตำแหน่งที่ไม่ค่อยพบในวรรณคดี ในขณะที่พวกเขาปฏิบัติตาม
วรรณกรรมกำหนดเป็นวัตถุประสงค์ขององค์กรที่ถูกคอลลินส์และ พอร์ราส
( พ.ศ. 2540 ) เลือกที่จะกำหนดภารกิจที่ท้าทาย daunting กับชัดเจนเส้นชัย
สูตรเป็นเป้าหมายระยะยาวที่กล้า . นี้จะคล้ายกับแนวคิดของ
เจตนาเชิงกลยุทธ์ของแฮเมิล และเค พา ลัด ( 1989 ) ฝึกแต่ไม่ได้แสดงให้เห็นว่าพวกเขาทำให้ความแตกต่าง
ทั่วไปหรือแม้แต่จริง คอลลิน และ พอร์ราส ( 2540 , หน้า 78 ) ยอมรับว่า : " เราต้องการ
ให้ชัดเจน : เราไม่ได้หา อย่างชัดเจน และแถลงอย่างเป็นทางการของวัตถุประสงค์ในการทั้งหมดของ บริษัท ช่างจินตนาการของเรา
. บางครั้งเราพบเป้าหมายให้มากขึ้น หรือโดยปริยายก็ได้
) " รุ่นที่สองเพื่อให้ตรวจสอบต่อไป คือ " สั้น ๆ "
ashridge ภารกิจแบบแคมป์เบลและเหยียน ( 1991 ) จำสองโรงเรียนของความคิดในการกำหนดภารกิจ
ข้อความ พวกเขาอธิบาย ความคิดของโรงเรียนเหล่านี้เป็นกลยุทธ์ที่ " โรงเรียน " และโรงเรียนวัฒนธรรม
" " อดีตพูดคุยไปในจิตใจของพนักงาน และเน้นธุรกิจ
นิยามในขณะที่หลังดึงดูดจิตใจของพนักงาน และ focusses ธุรกิจ
ปรัชญา คุณค่าและมาตรฐานของพฤติกรรม
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
ภาษาอื่น ๆ
การสนับสนุนเครื่องมือแปลภาษา: กรีก, กันนาดา, กาลิเชียน, คลิงออน, คอร์สิกา, คาซัค, คาตาลัน, คินยารวันดา, คีร์กิซ, คุชราต, จอร์เจีย, จีน, จีนดั้งเดิม, ชวา, ชิเชวา, ซามัว, ซีบัวโน, ซุนดา, ซูลู, ญี่ปุ่น, ดัตช์, ตรวจหาภาษา, ตุรกี, ทมิฬ, ทาจิก, ทาทาร์, นอร์เวย์, บอสเนีย, บัลแกเรีย, บาสก์, ปัญจาป, ฝรั่งเศส, พาชตู, ฟริเชียน, ฟินแลนด์, ฟิลิปปินส์, ภาษาอินโดนีเซี, มองโกเลีย, มัลทีส, มาซีโดเนีย, มาราฐี, มาลากาซี, มาลายาลัม, มาเลย์, ม้ง, ยิดดิช, ยูเครน, รัสเซีย, ละติน, ลักเซมเบิร์ก, ลัตเวีย, ลาว, ลิทัวเนีย, สวาฮิลี, สวีเดน, สิงหล, สินธี, สเปน, สโลวัก, สโลวีเนีย, อังกฤษ, อัมฮาริก, อาร์เซอร์ไบจัน, อาร์เมเนีย, อาหรับ, อิกโบ, อิตาลี, อุยกูร์, อุสเบกิสถาน, อูรดู, ฮังการี, ฮัวซา, ฮาวาย, ฮินดี, ฮีบรู, เกลิกสกอต, เกาหลี, เขมร, เคิร์ด, เช็ก, เซอร์เบียน, เซโซโท, เดนมาร์ก, เตลูกู, เติร์กเมน, เนปาล, เบงกอล, เบลารุส, เปอร์เซีย, เมารี, เมียนมา (พม่า), เยอรมัน, เวลส์, เวียดนาม, เอสเปอแรนโต, เอสโทเนีย, เฮติครีโอล, แอฟริกา, แอลเบเนีย, โคซา, โครเอเชีย, โชนา, โซมาลี, โปรตุเกส, โปแลนด์, โยรูบา, โรมาเนีย, โอเดีย (โอริยา), ไทย, ไอซ์แลนด์, ไอร์แลนด์, การแปลภาษา.
- เป็นประเพณี ที่แม่ต้องหาคู่หมั่นให้ลูกสา
- Blood services must have cost
- ฉันจะโทรหาเขา
- ธุรกิจรับเหมาก่อสร้างเจริญเติบโตมากกว่าป
- I want now
- When I shared advice with you and team a
- all items were accounted for
- ฉันทำการบ้านไปกินขนมไป
- หกสิบวัน
- วันลอยกระทง เพราะเป็นวันที่พระจจัทร์ส่อง
- woman likes to tell me the ultimate
- คุณเคยมีเซ้กกี่ครั้ง
- Before the Internet, businesses would ha
- I ma Tiao chuy chuy
- เมื่อวานไม่แต่งหน้าวันนี้จัดเต็ม
- 관학적이라고
- Assign Owner
- commonly
- รักษาคำพูด
- Settlement
- พรุ่งนี้เรานัดกันแต่เช้าไปวัดกัน
- no I come quickly
- japan
- by and between the following parties (he
