How an organization’s mission, vision, and values relate to its strategy

The simple answer is that an organization’s mission, vision, and values are answers to the questions, “What business are we in?” and “Why are we in this business?” There is no reference that corresponds to my opening sentence because after more than 25 years of reading books from Tom Peters, Mark McCormick, Zig Ziglar, John Maxwell, Andy Stanley, Stephen Covey, Lee Iacocca, Peter Drucker, Jim Collins, Al Reis, Harvey McKay, Ken Blanchard, John Kotter, Dale Carnegie, and many, many others this concept is so ingrained in my mind I could not begin to know if it is a synthesis of many ideas or something one of these men have written. Mission statements are very often platitude-like ideas such as this one from American Standard Company, "Be the best in the eyes of our customers, employees and shareholders" (Fortune 500 Companies, 2012). This company needs to invest heavily in their strategy while trying to fulfill this mission. Strategy, in their case for sure, is something that will hopefully take them from saying they want to “Be the best,” to actually formulating priorities and determining how to address each one to make sure they reach their “Ideal.” When they write the mission statement and express their goal in terms of the big picture, it is strategy that will specify the general directions and priorities (Kaplan, 2001). There is a great contrast to American Standard that comes from the Walt Disney Corporation,

 “The mission of The Walt Disney Company is to be one of the world's leading producers and providers of entertainment and information. Using our portfolio of brands to differentiate our content, services and consumer products, we seek to develop the most creative, innovative and profitable entertainment experiences and related products in the world” (Fortune 500 Companies, 2012).

I really like the specificity of their statement, “one of the world's leading producers and providers of entertainment and information” because it seems to be a much better platform in which to launch a strategy. When forming a strategy to determine how an organization will achieve, or live up to, its mission statement, having one that already points to a tangible objective is helpful. I am not sure how someone might measure which organization is the “best” in their field. Is it through profits, shareholder dividends, market penetration, brand recognition, customer satisfaction, or employee relationships? I am not sure. Some might be stronger than others in different areas, and then it seems to leave us with a subjective decision as to who is really the “best.” However, measuring who “produces and provides the most entertainment,” could be measured in concrete ways. For example, which movie company delivered the most movies, most television programs, sold the most merchandise relating to their brand, or who has acquired a larger audience share are some of the tangible ways to measure.

Saying that to say this, when an organization is trying to develop a strategy it becomes immensely more relatable to the mission and vision of the organization if they offer some tangible goal to help the leadership determine concrete goals and outcomes (Kaplan, 2001).

2. What is meant by strategy as hypothesis?

The strategy that an organization follows is somewhat of an uncertain proposition, and this being the case traveling down the path is done through studied guess-work so to speak. What the organization does, as we would say in East Texas, is to plow new ground. Having not plowed the ground before, a farmer would be making an educated guess (hypothesis) about whether or not plowing the ground and planting (strategy) will produce a profitable harvest (outcome).

However, the key for the farmer would be to clearly understand, and make sure the hired hands understand what he is trying to accomplish. He would also need to align his resources with his strategy to work the new ground. It would not make much sense if the farmer bought the new field, formed a strategy to produce enough to make a profit, but only committed a small riding lawnmower to work the ground. He would need to align everything he had that would enable him to fulfill his goal. Finally, he would need to watch the production and make necessary changes at the time they need to be made. Once again, if he plants a crop requiring X amount of water to yield the best results, he would need to monitor the field and introduce water, or drain water away in order to reach the optimal production level of the field.

My whole scenario is based on the Kaplan idea that strategy implies the movement of an organization from its present position to a desirable but uncertain future position (Kaplan, 2001). The hypotheses occur because the organization has never been to this future place (Kaplan, 2001), and getting there requires making a decision about getting to this place, although based on somewhat on existing knowledge, is still an educated guess (hypothesis).

How can managers monitor the appropriateness of a strategy over time?

The most important way, in my opinion, is making sure that the goals are in harmony with what the organization is doing on all levels. Do their goals match their policies (financial, employee, vendor). Second in importance might be making sure the ongoing level of risk is appropriate, and do not over-commit or under-commit resources by finding the needed ROI. Third, the strategy needs to be flexible. For example, when a church puts into writing their by-laws, employee manuals, constitution, or whatever they have to keep the future in mind. So many organizations set up these documents in reaction to past issues. While I understand the reasoning, I absolutely believe that it is wrong. You cannot build an organization for the future while looking back. Ever tried driving your car using only the rear-view mirror? Driving this way seems kind of goofy. Churches are not alone, but they are my wheel-house, and they make the same mistakes other organizations make.

create a climate for change

To create a climate for change a leader needs to do several things, but the first thing they must do is to inspire the organization through the sharing of his vision (Kaplan & Norton, 2001). I believe that people are much more inclined to follow an idea much more quickly than a set of objectives. However, I have found that when a leader shares a compelling vision, it is amazing how those who follow buy into the processes that make up the strategy to carry out the vision.

Following my own method of empowering people to carry out the organizational strategy, the decentralization of power (Kaplan & Norton, 2001), with the right process measurements, can create a climate conducive to change.

A big key to creating and maintaining change is when the leadership paints a vivid picture of a preferable future, and does so respecting the value systems of those within the organization.

The setting of goals that almost seem unreachable tends to help keep people focused on the “Big Picture” to maintain the change climate (Kaplan & Norton, 2001).

Refusal to buy into strategies that are meant to align organizations could be the primary obstacle to actually achieving alignment. The refusal to buy in is often a symptom of poor communication between executive level people and those they lead. Even if the communication is good, not employing an adequate implementation strategy of measurement system can create road-blocks to successful alignment (Kaplan & Norton, 2006) and (Kaplan & Norton, 2001).  Measurements used when trying to implement change should focus on the process (how things are progressing) and not so much on outcomes (Kaplan & Norton, 2006) because in order to change there can be a need to make changes to the change strategy. Other obstacles could include poor leadership, uninspiring leadership, untrustworthy leadership, and many other negative aspects the leader might exhibit.

If a leader is suspect (not trustworthy, not likable, not whatever), but their vision is compelling, would you follow them?

Do you accept good ideas from people you really do not like?

Have you ever followed someone blindly and were pleased with the outcome?

Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (2006). Alignment. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (2001). The Strategy-Focused Organization. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Me and Bon Jovi and Sambora

                                         Richie Sambora - TJackson - Jon Bon Jovi
                                         Circa 1985
                                    (I am trying to keep the crazies off of the autograph table)