By M. Crow, SSU Office of Institutional Research & Planning

Effective planning in any organization is facilitated by a good "mission statement." A good statement focuses attention, challenges attitudes, introduces alternatives, and addresses existential issues.  A good mission statement can help to capture the attention of stakeholders (common crisis, threat, opportunity), unfreeze attitudes and behavior patterns (creating cognitive dissonance), introduce or foster change patterns (by introducing benchmarking and other comparisons), and refreeze new attitudes, behavior patterns (reinforcement theory).

The mission statement is "...an enduring statement of purpose that distinguishes one business from other similar firms." (Pearce, J. (1982), "The Company Mission as a Strategic Tool." SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW, 15:15-24.)  Accordingly, a good mission statement should include language that helps to discriminate one organization from another; it should show how an organization is distinctive; what advantages does it offers to clients in contrast to the services offered by competitors.  In short, how is this organization really different and better for clients than others with which it competes?

Without a sound mission statement, the blind forces of fate subject to academic drift and erosion of purpose shape an educational institution.   The organization limps along, attempting to do and be everything for everyone, with no limits, no parameters, and no focus of attention.  Lacking focus, organizational energies come to be dissipated over more functions than can can be adequately served; operating inevitably with finite resources, the organization finds itself host to an excessive number of functions all laboring and anguishing under starvation diets.  In time, the lack of a focused purpose and the collapsed consensus kills all pretense of excellence.  Excellence itself can survive only in an organization committed to a strong purpose.

Good mission statements can improve an institution’s:

1. sense of purpose
2. communication
3. decision-making
4. resource allocation
5. evaluation
6. marketing
(Peeke (1994), MISSION AND CHANGE, Society for Research in Higher Education.)

What resources does a "mission statement" shape?  Just about everything!   It will affect who gets to use the university's stuff to do which activities and for what purpose?  Understanding of community needs, environmental threats, situational opportunities, strategic planning--all are determined in the shadow of a mission statement.  Eventually the budget, space, staff, time, students, curriculum, pedagogy -- every component of the organization -- will all be affected and determined by it.

Five keys to a great mission statement have been identified:

1. Employ less than 100 words, sharply focused (so everyone knows it--clearly).   The Test: Can people selected at random across campus recite the mission statement on request and are the recitations fully congruent?.

2. Describes what functions the organization does (identify a distinctive core competency)  The Test:  Exactly what functions have people in the organization decided not to do or provide to clients that are provided by real competitors?

3. Identify for whom the functions are done (specify a specific market) The Test:   Exactly which possible clients have people in the organization decided not to serve through this organization and why?  Do members of the organization understand and agree to this?

1. Say how the organization fills the functions better (craft a competitive advantage)
2. Justify why the organization exists (an existential issue)

In crafting a mission statement, use precise, exact statements of measurable activity! Avoid vague generalities and the un-measurable.  Address functional benefits to users or clients rather than descriptive attributes of the organization itself.  Think about the organization from the perspective of a potential user who has alternatives available, rather than an insider already committed with a vested interest in the organization.

Usually, what's developed depends on how it is developed.  The sociological groupings among those framing the mission are critical.  In crafting a mission statement, there is no neutral process, no perfect process, and no one right way.   Instead, there are many ways with many attributes and many consequences.  For example, all the following have been used, with varying results:

1. Administrative Mandates: Leaders (or owners) tell the organization what its mission is.

Advantages: Efficient, focused, fast
Disadvantages: May foster rebellion &/or passive resistance; may not be believed

2. Single Task Force: A small group with a formal mandate is appointed to study the context, develop a mission for the whole, and spread it to others.

Advantages: Efficient; focused, relatively fast; strong chance of creativity and innovation
Disadvantages:   Lacks grass-roots commitment; may be superficial & imperialistic when rushed.

3. Stakeholder Groups: A larger "Noah's Arc" committee including all vested interests is identified to mold a consensus about organization's mission.

Advantages: Widely inclusive; strongly legitimating; high credibility
Disadvantages: Functionally fragmented; limited perspective lacks production focus; members not work-related; may be self-serving or turf-protecting; unlikely to sponsor change or  innovation

4. Production Unit Groups: Folks working together in an organizational unit are charged to determine the mission of their own work

Advantages: Fosters work-related consensus among insiders, strong task commitment possible
Disadvantages: Time consuming; less innovative; producer perspective limits client focus; omits key stakeholders; maybe self-serving or turf-protecting

5. Survey Technique:  A survey is developed & administered to interested persons; results used to determine current state of mission

Advantages: Widely inclusive; objective; fosters analytical rigor; source of great reports or publications
Disadvantages: Mechanical; neither consensus nor commitment is formed among stakeholders; unlikely to lead to change or innovation; more difficult to exert leadership or influence outcome

6. Delphi Technique:

Advantages: Widely inclusive; analytical rigor; develops consensus; can influence change and innovation
Disadvantages: Mechanical, slow, redundant; drains energy; commitment may not be fostered

For best results, an ideal method in most university settings might include all stakeholder types (representatives), working in production unit groups, with collegial, brain-storming procedures, in dialogue with University-wide process, using robust analytical techniques.

However, one key operational problem is "What is the appropriate "production level" group for holding discussions?" Any academic department presumes some particular administrative organization.  Any academic major program assumes some particular current production scheme.  Any particular generic knowledge domain assumes some particular ways of knowing.  On the other hand, each of these dimensions could be problematic, depending on the outcome of the mission construction effort.   It may be more effective to work within knowledge domains larger than departments and programs, yet smaller than schools and colleges.

What, then, are the generic domains of knowledge for learning, knowing, & doing?   Consider both the pure and applied versions of each domain. One might begin with the University's core curriculum requirements.  One common possibility might be to use the categories: Humanities/Classics, Fine Arts, Technology, Natural Sciences, Physical Sciences, and Social Sciences as the basic units for mission discourse.
(Tony Becher (1993), ACADEMIC TRIBES AND TERRITORIES: INTELLECTUAL INQUIRY AND THE CULTURES OF DISCIPLINES, Open University Press.)

And, who might participate in the mission formulation, besides the obvious teaching faculty? Consider including each of the following stakeholder groups also:

1. Service recipients-- Current & past students
2. Student providers-- Enrollment mgmt. staff
3. Resource providers-- Business / personnel staff, vendors
4. Facility maintainers- -Computer service / custodial/ maintenance / safety staff
5. Student supporters- -Housing / counseling / health/ bookstore staff
6. University advocates- -Employers, churches, politicians. civic leaders

How might one go about the process of constructing congruent university-wide mission statements? Consider first holding a general large group presentation by some generally respected individual. The issue here is to establish the urgency of the need for a new mission statement. Then, during the large group session, let participants complete a Delphi Attitude Survey about the mission statement. Subsequently, break into 12 small groups (2 for each knowledge domain) and draft tentative knowledge-domain mission statements. Let each small group present draft statements to the larger group. Present the first round Delphi results to large group. Conduct three more Delphi iterations via e-mail over the next two weeks. Reconvene six small groups to edit the knowledge domain mission statements using Delphi results. Test the mission statements on "allusers" via e-mail; collect & analyze results. Let the executive team synthesizes a master mission statement with any necessary word smithing. Again present the new master mission statement to "allusers" via e-mail. Collect and analyze the reaction to the results. Finally, let Colleges, Departments, and Major programs develop local unit mission statements congruent with new master statement.

Once all academic units have developed their unique mission statements, congruent with the institution-wide mission statement, complete the same exercise among all service units of the organization.  (e.g.: purchasing department, housing department, financial aid office, admissions office, counseling department, facilities & grounds department, etc.)  These unit mission statements must be congruent with and supportive of the institution-wide statement and the academic unit statements.

In reviewing mission statements, it is critical to keep in mind whom, really, are the institution’s biggest competitors? And, does the institution enjoy "brand recognition?" and is that recognition positive or negative? Why? is the institution's name widely recognized? Does the institution’s name connote student benefits? Is it a symbol of learned values? Does it imply talented graduates? Does it mean valued connections? How different is the institution from competitors? Do people stand in line to get to the institution?  What place does the institution hold in the popular mind?