HOME  |  BLOG  |  CONTACT     CLIENT LOGIN    
    Blue Summit    

Mission vs. Vision

I have often found myself in conversations with clients about the meaning and purpose of some of the most fundamental business terms — words like Mission, Vision, Strategy, and Values. It surprises me how often people on the same team have differing ideas about what these words mean, and how often I hear fuzzy thinking about these terms. The result can be significant mis-communication and mis-understandings about the direction of the organization. It is very hard to focus on what you cannot define.

I find that many leaders use mission and vision interchangeably, or think that the difference between them doesn’t matter much. Another related problem is mission and vision statements that are vague, lofty, or have little connection with the real work of the organization.

Let me suggest some definitions that have worked well and solve these problems. They are based on decades of strategy work with clients, as well as authors such as Collins & Porras (Built to Last), Steven Covey (Principle Centered Leadership), Peter Senge (The Fifth Discipline), and Kaplan & Norton (Strategy Maps). Even a dictionary can be amazingly helpful.

Mission Vision Strategy HierarchyMission: Enduring purpose. The fundamental reason for the organization’s existence beyond just making money. It is a direction, a general heading, a perpetual guiding star on the horizon. It does not change over time. It is generally abstract and can never be achieved, only pursued. For example, for NASA: “advancing man’s capability to explore the heavens”.

Vision: A picture of a desired future that supports the mission, or an image of the future we seek to create. It is a specific destination that is concrete and achievable. A good one engages people–it reaches out and grabs them in the gut. It should be tangible, energizing, highly focused. There can be many visions over time that support the mission. The time scale is usually around 1 to 5 years. For example: “a man on the moon by the end of the ’60s”.

Strategy: A set of actions or objectives around a unifying theme that work to accomplish a vision. It is broad and action-oriented. If vision is the what, strategy is the how. The time scale of the strategy is equal to or shorter than that of the vision it supports.

Objective: The object of a course of action, something specific that is worked toward. Good objectives should be SMART (Specific, Measurable, Actionable, Realistic, and Time-bound). The time scale is usually less than one year.

Goal: This term is probably the least consistently used of them all. Usually it is either used interchangeably with objectives, or denotes a lower-order or more specific objective. Sometimes it can be on the level of vision, as in a BHAG (Big Hairy Audacious Goal).

Value: What’s really important to an organization. They are the essential and enduring tenets–a small set of general guiding principles, not to be compromised for financial gain or short-term expediency. Each value should be a piercing simplicity that provides substantial guidance to the members of the organization. They cannot be copied or dictated; they are what is authentically believed by the leaders of the organization. There should only be a few, between 3 and 6.

I think of Mission-Vision-Strategy-Objectives as a hierarchy from broadest to most specific. Values underlie them all.

Taken together, Mission, Vision, Strategy, and Values create a system of ideas forming the foundation of real leadership. They can become tools that allow people and organizations to shape their future. Setting direction and clearly communicating are core capacities for leaders.

In an organizational setting, we are impassioned by a goal that comes from a group of people working together to accomplish something that makes a positive difference in the world. On some level, we all know that there is something more important than money and what we can acquire or get for ourselves. When we look closely, we see that we all have a deep desire to contribute, to make a difference, and have an impact. When we acknowledge and define these desires, we create an opportunity to work from our passion to contribute rather than our desire to get for ourselves.

To be effective, Mission, Vision, Strategy, and Values need to be developed with large doses of dialog, communication, and collaboration to get the involvement and buy-in of people. Otherwise, they run the risk of being more management statements that don’t amount to much.

How does your organization define these terms?

I hope these suggestions help in your quest to define and communicate these critically important business ideas.

Posted by Konrad on March 15th, 2007 filed in Strategy
6 Comments »



6 Responses to “Mission vs. Vision”

  • If you see the mission, vision, strategy -objectives as a heirarchy of broadest to most specific, then why isnt the traingle inverted to show that? It seems your graphic is in direct oposition to your words.

    Posted by janna on October 25th, 2007 at 2:27 pm  
  • [...] Mission vs. Vision (tags: projectmanagement) addthis_url = ‘http%3A%2F%2Fjeff.edublogs.org%2F2008%2F04%2F03%2Flinks-for-2008-04-04%2F’; addthis_title = ‘links+for+2008-04-04′; addthis_pub = ”; [...]

    Posted by links for 2008-04-04 | Jeff Longland on April 3rd, 2008 at 6:34 pm  
  • According to most of the experts on OD that I have read, the mission statement supports the vision but you seem to have it stated in reverse?

    Posted by Mike Postilli on August 26th, 2008 at 4:37 am  
  • I could have drawn the pyramid the other way around, with the most fundamental and broad element (mission) at the bottom. I chose this way to draw it because it mirrors how we think about organizations and strategic planning processes. The broadest, most fundamental decision-making tends to happen at the top, and more specific decisions are made lower down. So, it’s a top-down hierarchy of decisions. There is also a much larger quantity of the more specific decisions, which works well with the broadening of the graphic toward the bottom.

    Posted by Konrad on September 24th, 2008 at 10:49 am  
  • Like M. Postilli above, all the research / work I’ve done in this area show the hierarchy going vision / mission / goals / objectives / strategy / tactics. Agree with values being the underlying aspect / foundation for the organization / culture.

    Either way, as long as all of the stakeholders agree to the definition things can get moving! It is the interminable time spent defining them that is counter-productive.

    Posted by kc on January 26th, 2009 at 7:56 pm  
  • Even Steven Covey talks about taking the time to identify your Mission before you undertake any of your goals in life. I attest that Mission should be on top of the pyramid, and then all the subsequent layers should be how to go about achieving your mission.

    Posted by Sanjay Swarup on February 2nd, 2009 at 6:03 am  
  • Post a Comment




     
    Blue Summit Blog
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Archives
  • Links to Resources



  • Search This Blog


    Recent Articles

    Strategy in a Downturn
    Creativity in Strategic Planning
    The 7 C’s of Powerful Vision
    Mission vs. Vision


    Categories
  • Collaboration (1)
  • Creativity (2)
  • General Business (3)
  • Leadership (1)
  • Personal Effectiveness (1)
  • Practices (3)
  • Strategy (5)
  • Sustainability (2)
  • Vision (4)
  • Visual Mapping (1)


  • Archives
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • August 2008
  • December 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007


  • Email Newsletter

    Get instant access to ideas and inspiration on strategic leadership:

     

    Blue Summit
    San Francisco Bay Area, California
    415-927-8070
    Contact us

    View Konrad Knell's profile on LinkedIn


    Blog Roll
  • Center 4 Graphic Facilitation
  • David Sibbet
  • Extreme Leadership
  • Future Now
  • Gil Friend
  • Guy Kawasaki
  • Idea Flow
  • Leading Blog
  • Mapping Strategy
  • Strategy Kinetics
  • Tom Peters
  • Working Knowledge


  •