Strat. Change, 9, 205–207 (2000)

Strategic Change, June–July 2000Copyright Þ 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Editorial The significanceof strategic vision,mission andvalues

Strategic management today is an extraordinarily demanding andcomplex subject. A recent count showed that there were at least200 books currently in print with the word ‘strategy’ somewherein their titles. There is no doubt that some of the literature isexceptionally valuable to both practitioners and students but equ-ally much of it is not very helpful and some of it is better left unread.That said, if the number of corporate failures that seem to appearwith monotonous regularity is considered, it can reasonably beconcluded that a critically important subject like strategy deservesto be exhaustively researched and published.

The long list of organizations that are experiencing very realdifficulties or have failed the ultimate test—BMW/Rover, Marks &Spencer, BOC, BTR, and even The Millennium Dome—suggeststhat there is a pressing need for a clear and articulate strategic visionthat creates and sustains competitive advantage. Unless companieshave a clear vision about how they are going to be distinctly dif-ferent and unique in adding and satisfying their customers, thenthey are likely to be the corporate failure statistics of tomorrow.

Many of the strategy texts referred to above all have sectionsdevoted to the need to ‘formulate, articulate and communicatethe strategic mission, vision and values’ of the organization as afundamental ingredient of good strategy. However, much of thework in this area is an insult to the intelligence and much of it iseither generic nonsense or bland gibberish. Consider the followingmission statement taken from a major organization:

We are committed to an organisational capability and mindsetwhich guarantees rapidly delivering exceptional customer andstakeholder value by negotiating and making the appropriatetrade-offs among schedule, quality, cost, functionality, tech-nology limits and resources.

What do the people in this organization do and what is their productor service? Furthermore, how would they know if what they are

Editorial

Copyright Þ 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strategic Change, June–July 2000

206

supposed to be doing is being done well? This is hardly the languageto inspire corporate greatness!

Recent work in this area examined mission statements from 55global blue-chip companies and found that the principal differencebetween them is one of length. Beyond that the differences dwindle.Almost all of the statements mention customer care and satisfaction(‘We delight our customers’) and almost all proclaim their com-mitment to service and product quality, excellence, innovation,shareholder value, social and environmental responsibilities andconscience, global coverage, employee commitment, teamworkand progression.

Perhaps this should come as no surprise, after all companiesare very similar. They all want to enjoy financial success, survive,become market leaders, deliver innovative products and be per-ceived as good employers and corporate citizens. Also despite therichness of the strategist’s vocabulary, there are only so many adjec-tives to describe where they want to be: excellent, foremost, lead-ing, passionate, best, superior, unique, world-class and second tonone. Each of these words has become so over-used as to meanlittle or nothing.

The value of a lot of the work on mission and vision is at bestmarginal and (with some notable exceptions), does not impact onthe company in a positive and favourable way. The same is true ofcorporate values. It is not that values are not important but theytend to be fairly generic across industries and organizations. If thestrategist is serious about working towards identifying the keyvalues to help guide the company, then there seem to be four basicvalues that will serve it well in its quest for superior performance.

First, produce high quality goods that add real value to bothcustomers and consumers. Second, be a good place for employeesto work. Third, behave in a publicly responsible manner. Finally,provide those that own the business with a good return on theirinvestment. The language can be modified to customize the ideasto the operating context and particular circumstances of the organ-ization but those basic values will serve it well.

This comment on mission, vision and values is not intended tosuggest that each of these elements cannot be extraordinarily help-ful in some circumstances but rather that it is an exceptionally hardtask to reach the point where they do add unique value that guidesbehaviour. Unless the strategist, with the commitment and supportof top management is prepared to devote the considerable timeand effort required to reach and persuade that elite, the best adviceis not to waste the resources of the organization producing some-thing more mundane.

A recent comment from one of the delegate’s attending a shortcourse on management at Nottingham Business School and respon-sible for much of the creative work on strategy for his company,complements much of the above. When he was asked at the end ofa session on strategy: ‘What then should an organization do if itreally wants to stand out from the competition?’ He replied: ‘If

Editorial

Copyright Þ 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strategic Change, June–July 2000

207

there is one thing worse than having an elaborate strategy, with allits preconceptions, indulgent language and constraints, it is nothaving one, with its confusion and diffusion of purpose.

Graham BeaverEditor