Too often, an organization’s mission statement is both well-written and mostly useless.
Consider an organization with this mission:
To support, advance, and strengthen our profession and the communities we serve.
Look familiar? It’s nice, it’s broad, and it’s reasonably well-written. But it fails to tell the board and staff what matters. Almost any good idea will fit.
Mission Should Establish Priorities
Consider a hypothetical public benefit organization with an ambitious vision: End Cancer.
Its mission should establish priorities for how the organization intends to pursue that goal.
A mushy version might be: Working collaboratively with providers, patients, and other stakeholders to rid the world of cancer.
It sounds admirable. But where are the priorities? What direction or guardrails does it provide the board and staff? What does it exclude?
Consider two better alternatives:
Scenario 1: We raise a billion dollars each year and distribute grants to the world’s leading cancer researchers, emphasizing near-term, real-world application and results.
Although the wording is mundane, the priorities are clear: raise money, identify promising research, fund it, and evaluate the results.
Scenario 2: We are building an AI data center to compile and synthesize cancer research into a searchable database available at no charge to scientists around the world.
A completely different mission in service of the same vision.
Both organizations want to end cancer. But they have made very different choices about what they exist to do.
That is what mission should accomplish.
The Test Is Not Whether Something Fits
The difficult work of leadership is rarely choosing between a good idea and a bad one. It is choosing among good ideas when there is not enough time, money, talent, or attention to pursue all of them well.
Imagine a board considering five worthwhile investments when the organization has the resources to do only two well. All five might be "consistent with the mission."
The question is not:
Does this fit our mission?
It is:
Does our mission help us decide which two matter most?
If it doesn’t, the mission is not doing enough work.
Good Ideas Are Hard To Refuse
Organizations resist saying no to worthwhile opportunities for very human reasons. A program has members who value it. A board member champions an initiative. An event produces revenue. Staff are proud of something they built. A new opportunity seems too promising to pass up.
Saying yes preserves constituencies. Saying no has consequences, sometimes difficult ones.
And a mission can lose its usefulness without anyone consciously deciding to change it. The words may remain exactly the same. What changes is how broadly the mission is interpreted in order to preserve a valued program, accommodate an important constituency, protect revenue, or pursue a promising opportunity.
Each decision may be understandable. Collectively, they can transform mission from a tool for making choices into a rationale for avoiding them.
The mission should shape the work. The work should not quietly redefine the mission.
Mission Must Be Actively Applied
Even a strong, intentional mission accomplishes little if it lives only in a strategic plan or on a website.
Board members should know it. Staff should know it. It should inform real conversations about budgets, programs, staffing, opportunities, and what the organization will stop doing. And it should be revisited as circumstances change, not rediscovered during the next planning exercise.
A mission cannot make difficult decisions for leaders. Boards still govern. Executives still exercise judgment. Resources are finite and opportunities are not.
Mission should narrow the field. Strategy should make choices within that field.
Keep reading