Essay

Over the course of this unit, we have discussed the importance of mission and vision statements. As a part of that discussion, we analyzed mission and vision statements for their effectiveness. For the Unit II Essay, you will expand on this topic.Using your favorite search engine, research the mission and vision statements of different fortune 500 companies. Then, you will write an essay in which you compare and contrast the mission statements of two companies and the vision statements of two companies. You may use the same companies for both the mission and vision comparisons or separate companies.Within your essay, include the information below.

• Explain the principle value of two vision statements.
• Explain the principle value of two mission statements.
• Compare and contrast vision statements of each organization in terms of composition and importance.
• Compare and contrast mission statements of each organization in terms of composition and importance.
• Do you think organizations that have comprehensive mission statements tend to be high performers? How do mission and vision statements assist in selecting an industry-specific strategy?
• Explain why a mission statement should not include monetary amounts, numbers, percentages, ratios, goals, or objectives.

Your essay should be a minimum of three pages in length or approximately 750 words, not including the title and reference pages. You must also include an outside source from the CSU Online Library to support your explanations. Follow APA standards for formatting and referencing.

EVOLVING MISSION STATEMENTS: A FIFTEEN

YEAR COMPARISON

Darwin L. King, St. Bonaventure University

Carl J. Case, St. Bonaventure University

Julianna R. Carney, St. Bonaventure University

ABSTRACT

Mission statements are among the most important communications provided by the

organization to its many stakeholders both inside and outside of the business. These statements

inform all readers of the stakeholders and goals and objectives that are most critical to the firm.

In particular, customers, stockholders, and employees are commonly identified in the mission

statement. Likewise, goals and objectives such as the importance of producing a high quality

product or service and using technology effectively are frequently included in the mission

statement.

The authors have studied the changing mission statement content in the largest U.S. firms

since 2001. This paper compares the mission statement content of the top 100 firms in the United

States in 2001 with the content of the missions of the largest companies in 2016. The stakeholder

names, goals, and objectives identified are compared over this 15- year study period. The findings

from 2001 are presented first followed by a summary of 2016 mission statement content.

Significant similarities and differences in mission statement content are discussed in the final

portion of this paper.

INTRODUCTION

Since the 19

70

’s, mission statements have been developed by organizations to

communicate to stakeholders who they are and what they intend to accomplish. In the 21st century

effective communication by business organizations is critical. Mission statements serve to inform

interested parties about the nature and character of the firm. The statements are typically short with

few exceeding two paragraphs. An effective mission statement should clearly communicate the

company’s purpose, values, unique characteristics, and desired goals and objectives. In essence,

the mission statement should provide reasons for the firm’s existence.

Peter Drucker, often referred to as the “father of management,” wrote extensively about

the importance of a well-written mission statement. Drucker believed that the mission statement

was the “foundation for priorities, strategies, plans, and work assignments” (Drucker, 19

74

). He

believed the mission statement should aid interested parties in distinguishing one organization

from another. Drucker stressed the mission statement should communicate the firm’s “reason for

being.” He argued that the formation of the company’s strategies and objectives should be based

on the content of the mission. This is true today as the actions of colleges and universities should

be based upon and consistent with the mission of the institution.

Drucker believed that the mission statement should answer the questions “What is our

business?” and “What do we want to become?” in order to effectively manage current and future

Global Journal of Business Pedagogy Volume 3, Number 1, 2019

66

operations (Drucker, 1974). He believed that effective long range strategic planning required a

logical and achievable answer to these questions. Drucker believed that basic concepts upon which

the firm had been built had to be visible, clearly understood, and explicitly expressed to all

stakeholders both internal and external. He believed that the largest business organizations, in

particular, must publish accurate mission and vision statements since they likely would be read by

millions of stakeholders.

Drucker believed that the business purpose and mission were normally not given sufficient

consideration or thought prior to their issuance by most firms. He believed that this error was

perhaps the most significant cause of business frustration and failure (Drucker, 1974).

This appears to have changed over the last forty years as organizations appear to be constantly

updating and revising mission statements that appear on webpages and annual reports.

Drucker, who established the Leader to Leader Institute, frequently emphasized the

significance of the mission statement. He felt that the mission should be quite short and very much

to the point. Drucker believed the mission should be only three or four sentences in length. These

few sentences should address four important aspects of the organization including who are we,

what do we do, what do we stand for, and why do we do what we do. This is a large amount of

information that must be thoughtfully condensed into a few sentences. Finally, Drucker also felt

that the mission statement should specifically identify the most significant stakeholder(s).

Drucker also believes that many firms have a common misconception concerning the life

of a mission statement. He believes that many organizations feel that a thoughtfully prepared

mission statement, once completed, serves the firm’s needs for the entire life of the business.

Drucker argues that since the business environment is dynamic and constantly changing, a mission

statement should regularly be revised and updated to reflect environmental changes. Drucker

estimated that mission statements require revision at least every ten years (Drucker, 1974). Many

other writers agree that regular revisions of mission statements are mandatory to reflect the

constantly changing business environment. Once a firm has a revised time sensitive mission

statement, the process of long-term strategic management can be more easily accomplished.

Drucker wrote in an article titled “The Five Most Important Questions You Will Ever Ask

About Your Organization” that the effective mission statement is short and sharply focused. It

should fit on a T-shirt (Drucker, 1993). He emphasized that the mission statement must be clear,

and inspire stakeholders. He noted that every board member, volunteer, and staff person should be

able to see the mission and say, “Yes. This is something that I want to be remembered for.” Drucker

believed that mission statements should not emphasize net income and profits but must “Express

the contribution the enterprise plans to make to society, to economy, and to the customer.”

Drucker’s works provided a solid foundation for better understanding the character, purpose, and

importance of an organization’s mission statement.

Fred David has also written extensively on the importance of a thoughtfully developed

mission statement. Like Drucker, he also believes that a firm’s mission statement should clearly

communicate its “reason for being” (David, 2009). David argues that the mission statement should

serve a number of vital purposes in the attempt to communicate information to stakeholders. He

believes that a comprehensive mission statement should define an organization’s target market(s),

describe its products and services produced, markets served, technology utilized, and the

organization’s concern for survival, growth, employees, profitability, and the environment. In

other words, stakeholder groups, goals, and objectives should be included in a complete mission

statement.
Global Journal of Business Pedagogy Volume 3, Number 1, 2019

67

Many authors, including David, feel that organizations often utilize a reactive, rather than

a proactive, approach to the creation of a mission statement. The reactive approach describes firms

that create mission and vision statements after the firm has experienced financial problems (David,

2009). He argued that the creation of mission and vision statements during a period of crisis is a

symptom of irresponsible management. David believes that failure to create a comprehensive,

inspiring, and attainable mission statement results in the loss of the opportunity to positively

influence stakeholders including customers, shareholders, employees, and vendors.

Typically, mission statements are only one or two paragraphs in length. Therefore, this

requires significant planning and thought in order to include all crucial elements such as the firm’s

purpose, values, significant stakeholders, distinctive characteristics, and desired goals and

objectives. This is a lot of information that must be condensed into a fairly short statement that is

both informative and easily understood. David also states that mission statements have received a

number of various titles over the years including terms such as creed statements, statements of

philosophy, statements of belief, and statements of business purposes (David, 2005). David also

believed that the firm’s “reason for being” should be clearly stated in the organization’s mission

statement (David, 2009).

David believes that a well-constructed mission statement should contain nine essential

components. These include a mention of customers, products or services, markets, technology,

concern for survival, growth, and profitability, philosophy, self-concept, concern for public image,

and concern for employees (David, 2005). He argues that a well-written mission statement should

provide important information such as the products and services offered by the firm and the

primary target markets served. David believes that a mission statement “identifies the scope of the

firm’s operations in product and market terms” (Pierce & David, 1989). Based upon the authors’

research since 2001, there are and have been very few mission statements that include all of these

items listed above. In the most recent study by the authors, many 2016 mission statements include

only two or three of the items detailed above.

Many authors, including Samuel and S. Trevis Certo, believe that the creation of an

effective mission statement is a critical part of the strategic management process (S. & S.T. Certo,

2012). They feel that the strategic management process requires organizational direction which

typically first requires a well-constructed, informative mission statement. This argument is shared

by Hitt, Black, and Porter (M.A. Hitt, J.S. Black & L.W. Porter, 2012). These authors also support

the argument that the strategic management process requires a mission statement that clearly

articulates the essential purpose(s) of the business. Rarick and Vitton argue that an effective

mission statement should contain a number of items including the company identity or self-

concept, company philosophy, principal products or services produced, customers and related

target markets, commitment to employees, obligation to stockholders, and geographic focus (C.

Rarick and J. Vitton, 1995). The majority of authors listed above believe that an accurate mission

statement requires a thorough analysis of the organization’s internal resources and strengths as

well as its existing external environment.

Harsh Verma studied mission statements and found that stakeholders are becoming more

aware of and better understand their mission statement (Verma, 2010). He believes that top

management must use careful judgement and seriously reflect on the company in order to identify

its primary stakeholders, goals, and objectives. Verma emphasized that mission statements are

useful for creating a structural mechanism where firm decisions and actions that deviate from the

mission statement are quickly identified and corrected.

Global Journal of Business Pedagogy Volume 3, Number 1, 2019

68

Annie McKee believes that mission statements must describe what the organization is

about, what it does, and what it stands for (McKee, 2012). She feels, similar to many other authors,

that without a thoughtfully created and well defined mission statement, the firm may lose its

direction and overall focus. McKee states that a thoughtfully created mission statement assists

management in decision making, motivating employees, and creating and integrating short-term

and long-term goals and objectives. Other authors including Robbins and Coulter emphasize that

firm goals must reflect the mission statement. (Robbins & Coulter, 2012). They further state that

the mission is a broad statement of the organization’s purpose providing a guide to all members of

the organization. In other words, every employee including management, staff, and production

workers must consider whether decisions they are making are consistent with the firm’s current

mission statement.

Schermerhorn, et. al., believe that effective mission statements identify whom the firm will

serve and what purpose(s) they are serving in society (Schermerhorn, et.al.). Wheelen and Hunger

stress that a well-designed mission statement defines the firm’s “fundamental, unique purpose”

that sets the firm apart from other similar companies (T. Wheelen and J. Hunger, 2010). Many

authors argue that a mission statement should highlight the distinctive aspects of the organization.

Finally, Thompson, et.al., state that a mission statement must describe the firm’s “current business

and purpose” (Thompson, et.al., 2012). These authors emphasize that an effective mission

statement should accomplish a number of goals including identifying the firm’s products or

services, specify customer groups or markets served, and giving the company its own identity. To

accomplish all of these goals in a concise statement, the firm’s management must carefully

construct the mission statement and update it when appropriate.

PREVIOUS MISSION STATEMENT RESEARCH BY THE AUTHORS

The authors conducted their first mission statement analysis project in 2001. The mission

statements of the Fortune 100 firms in 2001 were studied. The lead author reviewed the mission

statements from 2001 and developed a list of two major areas of mission statement content. The

first mission statement content area was the firm’s stakeholders that it chose to identify in the

published mission statement. This included the firm’s customers and employees. The second

identified area of mission statement content was the goals or objectives of the organization that

were significant and identified in the mission. Examples include the production of a quality product

or service and the adherence to an established set of core values. The results of this study was

published in the Academy of Managerial Communications Journal (King, 2001).

Table 1

(Appendix) is a summary of the results of that analysis.

The commonly named stakeholder in the 2001 mission statements was no surprise.

Businesses realize that, in order to survive, they must satisfy the needs and wants of its customers.

The importance of the customer is obvious in the following 2001 mission statement quotes.

Merck’s mission was to “improve the quality of life and satisfy customer needs.” Proctor &

Gamble desired to “improve the lives of the world’s consumers.” ConAgra took pride in “our

success in serving our customers and meeting consumer needs.” Lockheed Martin’s mission was

to “attain total customer satisfaction.” UPS proudly stated in its mission that they were “not just in

the delivery business, but in the customer satisfaction business.” The importance of the customer

was obvious in a majority of the 2001 mission statements.

The second most named stakeholder in 2001 was the firm’s stockholders. This is also no

surprise since, historically, the major mission of the firm was to maximize shareholder wealth.

Global Journal of Business Pedagogy Volume 3, Number 1, 2019

69

Exxon Mobil stated that it emphasized “building shareholder value.” Ford stated that it attempted

to “deliver superior shareholder returns.” AT&T, J.P. Morgan Chase, Boeing, Chevron, Home

Depot, Lucent, and Ingram Micro each included the mission of “maintaining or maximizing

shareholder value.” AT&T clearly identified the importance of both customers and stockholder’s

stating in its mission that “Our goal is to enrich our customers’ personal lives which will build

shareholder value in the process.” Alcoa went even further when it stated in its mission that it

works to create “value for customers, employees, and shareholders.”

Employees were the third most frequently identified stakeholder in the 2001 mission

statements. Merck stated that it attempted to “provide employees with meaningful work and

advancement opportunities.” AMR stated that it attempted to “reward innovation and provide

growth, security, and opportunity for all employees.” Including employees with other stakeholders,

Kroger stated that their mission was to “satisfy our responsibilities to shareholders, employees,

customers, suppliers, and the communities we serve.” Merck’s mission included “providing

employees with meaningful work and advancement opportunities. Finally, Southern Company’s

mission included “providing a workplace that our employees value – we provide opportunities to

grow professionally, we communicate openly, and we treat each other with respect.” The other

four stakeholders including competitors, suppliers, communities, and government were mentioned

far more infrequently. The 2001 mission statements showed that large corporations believed their

primary stakeholders were their customers, stockholders, and employees.

There were eight identified goals and objectives in the 2001 Fortune 100 mission

statements. Similar to named stakeholders, there are two goals that are included most often in the

firm’s mission statement. The goals of providing a quality product or service and the adherence to

a set of core values were most often mentioned with each appearing in 25 mission statements.

It is interesting to note that ethics was only mentioned in three of the 2001 mission

statements. This may be related to the fact that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was not enacted until 2002.

Another surprise in this data is that concern for the environment was only found in nine of the

missions. The authors’ felt that emphasizing ethical business operations and concern for the

environment would have been more frequently included in the 2001 mission statements.

Returning to the top two goals of producing a quality product or service and adherence to

a set of established core values, the following phrases were included in the missions of the largest

100 firms in 2001. Concerning the production of a quality product or service, Ford states that its

mission is to “transform Ford from a good auto company into a stable, high quality consumer

product company.” GE’s mission was to “live quality.” McKesson HBOC is “committed to

continuous quality improvement so that every product and service HBOC offers is known as the

best in the world.” Costco’s mission was “to continually provide our members with quality goods

and services at the lowest possible prices.” A final example is from Johnson & Johnson who state

in order to meet customer needs “everything we do must be of high quality.” Many other firms

included similar phrases concerning quality in their mission statements in 2001.

The next goal or objective that was also included in 25 mission statements in 2001 was the

existence of core values for the firm. Two examples include, first, Home Depot who listed eight

core values in its mission. These included “excellent customer service, taking care of our people,

giving back, doing the right thing, creating shareholder value, respect for all people,

entrepreneurial spirit, and building strong relationships.” Another example comes from Goldman

Sachs who state that its core business principles “emphasize placing our client’s interests first,

integrity, commitment to excellence and innovation, and teamwork.” In describing core values of

Global Journal of Business Pedagogy Volume 3, Number 1, 2019
70

the company, many firms included the idea that a primary core value involved the providing of

value to both customers and stockholders.

The concept of leadership and being a leader was found in 17 of the top 100 mission

statements in 2001. For example, General Motors, Ford Motor Company, General Electric, and

Kroger all stated in their mission statements that they were the leader in their particular industry.

In particular, Kroger indicated that “our mission is to be a leader in the distribution and

merchandising of food.” USX stated that they were an “innovative steel company that clearly

distinguishes itself as the industry leader.” Finally, AMR’s mission indicated leadership in the

industry as a result of “setting the industry standard for safety and security and providing world-

class customer service.” The final five goals or objectives in descending order were global

operations, importance of technology, concern for the environment, profits, and ethical operations.

Again, it is interesting to note that concern for ethics and ethical practices only appeared in 3% of

the 2001 Fortune 100 mission statements. The next portion of this paper reviews the 2016 mission

statements of the Fortune 100 firms.

2016 MISSION STATEMENTS – FORTUNE 100 FIRMS

Table 2 (Appendix) summarizes the most commonly included stakeholders and goals in

the 2016 Fortune 100 mission statements. For the 2016 mission statements, the three most

mentioned stakeholders were customers, communities, and employees. The three most commonly

included goals or objectives for 2016 were production of a high quality product or service, the

emphasis on global operations, and the use of innovation and current technology in the

improvement of business operations. A few examples from the 2016 missions are presented in the

follow paragraphs. Following that, similarities and differences between 2001 and 2016 mission

statements will be examined.

Not surprisingly, the stakeholder most mentioned in 2016 missions was the customer. If a

firm is not able to satisfy the needs and wants of its customers, it is doomed to fail. Two excellent

examples of mission statements emphasizing customers include General Motors who state “Our

unyielding mission to earn customers for life has led to a healthy balance sheet and world-class

products that are winning in the marketplace.” Hewlett-Packard’s states “Our mission is to provide

products, services, and solutions of the highest quality and deliver more value to our customers

that earns their respect and loyalty.” Many other mission statements from 2016 echo this idea that

the firm’s customers are its primary business focus.

Communities, as an identified stakeholder, were found more frequently in the 2016 mission

statements than those of 2001. In 2016, 22 of the Fortune 100 firms considered communities to be

an important stakeholder of the firm. JP Morgan Chase’s mission is “to serve our clients and our

communities – there is nothing more important than to protect our company so that we are strong

and can continue to be here for all those who count on us.” Proctor & Gamble include the following

in its mission “consumers will reward us with leadership sales, profits, and value creation, allowing

our people, our shareholders, and the communities in which we live and work to prosper.” That

portion of one sentence in P&G’s mission includes not only communities but also employees and

shareholders. A number of the 2016 mission statements identify multiple stakeholders and goals.

The third most frequently identified stakeholder in the 2016 mission statements is the

firm’s employees. Two examples include Pepsi and FedEx. Pepsi states that “We are committed

to investing in our people (employees), our company, and the communities where we operate to

help position the company for long-term sustainable growth.” FedEx’s mission included the

Global Journal of Business Pedagogy Volume 3, Number 1, 2019

71

following, “FedEx will strive to develop mutually rewarding relationships with its employees,

partners, and suppliers. Safety will be the first consideration in all operations.” Safety will be

discussed later in this paper as this goal was included in a several of the 2016 missions but was not

mentioned in the 2001 statements.

The three most often included goals or objectives in the 2016 mission statements were the

production of a high quality good or service, the importance of global operations, and an emphasis

on the use of modern technology. There are a number of additional goals and objectives mentioned

in the 2016 missions compared to those of 2001. These new items will be reviewed in the final

portion of this paper. A few examples of the top three goals included in the 2016 missions follows.

The most frequently mentioned goal in the 2016 missions, consistent with the results from

2001, is the production of a quality product or service. For example, CVS had a comprehensive

mission statement that included quality along with a number of other goals. CVS stated that

“Above all else…our mission is to improve the lives of those we serve by making innovative and

high-quality health and pharmacy services safe, affordable, and easy to access.” This is a good

example of goals not mentioned in 2001 including safety and affordability. A second example of

the quality goal is found in UPS’s mission. It states “We serve the evolving distribution, logistics,

and commerce needs of our customers worldwide, offering excellence and value in all we do.”

The second most commonly mentioned goal in the 2016 missions is the desire to conduct

global operations. For example, Exxon Mobil states “Exon Mobil Corporation is committed to

being the world’s premier petroleum and petrochemical company.” A second example comes from

the 2016 General Electric mission. It states “GE’s mission is to invent the next industrial era, to

build, move, power and cure the world.” Twenty-six of the 2016 mission statements indicated the

importance of conducting business operations on a global scale.

The third most frequently stated goal in the 2016 missions was the desire to be innovative

and use modern technology to improve business operations. It is interesting to note that the term

technology was used more often in the 2001 statements but has evolved to being more commonly

termed innovation in recent years. Innovation is a major goal for the many firms who continually

strive to improve the quality of its products and services. The words “new and improved” are often

found on the packaging. Two examples of the importance of innovation are found in the mission

statements of AmerisourceBergen and Pfizer.

AmerisourceBergen stated “Our mission is to improve patients’ lives by delivering

innovative products and services that drive quality and efficiency in pharmaceutical care.” The

company identified innovation, quality, and efficiency as its primary goals. A second example

comes from Pfizer who mentions a number of stakeholders and goals in a fairly short mission. This

mission also stresses innovation. Its mission is “Consistent with our responsibility as one of the

world’s premier innovative biopharmaceutical companies, we collaborate with health care

providers, governments and local communities to support and expand access to reliable, affordable

health care around the world.”

Ten additional goals were listed in at least four of the 2016 Fortune 100 mission statements.

Many of these goals were not found in those of 2001. Over this 15 year period, goals such as

producing an affordable product or service and the desire to market a safe product or service and

provide safe working conditions for employees are now part of the content of mission statements

for many organizations. The differences and similarity between the mission statement of the

Fortune 100 firms in 2001 and 2016 are presented in the final portion of this paper.

Global Journal of Business Pedagogy Volume 3, Number 1, 2019

72

SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES – 2001 AND 2016 MISSIONS

Table 3 (Appendix) compares the 2001 and 2016 mission statements and their

identification of primary stakeholders. The left column of Table 3 shows the order of stakeholder

frequency of inclusion, from most to least often, in the 2001 missions. The most common were

customers, stockholders, employees, competitors, suppliers, communities, and governments. This

changed dramatically, except for the most commonly included customer group, in 2016 with the

frequency order changing to customers, communities, employees, stockholders, suppliers,

government, and competitors.

It is not surprising that the most commonly identified stakeholder in the 2001 and 2016

mission statements is the company’s customers (61% and

73

% respectively). Over the 15-year

study period, the number of large corporations that have specifically identified its customers in its

published mission statement has continued to increase. All of the other stakeholders appear much

less frequently than the company’s customers. For example, in 2016, the second most mentioned

stakeholder was communities (22%). Customers appeared in more than three times that number.

Communities appeared in 22% of the 2016 missions (2nd most common) compared to

being found in only 6% of the 2001 statements (6th most common). It is obvious that the firms

consider the communities in which they live and serve to be a primary stakeholder. It is interesting

to note that the second most often identified stakeholder in 2001, stockholders (34%) dropped to

fourth place in 2016 being found in only 17 of the missions. It appears that the historical mission

of the corporation to “maximize shareholder wealth” is becoming less important to many firms.

Peter Drucker in his articles from many years ago emphasized that the primary mission of the firm

should not be to maximize profits. In recent years, concern for customers, employees, and the

environment has become much more important.

Employees continue to be of primary importance to the firm being named in 21% of the

2001 statements and 20% of the 2016 missions (3rd most mentioned each year). It is interesting to

note that competitors were the 4th most commonly mentioned stakeholder in 2001 but were not

identified in the 2016 missions. Suppliers were named in 6 of the 2001 missions and that number

increased to 9 in 2016. The inclusion of federal, state, and local governments as an identified

stakeholder increased from 2% to 7% of the Fortune 100 firms.

Table 4 (Appendix) compares the frequency of specifically identified goals and objectives

in the firm’s mission statements from 2001 and 2016. It is readily apparent that Fortune 100 firms

in 2016 are typically including many more identified goals and objectives in their missions as

compared to their counterparts in 2001. The six identified goals in the 2001 mission statements

were quality, core values, leadership, global emphasis, use of technology or innovation, and the

environment. The six most often included goals in the 2016 missions were quality

products/services, promoting global operations, use of technology or innovation, affordability of

products/services, emphasis on ethical behavior, and the emphasis on profits and safety (tie at 12%

each). It is interesting to note that the emphasis on ethical behavior increased significantly since

2001 when only 3% of the missions included this very important goal. Perhaps the passage of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002 provided an incentive to firms to increase awareness of the

importance of ethical behavior in all business operations. The 2016 figures show that an emphasis

on ethics is a very important goal as it now appears in 16% of the statements.

There are many differences in the goals and objectives of the largest corporations over this

15-year period. However, there is one similarity between 2001 and 2016 and that is the desire to

produce a quality product or service. This goal ranks as number one on the frequency lists for both

Global Journal of Business Pedagogy Volume 3, Number 1, 2019
73

years. In 2011, 25% of the firms mentioned the quality concept. This figure increased significantly

in 2016 to 37% of the companies. The second most indicated goal in 2001 was the adherence to a

set of core values. The importance of including core values in the firm’s mission has decreased

significantly as they are mentioned by only four firms in 2016. The second most frequently

mentioned goal in 2016 was the desire to conduct operations on a global basis. Given today’s level

of technology, even small firms can market their products around the world.

The third most included goal in 2001 was the desire to be in a leadership position and was

cited in the missions of 17 companies. The goal of maintaining a leadership position decreased

significantly in 2016 being included in only six mission statements. For 2016, the third most

identified goal was innovation in order to stimulate business operations and satisfy changing

customer needs and wants. Innovation and modern technology was mention by 22% of the Fortune

100 group in 2016.

An emphasis on global operations was the fourth most mentioned goal in 2011 (15%). The

frequency of emphasizing global operations increased significantly in 2016 with 26% of the

companies including this as an identified goal (second only to quality). As mentioned above, the

goal of continuous innovation and use of modern technology in firm operations increased

significantly over this 15-year period. It jumped from the fifth most mentioned goal in 2001 (14%)

to third place in 2016 (22%). Finally, concern for the environment was the sixth most common

goal (9%) in the 2011 statements. Unfortunately, this vitally important goal dropped to the bottom

of the 2016 list as it was included in only 4 of the missions of that year. Possibly the firms are

taking for granted that they must be concerned for the environment and it is simply understood

that they must work on that goal.

It is interesting to note that there are several goals that were included in 2016 missions but

did not appear 15 years earlier. Mission statement content has evolved with the constantly

changing business environment. There are five goals or objectives that were included in the 2016

missions but were absent from those of 2001. In particular, affordability or affordable products or

services, safe products or services and/or safe working conditions, growth or expansion, efficiency

and/or effectiveness, and loyalty and/or trust were included in several of the 2016 missions.

Affordability or affordable products was the most frequently mentioned of the five newly

added goals with 17 of the 100 missions containing this objective. An example comes from Freddie

Mac who states “Our statutory mission is to provide liquidity, stability and affordability to the U.S.

housing market.” The goal of producing a safe product or service and maintaining a safe working

environment for employees was mentioned in 12% of the 2016 missions (equal to profits goal) in

2016. A portion of FedEx’s mission states “Safety will be the first consideration in all operations.”

The final three goals that were new to the list included growth or expansion, efficiency or

effectiveness, and loyalty or trust. These items were mentioned less frequently than affordability

and safety with only 8%, 6%, and 5% frequency respectively. Citigroup’s mission states “Citi’s

mission is to serve as a trusted partner to our clients by responsibly providing financial services

that enable growth and economic progress.” Another example involving loyalty or trust comes

from New York Life Insurance. A portion of their mission states “By acting with integrity and

humanity, we earn their (customers) loyalty and trust.”

Table 4 provides some interesting changes in mission statement content over the past 15

years. In addition to the 2001 and 2016 studies, the authors also conducted mission statement

analysis of the largest 100 firms in 2008, 2010, and 2011. The results of these studies were not

included in this paper. However, a quick overview of the five studies show that customers have

always been the most frequently mention stakeholder increasing consistently over the period.

Global Journal of Business Pedagogy Volume 3, Number 1, 2019
74

Production of a quality product or service has consistently been the most frequently included goal

over the years peaking at 56% in 2010 (down to 37% in 2016). The mention of stockholders in

mission statements have been consistently decreasing over the period dropping from 34% to 17%.

Concern over ethics and ethical behavior peaked in 2008 with 30% frequency and decreasing to

only 16% in 2016. Finally, the production of a quality product or service has consistently been a

primary goal or objective over the 15 year period. However, the current inclusion rate of 37% has

decreased significantly from prior years (52% in 2008, 56% in 2010, and 44% in 2011).

CONCLUSION

Mission statements are a primary communications devise for the business to inform all

stakeholders of, as Peter Drucker stated, “what is the firm all about and what do they want to

become.” The authors have reviewed Fortune 100 mission statements on five separate occasions

since 2001. The first and last study completed in 2001 and 2016 were discussed in this paper.

Mission statement content has been studied from two aspects. First, what stakeholders are

important enough to include in the published statement? These are typically groups such as

customers, employees, and stockholders. Second, what are the goals and objectives that are most

significant to the organization? These often have included production of a quality good or service

and a desire to conduct business on a global scale or be a world leader in the industry. A number

of interesting points can be gleaned from a review of Tables 3 and 4 presented above. Some

stakeholders and goals are frequently included in mission statements over the years while others

gain and lose importance over time. Mission statements, no doubt, will continue to be an important

communication device for the organization in order to provide vital information to all stakeholder

groups.

REFERENCES

Certo, S.C. and S.T. (2012). Modern Management: Concepts and Skills (Twelfth Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Pearson

Prentice Hall.

David, F.R. (2005). Strategic Management: Concepts and Cases (Tenth Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson

Prentice Hall.

David, F.R. (2009). Strategic Management: Concepts and Cases (Twelfth Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson

Prentice Hall.

Drucker, P. (1974). Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, and Practices. New York, NY: Harper & Roe.

Drucker, P. (1993). The Five Most Important Questions You Will Ever Ask About Your

Organization, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Publishing.

Hitt, M.A., Black, J.S. & Porter, L.W. (2012). Management (Third Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson

Prentice Hall.
King, D.L. (2001). Mission Statement Content Analysis. Academy of Managerial Communications Journal, 5(1,2),

75

-100.

McKee, A. (2012). Management: A Focus on Leaders. Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Pearce, J. and David, F. (1989). “The Bottom Line on Corporate Mission Statements”, Academy of Management

Executive 1, 2 (May 1987): 109.

Rarick, C. and Vitton, J. (1995). Mission Statements Make Sense. Journal of Business Strategy, 1, 11-12.

Schermerhorn, J., Osborn, R., Uhl-Bien, M., Hunt, J. (2012). Organizational Behavior. Danvers, MA; John Wiley &

Sons.

Thompson, A., Peteraf, M., Gamble, J., and Strickland, A. (2012). Crafting & Executing Strategy (Eighteenth

Edition). New York, NY; McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Verma, H. (2010). Mission Statements- A study of Intent and Influence. Journal of Services

Research, 9(2), 169-171.

Global Journal of Business Pedagogy Volume 3, Number 1, 2019
75

Wheelen, T. and Hunger, J. (2010). Strategic Management and Business Policy (Twelfth Edition). Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

APPENDIX

Table 1

2001 Fortune 100 Mission Statements

Stakeholders Percent Goal/Objective

Percent

Customers 61 Quality 25

Stockholders 34 Core Values 25

Employees 21 Leadership 17

Competitors 9 Global 15

Suppliers 6 Technology (Innovation) 14

Communities 6 Environmental 9

Government 2 Profits 6

Ethics 3

Table 2

2016 Fortune 100 Mission Statements

Stakeholders Percent Goal/Objective Percent

Customers 73 Quality 37

Communities 22 Global 26

Employees 20 Technology (Innovation) 22

Stockholders 17 Affordable 17

Suppliers 9 Ethics 16

Governments 7 Profits 12

Competitors 0 Safety/Safe Products 12

Growth/Expansion 8

Efficiency/Effectiveness 6

Leadership 6

Loyalty/Trust 5

Environments 4

Core Values 4

Table 3

2001 and 2016 Fortune 100 Mission Statements: Stakeholders

Stakeholders 2001 Percent 2016 Percent

Customers 61 73

Stockholders 34 17

Employees 21 20

Competitors 9 0

Suppliers 6 9

Communities 6 22

Government 2 7

Global Journal of Business Pedagogy Volume 3, Number 1, 2019

76

Table 4

2001 and 2016 Fortune 100 Mission Statements: Goals/Objectives

Goal/Objective 2001 Percent Goal/Objective 2016

Percent

Quality 25 Quality 37

Core Values 25 Global 26

Leadership 17 Technology (Innovation) 22

Global 15 Affordable 17

Technology (Innovation) 14 Ethics 16

Environmental 9 Profits 12

Profits 6 Safety/Safe Products 12

Ethics 3 Growth/Expansion 8

Efficiency/Effectiveness 6
Leadership 6
Loyalty/Trust 5
Environments 4
Core Values 4

Global Journal of Business Pedagogy Volume 3, Number 1, 2019

77

Copyright of Global Journal of Business Pedagogy (GJBP) is the property of Institute for
Global Business Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

MISSION STATEMENTS AND VISION STATEMENTS:

EXAMINING THE RELATIONSHIP TOWARD

PERFORMANCE OUTCOMES

Jerry Allison, University of Mount Olive

ABSTRACT

This paper examines

7

9

8

firms with mission statements and vision statements to show there
are relationships between the two and posits that strong relationships produced greater
organizational performance. Using the taxonomies of Allison (

2

0

1

7a), Allison (

20

17

b), and an
extension of the latter developed in this paper, the statements are classified into their taxonomic
groups and then analyzed statistically. The results surprisingly show a single strong link between
one type of mission statement and one type of vision statement. This paper then discusses how
such a relationship may result in superior performance outcomes. Consequently, this paper
significantly contributes to theory by finding a specific relationship between statements, discussing
why some firms have this relationship, and then extending this discussion to organizational
performance.

INTRODUCTION

Mission statements have been a frequently studied topic (Vizeu & Matitz, 201

3

). Also
frequently studied has been the topic of vision by virtue of it being a major component of other
subjects such as leadership and strategic management. However, vision statements as a codified
document have not been studied as much as mission statements. Nevertheless, because both
statements are text, rigorous study of them has been arguably difficult. It has been the increase in
computing power that has led to the development of techniques to analyze text such as text
analytics.

Text analytics has provided as way in which to analyze mission statements and vision
statements without researcher bias. Allison (2017a) provided a natural language taxonomy of
vision statements while Allison (2017b) provided a natural language taxonomy of mission
statements. Because the mission and vision statements are from the same organizations, it may be
possible to find relationships between the two and make some conclusions about performance
outcomes. That is why this paper exists.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationships between mission and vision
statements from the same organizations and to determine if there are organizational performance
outcomes from those relationships. The uniqueness of this paper is that it utilizes the natural
language taxonomies of textual constructs to study the relationships between those constructs.
Additionally, in order to study these relationships this paper extends the three-class taxonomy of
mission statements provided by Allison (2017b) by dividing the three parent classes into 20 child
classes. Finally, this paper significantly contributes to theory by developing and testing two
hypotheses that show there are relationships between types of mission statements and types of
vision statements and extending these findings to conclusions about performance.

Global Journal of Managment and Marketing Volume 3, Number 1, 20

19

1

LITERATURE REVIEW

Mission Statements
One of the first topics found in many strategic management textbooks is that of the mission

statement (e.g. Hill, Jones, & Schilling, 201

5

; Grant, 2008). Correspondingly, mission statements
have become a commonly studied tool in research (Vizeu & Matitz, 20

13

). With all the attention
brought to the topic, a common definition of mission statement is not to be found. Two general
perspectives emerge from the literature. The first is that a mission statement is a “container” that
holds several different statements in it. For example, Powers (20

12

) states that a mission statement
consists of mission, values, vision, and philosophy while Rajasekar (2013) adds internal and
external analysis, strategy implementation, and strategy evaluation. The second perspective is that
a mission statement is a statement of why the firm exists (e.g. Ganu, 2013; David & David, 2008).
This simpler definition is what this paper accepts as the definition. In order to discover a
relationship between mission and vision statements, the first cannot contain the second or the
findings are convoluted. Also, some firms have mission statements but do not have vision
statements. In order to determine a relationship between the two, a company will need to have
both, implying the narrower definition of mission statement is needed.

Research into mission statements has focused upon three areas. One prevalent focus has
been upon what a mission statement should contain. Some research has been performed to
examine included strategic issues such as strategic differentiation (Finley, Rogers, & Galloway,
2001) and strategic purpose (Perfetto, Holland, Davis, & Fedynigh, 2013; Orwig & Finney, 2007).
Other research has been performed to examine content such as firm customers (Peyrefitte & David,
200

6

), diversity (Barkus & Glassman, 2008), and marketing information (Anitsal, Anitsal, &
Girard, 2012; Anitsal, Anitsal, & Girard, 2013). Other research has been performed to determine
what should be in a mission statement (e.g. Alshameri, Greene & Srivastava, 2012; Pearce &
David, 1987; King, Case & Premo, 2012; King, Case & Premo, 201

4

). This latter research has
more prescriptive to create a mission statement that creates some form of advantage for the firm.

A second area upon which mission statement research has focused is as a communication
tool. Mission statements have been shown to be a tool to communicate meaning to a receiver (Sufi
& Lyons, 2003; Nous, 20

15

) but that meaning should be conveyed both to internal and external
stakeholders directly (Amato & Amato, 2002; Biloslavo, 2004; King, Case & Premo, 2013).
Additionally, the communication to internal stakeholders is vital for the mission statement to be
put into practice (Analoui & Karami, 2002; Rajeasekar, 2013). However, some firms take mission
statements further than just a statement of strategic existence. Some firms have used the mission
statement as a means to create organizational impression management to build an image in the
receiver’s mind (David & David, 2003; Peyrefitte, 2012; Khalifa, 20

11

).

Research has focused on a third area of mission statements by examining the link between
the statement and organizational performance. Several studies have found a relationship between
the statement and organizational performance (e.g. Bart & Hupfer, 2004; Sheaffer, Landau &
Drori, 2008; Alavi & Karami, 2009; Erol & Kanbur, 20

14

). However, other studies have shown
no relationship between mission statements and performance (e.g. Sufi & Lyons, 2003; Alawneh,
2015). The discrepancy in findings begs the question of what is occurring to produce such results.
One explanation may lie in how, or if, the mission statement is communicated to the organization.
As stated previously, the mission statement must be communicated and adopted by internal
stakeholders in order for the statement to be effective.

Global Journal of Managment and Marketing Volume 3, Number 1, 2019

2

Vision Statements
The literature written about vision statements is as murky as that of mission statements.

Much of the ambiguity rests in how the topic is approached. Research has occurred on vision
because the topic crosses the fields of strategic management, leadership, and organizational
behavior to name a few. In this view, vision has been defined very loosely as organizational
purpose, strategic intent, strategic goals, and a future state of the organization (e.g. Baum, 1994;
Kantabutra & Avery, 20

10

) while others define vision as simply the future image of the
organization (Brown, 1998; Carver, 2011). However, this organizational vision is ineffective
unless it is communication properly to stakeholders (Baum, 1994; Kantabutra & Avery, 2010;
O’Connell, Hickerson, & Pillutla, 2011) and accepted by stakeholders (Slack, Orife, & Anderson,
2010). One potential way of communicating the vision is through a vision statement.

This paper focuses upon the vision statement as a written communication of organizational
vision. Similar to mission statements, vision statements have also been researched in three areas.
One obvious area is the relationship between a vision statement and organizational performance.
Vision statements have been found to create goals for employees that create better employee
effectiveness and through that customer satisfaction (Kantabutra & Avery, 2010). Organizational
effectiveness can also be enhanced through the use of organizational impression management via
vision statements (Price, 2012). However, all of the positive effects are negated and can be
reversed if the vision statement is just a collection of words and not implemented (Lucas, 1998).

A second area of research has been upon the content of vision statements. Brown (1998)
stated that most vision statements were poorly written or had no focus. Since that time, whether
coincidentally or not, some research has focused upon the elements that need to be within a vision
statement. Some have focused on the length of time (Brown, 1998) while others have focused
upon the statement containing motivating and challenging goals (e.g. Lucas, 1998; MacLeod,
20

16

; Meade & Rogers, 2001). MacLeod (2016) also adds the caveat that the content of the
statement is irrelevant if the vision is not taken seriously.

The final area of study for vision statements is how these are implemented. Some of this
research has been focused upon ensuring the statement is communicated to internal stakeholders
in order to guide their actions (Lucas, 1998; Payne, Blackbourn, Hamilton, & Cox, 1994).
Kantabutra and Avery (2010) take this notion further and investigate how the statement can be
communicated in order to enhance its effectiveness.

HYPOTHESES

This paper has defined mission statements and vision statements to be separate, individual

statements conveying two different aspects of an organization. This definition was a necessity in
order to focus upon each of those for analysis. However, the literature does not always distinguish
between the two. Some research has tied the two together (e.g. Braun, Wesche, Frey, Weisweiler,
& Peus, 2012; Matejka, Kurke, & Gregory, 1993; Powers, 2012; Rajasekar, 2013; Baum, 1994).
Similarly, strategic management textbooks have considered mission statements to be a “container”
in which mission, vision, values, and other proclamations are kept (e.g. Hill, et al. 2015). Thus,
research does not have clearly defined boundaries for mission and vision. If research cannot keep
the two separate, then practitioners may have an equally difficult time separating the two. This
situation is lamented by Kantabutra and Avery (2010). Thus, when firms are considering creating
these statements, they may be created at the same time, implying a consistent theme during
creation.

Global Journal of Managment and Marketing Volume 3, Number 1, 2019
3

Braun et al (2012) created an extended model of the process of creating the mission
“container” in order to achieve positive organizational results. This model emphasizes the creation
of the statements should be done concurrently. Strategic management texts (e.g. Grant, 2008; Hill,
et al 2015) often place these statements together in the subject presentation, implying these go
hand-in-hand and should be developed at the same time. It is not a far stretch to say that statements
developed at the same time are going to be similar.

Erol and Kanbur (2014) state mission statements and vision statements are pictures of
organizational capability. Fairhurst, Jordan, and Neuwirth (1997) go further and state that these
statements are interdependent so that they project the same organizational characteristics, just in
their own way. Unity of purpose through the use of these statements is one way of meeting
objectives (Gurley, Peters, Collins, & Fifolt, 2015). This unity through these statements can only
be met if the statements themselves are unified. Unity in the statements can only be achieved if
similar or related wording is used in the statements.

Thus, using a taxonomy based on the language in the statements, the conclusion is that an
organization’s mission type and vision type are related. Thus, the following hypothesis can be
made:

Hypothesis 1: There is a significant relationship between the type of mission statement an
organization chooses and the type of vision statement an organization chooses.

Chun and Davies (2001) state companies do not pay enough attention to content in mission

statements. In a similar notion, most vision statements are poorly written (Brown, 1998). Some
organizations do not seem to put the necessary effort into creating these documents to become a
vital component of the organization (Lucas, 1998). Part of the reason for this may be the
organizations do not understand the important nature of these statements. As a natural
consequence, many vision statements are written simply because it is something to do (MacLeod,
2016) and the same conclusion can be made for mission statements (King, et al, 2011).

Because many organizations do not put effort into creating mission and vision statements
but also are encouraged to create them, it would be natural for these organizations to examine
statements from similar firms and either use those as templates. This last statement may be
corroborated in the literature. Firmin and Gilson (2010) found common themes in mission
statements for colleges. Peyrefitte and David (2006) found similarities in mission statements
across industry boundaries. Thus, there may be duplication of types of mission statements and
vision statements due to “copying”.

Because of this “copying”, common organizations would then have the same type of
mission statements and the same type of vision statements. Thus, there should be a relationship
between some mission statement types and some vision statement types. The following hypothesis
can then be made.

Hypothesis 2: There is a relationship between at least one mission statement type and vision
statements type.

METHODOLOGY

One way to test for any relationship between vision statements and mission statements is
to adopt a classification system for both. Both of these constructs have taxonomies developed.

Global Journal of Managment and Marketing Volume 3, Number 1, 2019
4

Allison (2017a) developed a taxonomy for vision statements while Allison (2017b) developed a
taxonomy for mission statements. Each of these is discussed in turn.

Allison (2017a) developed a taxonomy for vision statements where there are two parent
classes and several child classes. The two parent classes are called Spatially Oriented statements
and Achievementcentric statements. The Spatially Oriented class has eight child classes and the
Achievementcentric class has nine child classes.

The vision statement taxonomy of Allison (2017a) has been chosen for several reasons.
First, as of the writing of this paper, it may be the only detailed taxonomy of vision statements in
existence. Second, this taxonomy was created by using the natural language of 798 vision
statements themselves rather than using predetermined classes. This methodology of using natural
language may be a far superior method because the classification relies on characteristics in the
data rather than potential researcher bias (Duarte & Sarkar, 2011; Kuo-Chung & Li-Fang, 2004).
Finally, the methodology of determining the taxonomy was rigorous within the framework just
described. This process started with creating classes from the basic data, using that classification
to determine rules for classification, and then using those rules to classify the data again to
determine a misclassification rate. The parameters of the text analytics software were altered
individually to find the lowest misclassification rate. Misclassification rate was chosen because
the rules developed by the software would be used to classify statements not in the original data.

Allison (2017b) developed a taxonomy for mission statements consisting of three parent
groups: the Producers, the Partners, and the Promoters. This taxonomy was developed using the
mission statements from the same 798 organizations as the vision statements. This taxonomy was
chosen for this study for the same reasons as for the vision statement taxonomy since the same
process was used. The one negative aspect of this taxonomy is that no child classes were developed
for the three parent classes. In order to draw comparisons between the vision statements classes
and the mission statements classes, the mission statement child classes needed to be developed.

Thus, for this paper, the mission statements were divided based upon the parent classes
mentioned previously. For each separate parent class data set, a partition called an unsupervised
classification was derived. From this unsupervised classification rules were derived for the
classification scheme. These rules were then applied to the original parent data set so that a
misclassification rate could be determined. Once the process was created, each parameter was
altered one by one until a minimum misclassification rate was found. The classification of each
of the parent classes was found using this method. The Producers parent class broke up into four
child classes. The Partners parent class divided into twelve child classes. Finally, the Promoters
parent class separated into six child classes. The child classes are described in Appendix 1. The
rules used to classify mission statements are found in Appendices 2 through 5.

Hypothesis 1

The test for Hypothesis 1 used the same sample that formed the mission statement
taxonomy of Allison (2017b) plus the child classes developed here and the vision statement
taxonomy of Allison (2017a). The test was conducted on two different levels. First, the parent
classes for each type of statement were tested to determine if there is a relationship. Second, the
child classes of the parent classes were also tested for a relationship.

For the first test using the parent classes, the Producers, Partners, and Promoters classes of
the mission statement taxonomy were compared to the Spatial Oriented class and the
Achievementcentric classes of the vision statement taxonomy. This data is nominal data, so the
test to be used in this case is the Chi-Square test for independence (Donnelly, 2015; Bluman, 2015).

Global Journal of Managment and Marketing Volume 3, Number 1, 2019
5

This test has been used in other research testing such as business type and lean manufacturing
usage (Nallusamy, 2016), testing consumer organic produce purchases compared with geographic
region (Mrinia & Maharjan, 2015), and testing the relationship of restaurant layout and ambience
(Jana & Chatterjee, 2014).

The Chi-Square test depends upon the cells in the cross tabulation of the variables having
an expected frequency of five or more. Thus, it was imperative to run a frequency table to find
out how many statements are in each of the cells. The frequency table is shown in Table 1.

Since no cell has an expected count of less than five, the Chi-Square test was performed to
determine if there is some form of relationship between the mission statement parent types and the
vision statement parent types. The results are shown in Table 2.

Table 1: Crosstabulation of the parent classes for mission and vision statements
Vision Parent Name Total

Achievement Spatial

Mission Parent
Name

Partners
Count 139 91 230
Expected Count 140.7 89.3 230.0

Producers
Count 225 163 388
Expected Count 237.3 150.7 388.0

Promoters
Count 124 56

18

0
Expected Count 110.1 69.9 180.0

Total
Count 488 310 798
Expected Count 488.0 310.0 798.0

Table 2: The results of the Chi-Square test of mission and vision

statement parent classes
Value Degrees of

Freedom
Significance

Pearson Chi-Square 6.

21

9a 2 .045
Likelihood Ratio 6.339 2 .042
Number of Valid Cases 798

The Chi-Square test had a p-value of less than 0.05 indicating the test had a significant
result. The results show there is support for Hypothesis 1 on the parent level, that there is a
relationship between the type of mission statement and type of vision statement chosen by an
organization.

The second level of testing was on the child level. Each child type was coded with the
hundreds place denoting the parent class and the tens and ones digits denoting the child class. For
example, a mission statement with a code of 305 meant the third parent class (Promoters) and the
fifth child class under it. A code of 112 meant the first parent class (Partners) and the twelfth child
class under it. Each of these codings were regarded as nominal data. However, when the
crosstabulation was created, there were many cells (343 out of 374) where the expected frequencies
in the cells were less than five. This is shown in Table 3.

Because there are cells that have an expected frequency of less than five, the Chi-Square
test can yield distorted results (Agresti & Finlay, 1997). Fisher’s exact test and its extensions are
designed for tables such as this that have cells of small expected frequencies; however the test was
designed for smaller tables and, when large tables are involved, the use of computational time and
resources can be unrealistic (Agresti & Finlay, 1997; Schlotzhauer, 2009). Because of the size of

Global Journal of Managment and Marketing Volume 3, Number 1, 2019
6

this table, computing resources were not available leaving the Monte Carlo simulation as the last
alternative.

The Monte Carlo simulation is a method for taking a test that can yield results that are
distorted and finding a more accurate result (Tuffery, 2011). The simulation takes a random
sample and runs the test on that sample. This is done many times, with the average of the results
becoming the simulation’s results. Research using the Monte Carlo simulation includes measuring
body absorption of chemicals (Van Landingham, Lawrence, & Shipp, 2004), creating a decision-
making tool for plant capacity expansion (Renna, 2013), and forecasting hotel occupancy
(Zakhary, Atiya, El-shishiny, & Gayar, 2011).

Table 3: Expected frequencies of mission child classes versus vision child classes

With these mission and vision statements, the simulation was run 10,000 times. The final
results are shown in Table 4. The 99% confidence interval for the p-value has an upper bound of
0.0005 indicating significance for this test. The Mantel-Haenszel statistic shows there was not a
significant difference in the results between each of the samples. The results of this test also show
a relationship between mission statement and vision statement child classes and even stronger
support for Hypothesis 1.

Table 4: Monte Carlo results for comparing mission and vision statement child classes
Statistic Degrees of Freedom Value Probability

Chi-square 336 513.0448 <0.0001 Likelihood Ratio 336 448.9864 <0.0001 Mantel-Haenszel 1 2.6737 0.1020 Phi coefficient 0.8018

Contingency coefficient 0.6256
Cramer’s V 0.2005

Global Journal of Managment and Marketing Volume 3, Number 1, 2019
7

Hypothesis 2
As with the previous hypothesis, the goal is to test the hypothesis on two levels. The first

level of testing was the parent level where there are three levels of mission statements and two
levels of vision statements. Because there are two levels of vision statements, the second
hypothesis can be tested using logistic regression with the two levels of vision statements being
the dependent variable and the levels of mission statements being the independent variable. Binary
logistic regression is applicable when there is a binary dependent variable and at least one
independent variable that is continuous, ordinal, or nominal (Tuffery, 2011). This method has
been used in other research such as classifying Norway Spruce Saw Logs (Jappinen & Beauregard,
2000) and in studying motorized versus non-motorized transportation in Ireland (Lawson,
McMorrow, & Ghosh, 2013). The model results are shown in Table 5.

Table 5: Likelihood Ratio Test Results for Global Null Hypothesis (Binary Logistic Regression)
Model -2 Log Likelihood Chi-Square DF Sig.

Intercept only 1066.223
Final 1060.241 5.9815 1 0.0145

Because the model is significant, the individual levels can then be examined. For this

analysis, a step-wise selection approach was used. The results of this are shown in Table 6.

Table 6: Level Significance Test Results (Binary Logistic Regression)
Parameter Vision Parent

Name
DF Estimate Standard

Error
Chi-

Square
Sig Exp(Est)

Intercept Spatial 1 -0.5574 0.0903 40.90 <.0001 0.561 Promoters Spatial 1 0.2176 0.0903 5.81 0.016 1.243

Only the third parent class of mission statements, the Promoters, had a significant result.

The table above tells us that the Promoters have a 24.3% greater chance of being identified with a
Spatially Oriented vision statement than the others. This is not to say the majority of Promoters
are assigned to Spatially Oriented vision statements. Table 1 shows that statement is not true. It
only shows there is a greater probability that it will happen. This finding supported Hypothesis 2
on the parent level.

Testing Hypothesis 2 on the child level requires using multinomial logistic regression.
Multinomial regression is similar to binary logistic regression except it allows for more than two
levels of a dependent variable (Tuffery,2011). Thus, the twenty levels of mission statements can
be tested against the 17 levels of vision statements. The results of the model test are in Table 7.

Table 7: Likelihood Ratio Test Results for Global Null Hypothesis (Multinomial Logistic Regression)

Model -2 Log Likelihood Chi-Square DF

Sig

Intercept only 4369.227

Final 4212.398 156.8295 48 <0.0001 Since the model itself is significant, the individual levels for mission statements can be

checked. The coding for mission statements was the same as for Hypothesis 1. Only three of the
levels for mission statements were significant – statements 301, 304, and 305. All of these are
from the Promoters parent class, the same class that was significant in the parent level test. The
results for the individual levels is shown in in Table 8.

Global Journal of Managment and Marketing Volume 3, Number 1, 2019
8

Table 8: Level Significance Test Results
(Multinomial Logistic Regression)

Effect DF Chi-
Square

Sig

Mission301 16 35.3427 0.0036
Mission304 16 39.8244 0.0008
Mission305 16 32.8455 0.0077

To further understand the results, one must look at the individual level results. These

results are found in Appendix 6. The table shows the mission 301 type is associated with the vision
types 105 and 107 about four times more often than other mission statements except the mission
304 type that is associated with the vision 107 type about 3.4 times more often than other mission
statements. The mission 301 type is also associated with the vision statement types 201, 202, 203,
206, and 207 at least 2.2 times more often than other mission statements except the mission
statement 304 type that is associated with vision 202 3.6 times more often and vision 207 4.2 times
more often. Finally, mission 305 is less often associated with vision 205 than other mission
statements by about 61%. Thus, most of the significant relative associations occur between the
third parent class of the mission statements (the Promoters statements) and the second vision
statement class (the Spatially Oriented statements), supporting the first test for Hypothesis 2. As
a result, there seems to be support for Hypothesis 2.

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

Hypothesis 1 was tested in two different ways. First, a Chi-Square test was run on the three

parent levels of mission statements and the two parent levels of vision statements. The test showed
significance, providing parent level support for Hypothesis 1. Because of small cell counts in
analyzing the child levels, the Chi-Square test could not be performed. However, because of the
magnitude of computations, the Fisher Exact test could not be performed either. Consequently, a
Monte Carlo simulation was used to take 10000 sample of the table, use the Chi-Square test, and
compose a confidence interval for the significance of the test. The confidence interval falls very
easily into the level of significance providing support for Hypothesis 1 on the child level.

Based on the two tests mentioned, there seems to be good support for the supposition there
is a general relationship between mission statements and vision statements. If there were no
relationship, then the pairings would occur at about the expected cell frequencies. Thus, there
seems to be some form of preferred linking of mission statements types and vision statement types.
But the specific relationship cannot be determined using these test. This is where hypothesis two
helps.

In order to find specific relationships between the mission statement types and the vision
statement types, two levels again were tested. On the parent level, since vision statements had two
levels, this could be used as the dependent variable of a binary logistic regression. The results of
the regression analysis showed a definite relationship between the third level of mission statements
– the Promoters – and the second level of vision statements – the Spatially Oriented statements.
This is not to say that the Promoters mostly pair with the Spatially Oriented statements. What the
results do say is the Promoters are more likely to pair with the Spatially Oriented statements than
other mission statements do. This provides support for Hypothesis 2 that there is a form of
relationship between the mission statement types and the vision statement types.

The second testing for specific relationships occurred on the child level. Because the
dependent variable, vision statement types, was extended to 17 levels rather than two, multinomial

Global Journal of Managment and Marketing Volume 3, Number 1, 2019
9

logistic regression was used. The results from this test corroborate the findings from the parent
test. The only significant mission statements came from the Promoters which is level three of the
mission statement parent taxonomy. Mission statements 301, 304, and 305 were significant and
related to vision statements in the Spatially Oriented group, the second parent level in the
taxonomy. This lends even more support for Hypothesis 2

The evidence appears to show a dependency relationship between the types of mission
statements and types of vision statements. Going even further, this dependency relationship seems
to be mostly isolated to three types of Promoter mission statements and their relationship to some
types of Spatially Oriented vision statements. As stated by the rationale for Hypothesis 2, these
links may be indicators that company has not paid attention to the substance of its statements and
instead may have “copied” its statements from other firms.

Finding there was a relationship between mission statements and vision statements was not
surprising. What is surprising is the lack of many relationships between types of mission
statements and types of vision statements. As stated in the groundwork laid for Hypothesis 1,
mission statements and vision statements are theoretically prepared at the same time and would
consequently should have a similar focus and wording. This similar focus and wording would
translate into similar taxonomic classes and produce a strong relationship between the classes.
However, that was not the case. This became evident when the generation of the taxonomies
created three parent classes for the mission statements and two parent classes for the vision
statements. If most organizations are maintaining a strong linkage between the mission statement
and the vision statement, then there should be the same number of taxonomic classes for mission
and vision statements and they should be strongly related. To make matters worse the test on the
parent level showed a stronger likelihood of Promoter mission statements being paired with
Spatially Oriented vision statements than any other statements. Again, if organizations generally
had a strong link between the mission and vision statements, then the results would have shown
much stronger linkages with more types involved. The tests on the child level showed few
relationships.

The implications of these findings is contrary to what authors of textbooks such as Hill, et
al (2015) and Grant (2008) have been teaching should be done. The general presumption by
researchers such as Braun, et al (2012) is that creation of these statements should be done
concurrently to maximize presentation of a common theme and to maximize positive organization
results. With the exception of the Promoter-Spatially Oriented linkage, there does not appear to
be any relationship between the statements. This may indicate the statements are created
independently of each other, whether in different time periods or by different people, without much
of a desire to link the two. The worst case scenario is the mission statement and the vision
statement present opposing paths for the organization.

This may explain some of the issues researchers have had in the past. Researchers such as
Analoui and Karami (2002), David and David (2003), Desmidt, Prinzie, and Decramer (2011), and
Sheaffer, et al (2008), show mission statements are definitely related to organization performance.
Other researchers such as Amato and Amato (2002), Calfee (1993), Khalifa (2011), and O’Gorman
and Doran (1999) claim there is tentative evidence at best to link mission statements to
performance. Similar disagreement exists on the vision statement side with Gulati (2016) and
Kantabutra and Avery (2010) showing there is a link between the statement and performance and
then Shamsi, et al (2015) saying there is no link. The studies demonstrating a positive influence
on performance may have included samples where the relationship between the mission statement
and vision statement was strong and promoted a boost to performance. The studies that did not

Global Journal of Managment and Marketing Volume 3, Number 1, 2019
10

show any influence on performance may well have had samples with weak or no relationship
between mission and vision statements and the opposing directions of these statements may have
helped eliminate any positive performance benefits.

Another discovery in these findings comes from the two types that paired together – the
Promoter mission statement type and the Spatially Oriented vision statement type. The Promoter
vision statements are focused upon raising the quality of life through treatment or education. This
seems to indicate health care firms and education organizations. These firms more likely also
adopted the Spatially Oriented vision statement that recognizes a spatial boundary for the firm’s
existence. The pairing of these two types of statements seems to be natural since health care
institutions and education institutions generally seek to improve their clientele, but are also
generally limited by geographic boundaries. Thus, the pairing is natural, whether because of
practical circumstances or intentional design. This finding supports Gulati’s (2016) finding that
when examining acute care hospitals, there was a significant relationship between effective vision
statements and performance.

Finally, the results here may be indicators illustrating each statement’s type upon
performance. For example, firms with Spatially Oriented vision statements may have better
performance than those firms with Achievementcentric vision statements. The first offers a
commitment to meets the needs of a geographic area while the second requires the firm to become
the best at some particular goal. This latter vision could introduce stress, anxiety, and negative
competition into the organization. Kantabutra and Avery (2010) state that vision statements work
best when the vision is shared and the vision has positive effects on all stakeholders. Additionally,
Long and Vickers-Koch (1994) state that vision statements work best when the focus is upon
customer needs, contrary to the Achievementcentric theme. Thus, there may be organizational
performance benefits to those firms adopting a Spatially Oriented vision statement.

Similarly, there may be performance benefits associated with some mission statement
types. The Producer statements focus on delivering products or services without much mention of
customers. The Partners statements concentrate on working with individuals for the development
of those same individuals. The Promoters concentrate on the quality of life through treatment or
education. Amato and Amato (2002) state that mission statements that emphasize the quality of
life (as do Promoters) connect with internal and external stakeholders and imply that there may be
a performance benefit. Bart and Hupfer (2004) note that mission statements with stakeholder
content have more of an impact on performance than other content, consequently minimizing the
effects of the Partners type of statement. Both of these seem to imply that positive stakeholder
content is beneficial in a mission statement and, as Braun, et al (2012) state, positive stakeholder
attitudes toward the mission statement create positive organizational outcomes. Thus, Partners
mission statements and Promoters mission statements may have performance benefits associated
with them more than the Producer statements. In terms of this study, the Promoter-Spatially
Oriented link found may be one of the strongest for creating organizational performance benefits.

LIMITATIONS

Every study has limitations and this one is no exception. One limitation is the reliance

upon the 798 documents that were collected. These documents were a convenience sample rather
than a random sample and, consequently, may not be representative of the population. As a result,
some of the findings may be more or even less significant than if a random sample were obtained.
Additionally, the sample may not have included firm statements that may have produced another

Global Journal of Managment and Marketing Volume 3, Number 1, 2019
11

type for either mission or vision statements. This lack of discovery may also have skewed the
results.

Another limitation is the data involved is nominal data rather than continuous data. The
statistical tests used for nominal data do not produce as distinct results as the tests for continuous
data. Thus, there is some ambiguity in the nominal test results and their interpretation. This is
especially true for the results of the logistic regression tests that can provide statistically significant
relative test results, but not absolute test results.

Finally, the data used for this study included all types of organizations, both for-profit and
not-for-profit. Some of the results might be clearer if the data were solely for-profit or solely not-
for-profit. Data within industries might have also painted a better picture of the results.

DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

The findings presented in this paper have several implications for research. This section

examines some of those ramifications to provide general direction for future research. The
taxonomies for mission statements and for vision statements can provide much needed help in
extending this research.

One area of potential research is to examine studies that examined one statement with some
organizational measure and determine if the same results extend to the other statement. For
example, Slack, et al (2010) determined vision was correlated with employee satisfaction. This
study could be performed again to determine if the corresponding mission type is correlated with
employee satisfaction. Another example is David and David (2003) who found higher financial
measures for firms that have well-crafted mission statements than for those that do not. The
question then arises as to whether this result would extend to vision statements as well, particularly
if the type of vision statement was paired with the corresponding type of mission statement.

Research such as David and David (2003); Desmidt, Prinzie, and Decramer (2011); Green
and Medlin (2003); and Sheaffer, et al (2008) show a relationship between a mission statement
and some measure of organizational performance. On the other hand, studies such as O’Gorman
and Duran (1999) and Calfee (1993) have shown no relationship and Erol and Kanbur (2014) have
shown a relationship in some and no relationship in others. These studies beg the question of why
the mixture of results. As mentioned in the last section, one possibility lies in whether companies
take their statements seriously. The results from this study seem to indicate there are mission-
vision pairings that are carelessly created. It may be possible to use the pairings as indicators of
which companies do not take their statements seriously. It may also provide a way of explaining
why there are so many divergent results in the literature.

The question also arises whether the types of mission statements and types of vision
statements are related to other types of organizational statements. For example, Allison (2015a)
developed a taxonomy for ethics statements and Allison (2015b) developed a taxonomy for values
statements. Since these statements all have taxonomies, it is now possible to determine if there is
a relationship between any and all of them. It would be necessary to find organizations that have
all the statements being tested.

Mission statements and vision statements have been identified as part of strategic
management and of strategic communication (Allison, 2017a; Allison, 2017b). These studies also
developed the natural language taxonomies used in this study. But language is an integral part of
organizational culture (Schein, 1983; Costanza, Balcksmith, Coats, and DeCostanza, 2015). It
may be possible to now determine if there is a relationship between the pairings of mission-vision

Global Journal of Managment and Marketing Volume 3, Number 1, 2019
12

types and the types of organizational culture. For example, it might be possible that Daher’s (2016)
mechanistic culture might be related to a particular mission-vision pairing or group of pairings
while the organic culture might be related to other pairings. The same study could be done on
Cameron and Quinn’s (2006) Clan, Adhocracy, Hierarchy, and Market types of culture.

SUMMARY

This purpose of this paper was to provide unique findings by examining mission and vision

statements using the taxonomies of Allison (2017a) and Allison (2017b) and how these
relationships affect performance. The mission statement taxonomy of Allison (2017b) had to be
extended in this paper to allow comparison of child classes of the respective statements. The goal
was to compare the parent classes of the two taxonomies and the child classes of the two
taxonomies in order to find relationships between them. Two hypotheses were generated that
proposed these relationships.

The importance of this paper lies in the results of the hypothesis tests. Both hypotheses
were supported by the tests at the parent level as well as the child level. As a result, it has been
established that there are specific relationships between the mission statement types and the vision
statement types, but not nearly as many as expected. The lack of a relationship between types of
mission and vision statements seems to indicate firms do not always strategically link the two and
may not gain performance synergies from such a linkage. In fact this paper suggests the close
linkage of the Promoter mission statement with the Spatially Oriented vision statement creates
superior performance in firms adopting those types.

Finally, this paper has contributed not only to the body of knowledge regarding mission
statements and vision statements but also to the fields of strategic management, strategic
communication, and quite possibly organizational culture. Unique taxonomies for the statements
were used for the first time to determine a relationship between these two textual constructs.
Knowing there is a way to measure these relationships and knowing there is a relationship between
these two constructs may help extend theory into areas not possible until now.

REFERENCES

Agresti, A. & Finlay, B. (1997). Statistical methods for the social sciences. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Alavi, M. T. & Karami, A. (2009). Managers of small and medium enterprises: Mission statement and enhanced

organizational performance. Journal of Management Development, 28(6), 555-562.
Allison, J. (2015a). Ethics Statements: A Taxonomy from Natural Language. Paper presented at the meeting of the

Christian Business Faculty Association in Virginia Beach, VA.
Allison, J. (2015b). Organization Values Statements: A Natural Language Taxonomy. Paper presented at the meeting

of the Christian Business Faculty Association in Virginia Beach, VA.
Allison, J. (2017a). A Vision Statement Taxonomy: Linking Strategic Management, Strategic Communication, and

Organizational Culture. Global Journal of Management and Marketing, 1(2), 1-18.
Allison, J. (2017b). Advancing Strategic Communication Through Mission Statements: Creation of a Natural

Language Taxonomy. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 16(3), 1-15.
Alshameri, F., Greene, G. R., Srivastava, M. (2012). Categorizing top Fortune 500 company mission and vision

statements via text mining. International Journal of Management & Information Systems, 16(3), 227-238.
Anitsal, M. M., Anitsal, I., & Girard, T. (2012). The core of retail mission statements: Top 100 retailers. Academy of

Strategic Management Journal, 11(1), 131-143.
Amato, C. H. & Amato, L. H. (2002). Corporate commitment to quality of life: Evidence from company mission

statements. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 14(4), 69-86.
Analoui, F. & Karami, A. (2002). CEOs and development of the meaningful mission statement. Corporate

Governance, 2(3), 13-20.

Global Journal of Managment and Marketing Volume 3, Number 1, 2019
13

Anitsal, I., Anitsal, M. M., Girard, T. (2013). Retail mission statements: Top 100 global retailers. Academy of
Strategic Management Journal, 12(1), 1-20.

Bart, C. K. & Hupfer, M. (2004). Mission statements in Canadian hospitals. Journal of Health Organization and
Management, 2(3), 92-110.

Bartkus, B. R. & Glassman, M. (2008). Do firms practice what they preach? The relationship between mission
statements and stakeholder management. Journal of Business Ethics, 83, 207-216.

Baum, J. R. (1994). The relation of traits, competencies, vision, motivation, and strategy to venture growth (Doctoral
dissertation). Available from the University of Maryland . (UMI No. 9526175)

Biloslavo, R. (2004). Web-based mission statements in Slovenian enterprises. Journal for East European
Management Studies, 9(3), 265-277.

Bluman, A. G. (2015). Elementary statistics: A step by step approach (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Braun, S., Wesche, J. S., Frey, D., Weisweiler, S., & Peus, C. (2012). Effectiveness of mission statements in

organizations – A review. Journal of Management & Organization, 18(4), 430-444.
Brown, M. G. (1998). Improving your organization’s vision. The Journal for Quality and Participation, 21(5), 18-

21.
Calfee, D. L. (1993). Get your mission statement working! Management Review, 82(1), 54-57.
Cameron, K. S. & Quinn, R. E. (2006). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on competing values

framework. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Carver, D. W. (2011). Influences of organizational vision on organizational effectiveness (Doctoral dissertation).

Available from ProQuest LLC. (UMI No. 3515012)
Chun, R. & Davies, G. (2001). E-reputation: The role of mission and vision statements in positioning strategy. Brand

Management, 8(4/5), 315-333.
Costanza, D. P., Blacksmith, N., Coats, M. R., Severt, J. B., & DeCostanza, A. H. (2015). The effect of adaptive

organizational culture on long-term survival. Journal of Business Psychology, 31, 361-381.
Daher, N. (2016). The relationships between organizational culture and organizational innovation. International

Journal of Business and Public Administration, 13(2), 1-15.
David, F. R. & David, F. R. (2003). It’s time to redraft your mission statement. The Journal of Business Strategy,

24(1), 11-14.
Desmidt, S., Prinzie, A., & Decramer, A. (2011). Looking for the value of mission statements: A meta-analysis of 20

years of research. Management Decision, 49(3), 468-483.
Donnelly, R. A. (2015). Business statistics. Boston: Pearson.
Duarte, V. & Sarkar, S. (2011). Separating the wheat from the chaff – a taxonomy of open innovation. European

Journal of Innovation Management, 14(4), 435-459.
Erol, Y. & Kanbur, E. (2014). Entrepreneurial characteristics of Turkey’s top 100 industrial enterprises according to

their mission and vision statements. Business and Economics Research Journal, 5(3), 149-165.
Fairhurst, G. T., Jordan, J. M., & Neuwirth, K. (1997). Why are we here? Managing the meaning of an organizational

mission statement. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 25(4), 243-263.
Finley, D. S., Rogers, G., & Galloway, J. R. (2001). Beyond the mission statement: Alternative futures for today’s

universities. Journal for Marketing for Higher Education, 10(4), 63-82.
Firmin, M. W. & Gilson, K. M. (2010). Mission statement analysis of CCCU member institutions. Christian Higher

Education, 9, 60-70.
Ganu, J. (2013). Institutional mission statements and attitudinal outcomes of selected faith-based tertiary institutions

in Ghana. Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 14(2), 20-30.
Grant, R. M. (2008). Contemporary Strategy Analysis (6th ed). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Green, K. W. & Medlin, B. (2003). The strategic planning process: The link between mission statement and

organizational performance, Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 2, 23-32.
Gulati, R. (2016). Vision statement quality and organizational performance in U.S. hospitals. Journal of Healthcare

Management, 61(5), 335-351.
Gurley, D. K., Peters, G. B., Collins, L., Fifolt, M. (2015). Mission, vision, values, and goals: An exploration of key

organizational statements and daily practice in schools. Journal of Educational Change, (16), 217-242.
Hill, C.W., Jones, G.R., & Schilling, M.A. (2015). Strategic management: An integrated approach (11th ed).

Stamford, CT: Cengage.
Jana, A. & Chatterjee, R. (2014). The effect of servicescape of casual restaurants on youths dining experience.

International Journal on Customer Relations, 2(2), 37-44.
Jappinen, A. & Beauregard, R. (2000). Comparing grade classification criteria for automatic sorting of Norway Spruce

saw logs. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 15(4), 464-471.

Global Journal of Managment and Marketing Volume 3, Number 1, 2019
14

Kantabutra, S. & Avery, G. C. (2010). The power of vision: Statements that resonate. Journal of Business Strategy,
31(1), 37-45.

Khalifa, A. S. (2011). Three F’s for the mission statement: what’s next? Journal of Strategy and Management, 4(1),
25-43.

King, D. L., Case, C. J., & Premo, K. M. (2011). A mission statement analysis comparing the United States and three
other English speaking counties. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 10(Special Issue), 21-45.

King, D. L., Case, C. J., & Premo, K. M. (2012). An international mission statement comparison: United States,
France, Germany, Japan, and China. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 11(2), 93-119.

King, D. L, Case, C. J., & Premo, K. M. (2013). 2012 mission statements: A ten country global analysis. Academy
of Strategic Management Journal, 12(1), 77-93.

King, D. L., Case, C. J., & Premo, K. M. (2014). Does company size affect mission statement content? Academy of
Strategic Management Journal, 13(1), 21-33.

Kuo-Chung, S. & Li-Fang, S. (2004). Taxonomy in logistics management: A resource-based perspective.
International Journal of Management, 21(2), 149-165.

Lawson, A. R., McMorrow, K., & Ghosh, B. (2013). Analysis of the non-motorized commuter journeys in major Irish
cities. Transport Policy, 27, 179-188.

Long, C. & Vickers-Koch, M. (1994). Creating a vision statement that is shared and works. The Journal for Quality
and Participation, 17(3), 74.

Lucas, J. R. (1998). Anatomy of a vision statement. Management Review, 87, 22-26.
MacLeod, L. (2016). Mission, vision and values statements: The physician leader’s role. Physician Leadership

Journal, 3(5), 18-25.
Matejka, K., Kurke, L. B., & Gregory, B. (1993). Mission impossible? Designing a great mission statement to ignite

your plans. Management Decision, 31(4), 34-37.
Nous, R. (2015). Building cathedrals: Mission statements in academic libraries. Library Leadership & Management,

29(4), 1-12.
Meade, L. M. & Rogers, K. J. (2001). Selecting critical business processes: A case study. Engineering Management

Journal, 13(4), 41-46.
Nallusamy, S. (2016). Frequency analysis of lean manufacturing system by different critical issues in Indian

automotive industries. Internation Journal of Engineering Research in Africa, 23, 181-187.
O’Connell, D., Hickerson, K., & Pillutla, A. (2011). Organizational visioning: An integrative review. Group &

Organization Management, 36(1), 103-125.
O’Gorman, C. & Doran, R. (1999). Mission statements in small and medium-sized businesses. Journal of Small

Business Management, 37(4), 59-66.
Orwig, B. & Finney, R. Z. (2007). Analysis of the mission statements of AACSB-accredited schools. Competitiveness

Review, 17(4), 261-273.
Payne, J. S., Blackbourn, J. M., Hamilton, L. E., & Cox, D. W. (1994). Make a vision statement work for you. The

Journal for Quality and Participation, 17(7), 52-54.
Pearce, J. A. & David, F. (1987). Corporate mission statements: The bottom line. The Academy of Management

Executive, 1(2), 109-116.
Perfetto, J. C., Holland, G., Davis, R., & Fedynich, L. (2013). A comparison of mission statements of national Blue

Ribbon schools and unacceptable Texas high schools. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 10(4), 289-
294.

Peyrefitte, J. (2012). The relationship between stakeholder communication in mission statements and shareholder
value. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 9(3), 28-40.

Peyrefitte, J. & David, F. R. (2006). A content analysis of the mission statements of United States firms in four
industries. International Journal of Management, 23(2), 296-301.

Powers, E. L. (2012). Organizational mission statement guidelines revisited. International Journal of Management
& Information Systems, 16(4), 281-290.

Price, W. H. (2012). Vision statement impact on organization strategic roles. Leadership & Organizational
Management Journal, 2012(1), 132-142.

Rajasekar, J. (2013). A comparative analysis of mission statement content and readability. Journal of Management
Policy and Practice, 14(6), 131-147.

Renna, P. (2013). Capacity investment decision by Monte Carlo approach in a cooperation network. International
Journal of Production Research, 51(21), 6455-6469.

Schein, E. H. (1983). The role of the founder in creating organizational culture. Organization Dynamics, Summer,
13-28.

Global Journal of Managment and Marketing Volume 3, Number 1, 2019
15

Shamsi, A. F., Panhwar, I., Ahmed, A., Ali, L., Faraz, M., Khoso, B., & Pasha, M. A. (2015). Reflection of vision
accomplishment through financial statements. Journal of Business Strategies, 9(2), 1-11.

Sheaffer, Z., Landau, D., & Drori, I. (2008). Mission statement and performance: An evidence of “Coming of Age”.
Organization Development Journal, 26(2), 49-62.

Singh, M. & Maharjan, K. L. (2015). The market for local organic produce in urban and semi-urban areas of Nepal:
A case study of Kathmandu valley and Chitwan district. Journal of Contemporary India Studies: Space and
Society, 5, 39-49.

Slack, F. J., Orife, J. N., & Anderson, F. P. (2010). Effects of commitment to corporate vision on employee satisfaction
with their organization: an empirical study in the United States. International Journal of Management, 27(3),
421-436.

Schlotzhauer, S. D. (2009). Elementary statistics using SAS. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
Sufi, T. & Lyons, H. (2003). Mission statements exposed. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality, 15(5),

255-262.
Tuffery, S. (2011). Data mining and statistics for decision making. West Sussex, UK: Wiley.
Van Landingham, C. B., Lawrence, G. A., & Shipp, A. M. (2004). Estimates of lifetime-absorbed daily doses from

the use of personal-care products containing polyacrylamide: A Monte Carlo analysis. Risk Analysis: An
International Journal, 24(3), 603-619.

Vizeu, F. & Matitz, Q. R. S. (2013). Organizational sacralization and discursive use of corporate mission statements.
Brazilian Administration Review, 10(2), 176-194.

Zakhary, A., Atiya, A. F., El-shishiny, H., & Gayar, N. E. (2011). Forecasting hotel arrivals and occupancy using
Monte Carlo simulation. Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, 10(4), 344-366.

APPENDIX 1

The child classes for the mission statement taxonomy. The key words are in descending order based on relevance.

Name of Class Key Words Description
Partners (Parent)
Child 1 – 101 Development, staff, systems,

management, project, training,
expectations

These statements focus on
working to develop people in
other organizations

Child 2 – 102 Cancer, patients, treatments, lives, help,
improve, solutions, develop

These statements focus upon
helping cancer victims live a
better life.

Child 3 – 103 Life, quality, world, well, building, work,
opportunities, seek, improve

These statements focus on
helping people create a better
quality of life

Child 4 – 104 Values, produce, drive, grow, leadership,
stakeholders, product, core, innovation,
profitably

These statements focus on
working with stakeholders to
grow the organization.

Child 5 – 105 Women, serve, businesses, members,
providing, growth, promote, dedicated,
opportunities, environment

These statements focus on
providing growth opportunities
for women

Child 6 – 106 Create, relationships, design, guests,
services, trusted, goal, world, customers,
leader

These statements focus on
generating relationships

Child 7 – 107 Programs, community, education,
children, students, focused, process,
families, lives, enhanced

These statements focus on
community programs to enrich
peoples’ lives

Child 8 – 108 Service, level, achieving, team, strive,
aim, deliver, vision, work, businesses,
goal

These statements focus on
accomplishing some
organizational goal

Child 9 – 109 Supply, chain, experience, delivering,
markets, solutions, offer, employee,
systems, best

These statements focus on
working with those inside the
organizational value chain

Global Journal of Managment and Marketing Volume 3, Number 1, 2019
16

Child 10 – 110 People, working, strive, brands, share,
meet, spirit, performance, work, live, help

These statements focus on
helping people where they need
help

Child 11 – 112 Company, growth, manner, leading, aim,
guests, meet, practices, standards,
building

These statements focus on
relationships through keeping
standards and regulations

Child 12 – 113 Industry, lead, value, leading, partner,
committed, trusted, profitability,
responsibility

These statements focus on
building trust and commitment

Producers (Parent)
Child 1 – 201 Customer, quality, deliver, business,

development, service, leader
These statements focus on
delivering products or services
that are high quality or the best in
the market

Child 2 – 202 Customers, excellence, shareholders,
value, needs, employees, providing

These statements focus on
delivering products or services
that create value for stakeholders
and customers

Child 3 – 203 Products, world, differentiated,
entertainment, consumer, information,
people, industry

These statements focus on
delivering products or services
that are unique

Child 4 – 204 Services, client, contracting, security,
clients, needs, class, software, individuals

These statements focus on
delivering products or services to
meet client needs

Promoters (parent)
Child 1 – 301 Health, research, improve, support,

promote, education, community, system,
excellence

These statements emphasize
health, education, and community
programs

Child 2 – 302 Technology, success, employees,
company, customer, development,
making, committed, needs

These statements emphasize need
fulfillment through technology

Child 3 – 303 Care, organization, providing, physicians,
quality, committed, business, customer

These statements emphasize
quality health care

Child 4 – 304 Communities, serve, healing, families,
spirit, healthcare, well-being, caring,
quality services

These statements emphasize
community well-being through
the healthcare system

Child 5 – 305 Mission, students, world, help, energy,
technology, innovation, life, growth,
learning, people

These statements emphasize
helping people learn and grow as
individuals

APPENDIX 2

The following are the rules by which mission statements are classified.

Parent Class Rules
Step 1: If any of the following are true, the mission statement is a Promoter. If none of these are true, go to Step 2.

a. The statement does not have the word “products”, does not have the words “customers” or
“customs”, and has “health” in the same statement.

b. The statement has “mission” or “missions”; does not have “customer” or “custom”; does not have
“products”; does not have “delivery”, “delivers”, or “deliver”; does not have “delivery”,
“delivers”, or “deliver”; and does not have “solutions” or “solution”.

c. The statement has the word “clients”, has either “achieves” or “achieve”, and does not have
“services”.

d. The statement has either “care” or “cares” and does not have “customs” or “customers”.

Global Journal of Managment and Marketing Volume 3, Number 1, 2019
17

e. The statement does not have “products”, it does not have “solution” or “solutions”, it does have
“technology”, and does not have “customs” or “customers”.

f. The statement does not have “products”, it does have “clients”, it does not have “solution” or
“solutions”, and it does not have “services”.

g. The statement does not have “value” and has “research”.
Step 2: If any of the following statements are true, the mission statement is one of the Partners statements. If none
of the statements are true, the mission statement is of the Producers class.

a. The statement contains “member”, “members”, “treatment”, “treatments”
b. The statement does not contain “mission” or “missions”, does not contain “products”, does contain

“people” or “peoples”, does not contain “solution” or “solutions”, does not contain “customs” or
“customer”, and does not contain “health”.

c. The statement does not contain “products”, does not contain “customs” or “customers”, and does contain
“industry”.

d. The statement contains “values” and it does not contain “customs” or “customers”.
e. The statement contains “run” or “runs” but not “value”.
f. The statement contains “program” or “programs” and it contains “skill” or “skills”.
g. The statement contains “steel” but not “communities”.
h. The statement does not contain “missions” or “mission” but does contain “women”.

APPENDIX 3

The rules for classifying mission statements of the Producers parent class

Step 1: If the rule below is true, the statement belongs to the second child class of the Producer statements: the
statement does not contain “customer” or “custom”, does contain “products”, and does not contain
“deliver” or “delivers”

Step 2: If the rule below is true, the statement belongs to the fourth child class of the Producer statements: the
statement does not contain “business”, it does not contain “improve” or “improved”, it does not contain
“growth”, it does not contain “customers” or “customs”, it does contain “services”, and it does not contain
“return” or “returns”.

Step 3: If any the rules below are true, the statement belongs to the first child class of the Producer statements.
Otherwise it belongs to the third child class.

a. The statement contains “solution” or “solutions”, it does not contain “customs” or “customers”, and it does
not contain “services”.

b. The statement contains “deliver” or “delivers”, it does not contain “customs” or “customers”, and it does
not contain “services”.

c. The statement contains “strive”, “strives”, or “strides” and it does not contain “services”.
d. The statement contains “business” and “development”.
e. The statement contains “natural” and does not contain “services”.
f. The statement contains “competitive” or “highest”.

APPENDIX 4

The rules for classifying mission statements of the Partners parent class

Step 1: If the following rule is true, then the statement belongs to the eleventh child class of the Partners statements:
the statement contains “company”.

Step 2: If the following rule is true, then the statement belongs to the seventh child class of the Partners statements:
the statement contains “program”, “programs”, “children”, or “community”.

Step 3: If the following rule is true, then the statement belongs to the eighth child class of the Partners statements:
the statement contains “service”, “achieving”, or “vision”.

Step 4: If either of the following rules are true, then the statement belongs to the ninth child class of the Partners
statements.

a. The statement contains “supply”.

Global Journal of Managment and Marketing Volume 3, Number 1, 2019
18

b. The statement does not contain “people” but does contain “experience”, “experienced”, or “experiences”.
Step 5: If the following rule is true, then the statement belongs to the twelfth child class of the Partners statements:

the statement does not have “people” but does have “industry”.
Step 6: If the following rule is true, then the statement belongs to the second child class of the Partners statements:

the statement contains “cancer”, “patients”, “patient”, “help”, or “helps”.
Step 7: If the following rule is true, then the statement belongs to the third child class of the Partners statement: the

statement contains “life”.
Step 8: If the following rule is true, then the statement belongs to the sixth child class of the Partners statements: the

statement contains “creates”, “created”, or “create” and does not contain “work” or “works”.
Step 9: If the following rule is true, then the statement belongs to the fifth child class of the Partners statements: the

statement contains “women”, “providing”, “committed”, “dedicated”, “members”, or “member”.
Step 10: If the following rule is true, then the statement belongs to the tenth child class of the Partners statements:

the statement contains “people”.
Step 11: If the following rule is true, then the statement belongs to the fourth child class of the Partners statements:

the statement contains “values”, “leadership”, “grow”, “grows”, or “innovation”. Otherwise the statement
belongs to the first child class.

APPENDIX 5

The rules for classifying mission statements of the Promoters parent class

Step 1: If the following rule is true, then the statement belongs to the second child class of the Partners statements:
the statement contains “customer”, “customers”, or “technology”.

Step 2: If the following rule is true, then the statement belongs to the third child class of the Partners statements:
the statement contains “client” or “clients”.

Step 3: If the following rule is true, then the statement belongs to the first child class of the Partners statements: the
statement contains “research”, “system”, “health”, or “healthy”

Step 4: If the following rule is true, then the statement belongs to the fifth class of the Partners statements: the
statement contains “communities”, “serves”, or “serve”.

Step 5: If the following rule is true, the statement belongs to the fourth child class of the Partners statements: the
statement contains “care” or “cares” but not “communities”. Otherwise, the statement is a member of the
sixth child class.

APPENDIX 6

These are the level results from the multinomial regression test. Significant variables are italicized.

Parameter Vision Type DF Estimate Standard
Error

Chi-Square Pr > ChiSq Exp(Est)

Intercept 209 1 -0.801 0.7951 1.01 0.3138 0.449
Intercept 208 1 -6.586 97.6404 0 0.9462 0.001
Intercept 207 1 -2.1272 0.9572 4.94 0.0263 0.119
Intercept 206 1 -11.6142 79.6047 0.02 0.884 0
Intercept 205 1 1.6301 0.6524 6.24 0.0125 5.105
Intercept 204 1 -16.2308 90.4946 0.03 0.8577 0
Intercept 203 1 -0.3522 0.7158 0.24 0.6227 0.703
Intercept 202 1 -6.9947 53.6228 0.02 0.8962 0.001
Intercept 201 1 -0.2671 0.6778 0.16 0.6935 0.766
Intercept 108 1 -7.0044 63.9246 0.01 0.9127 0.001
Intercept 107 1 -6.9952 56.0945 0.02 0.9008 0.001

Global Journal of Managment and Marketing Volume 3, Number 1, 2019
19

Intercept 106 1 -6.2706 63.1756 0.01 0.9209 0.002
Intercept 105 1 -6.4392 45.1482 0.02 0.8866 0.002
Intercept 104 1 -11.8502 89.7541 0.02 0.895 0
Intercept 103 1 -11.988 116.2 0.01 0.9178 0
Intercept 102 1 -11.0261 93.3427 0.01 0.906 0
Mission301 209 1 0.7982 0.4634 2.97 0.085 2.222
Mission301 208 1 6.0394 97.6374 0 0.9507 419.656
Mission301 207 1 1.2352 0.4579 7.28 0.007 3.439
Mission301 206 1 1.2909 0.5807 4.94 0.0262 3.636
Mission301 205 1 -0.4464 0.3933 1.29 0.2564 0.64
Mission301 204 1 6.1305 55.8566 0.01 0.9126 459.688
Mission301 203 1 0.8093 0.4128 3.84 0.0499 2.246
Mission301 202 1 1.4237 0.5798 6.03 0.0141 4.153
Mission301 201 1 0.9609 0.3832 6.29 0.0122 2.614
Mission301 108 1 6.1062 63.919 0.01 0.9239 448.622
Mission301 107 1 1.3777 0.5805 5.63 0.0176 3.966
Mission301 106 1 6.0688 63.1714 0.01 0.9235 432.154
Mission301 105 1 1.3873 0.5804 5.71 0.0168 4.004
Mission301 104 1 6.1185 63.919 0.01 0.9237 454.19
Mission301 103 1 6.1062 90.3947 0 0.9461 448.622
Mission301 102 1 0.3843 0.3914 0.96 0.3261 1.469
Mission304 209 1 0.4513 0.4399 1.05 0.3049 1.57
Mission304 208 1 0.2758 0.4941 0.31 0.5767 1.318
Mission304 207 1 1.4392 0.5961 5.83 0.0158 4.217
Mission304 206 1 5.763 50.47 0.01 0.9091 318.308
Mission304 205 1 -0.7332 0.4061 3.26 0.071 0.48
Mission304 204 1 5.7745 45.1419 0.02 0.8982 321.983
Mission304 203 1 0.6661 0.4371 2.32 0.1275 1.947
Mission304 202 1 1.2809 0.5975 4.6 0.0321 3.6
Mission304 201 1 0.6161 0.3832 2.58 0.1079 1.852
Mission304 108 1 1.112 0.5987 3.45 0.0633 3.04
Mission304 107 1 1.2355 0.5984 4.26 0.039 3.44
Mission304 106 1 1.0866 0.5991 3.29 0.0697 2.964
Mission304 105 1 5.7465 45.1419 0.02 0.8987 313.088
Mission304 104 1 1.1243 0.5986 3.53 0.0603 3.078
Mission304 103 1 5.7501 73.0542 0.01 0.9373 314.232
Mission304 102 1 5.7078 59.181 0.01 0.9232 301.2
Mission305 209 1 0.4523 0.5274 0.74 0.391 1.572
Mission305 208 1 0.414 0.6401 0.42 0.5178 1.513
Mission305 207 1 1.2317 0.6294 3.83 0.0504 3.427
Mission305 206 1 5.7566 61.5581 0.01 0.9255 316.279
Mission305 205 1 -0.9383 0.4551 4.25 0.0392 0.391
Mission305 204 1 5.7681 55.0595 0.01 0.9166 319.93
Mission305 203 1 0.2037 0.4468 0.21 0.6484 1.226

Global Journal of Managment and Marketing Volume 3, Number 1, 2019
20

Mission305 202 1 5.7506 53.6167 0.01 0.9146 314.373
Mission305 201 1 0.6139 0.4581 1.8 0.1802 1.848
Mission305 108 1 0.9102 0.6342 2.06 0.1512 2.485
Mission305 107 1 5.7489 56.0887 0.01 0.9184 313.843
Mission305 106 1 0.1879 0.4621 0.17 0.6842 1.207
Mission305 105 1 0.6918 0.5237 1.74 0.1865 1.997
Mission305 104 1 5.7561 63.0067 0.01 0.9272 316.104
Mission305 103 1 0.5625 0.6387 0.78 0.3784 1.755
Mission305 102 1 5.7014 72.1829 0.01 0.937 299.28

Global Journal of Managment and Marketing Volume 3, Number 1, 2019
21

Copyright of Global Journal of Management & Marketing (GJMM) is the property of Institute
for Global Business Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.