(c) A mission statement defines the overriding direction and purpose of an organisation. Some organisations also have vision
statements stating what the company aspires to. However, for the purpose of this answer, vision and mission are perceived
as largely the same thing. Mission statements have their critics, with many believing that they are bland and too wide-ranging.
There may be some truth in this view; after all there are only a limited number of ways that the words customer, quality and
leader can be re-arranged. However, most organisations appear to have settled into an approach where a short snappy slogan
or strap line is supported by a much deeper description of what the organisation is about, its stakeholders and how it wishes
to interact with those stakeholders. It defines how the organisation wants to do business. At the time of writing Virgin Atlantic
has three elements to its mission statement, all expanded into specific objectives on its website. To grow a profitable airline,
where people love to fly and where people love to work. Part of ACCA’s mission is to provide opportunity and access to people
of ability around the world and to support our members throughout their careers in accounting, business and finance.
If there is substantial disagreement within the organisation about its overall mission then there may be significant problems
in determining the strategic direction of the organisation. Defining a mission statement also provides an opportunity for the
organisation to communicate its core corporate values. These may be explicitly defined within the mission itself or they may
be in subsidiary statements, corporate reports or web resources. These values tell customers and suppliers how the
organisation wishes to operate. They represent the core values and principles that guide the organisations’ actions. These
could, for example, concern aspects of corporate social responsibility. The ACCA has core values of opportunity, diversity,
innovation, accountability and integrity.
One of the problems at Hammond Shoes appears to be that the core values of the organisation are implied, but not explicitly
stated. Originally, these were provided by the beliefs of the founding brothers – provision of education and housing for
employees, secure jobs and good working conditions. Privately, the family still have these principles but they have largely
failed to communicate and promote them. Commercial organisations with important core social values are increasingly rare.
The extent of this communication failure at Hammond Shoes even extends to the senior management of the company. Their
promotion of the potential benefits of outsourcing of production indicated a failure to understand that this would effectively
remove a significant part of the company’s reason for existence. Its core values include the provision of fair employment
opportunities for the people of Petatown and the reaction of the family to removing this central mission illustrates that this
value remains core to the continued existence of the company.
Thus the Hammond family should explicitly state their core values, perhaps as a detailed expansion of a short, clear mission
statement. This would allow the family to articulate its beliefs and communicate these to customers, suppliers and employees.
A number of writers on organisations use a MOST analysis to help understand the internal environment of an organisation.
MOST stands for Mission, Objectives, Strategy and Tactics. The aim of this analysis is to see whether the four facets actually
exist (checking for omission) and, if they do, whether they align. Objectives are statements of specific outcomes that the
organisation wishes to achieve. They are often expressed in financial terms, such as profit levels, turnover or dividend
distribution to shareholders. Marketing objectives are also very common; such as a target market share and customer service
provision. Johnson, Scholes and Whittington also believe that general, unquantifiable objectives are acceptable. They
recognise that objectives such as ‘being a leader in technology’ is important to state, but could be difficult to quantify and
may indeed encourage spurious quantification. In the context of Hammond Shoes, the company does appear to have certain
objectives, such as keeping production in Petatown and providing educational opportunities for employees. As Johnson,
Scholes and Whittington point out, ‘there are times when specific objectives are required’. This is when urgent action is
necessary, as at Hammond Shoes, when it becomes important for the management to focus on a limited number of
quantified, priority requirements and not waste their energies pursuing vaguely stated ones.
Furthermore, the existence of such objectives provides an opportunity for managers and employees throughout the
organisation to align their own work with stated objectives and so see how what they do contributes to objectives that, in
turn, serve the corporate mission. The company clearly fails to cascade objectives down through the organisation and, again,
at a period of crisis, this may be a significant weakness. For example, the core value of treating suppliers fairly could have
been enshrined within an objective of paying all suppliers within 30 days. The absence of this specific objective and hence
the impossibility of cascading it down to those responsible for cash flow management and payment has meant that this
section has imposed its own objective of extending payment terms as much as possible. Evidence suggests that they now
stand at over 60 days, so the company is failing to meet one of its core values – fairness to suppliers.
Hence, Hammond Shoes does not have a clearly defined mission or explicitly stated values. Its objectives are restricted and
rarely quantified. Its strategy is now under review, although it has made certain tactical decisions such as resisting outsourcing
and commissioning updated production facilities in Petatown. Thus in the MOST analysis, there are some elements omitted
and hence alignment is impossible. This needs to be addressed.
