Mike this is one of the clearest and best descriptions I’ve seen on this topic. I think it might also help to supplement it on a couple of points. Firstly is the importance of connecting emotionally. The best statements touch people emotionally, uplifting and inspiring them to be a part of something great and good.

Secondly, values are also about emotions. Values should be more than abstract concepts. By their nature values are how we feel about things, for or against, good or bad. So the second point I want to make is that all actions to achieve the mission should be evaluated by each acting individual as appropriate or inappropriate, go or no-go, against corporate values. Think about that. If all enterprises had socially acceptable values and based all behavior on those values, how would that have changed the outcomes of things like, for example, Enron Corporation, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, the financial derivatives market collapse, Toyota concealing owner reports of sudden acceleration (resulting in a USA man sentenced to prison) and the BP Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Horizon oil spill? These are some examples of why I think values and their purpose is essential to any discussion of vision and mission.

This is absolutely helpful. I hope a lot of people find the clarity of content very useful as I have. Thank you for a thoughtful job.

Mike, I Think nowadays we confuse doing the right thing and doing the things right.
THANKS FOR THIS GREAT POST.

Thanks for the comment and I'm glad you found the post helpful. Best wishes for continued success Sir.

I couldn't agree more with your assertions about the difference between doing the right thing and doing things right. While some confuse the two options, sadly many just opt for the easier way out. Thanks again for stopping by Sami.

This is probably one of the best posts I've read in months, Mike. I always had an idea of the difference, but this clarification is solid. Thanks heaps my friend!

Hi William:

Thanks for the kind words. Even when one intuitively understands the difference between the two, having some of the subtleties and practicalities addressed is always helpful. I glean a number of these types of insights from folks like yourself. Thanks for stopping by William.

Hi Mike, thanks for the explanation. I especially like the connection to the rest of the formula (Values -> Vision -> Mission -> Strategy-> Goals ->Objectives ->Tactics -> Resources, Infrastructure and Processes)

I’m finding it a bit vague though, any chance you could add an example showing specific difference between a vision and its associated mission (and actually, between Goals and Objectives) would be interesting too

Great stuff Mike with solid application. You make have a way of taking the complex and making it simple and practical.

We are refreshing our values in our organization which enhances our vision and mission.

Thanks for the reminders and refreshing us on what’s important.

I totally disagree. Mission is an enduring anchor that describes your fundamental reason for being, your essence or purpose. Vision is your story for an envisioned future that is consistent with your mission. Vision never drives mission.

Mike, Making the complexity simple is not the objectify of any vision or mission ?
Our responsibility is to respect the ethic.

Hi Laurie:

Thanks for your comment. The mission is present oriented and serves as a road map for the future oriented vision statement of where you want the organization to go. It is not uncommon to see both vision and mission statements change over time to reflect differences in market conditions.

A goal is a specific target and the objectives are the attainment components/benchmarks/hurdles which will lead you toward achieving said goal. Goal: Take that hill – Objectives: taking out the bunkers, machine gun nests, and other fortified positions that stand in your way of taking the hill. Tactics: the methods and means by which you assail the objectives.

Thanks Tom…Keeping thing simple is something I focus on. Thanks for the words of encouragement.

You are more than welcome to disagree with anything I say. In fact, that is what often stimulates great dialog in this forum. I agree with you on two points: 1) that vision is a future oriented statement which reflects the envisioned future of an organization, and 2) that the vision and mission must be in alignment with one another. I disagree with you that vision never drives mission. Furthermore, the enduring anchor of an organization is found in its values and ethics, not its mission. An organization's purpose often changes over time as advances in technology, changes in customer demands/preferences, etc. impact the competitive arena. While values and ethics remain consistent, delivery models must change with time to in order to endure. History is littered with defunct companies who failed to recognize this.

I love how we all use the same words in different ways! Mike, I love this post, but more agree with JBC's comment. Mission to me is why we bother to build the Vision. It is our higher purpose which, when coupled with Values, very much informs both the Vision and the Objectives/Strategies, and Tactics that form the road to achieving the Vision (in service of the Mission).

I agree that an organization's (and an individual's) Mission can change, either by evolution or revolution, but then everything else must be put on the table for re-examination.

So hear's the big learning: never assume we're meaning the same thing when we use similar words, or risk constructing a Tower of Babel!

Jumping into the conversation… I agree that mission and vision are not the same thing. It's also important to very clearly define our terms when working in an organization for the reason MPFriedman describes above.

When I work with a company, my first task is to come to define the terms so we are all speaking the same language, as most people use these words and mean different things. My personal opinion is that it doesn't matter what words you use, as long as everyone agrees on the meaning of the words you are using and the conceptual framework – in order to have a common ground for communication and the work at hand.

Having spent the past 20 years studying vision in organizations, I have come to the conclusion that "excellent" organizations have articulated three things (whatever you call them) and that their people understand them and their actions are aligned with them.

They are:

1) A significant purpose (some people might call this a mission) – the organization's reason for being. Not just their products and services, but the underlying reason that they exist – what do they really offer their customer. (e.g. the purpose for a window shade company might be "light control" and "privacy")

2) A picture of the future (some people might call this a vision) – a results-oriented picture of where they are going, what it will look like when their purpose is fulfilled. Not something vague, like being the best or number one, but clear like "putting a man on the moon before the end of the decade."

3) Clear values – the guidelines for daily behavior and decision-making. Knowing that safety was their number one value enabled J&J to make quick decision in the Tylenol tampering incident in.

My own definition of vision is:
Vision is knowing who you are (purpose), where you're going (picture of the future) and what will guide your journey (values).

My own opinion is that it really doesn't matter what you call these concepts as long as they are clearly articulated and embraced throughout the organization.

With these fundamentals in place, it is helpful to have a roadmap to outline the process for setting strategy and tactics. I like Mike's framework. However, I would say that Vision determines Strategy, which surfaces Goals that frame Objectives, which in turn drives the Tactics that tell an organization what Resources, Infrastructure and Processes.

Strategy and tactics might need to be adjusted as we proceed, but the vision should remain as a beacon. And if the light to the beacon goes out? Well, then you might need to do what Louis Gerstner did for IBM and first plug up the holes below the waterline and then set a new course entirely and create a new vision.

One last question: which comes first? the chicken or the egg? I'm not entirely in agreement that “Values should underpin Vision, which dictates Mission" When I work with companies, we work on the values last as the values need to support the organization's purpose or mission. For example, CNN is in the fast breaking news business, so they need values like "fast" and "accurate" to support their purpose. Disneyworld is in a different business and needs different values. And I hope the values of my lawn care company include "environmentally safe." So I always encourage leader to choose the values they believe are needed to drive the mission of the company, not just the ones that feel good.

Hi Mark

Thanks for the comment and the addition to the thought stream. While there are points of agreement, it seems that where we differ is on the role of mission. In my experience the vews held by you and JBC are not uncommon, I have just found them to be askew as it relates to what actually produces the best results. It wasn't that long ago that you'd be hard pressed to find an organziation that even had a vision statement, much less understood the value of them. Now you'll find virtually every Fortune 500 company has one. Moreover, in most cases the vision statement now serves to guide and focus the mission. Clearly some organizations still have them inverted (my opinion). Thanks for sharing Mark…

Hi Jesse:

We're definitely more aligned than not. Where you and I tend to differ is on the topic of how values enter the equation. One of the first things I'm interested in hearing from a client on this topic is an articulation of not only the core values, but also what the organization does not value. If a vision, mission and strategy are the foundation, then values are the cornerstone of the foundation. To attempt to create vision, mission and strategy first and then retrofit by adding values after the fact in support these endeavors leads to rationalizations and justifications to create a perceived alignment – big trouble. I'm not suggesting you can't do this, many do. I'm suggesting it produces less than optimal results. I'm guessing that we can hash and rehash this validating semantical differences, but definitions do matter, especially in areas of great importance. You and I agree on this. Thanks for sharing Jesse.

Hi Mike,

Yes, we are aligned. There have been times when I worked on values first. It depends on the situation. And that would be a much longer conversation.

I do want to clarify one thing, I consider mission (purpose), vision (picture of the future) and values to be central, whatever order they are clarified. When I said that Vision determines the strategy, I was operating from my own definition of vision (vision= purpose, picture and values). I wouldn't retrofit values after strategy.

Thanks again for your well-written and helpful post, Mike. I have enjoyed the conversations that it has elicited.

Thanks for the clarifications Jesse…I too have enjoyed the comments and perspectives thus far.

Jesse – excellent summary, and far more eloquent (with fewer typos!) than mine.

Often the Strategy Community is far more aligned than not, as Mike mentions, then we parse angels-on-a-pin discussions to create the appearance of major disagreement.

What’s interesting to me is that the discussions are almost ALWAYS worth having!

An enjoyable and clarifying conversation, indeed, Mark. And Mike, thanks, for providing the forum and moderating. I agree that the discussions are quite valuable.

Too many companies have statements framed on the walls or published in their marketing materials that have no connection to what is actually happening and gives no guidance to people to help with decision making. It doesn't matter whether they call it a mission statement or a vision statement if it's only for decoration.

When we engage in conversations defining these words, we are also giving life and meaning to them; which ultimately helps us to create plans that really work and strategies that really guide people, rather than engaging in an enjoyable planning activity, and then returning to work, checking "planning" off the to-do list, and getting back to the daily work of managing crises.

“Where there is no vision, the people perish.” I’ve tended to think this implies an enduring purpose, guided by a moral framework – values. Missions, I’ve thought, were a means to an end. Change them as you need, as often as necessary, but they must aim to fulfill the vision without compromise to the values. Therefore, I hear ya, Mike! Thanks for the post.

Hi Adam:

Thanks for the clarity contained in your comment. You and I are singing off the same sheet of music.

This framework scales down very well to my area of focus, projects and project management. The use of a project vision is what many projects are missing. The timescale for a project vision is shorter than at the organizational level, but it should be used to create the future-picture of what the project's results should look like.

Thanks for presenting this concept so well. Great post!

Mike thank you for the clarity and simplicity in this post.

This is a great explanation between the two of them for sure. I work in career management, and people confuse these two definitions all the time.