Mission: Defines the fundamental purpose of an organization or an enterprise, succinctly describing why it exists and what it does to achieve its Vision. Vision: Defines the desired or intended future state of an organization or enterprise in terms of its fundamental objective and/or strategic direction. Vision is a long term view, sometimes describing how the organization would like the world in which it operates to be. For example a charity working with the poor might have a vision statement which read "A world without poverty"
It is sometimes used to set out a 'picture' of the organization in the future. A vision statement provides inspiration, the basis for all the organization's planning. It could answer the question: "Where do we want to go?"
Values: Beliefs that are shared among the stakeholders of an organization. Values drive an organization's culture and priorities.
Get your grade
or your money back
using our Essay Writing Service!
Strategy: Strategy narrowly defined, means "the art of the general" (from Greek stratigos). A combination of the ends (goals) for which the firm is striving and the means (policies)by which it is seeking to get there.
Mission statements and vision statements
Organizations sometimes summarize goals and objectives into a mission statement and/or a vision statement. Others begin with a vision and mission and use them to formulate goals and objectives.
EValues - Imagine, solve, build and lead - four bold verbs that express what it is to be part of GE. Their action-oriented nature says something about who we are - and should serve to energize ourselves and our teams around leading change and driving performance.
For more than 125 years, GE has been admired for its performance and imaginative spirit. The businesses that we invent and build fuel the global economy and improve people's lives.
Today, we are 11 technology, services and financial businesses with more than 300,000 employees in 160 countries around the world.
What unifies us? Our Actions and Values.
What we do and how we work is distinctly GE. It's a way of thinking and working that has grounded our performance for decades. It's a way of talking about our work and ourselves that takes the best from our past and expresses it in the spirit and language of GE today.
It's about who we are, what we believe, where we're headed, how we'll get there. It's how we imagine, solve, build and lead.
From the very beginnings of our company, when Thomas Edison was changing the world with the power of ideas, GE has always stood for one capability above all others - the ability to imagine.
Imagine is a sense of possibility that allows for a freedom beyond mere invention. Imagine dares to be something greater.
At GE, Imagine is an invitation to dream and do things that you didn't know you could do.
Because at GE the act of imagining is fused with empowerment - the confidence that what we imagine, we can make happen.
Every business has to have a reason to exist - a reason that answers the fundamental question of "why are we here?"
For GE, the big question has a simple answer: We exist to solve problems - for our customers, our communities and societies, and for ourselves.
From 0 to 60 in six seconds? Try zero to $5 billion in five years.
It's not so much a vision for our future - where we're headed is in many ways a reflection of where we've already been. It's not a destination. It's a quest. A quest for growth. And when we look to the future, we know that for us, there's only one way to get there. Build.
Imagine. Solve. Build. Each of these is merely a word without one vital element. Lead.
GE is already synonymous with leadership. But with this mantle comes responsibility. And it's not just a responsibility to maintain the status quo or manage what worked yesterday. It's the bigger responsibility to change.
Because change is the essence of what it means to lead.
Always on Time
Marked to Standard
It's a call to action that engages our unceasing curiosity, our passion, and our drive to be first in everything that we do.
We Are a Company to Believe In.
Lead. xamples of my current companies mission statement is :-
While the existence of a shared mission is extremely useful, many strategy specialists question the requirement for a written mission statement. However, there are many models of strategic planning that start with mission statements, so it is useful to examine them here.
A Mission statement tells you the fundamental purpose of the organization. It defines the customer and the critical processes. It informs you of the desired level of performance.
A Vision statement outlines what the organization wants to be, or how it wants the world in which it operates to be. It concentrates on the future. It is a source of inspiration. It provides clear decision-making criteria.
An advantage of having a statement is that it creates value for those who get exposed to the statement, and those prospects are managers, employees and sometimes even customers. Statements create a sense of direction and opportunity. They both are an essential part of the strategy-making process.
Many people mistake vision statement for mission statement, and sometimes one is simply used as a longer term version of the other. The Vision should describe why it is important to achieve the Mission. A Vision statement defines the purpose or broader goal for being in existence or in the business and can remain the same for decades if crafted well. A Mission statement is more specific to what the enterprise can achieve itself. Vision should describe what will be achieved in the wider sphere if the organization and others are successful in achieving their individual missions.
A mission statement can resemble a vision statement in a few companies, but that can be a grave mistake. It can confuse people. The mission statement can galvanize the people to achieve defined objectives, even if they are stretch objectives, provided it can be elucidated in SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound) terms. A mission statement provides a path to realize the vision in line with its values. These statements have a direct bearing on the bottom line and success of the organization.
Which comes first? The mission statement or the vision statement? That depends. If you have a new start up business, new program or plan to re engineer your current services, then the vision will guide the mission statement and the rest of the strategic plan. If you have an established business where the mission is established, then many times, the mission guides the vision statement and the rest of the strategic plan. Either way, you need to know your fundamental purpose - the mission, your current situation in terms of internal resources and capabilities (strengths and/or weaknesses) and external conditions (opportunities and/or threats), and where you want to go - the vision for the future. It's important that you keep the end or desired result in sight from the start. .
Features of an effective vision statement include:
Clarity and lack of ambiguity
Vivid and clear picture
Description of a bright future
Memorable and engaging wording
Alignment with organizational values and culture
To become really effective, an organizational vision statement must (the theory states) become assimilated into the organization's culture. Leaders have the responsibility of communicating the vision regularly, creating narratives that illustrate the vision, acting as role-models by embodying the vision, creating short-term objectives compatible with the vision, and encouraging others to craft their own personal vision compatible with the organization's overall vision. In addition, mission statements need to be subjected to an internal assessment and an external assessment. The internal assessment should focus on how members inside the organization interpret their mission statement. The external assessment ââ‚¬" which includes all of the businesses stakeholders ââ‚¬" is valuable since it offers a different perspective. These discrepancies between these two assessments can give insight on the organization's mission statement effectiveness.
This Essay is
a Student's Work
This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.Examples of our work
Another approach to defining Vision and Mission is to pose two questions. Firstly, "What aspirations does the organization have for the world in which it operates and has some influence over?", and following on from this, "What can (and /or does) the organization do or contribute to fulfill those aspirations?". The succinct answer to the first question provides the basis of the Vision Statement. The answer to the second question determines the Mission Statement
A corporate stakeholder is a party that can affect or be affected by the actions of the business as a whole. The stakeholder concept was first used in a 1963 internal memorandum at the Stanford Research institute. It defined stakeholders as "those groups without whose support the organization would cease to exist." The theory was later developed and championed by R. Edward Freeman in the 1980s. Since then it has gained wide acceptance in business practice and in theorizing relating to strategic management, corporate governance, business purpose and corporate social responsibility (CSR).
The term has been broadened to include anyone who has an interest in a matter.
Types of stakeholders
People who will be affected by an endeavor and can influence it but who are not directly involved with doing the work.
In the private sector, People who are (or might be) affected by any action taken by an organization or group. Examples are parents, children, customers, owners, employees, associates, partners, contractors, suppliers, people that are related or located near by. Any group or individual who can affect or who is affected by achievement of a group's objectives.
An individual or group with an interest in a group's or an organization's success in delivering intended results and in maintaining the viability of the group or the organization's product and/or service. Stakeholders influence programs, products, and services.
Any organization, governmental entity, or individual that has a stake in or may be impacted by a given approach to environmental regulation, pollution prevention, energy conservation, etc.
A participant in a community mobilization effort, representing a particular segment of society. School board members, environmental organizations, elected officials, chamber of commerce representatives, neighborhood advisory council members, and religious leaders are all examples of local stakeholders.
Internal Stakeholders - Market (or Primary) Stakeholders are those that engage in economic transactions with the business. (For example stockholders, customers, suppliers, creditors, and employees)
External Stakeholders - NonMarket (or Secondary) Stakeholders are those who - although they do not engage in direct economic exchange with the business - are affected by or can affect its actions. (For example the general public, communities,activist groups, business support groups, and the media)
In the last decades of the 20th century, the word "stakeholder" has become more commonly used to mean a person or organization that has a legitimate interest in a project or entity. In discussing the decision-making process for institutionsââ‚¬"including large business corporations, government agencies, and non-profit organizations -- the concept has been broadened to include everyone with an interest (or "stake") in what the entity does. This includes not only its vendors, employees, and customers, but even members of a community where its offices or factory may affect the local economy or environment. In this context, "stakeholder" includes not only the directors or trustees on its governing board (who are stakeholders in the traditional sense of the word) but also all persons who "paid in" the figurative stake and the persons to whom it may be "paid out" (in the sense of a "payoff" in game theory, meaning the outcome of the transaction).
For example, in the case of a professional landlord undertaking the refurbishment of some rented housing that is occupied while the work is being carried out, key stakeholders would be the residents, neighbors (for whom the work is a nuisance), and the tenancy management team and housing maintenance team employed by the landlord. Other stakeholders would be funders and the design and construction team.
The holders of each separate kind of interest in the entity's affairs are called a constituency, so there may be a constituency of stockholders, a constituency of adjoining property owners, a constituency of banks the entity owes money to, and so on. In that usage, "constituent" is a synonym for "stakeholder."
In corporate responsibility
In the field of corporate governance and corporate responsibility, a major debate is ongoing about whether the firm or company should be managed for stakeholders, stockholders (shareholders), or customers. Proponents in favour of stakeholders may base their arguments on the following four key assertions:
1) Value can best be created by trying to maximize joint outcomes. For example, according to this thinking, programs that satisfy both employees' needs and stockholders' wants are doubly valuable because they address two legitimate sets of stakeholders at the same time. There is even evidence that the combined effects of such a policy are not only additive but even multiplicative. For instance, by simultaneously addressing customer wishes in addition to employee and stockholder interests, both of the latter two groups also benefit from increased sales.
2) Supporters also take issue with the preeminent role given to stockholders by many business thinkers, especially in the past. The argument is that debt holders, employees, and suppliers also make contributions and take risks in creating a successful firm.
3) These normative arguments would matter little if stockholders (shareholders) had complete control in guiding the firm. However, many believe that due to certain kinds of board of directors structures, top managers like CEOs are mostly in control of the firm.
4) The greatest value of a company is its image and brand. By attempting to fulfill the needs and wants of many different people ranging from the local population and customers to their own employees and owners, companies can prevent damage to their image and brand, prevent losing large amounts of sales and disgruntled customers, and prevent costly legal expenses. While the stakeholder view has an increased cost, many firms have decided that the concept improves their image, increases sales, reduces the risks of liability for corporate negligence, and makes them less likely to be targeted by pressure groups, campaigning groups and NGOs.
Stakeholder view theory
Post, Preston, Sachs (2002), in their theory called Stakeholder view, use the following definition of the term "stakeholder": "The stakeholders in a corporation are the individuals and constituencies that contribute, either voluntarily or involuntarily, to its wealth-creating capacity and activities, and that are therefore its potential beneficiaries and/or risk bearers." This definition differs from the older definition of the term stakeholder in Stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984) that also includes competitors as stakeholders of a corporation. Robert Phillips provides a moral foundation for stakeholder theory in Stakeholder Theory and Organizational Ethics. There he defends a "principle of stakeholder fairness" based on the work of John Rawls, as well as a distinction between normatively and derivatively legitimate stakeholders.
As jargon in local government
The word "stakeholder" has been listed as one of the top ten classic jargon terms used by English councils, and as such alarms or confuses ordinary people and is best avoided. It is recognised as jargon by the UK government, and defined as such by the Learning and Skills Council. It is argued by the Plain English Campaign that words such as "stakeholder" prevent people from getting involved in local government by making it difficult to understand what is meant, and councillor Tony Greaves actively objects to the word "stakeholder" considering it to be an example of management speak adopted by the Labour Party under its New Labour guise to avoid sounding like socialists.