A mission makes all the difference

THE singular question which seems to disturb most middle level managers (who are in their thirties) in the current Indian context is about where their company is going; what is their corporate culture and core competence; whether they are adequate to cope with the demands of globalisation of the market' and what management qualities and virtues are necessary to make their company continue to succeed over the next quarter in the 21st century. In effect, what the managers are seeking is a sense of purpose, a sense of identity, or shall we say, a sense of mission. They want something more than a mere salary, job security, or an avenue for career development: they want a cause which is satisfying to their soul.

Many managers misunderstand the nature and importance of mission, while some others do not even consider it, or recognise it. Peter Drucker declared, as far back as 1973: ``That business purpose and business mission are so rarely given adequate thought is perhaps the most important cause of business frustration and failure.'' Sadly, even today, this comment seems to be valid and true.

A corporate mission is much more than good intentions and ideas. It represents the framework for the entire business, and the values which drive the company, and the faith which the people have in themselves. Managers imbued with a strong sense of mission are more effective in their jobs. They enable the company to fulfil the aspirations and needs of all its stakeholders such as customers, employees, suppliers, and shareholders.

The only sacred cow in a company is its basic business philosophy.If corporate captains can draw and define clearly and precisely the missions for their companies, and share these missions with their employees; then, the employees will feel that they are part and parcel of their companies, and their commitment to achieve the objectives of their companies will be reinforced. Defining a mission is essentially a creative endeavour. You cannot arrive at a mission by an intellectual analysis alone, or by interaction with people during management courses and seminars. It is born out of insight and understanding; it is inspiratory and evocative. Quite a few management thinkers have given mission only a cursory treatment. Some speak about mission as if it is commercial evangelism; while some others refer to it as a strong corporate culture. Some view mission as an esoteric and eccentric preoccupation, which haunts the senior echelons in management.

There is yet another view, almost opposite to this, which sees mission as the bedrock of a company's strength, identity, and success - its ultimate character and personality. All these descriptions are both true and false. They are different views and versions based on the individual knowledge and experience gained by different management scholars. It resembles the story of six blind men trying to describe an elephant, by touching and feeling whatever area of its anatomy they can reach, and formulating therefrom a picture of the pachyderm.

National mission

Every country has its own culture based on social, economic, and political milieu in which it operates. From that culture springs forth the national ethos, which provides its population with the principles and guidelines of life, which, in other words, is the mission for that nation. Logically and naturally, such a mission will impart its shadow on the industrial life and culture in that country. The national mission will have its impact and influence on the mission and philosophy of its trade and commerce.

The U.K. for instance, was an imperial power to be reckoned with during the 19th Century. ``The Sun never sets in the British empire'' was a statement of fact both in history and geography. The British mission during that period was to rule the world, as it were. The economic dominance not only in its colonial territory, but also in foreign trade, and international monetary exchange was a true reflection of its political supremacy. The pound sterling was a mighty currency, while the dollar was relatively insignificant. From the onset of the 20th century, however, the decline and fall of this empire began: and so also, its economic eminence in the world market.

Japan was reduced to dust in 1945. Its rehabilitation started with a determination to succeed, and restore the economy. Quality and productivity were at the centre stage in this economic revolution. Today, Japan rules the roost, and the rest of the world mere followers of its national philosophy of management. Here again, the spirit of the political culture and ethos is responsible for the revival of the national economy.

Adventurism, enterprise, and exploration were the characteristic features of the early settlers in America, all of whom left their land of origin in search of the new world. The history of industrial and economic development of the U.S. ever since is an illustrious saga of entrepreneurial will and wisdom. Politics and economics are two sides of the same coin: they sail or sink together. So also, the culture and mission of a company will always bear testimony to the contemporary political supremacy enjoyed by the country of its origin.Broadly speaking, there are two schools of thought: one approach describes mission in terms of business strategy; while the other defines mission in terms of ethics and culture. The strategy school of thought views mission primarily as a strategic tool, an intellectual exercise which seeks to expound the commercial rationale of a business. It was Mr. Ted Levitt who first wrote about the strategy school of mission in Harvard Business Review, nearly 40 years ago. He argued that companies define their business objectives too narrowly.

According to him, a railway company must perceive its business as transportation; an oil company must see its business as energy; and a company manufacturing cans must see itself as a packaging industry. In other words, the focus must be on the customer and his needs, rather than production technology. Good strategy is about finding a better way to run the business, than the competitors.

The second school of thought argues that mission is the cultural force, which enables a company to function as a cohesive and collective entity. As against the strategic concept of mission, the cultural perspective tends to capture the emotional aspects in a company; it is concerned with generating cooperation among employees through shared values, and standards of behaviour. This cultural glue made up of norms and values binds people together in teams, influences their behaviour and social interaction, and leads them to push and persevere with the goals of their corporation. According to this view of mission, the company will function under the business philosophy wherein the employees perceive and interpret events from a common platform, and speak the ``same language''.

Is it possible to reconcile these two different perceptions? Are they mutually exclusive, or are they complementary? They can be reconciled into a common cause. Mission is an issue which involves both the heart (culture), and the mind (strategy) of an employee. The strategy element of mission legislates what is important to the commercial future of the company. The values element of mission legislates what is important to the culture of the company. When the two are in tune, the mission is strong. When there are inconsistencies, the mission is weak.

There are three types of companies in the business world, from the viewpoint of the purpose for which they exist and function. The first type of company claims to exist for the benefit of its shareholders. Their purpose is to maximise generation of wealth. All decisions are taken against the yardstick of shareholder benefit. The second type exists not only to satisfy its shareholders, but also its other stakeholders such as customers, employees, suppliers, and society. The third one is not content with the ostensible purpose of satisfying only the stakeholder, and his needs. It seeks to identify a purpose, an ideal which is far greater than the combined needs of all the stakeholders. Business leaders will find it easier to impart a sense of mission to their employees, if they project a purpose which is aimed at a higher ideal. Purposes expressed in terms of stakeholders tend to highlight only their specific and selfish interests; whereas purposes aimed at a lofty level have no room for such vested interests, or at least, they will dampen their legitimacy.

In order to achieve a purpose in competition, there must be a strategy. Strategy will define the business that the company is going to compete in, the position that the company plans to hold in that business, and the distinctive competence or competitive advantage. For example, if the purpose is to create wealth, there must be a strategy to explain how to create wealth in competition with other companies. Strategy is, therefore, a significant component of mission, because it relates purpose and behaviour to each other.

R. DEVARAJAN

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Business
Previous : Opening the flood-gates
Next     : The guiding principle