Stallworth Williams 2008 - Mission Statement

http://job.sagepub.comCommunication

Journal of Business

DOI: 10.1177/0021943607313989 2008; 45; 94 Journal of Business Communication

Linda Stallworth Williams Present, and Future

The Mission Statement: A Corporate Reporting Tool With a Past,

http://job.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/45/2/94 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Association for Business Communication

can be found at:Journal of Business Communication Additional services and information for

http://job.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://job.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://job.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/45/2/94 Citations

at COLUMBIA UNIV on January 18, 2009 http://job.sagepub.comDownloaded from

THE MISSION STATEMENT

A Corporate Reporting Tool With a Past,Present, and Future

Linda Stallworth WilliamsNorth Georgia College and State University

This article discusses a comprehensive study of the mission statements of Fortune 1000 higher-performing and lower-performing firms to assess the current state of the mission statement. After con-tent analysis of these firmsmission statements, the components included for these two groups of firmswere compared. The higher-performing firms included eight of the nine recommended componentsmore often than did the lower-performing firms, and the differences were significant for three of thosecomponents. Also, using textual analysis methods, this study identified strategies employed by thesefirms to create a strong identityor internal ethosand imageor external ethos. The two groupsused somewhat similar strategies for building corporate identities and images but differed in the val-ues they emphasized and the goodwill recipients they targeted.

Keywords: corporate mission statement; corporate reporting; corporate identity; corporate image; ethos

Although more than 30 years have now passed since a furor over missionstatements swept over corporate America (Morphew & Hartley, 2006),mission statements still serve as common corporate reporting tools. Theirlong-term use by corporations has been characterized by significantchange, however, especially in the format and delivery of these state-ments. For example, they are often found on corporate Web sites now. Thepurposes for this reporting genre have also increased and diversified, lead-ing to some differences in the content and strategy of these statements.This article presents details about a study designed to assess the currentstate of the corporate mission statement by analyzing the content of state-ments gathered from firms included on the 2006 Fortune 1000 list. Inaddition, the study investigates possible links between mission statements

Linda Stallworth Williams, PhD, is associate professor of English at North Georgia College and StateUniversity. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Linda Stallworth Williams,North Georgia College and State University, Department of English, 82 College Circle, Dahlonega,GA 30597; e-mail: [email protected].

Journal of Business Communication, Volume 45, Number 2, April 2008 94-119DOI: 10.1177/0021943607313989 2008 by the Association for Business Communication


Williams / MISSION STATEMENT 95

and financial performance by comparing statements belonging to higher-performing firms to those belonging to lower-performing ones to see ifthere are differences between (a) the content components these firmsincluded and (b) the rhetorical strategies they employed to create a posi-tive corporate ethosan identity or image.

The findings in this study affirm the continuing importance of missionstatements and show that the content components included have notchanged dramatically in the past 20 years. When current statementsbelonging to higher-performing firms were compared with those belong-ing to lower-performing firms, though, differences in content were againfound. Higher-performing firms included in this study discussed philoso-phies and targeted markets more often, and they discussed strategies forsurvival, concern for public image, and concern for employees signifi-cantly more often. Other findings in this study show that firms in bothgroups used somewhat similar rhetorical strategies for building a strongethos. For example, most of the firms used a first-person point of view topromote identification with the firms, and most highlighted values to cre-ate desirable corporate characters, although there were some differencesin the specific values included. For example, the values of teamwork andsafety were mentioned much more often by higher-performing firms thanby lower-performing ones. In addition, all 27 of the mission statementsanalyzed included at least one expression of goodwill. However, the tar-gets of goodwill differed to some extent: Employees, shareholders, andcommunities or society were listed as goodwill targets by more higher-performing firms than lower-performing ones.

This article concludes by predicting that mission statements will con-tinue to be significant corporate reporting tools because of their lengthyhistory and the ongoing time and energy devoted to them by corporationsand by corporate and communication experts, scholars, and researchers.Furthermore, based on the review of literature that informed this study,suggestions are made for ensuring that future research and scholarship onmission statements are more consistent and replicable.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The extensive literature pertinent to this study includes the following: (a)scholarship that defines the mission statement genre or makes recommenda-tions for its content, (b) scholarship that provides a theoretical basis forexpecting an effective mission statement to be associated with successfulfinancial performance, and research to determine whether that connection


can be supported by data, (c) scholarship that develops relevant rhetoricaltheories or discusses applications of those theories to corporate commu-nication, including mission statements, and (d) studies of the missionstatement as a strategy for creating a strong corporate ethos.

Mission Statement: Definitions

A mission statement tells two things about a company: who it is and whatit does (Falsey, 1989, p. 3). A number of others offer a similar definition(Abrahams, 1995; Bart, 2000; Bart, Bontis, & Taggar, 2001; Collins &Porras, 1991; David, 1989; Drucker, 1973; Ireland & Hitt, 1992; Pearce,1982), and this definition holds true regardless of whether a corporationrefers to this statement as a mission statement, a mission, a credo, ourphilosophy, core values, or something else (Abrahams, 1995; Collins &Porras, 1991; David, 2007; Ireland & Hitt, 1992; Pearce & David, 1987).These statements often address multiple audiences, or stakeholders, includ-ing a firms management, employees, customers or clients, shareholders, andother residents of the communities, countries, and world where it does busi-ness (Abrahams, 1995; Amato & Amato, 2002; Bart, 1999, 2000; Collins &Porras, 1991; Klemm, Sanderson, & Luffman, 1991).

A mission statement tells two thingsabout a company: who it is and what itdoes (Falsey, 1989, p. 3).

In addition to conveying a corporations nature and reason for being, thisstatement may also outline where a firm is headed; how it plans to get there;what its priorities, values, and beliefs are; and how it is distinctive(Abrahams, 1995; Collins & Porras, 1991; Falsey, 1989; Ireland & Hitt,1992; Klemm et al., 1991; Pearce & David, 1987). Bartkus, Glassman, andMcAfee (2000) define a narrower focus for a mission statement: We view amission statement solely as a communication tool (p. 29). They add that

most firms would be better off if they narrowed the purpose of the missionstatement to that of realistically communicating product and market objectivesto stakeholders. The best mission statements simply define the companysbusiness and suggest a future goal. (p. 29)

96 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION


Their caution about overextending the scope of mission statements isshared by other practitioners and scholars (Bart, 2000; Collins & Porras,1991; Ireland & Hitt, 1992).

Mission Statement: Recommendations for Content

A host of resource materials have been created to assist corporations andother organizations with drafting the perfect mission statement. Surprisingly,these guides offer somewhat similar advice about suggested content for thesestatements, even if they do not agree about the labels they assign to contentcomponents. For example, in an article often cited in mission statement lit-erature, Pearce and David (1987) identify eight key components of missionstatements, a list that is modified slightly and expanded to nine componentsby David (1989, 2007). A corporation is encouraged to provide informationabout its customers or clients, employees, products or services, markets,technology, self-concept, desired public image, philosophy, and strategies forgrowth and survival (David, 1989, 2007).

Other authors have renamed, expanded, narrowed, or redefined the sug-gested components (Bart & Baetz, 1998). For instance, specifying a com-panys commitment to QOL (quality of life) goals has been cited asimportant (Amato & Amato, 2002), a commitment that others might placeunder the categories of a firms general philosophy, its concern for itsemployees, or its concern for its public image. In addition, organizationalpurpose and financial goals have been studied as content components (Bart& Baetz, 1998); however, some researchers consider an organizations pur-pose to be a subset of its philosophy and its financial goals to be a subset ofits strategies for growth and survival. Two studies note that anywhere from10 to 25 different mission statement components have been suggested orused (Bart, 1997; Bart & Baetz, 1998). Although authors usually providerationales for the components and labels they use, the resulting variations interminology and definitions limit the comparability of some studies withothers and decrease the long-term benefits realized when earlier studies canbe conclusively replicated. Therefore, although this serious flaw in the cor-pus of mission statement literature has been identified before (e.g., Bartet al., 2001; Peyrefitte & David, 2006), it has not yet been remedied.

Mission Statement Content and Performance: Theory

Corporations are urged to create mission statements for many reasons:to assert leadership (Klemm et al., 1991), to inform employees about the



companys goals and unify their efforts toward accomplishing them (Bart,1998; Ireland & Hitt, 1992; Klemm et al., 1991; Pearce & David, 1987),to serve as an effective public relations tool (Bart, 1998; David, 2007;Falsey, 1989), to provide a rationale for allocating resources (Bart, 1998;Bart et al., 2001; David, 2007), to guide current, critical, strategic deci-sion making (Drohan, 1999), and to inspire enthusiasm about the firm(Bartkus et al., 2000; Collins & Porras, 1991; Ireland & Hitt, 1992).

The belief that mission statements can serve some or all of these pur-poses provides a commonly accepted theoretical basis for expecting cor-porations with a mission statement to be more successful than thosewithout one. In addition to specific benefits that are said to accrue fromhaving such a statement, successfully completing the mission statementprocess demonstrates that a firm can think reflectively, plan carefully,work collaboratively, and make informed decisions. Therefore, it is logi-cal to think that this demonstrated expertise will contribute to overall suc-cess for a corporation.

Mission Statement Content and Performance: Research

Empirical evidence to support a link between corporate mission state-ments and performance is not plentiful or conclusive (Bart & Baetz, 1998;Bart et al., 2001; Peyrefitte & David, 2006). When the financial perfor-mance of firms with and without a mission statement was compared, threestudies found no significant differences (Bart & Baetz, 1998; David, 1989;Klemm et al., 1991). In contrast, two other studies found that firms withmission statements did perform better (Rarick & Vitton, 1995; Stone,1996), but the latter study cited anecdotal evidence only.

Despite this scarcity of persuasive empirical data, mission statementscontinue to be developed, disseminated, and valued, and researchers con-tinue to be interested in studying them.

Some researchers have pursued the possible link between the content ofmission statements and financial performance. In these cases, researchershave analyzed content to determine whether some components lead togreater results than others, and this line of inquiry is important to this study.One of the earliest studies compared the content of the statements of high-performing Fortune 500 firms to the content of those of low-performingones, and the researchers found that the high-performing firms includedthree of the componentscorporate philosophy, self-concept, and con-cern for public imagesignificantly more often (Pearce & David, 1987).However, they did not find significant differences between the two groups




inclusion of the other five components: customers or markets, product or ser-vice, geographic domain, technology, and concern for survival.

Based on a later study, researchers also concluded that effective contentcaused mission statements to be positively associated with financial per-formance. They analyzed the content of mission statements belonging tofirms randomly selected from the 1994 Business Week 1000 list and deter-mined that the return on common shareholder equity for firms with highcontent statements was 26.2%, whereas the return for the firms with lowcontent statements was 13.7% (Rarick & Vitton, 1995, p. 12). A high con-tent mission statement included more of the following components: con-cern for public image; concern for quality; commitment to survival,growth, profitability; identity of customers and markets; identity of prod-ucts and services; statement of company philosophy; and differentiationfrom competition. Using a different sample of industrial firms and amethod other than content analysis, somewhat similar results werereported by Bart (1997). He surveyed CEOs and presidents from 44 indus-trial corporations, asking them to identify which of 25 different contentcomponents were clearly specified in their firms mission statements.After tabulating their responses, Bart compared the performance of theindustrial firms based on each mission component and found that 13 of the25 components had a positive relationship with performance (p. 377). Fourof these componentspurpose, values, self-concept, and desired publicimagehad been identified as significant by Pearce and David (1987) aswell, although Bart (1997) used different labels in some cases (e.g., purposeand values rather than philosophy). The other nine components that Bartfound to be positively associated with performance were general corporategoals, concern for customers, concern for employees, concern for suppliers,concern for society, concern for shareholders, statement of vision, concernfor survival, and competitive strategy.

The purpose and values components were again found to be associatedwith performance when mission statements from 136 large Canadianfirms were collected and analyzed: Significant positive differences inperformance were found to be associated with mission statements whichcontained no financial goals, identified a firms values/beliefs, defined afirms purpose, and were relatively short (Bart & Baetz, 1998, p. 845).Finally, by studying data collected from 83 large Canadian and U.S. firmswith mission statements, researchers found that statements with soundcontent, ones with clearly specified ends and means, can affect financialperformance (Bart et al., 2001, p. 29). These content components had notbeen specifically identified or studied before, but some of the previous



researchers could have categorized ends and means as information belongingto the goals, competitive strategy, philosophy, or concern for survival and prof-itability components.

Mission Statement Content and Corporate Ethos:Rhetorical Theory

None of the literature reviewed thus far has used the term corporate ethosin connection with mission statements. Instead, other terms (e.g., image, pub-lic image, identity) have been used to describe the way that a corporationwants to be perceived by its constituencies. However, increasing numbers ofscholars and researchers are choosing to use the term corporate ethosbecause rhetorical theory provides a sound theoretical basis for understand-ing the concept of ethos and why it matters to communicators who wish topersuade their audiences (e.g., Beason, 1991; Cross, 1991; Hyland, 1998;Kallendorf & Kallendorf, 1985; Stoddard, 1985; Swales & Rogers, 1995).As Cross (1991) points out, Persuasion, the ability to win over an audienceand inspire action is, after all, the underlying goal of most corporate corre-spondence, whether its trying to create an image, keep goodwill, or collectan overdue bill (p. 3). Mission statements are decidedly persuasive: If cor-porate communicators cannot persuade their constituencies to read their mis-sion statements and respond to them appropriatelywhether that meansfaithfully working for the corporation, buying its stock or products, or believ-ing it is a contributing member of a community or societythen the effortsof those communicators have been wasted.

If corporate communicators cannotpersuade their constituencies to readtheir mission statements and respondto them appropriately . . . then theefforts of those communicators havebeen wasted.

The term ethos originated with Aristotle, one of the earliest authoritieson persuasion: In his Rhetoric, written some 2,000 years ago as a guideto persuasive public speaking, he describes techniques that remain essen-tial to persuasion and that offer important guidelines in the modern age


(Cross, 1991, p. 3). Aristotle aimed to educate the individual communicator,of course, rather than an organizational entity such as a modern corporation.Nevertheless, the process of carefully shaping and communicating anadmirable and appealing character is similar whether the communicator is anindividual or a group. In Book I of his Rhetoric, Aristotle discusses ethos asone of three appeals available to a communicator who wishes to persuade.The other two appeals are logosstrategies to reason with peopleandpathosstrategies to stir their emotions. Although going to great lengths toexplore logos and pathos, Aristotle considered ethos to be the most importantof these appeals, and it is the most pertinent to this study.

Aristotle (1932) identifies three components of ethos: intelligence,character, and good will (p. 92). He stresses the importance of intelli-gence (i.e., knowledge, good sense, and expertise) because of its crucialimpact on credibility. As a rule, communicators are not taken seriously ifan audience perceives that they are uninformed, for whatever reason.Therefore, Aristotle discusses a number of strategies for formulating argu-ments that influence audiences. The kind of logically developed argu-ments that Aristotle prescribes are almost never included in missionstatements because this genre rarely provides support or evidence for thegeneral pronouncements and claims made (Swales & Rogers, 1995).However, when a mission statement provides accurate and timely infor-mation about the products or services a firm sells, about the qualificationsof its management and employees, or about methods and procedures ituses to gain a competitive edge, it is providing evidence of its expertise.In addition, the writing style, organization, and visual rhetoric of a mis-sion statement can show a firms knowledge and skills (Stoddard, 1985).

When discussing character, the second aspect of ethos, Aristotle (1932,p. 91) says that a communicator should evince the right character. Doingso requires that communicators understand the differences between virtuesand vices and that they know the characteristics and qualities that are val-ued by an audience and community (Beason, 1991, p. 330). Applying thisprinciple to corporate communicators suggests that including in a missionstatement the values considered most important to a corporation and itsaudiences can strengthen a corporations ethos. Collins and Porras (1991)delineate the kinds of information that might be included:

Core values and beliefs are the organizations basic precepts about what isimportant in both business and life, how business should be conducted, itsview of humanity, its role in society, the way the world works, and what isto be held inviolate. (p. 35)



The starting point should be to articulate values and beliefs that the corporationalready considers important or commits to adopting before deciding to show-case the values and beliefs it shares with its audiences (Collins & Porras, 1991).Otherwise, the corporations ethos will suffer if its pronouncements are deter-mined to be hollow and insincere (Collins & Porras, 1991).

As part of an extended discussion of contemporary applications ofAristotelian theory, Stoddard (1985) reminds us that ethos is not situatedexclusively in corporate discourse (or discourse from any source) butrelies on the audiences cooperation in meaning-making. Therefore, capa-ble corporate communicators have the power of words and other rhetori-cal strategies at their disposal when attempting to create the rightcharacter, but these strategies must be carefully chosen based on a clearassessment of all parts of the rhetorical situation, including the character-istics of the audience, the purpose for the communication, the specificcontext or environment, and so on (Stoddard, 1985). For instance, ethicsscandals in recent years have heightened the publics concerns about cor-porate honesty and ethics. Therefore, a corporation can strengthen itsethos by stating in its mission statement that it values integrity and honorsethical standards on a daily basis. In addition, a manufacturing firm thatmust dispose of toxic wastes can help to dispel the fears of residents liv-ing near that business by pledging the firms commitment to safe practicesthat protect the people and environments where it does business, therebyportraying itself as a corporation with a good conscience.

Furthermore, carefully shaping the presentation of the character of a cor-poration in keeping with the values of its audiences can appeal to simili-tude (Beason, 1991, p. 331). When communicators point out similaritiesbetween themselves and their audiences, benefits often result becausealmost all people are more likely to accept and trust a communicator whois perceived as being one of them since such commonality gives theimpression that communicator and audience share backgrounds, goals, andvalues (Beason, 1991, p. 331). Using we (or other first-person-pluralpronouns) is a way to join a communicator and audience, thereby claiminggroup membership with that audience (Beason, 1991, p. 331).

Building on the same theoretical basis that supports the concept ofsimilitude, other scholars focus on the use of first-person-plural pronounsto encourage internal stakeholdersemployeesto identify with a cor-poration (Cheney, 1983; Swales & Rogers, 1995). Drawing on KennethBurkes rhetoric of identification, Cheney (1983) explains how the iden-tification process works within organizations like corporations:




While an individual has the ability to identify spontaneously with an orga-nizational target, the move is often encouraged by the organization indealing with the member. Simply put, an individual who is inclined to iden-tify with an organization (or an organizational subunit) will be open to per-suasive efforts from various sources within that unit. The organizationinitiates this inducement process by communicating its values, goals, andinformation (i.e., the organizations own stated identifications in the formof guidelines for individual and collective action; the member may thencomplete the process by adopting or adapting the organizations interests,doing whats best for the organization, and perhaps even developing asalient identification with the organization as a target. (pp. 146-147)

The mission statement is a corporate guideline that definitely encouragesidentification because it is rhetorically designed in order to ensure max-imum employee buy-in (Swales & Rogers, 1995, p. 223).

Some scholars extend the scope of identification to include externalstakeholders, thereby influencing a corporations image and its identity.For example, Bartkus et al. (2000) state,

Mission statements . . . enable current and potential employees, managers,suppliers, customers, and investors to self-select into the firm (to determinewhether they want to get involved with it). . . . Ultimately, if stakeholdersare able to align their individual objectives with those of the firm, the resultwould more likely be an intrinsically motivated shareholder group. (p. 29)

A review of published mission statements shows that the stakeholdersconsidered most important to a firm can differ depending on the nature ofits business:

Companies in mining and construction are keen to stress a responsible atti-tude to the environment, newly privatized companies emphasize profitabil-ity and shareholders interests and companies dependent on key skilledworkers make sure that their value is mentioned in the statements. (Klemmet al., 1991, p. 75)

In all of these cases, the firms statements reflect their understanding oftheir own contexts and audiences.

As a third aspect of ethos, Aristotle says that speakers should portraythemselves as people of goodwill who show good intentions toward theiraudiences. Because of the effect of a speakers demonstrated goodwill onthe goodwill reciprocated by the audience, Aristotle discusses this conceptin Book II as a part of a lengthy discussion of human emotions. In many



cases, he says, the emotional state of a person is caused by an unfulfilledneed. Cross (1991) supports Aristotles assertion: One of the most pow-erful motivations, and here Aristotle and modern psychology are in agree-ment, is an offer to satisfy a readers needs, particularly emotional needs(p. 5). Therefore, a communicator who wishes to alter the state of mind ofhis or her audience should first identify needs that the audience has andthen craft a message that satisfies those needs in some way (Cross, 1991).

Applying this principle to corporations, Amato and Amato (2002) seegoodwill as an important strategy for cultivating and maintaining a corpo-rate good guy image in the eyes of various stakeholders (p. 72), and the ben-efits of this strategy are illustrated by a true example that Kallendorf andKallendorf (1989) relate. In response to the public relations crisis faced byU.S. oil companies during the oil crisis in the early 1970s, Shell OilCompany mounted a public relations campaign to provide facts and infor-mation that would demonstrate that they were not greedy price-gougerswho, at best, took unfair advantage of [oil] shortages and, at worst, actuallycaused the shortages (p. 62). Three different attempts by Shell to use logic-based strategies failed to calm the anger felt by the public; in fact, using log-ical argumentation actually made the public angrier and more hostile(p. 62). However, when Shell shifted to an ethos-based approach, one aimedat generating goodwill, better results were achieved. A series of advertise-ments, the Shell Information Series and informative booklets, Come toShell for Answers, were highly successful because they helped to placatethe publics anger and to repair Shells damaged ethos.

Mission Statement Content andCorporate Ethos: Research

In 1985, Stoddard noted that Aristotles theory had been confirmed byempirical research to determine the effects of ethos, although most ofthese studies had been

conducted in the contexts of communication theory and social psychology. . . .In the triangular model of discourse, communication theory substitutes the termsource for rhetorics speaker or writer. Thus source credibilitybecomes an operational term for the classical concept of ethos. (p. 233)

Since 1985, research that tests the effects of ethos and labels it that wayhas increased (e.g., Beason, 1991; Livesey, 2002; Shenk, 1995; Swales &Rogers, 1995), and a few studies have investigated the links between mis-sion statements and corporate ethos. One study analyzed these statements



to identify character-building strategies and concluded that they tend tostress values, positive behavior and guiding principles within the frame-work of the corporations announced belief system and ideology (Swales& Rogers, 1995, p. 227). These authors based their conclusions on a lin-guistic and textual analysis of a large collection of mission statements anda contextual and intertextual analysis of three mission statements fromtwo different U.S. companies. Their close textual analysis of these threestatements enabled them to identify specific linguistic features the corpo-rations used to foster [employees] affiliation and identification, such asthe frequent use of first-person-plural pronouns (p. 231).

Other studies have analyzed the ethos-building strategies in missionstatements to determine which audiences were targeted and to learnwhether the primary audiences were internal or external. In 1991, man-agers in 50 U.K. companies included on the Times 1000 index were sur-veyed to find out whether they saw mission statements as more importantto the firms identity (internal ethos) or image (external ethos), and theresearchers concluded that mission statements are seen by managers asmore important internally than externally (Klemm et al., 1991, p. 77),especially when these statements include company values because theyenhance managements leadership within organizations.

Other studies have analyzed theethos-building strategies in missionstatements to determine which audi-ences were targeted and to learnwhether the primary audiences wereinternal or external.

Then, in 1997, mission statements found in the annual reports of com-panies on the Business Week 1000 list were analyzed to determine whichstakeholder groupscustomers, employees, suppliers, and shareholderswere targeted and what kinds of informationbenefits, values, image, andfocuswere conveyed to each group (Leuthesser & Kohli, 1997). Theyfound that customers were addressed often, whereas suppliers wereaddressed rarely. In addition, these researchers found that two-thirds of themission statements included assertions addressing employeessecond


only to customers. Among these, value statements were the most preva-lent (p. 63).

Identity (internal ethos) and image (external ethos) were also studied in2002 when the mission statements for firms included in the Forbes BestSmall Business and Fortune 200 lists were analyzed to determine whetherthe inclusion of individual and societal QOL dimensions affected a cor-porations ethos (Amato & Amato, 2002). They found that the missionstatements belonging to the large firms addressed four of the seven soci-etal dimensions (economic, social, institutional, and ecological) and threeof the five individual dimensions (physical, safety, and esteem) signifi-cantly more often than the mission statements belonging to the small firmsdid. Although they found a link between size and some QOL dimensions,they found no link between profitability and QOL dimensions.

HYPOTHESIS AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Based on the literature review, one directional hypothesis and tworesearch questions were formulated.

Mission Statement Content and Performance:Content Analysis

For the content analysis, the following hypothesis guided my research:

Hypothesis: The mission statements of higher-performing Fortune 1000firms will include significantly more of the recommended componentsthan the statements of lower-performing firms.

Mission Statement Content andCorporate Ethos: Textual Analysis

For the textual analysis, the following research questions guided my studyof strategies used to project a strong ethos: (a) Will the mission statements ofhigher-performing firms show more evidence than those of lower-performingfirms of the use of first-person point of view and the inclusion of values to pro-ject a strong identity and image and encourage identification with the firm andits values? (b) Will the mission statements of higher-performing Fortune 1000firms show more evidence than those of lower-performing firms of the use ofstrategies to demonstrate a firms goodwill toward stakeholders?




METHOD

The corporations selected for this study were listed on the 2006 Fortune1000 list. To increase diversity of size, the firms listed 1 to 25 and 976 to 1000were initially selected. Then, I visited the Web sites of all 50 corporations tosee if a mission statement was found there. If not, I used the Web sites searchengine, when available. In some cases, this led me to the mission statement; inother cases, this led me to a statement or other document that the corporationconsidered equivalent to a mission statement. If this equivalent statement ordocument included information similar to that usually included in a missionstatement and seemed to serve the same purpose or purposes, I added it to mycollection of documents. When neither a mission statement nor an equivalentcould be located on a corporations Web site, I e-mailed or phoned the corpo-ration. If a representative said the corporation had a mission statement, I askedfor it to be sent to me. Sometimes a representative replied that the corporationdid not have a mission statement but did have an equivalent, so I asked for thisequivalent to be sent to me. In a few cases, I was told that the corporation didnot have a mission statement or equivalent, and I noted that. In other cases, sev-eral contacts had to be made, but the needed information was eventuallyreceived from 48 of the 50 corporations contacted.

I was able to get information from all of the firms in the top 25: In all,23 had mission statements or equivalents, 2 had neither. Based on infor-mation obtained during this collection process, 2 of the firms in the bot-tom 25 were eliminated: One was simply a holding company and the otherhad been sold after the Fortune 1000 list had been issued. This reduced thesecond group to 23 firms. I could get no information from 2 of the corpo-rations in this group, so the size of this group was reduced to 21 firms: Inall, 19 had a mission statement or the equivalent, 2 had neither.

At this point, based on the profits for each firm, I reconfigured the ini-tial groups to create one group of higher-performing firms and a secondgroup of lower-performing firms.

After ranking the 42 firms according to their profits, I selected the 14 firmswith the highest profits for the higher-performing group, but I decidedagainst choosing the 14 firms with the lowest profits because the profits for1 firm were considerably higher than those of the other 13. Therefore, Idecided to limit the number of the firms in the lower-performing group to 13.Table 1 shows the composition of each group, each firms ranking in theFortune 1000 list, its revenues, and its profits.

After reviewing all of the collected mission statements or equivalents(from this point forward, Ill refer to all of the documents collected asmission statements), I noticed that many had values statements embedded



or appended, and others referred me to a values statement for additionalinformation about the corporations mission. It did not seem consistent,then, for me to analyze some mission statements that included valuesstatements but to exclude other values statements just because they werenot a part of the mission statements proper. I decided, therefore, to includeany values statement that was found in close proximity to a mission state-ment, was referenced in a mission statement, or was linked to a missionstatement. However, I did not include codes of conduct in the documents

Table 1. Two Groups of Firms for Mission Statement Contentand Textual Analyses

Revenues Profits Rank Company ($ Millions) ($ Millions)Higher-performing firms in the 2006 Fortune 1000a1 Exxon Mobil 339,938.0 36,130.02 Wal-Mart Stores 315,654.0 11,231.04 Chevron 189,481.0 14,099.05 Ford Motor 177,210.0 2,024.06 ConocoPhillips 166,683.0 13,529.07 General Electric 157,153.0 16,353.08 Citigroup 131,045.0 24,587.0

10 International Business Machines 91,134.0 7,934.011 Hewlett-Packard 86,696.0 2,398.012 Bank of America Corporation 83,980.0 16,465.014 Home Depot 81,511.0 5,838.015 Valero Energy 81,362.0 3,590.017 J P Morgan Chase & Co. 79,902.0 8,483.018 Verizon Communications 75,111.9 7,397.0

Lower-performing firms in the 2006 Fortune 1000b3 General Motors 192,604.0 10,600.0

16 McKesson 80,514.6 156.7977 Stein-Mart 1,481.6 50.9979 Apria Healthcare Group 1,474.1 66.9980 PSS World Medical 1,473.8 39.0982 ScanSource 1,469.1 35.7984 BMC Software 1,463.0 75.3985 Bob Evans Farms 1,460.2 37.0992 PC Connection 1,444.3 4.4995 Schulman 1,435.6 32.1996 Russell 1,434.6 34.4998 XO Communications 1,433.6 146.5

1000 Regal-Beloit 1,428.7 69.6

a. n = 14.b. n = 13.


I analyzed because these serve different purposes, I believe, and are notgenerally included in the mission statement genre.

Content Analysis

The content of all 42 of the mission statements collected was analyzedusing procedures specified by Pearce and David (1987). Each statement wasread and coded by two raters, both of whom have extensive business or busi-ness communication experience. The raters began by familiarizing them-selves with the definitions, explanations, and examples of mission statementcontent components that are found in David (1989) and Pearce and David(1987). Although various components with a range of labels have been sug-gested during the past 30 years or so, this particular list of components waschosen to provide some comparability with the study by Pearce and David.A second reason for choosing this list was to address the concern expressedby Bart et al. (2001) and discussed earlier in the literature review that col-lection of a solid base of mission statement research has been hampered bythe tendency of most researchers to craft new content components, revisingthem only slightly in many cases rather than using components already for-mulated and suitable for further use. Provided below are the componentsand explanations that David (1989, p. 92) provides:

1. CustomersWho are the enterprises customers?2. Products or servicesWhat are the firms major products or services?3. LocationWhere does the firm compete?4. TechnologyWhat is the firms basic technology?5. Concern for survivalWhat is the firms commitment to economic objectives?6. PhilosophyWhat are the basic beliefs, values, aspirations, and philosoph-

ical priorities of the firm?7. Self-conceptWhat are the firms major strengths and competitive advantages?8. Concern for public imageWhat are the firms public responsibilities, and

what image is desired?9. Concern for employeesWhat is the firms attitude toward its employees?

Each rater worked independently and used a separate log sheet for eachstatement. If a mission statement definitely included a component, it wascoded with a 1; if not, it was coded with a 0. When both raters had completedtheir coding, the two log sheets for each of the 42 statements were compared,and intercoder reliability was determined to be 87.1%. At that point, the tworaters conferred about all discrepancies and worked together to resolve those.Then, the component ratings for all of the higher-performing firms were



entered on one spreadsheet, and those for the lower-performing firmswere entered on another. Finally, a t test for independent means was usedto calculate the differences between the ratings of all nine components forthe two groups and to determine whether any differences were statisticallysignificant.

Textual Analysis

To focus on the firms use of three specific strategies for projecting astrong ethos, the mission statements from the same two groups of Fortune1000 firms were converted to text files, and word lists were created by usingthe Oxford WordSmith 4 Software. Separate word lists were created foreach firms statement, for all of the statements included in each group, andfor all 27 of the firms. These lists include the frequencies for each word, thepercentage of the total words those frequencies represent, and the total num-ber of words in the statement or statements included in the list.

As one measure of a firms attempt to create a mission statement witha strong ethos, one that fosters identification with the firm and its values(Cheney, 1983; Swales & Rogers, 1995), all of the first-person-plural pro-nouns were first located on these word lists. Second, all of the values wereidentified, and synonyms for the same general value were located andcombined. For example, words such as honesty and trust were combinedunder the general value of integrity, and words such as collaboration andteam were combined under the general value of teamwork. Then, I wentto the actual statements to ensure that the occurrence of the word was rep-resenting a value (i.e., We lead by example was classified under leader-ship, but We are a leading provider of internet services was not). In afew cases, a synonym for a specific value was not mentioned, but the valuewas addressed in other words. For instance, We strive to be first in every-thing we do was counted as having addressed the value of excellence.After checking each mission statement, the number of statements men-tioning each value at least once was totaled for each group of firms andfor both groups.

Next, using the generated word lists as a starting point, I gathered evi-dence from these mission statements of the firms efforts to show good-will toward various recipients: internal and external stakeholders as wellas communities, countries, the world, and society in general. The word listspointed to specific mission statements that mentioned one of more of theserecipients, but a careful reading of the designated statements was requiredto determine that the recipient was not just named in the statement but was



actually identified as an actual or potential beneficiary of the firms good-will. Then, the number of statements that address one or more of theserecipients was tallied for each group of firms and for both groups.

RESULTS

General results include the following: First, most of the Fortune 1000firms included in this studys initial sample do have a mission statement(42 of 46, 91.3%), but only 16 (38.1%) of those firms use either missionor mission statement as a heading. The remainder of the firms usedheadings such as Our Aspirations, Guiding Principles, Our Story,and so on. Second, the length of the mission statements studied (exclud-ing appended or linked values statements) ranged from the previouslypopular one-sentence statements to lengthy statements of several para-graphs, a full page, or multiple pages in a few cases. For these 42 firms,11 had one-sentence statements, 6 had statements of two or three sen-tences, and 25 were composed of four or more sentences. Third, almost allof the mission statements found online were accompanied by colorful andcreative graphics and showed evidence of skillful visual design.

Content Analysis

Mission statements from both groups of firms showed some similarities.Almost the same number of firms in each group included the customers,products or services, and self-concept components, but more of the lower-performing firms included the technology component. In contrast, more ofthe higher-performing firms included the location and philosophy compo-nents, but the differences were not statistically significant. However, thet test results showed that there were statistically significant differencesbetween the two groups inclusion of three of the nine content compo-nents: survival, public image, and employees. Therefore, the directionalhypothesis was partially supported. Table 2 presents all of the pertinentstatistical data for the content analysis.

Textual Analysis

The textual analysis of the 27 mission statements revealed a widespreaduse of first-person-plural pronouns, a partial answer to my first researchquestion. The 14 mission statements belonging to the higher-performing




firms included 239 first-person-plural pronouns (5.6% of all words). The13 mission statements belonging to the lower-performing firms included78 first-person-plural pronouns (5.4% of all words). Only 2 of the 27statements used a primarily third-person point of view. Therefore, inregard to the use of first-person pronouns, the two groups of firms werefairly similar.

Specific examples of the use of first-person-plural pronouns by thesefirms include the following ones that aim to create or reinforce unity(Cheney, 1983), build a sense of community (Beason, 1991, p. 331),concretize an idealized environment in which all the participants, regard-less of their relative power, are working together to achieve the companygoals (Rogers & Swales, 1990, p. 301), and promote identification withthe firm (Cheney, 1983; Swales & Rogers, 1995): (a) General MotorsWe will win by thinking and acting together as one General Motorsteam; and (b) VerizonWe work together, support one another andnever let the customeror our coworkersdown. The excerpt fromGeneral Motorss statement and a third excerpt provide good examples ofdouble identification of the corporate entity and of the people compris-ing it (Swales & Rogers, 1995, p. 223): International BusinessMachinesAt IBM, we strive to lead in the creation, development andmanufacture of the industrys most advanced information technologies.

Table 2. A Comparison of Mission Statement Components forFortune 1000 Firms

Higher- Lower- Difference,Performing Performing Higher or

Firmsa Firmsb Lower

Component M SD M SD t df

Customers 0.86 0.13 0.85 0.14 0.07 25Products or services 0.71 0.22 0.69 0.23 0.12 25Location 0.79 0.18 0.62 0.26 0.94 24Technology 0.21 0.18 0.31 0.23 0.53 24Survival 0.78 0.18 0.38 0.26 2.22* 24Philosophy 0.86 0.13 0.77 0.19 0.56 23Self-concept 0.64 0.24 0.62 0.26 0.14 25Public image 0.93 0.07 0.46 0.27 2.91* 18Employees 0.93 0.07 0.46 0.27 2.91* 18

a. n = 14.b. n = 13.*p < .05.



Other examples of the use of first-person-plural pronouns in the mis-sion statements analyzed are decidedly managerial in tone; that is, theyidentify managerial directives as employee responsibilities (Rogers &Swales, 1990, p. 300): (a) ScanSourceWe protect our companyresources to benefit those who depend on us, such as our employees andshareholders; and (b) CitigroupWe must put Citigroups long-terminterests ahead of each units short-term gains, and provide superiorresults for our shareholders.

Furthermore, the textual analysis determined that values are oftenincluded in mission statements or in a list of values appended or linked tothe statements. Ten different values were discussed in 4 or more of the 27mission statements analyzed. Exactly or nearly the same number of firmsin each group mentioned excellence, integrity, and innovation. However,higher-performing firms mentioned respect, leadership, diversity, citizen-ship, and responsibility somewhat more often, and they included team-work and safety to an even greater degree. However, no tests of statisticalsignificance were performed. Table 3 lists the values that occurred mostfrequently for both groups of firms.

Ten different values were discussed in4 or more of the 27 mission state-ments analyzed. Exactly or nearly thesame number of firms in each groupmentioned excellence, integrity, andinnovation.

Four examples show specific ways in which selected statements aim to cre-ate admirable characters for the firms: (a) ConocoPhillipsWe are a goodneighbor and citizen in the communities where we operate; (b) VerizonIntegrity is at the heart of everything we do; (c) ScanSourceWe are com-mitted to an environment that respects and values the diverse backgrounds,interests and talents of our employees; and (d) RussellFrom its begin-nings in 1902, Russell corporation has prided itself on the quality and valueof its products.

Additional results of the textual analysis showed that all 27 of the missionstatements included at least one expression of goodwill, with most includingmultiple expressions. In addition, designated recipients of goodwill were



somewhat similar for the two groups of firms. Customers were most fre-quently designated by both groups of firms, with customer service beingmentioned most often as one of a firms priorities. The groups expres-sions of goodwill toward vendors were also similar in number. However,differences were found: Employees, shareholders, and communities orsociety were listed as goodwill targets by more of the higher-performingfirms than the lower-performing ones. These differences were not testedfor statistical significance. Table 4 provides complete details about theexpressions of goodwill by both groups of firms.

In addition to the quantitative data that support the use of goodwillstrategies by firms in both groups, several examples show how specificgoodwill recipients are targeted (in each case, I have highlighted the good-will recipient or recipients): (a) Wal-MartOur philosophy is to provideeveryday low prices with exceptional customer service; (b) Bank ofAmericaThe promise we make to customers, associates, and share-holders is that we will pursue higher standards of service and performancein all we do, every day; (c) ChevronWe have an unwavering commit-ment to being a good partner focused on building productive, collabora-tive, trusting and beneficial relationships with governments, othercompanies, our customers, our communities, and each other; and (d)ScanSourceWe highly value our customers and vendors and are com-mitted to meeting their needs quickly and fairly.

Table 3. Ten Values Mentioned in Selected Mission Statements

No. of Higher- No. of Lower- Total No. of FirmsPerforming Firms Performing Firms Mentioning

Mentioning This Valuea Mentioning This Valueb This Valuec

Value n % n % n %

Excellence 14 100 12 92 26 96Integrity 9 64 8 62 17 63Innovation 7 50 7 54 14 52Respect 8 57 6 46 14 52Leadership 4 29 2 15 6 22Diversity 8 57 4 31 12 44Responsibility 8 57 4 31 12 44Citizenship 10 71 6 46 16 59Teamwork 10 71 2 15 12 44Safety 4 29 0 0 4 15

a. n = 14.b. n = 13.c. n = 27.



DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this study was to assess the current state of the corpo-rate mission statement, and the results provide persuasive support for sev-eral conclusions, although the results of any study must be replicated toconfirm their value for scholars and practitioners. The most obvious con-clusion is that the mission statement genre is alive and well. By one nameor another, it continues to be a standard communication tool for the major-ity of large corporations. Also, the length and sophistication of corporatemission statements has increased in recent years, especially when thesestatements are presented on corporate Web sites.

Mission Statement and Content Components

The findings of this studys content analysis suggest that the contentcomponents outlined by David in 1989 are still found in current missionstatements with enough regularity and consistency to indicate that thekinds of information corporations consider most important for conveyingto their internal and external stakeholders have not changed dramaticallyin the past two decades.

Mission Statement Content and Performance

Differences continue to be found between the content componentsincluded by higher-performing firms and those included by lower-performing

Table 4. Recipients of Goodwill in Selected Mission Statements

No. of Higher- No. of Lower- Total No. of Firms Performing Firms Performing Firms Addressing

Addressing Recipientsa Addressing Recipientsb Recipientsc

Recipients n % n % n %

Customers 14 100 12 92 26 96Employees 11 79 7 54 18 67Community or 11 79 8 61 19 70

societyShareholders 9 64 6 46 15 56Vendors 1 7 2 15 3 11

a. n = 14.b. n = 13.c. n = 27.


ones. For one of the components analyzed in this studyconcern for publicimagethe significant difference was similar to that discovered by Pearceand David (1987). Likewise, both studies found that higher-performing firmsincluded the location, customers, and products or services components moreoften than did lower-performing firms, but the differences were not statisti-cally significant in either case. In contrast, the significant differences found inthis study for the survival and employee components were not found in the1987 study, but these components were found to be positively associated withperformance in research conducted by Bart (1997). In addition, Amato andAmato (2002) found that the financial success of firms was correlated withtheir commitment in mission statements to the general well being in the workand/or organizational environment (p. 83), a result that concurs with thisstudys finding that higher-performing firms were more likely to express con-cern for their employees than were lower-performing firms.

Mission Statement Content and Corporate Ethos

The mission statements of these corporations show widespread use of afirst-person point of view and character-building strategies to create a strongethos. To be sure, the use of a first-person point of view for firms in thisstudy transcended the boundary of differences in performance. This perva-sive use of first-person pronouns echoes the findings of Swales and Rogers(1995). Another identification strategy, the inclusion of positive values,seems especially popular as well. The attention given by both groups offirms to the value of integrity is a logical and predictable response to somehighly publicized corporate scandals in recent years, and excellence is abuzzword that permeates management literature and has led to extensiveefforts aimed at achieving this standard, including innovation, another valueboth groups of firms included fairly often. Also, integrity and excellence arevalues that stakeholders, especially employees, are likely to view as onesthey share or ones that merit their commitment to the firm, thereby increas-ing the extent of their identification with the firm.

The differences between the higher-performing and lower-performingfirms in regard to their inclusion of the values of citizenship and safety aremore than likely a result of a key difference in the composition of the twogroups of firms. Of the 14 higher-performing firms, 4 are energy firms,and Amato and Amato (2002) cite the visibility of such firms as a motiva-tion for them to focus on a QOL commitment (in this case, to the healthand well-being of their stakeholders and communities) in an attempt tobuild social capital (p. 82).




However, the reasons for the dramatic differences between the twogroups inclusion of the value of teamwork is less clear. To some extent,the finding that highly successful firms include this value more often doesfollow from the finding discussed earlier that the employees content com-ponent was included significantly more often by the higher-performingfirms. Because concern for employees appeared to be a greater concernfor the higher-performing firms, it makes sense that teamwork would alsorank higher among their stated values. Also relevant to this finding are theresults of a 1995 study by Petty et al. that are recounted by Amato andAmato (2002): Teamwork and trust were promoted when the corporateleadership [in that study] developed a vision statement that valued trust,integrity, teamwork, and dignity. An enhanced organizational climate wasthen directly linked to higher organizational performance (p. 83).

Furthermore, the mission statements of these corporations show consider-able evidence of their efforts to demonstrate goodwill. In sum, these resultslend support to the conclusions of Amato and Amato (2002). This studysfinding that customers were the primary recipients of these expressions ofgoodwill is not at all surprising because of the crucial role that customers playin a corporations success. In addition, this finding compares with the resultsin a study by Leuthesser and Kohli (1997). Also, employees were named asgoodwill recipients by 79% of the higher-performing firms in this study butby only 54% of the lower-performing ones. Of course, attention given toemployees is likely to enhance their identification with the firm, an effectdiscussed above. Therefore, it appears that the lower-performing firmsstudied here have missed an opportunity to do everything possible tosecure the allegiance of their employees. The lower-performing firmswere less attentive to communities and society in general, too, missing anopportunity for strengthening their public image.

Finally, although this study and others point to a possible associationbetween a corporations crafting an effective mission statement and enjoy-ing greater success, none of the researchers involved, especially this one,would be so rash as to assume causality here. Nevertheless, if practition-ers are looking for mission statement models to emulate, there is adequatejustification for carefully considering the content components and rhetor-ical strategies chosen most often by higher-performing firms. Because theconsideration of rhetorical strategies has not thus far received nearly as muchattention as has the consideration of content components, the results of thisstudys textual analysis could prompt drafters of mission statements to addsome of these strategies to their repertoire. For scholars and researchers, thebody of mission statement research that this study expands provides a rich


field for further exploration, with the hope that sufficient consistency andreplication will result. Much work remains before we will understandfully the influence of mission statements on internal and external stake-holders, the effects of mission statements on corporate performance, thecontributions of mission statements to corporate planning and governance,the kinds of methods required to create and implement effective missionstatements, and so on. However, this exploration definitely seems worth-while; the mission statement is a corporate reporting genre that seems des-tined to survive and continue to matter.

REFERENCES

Abrahams, J. (1995). The mission statement book: 301 corporate mission statements fromAmericas top companies. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press.

Amato, C. H., & Amato, L. H. (2002). Corporate commitment to quality of life: Evidence fromcompany mission statements. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 10(4), 69-87.

Aristotle. (1932). The rhetoric of Aristotle (L. Cooper, Trans.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Bart, C. K. (1997). Industrial firms and the power of mission. Industrial MarketingManagement, 26, 371-383.

Bart, C. (1998). Mission matters. CPA Journal, 68(8), 56-57.Bart, C. (1999). Making mission statements count. CA Magazine, 132(2), 37-39.Bart, C. K. (2000). Lasting inspiration. CA Magazine, 133(4), 49-51.Bart, C. K., & Baetz, M. C. (1998). The relationship between mission statements and firm

performance: An exploratory study. Journal of Management Studies, 35(6), 823-853.Bart, C. K., Bontis, N., & Taggar, S. (2001). A model of the impact of mission statements

on firm performance. Management Decision, 39(1), 19-35.Bartkus, B., Glassman, M., & McAfee, R. B. (2000). Mission statements: Are they smoke

and mirrors? Business Horizons, 43(6), 23-29.Beason, L. (1991). Strategies for establishing an effective persona: An analysis of appeals

to ethos in business speeches. Journal of Business Communication, 28(4), 326-346.Cheney, G. (1983). The rhetoric of identification and the study of organizational

Communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 69, 143-158.Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. (1991). Organizational vision and visionary organizations.

California Management Review, 34(1), 30-52.Cross, M. (1991). Aristotle and business writing: Why we need to teach persuasion. The

Bulletin, 54, 3-6.David, F. R. (1989). How companies define their mission. Long Range Planning, 22(1),

90-97.David, F. R. (2007). Strategic management: Concepts and cases (11th ed.). Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Drohan, W. (1999). Writing a mission statement. Association Management, 51, 117.Drucker, P. F. (1973). Management: Tasks, responsibilities, and practices. New York:

Harper & Row.



Falsey, T. A. (1989). Corporate philosophies and mission statements: A survey and guidefor corporate communicators and management. Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Hyland, K. (1998). Exploring corporate rhetoric: Metadiscourse in the CEOs letter.Journal of Business Communication, 35(2), 224-245.

Ireland, R. D., & Hitt, M. A. (1992). Mission statements: Importance, challenge, and rec-ommendations for development. Business Horizons, 35(3), 34-42.

Kallendorf, C., & Kallendorf, C. (1985). The figures of speech, ethos, and Aristotle: Notestoward a rhetoric of business communication. Journal of Business Communication,22(1), 35-50.

Kallendorf, C., & Kallendorf, C. (1989). Aristotle and the ethics of business communica-tion. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 3(1), 54-69.

Klemm, M., Sanderson, S., & Luffman, G. (1991). Mission statements: Selling corporatevalues to employees. Long Range Planning, 24(3), 73-78.

Leuthesser, L., & Kohli, C. (1997). Corporate identity: The role of mission statements.Business Horizons, 40(3), 59-66.

Livesey, S. M. (2002). Global warming wars: Rhetorical and discourse analytic approachesto ExxonMobils corporate public discourse. Journal of Business Communication,39(1), 117-148.

Morphew, C. C., & Hartley, M. (2006). Mission statements: A thematic analysis of rhetoricacross institutional type. Journal of Higher Education, 77(3), 456-471.

Pearce, J. A., II. (1982). The company mission as a strategic tool. Sloan ManagementReview, 23(3), 15-24.

Pearce, J. A., & David, F. (1987). Corporate mission statements: The bottom line. Academyof Management Executive, 1(2), 109-116.

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

Rarick, C. A., & Vitton, J. (1995). Mission statements make cents. Journal of BusinessStrategy, 16(1), 11-12.

Rogers, P. S., & Swales, J. M. (1990). We the people? An analysis of the Dana Corporationpolicies document. Journal of Business Communication, 27(3), 293-312.

Shenk, R. (1995). Ethos at sea. Business Communication Quarterly, 58(1), 5-11.Stoddard, E. W. (1985). The role of ethos in the theory of technical writing. Technical

Writing Teacher, 11(3), 229-241.Stone, R. A. (1996). Mission statements revisited. SAM Advanced Management Journal,

61(1), 31-37.Swales, J. M., & Rogers, P. S. (1995). Discourse and the projection of corporate culture:

The mission statement. Discourse & Society, 6(2), 223-242.



/ColorImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorImageDict > /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages true /GrayImageMinResolution 150 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict > /GrayImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayImageDict > /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages true /MonoImageMinResolution 1200 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 1200 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict > /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox false /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org) /PDFXTrapped /Unknown

/CreateJDFFile false /SyntheticBoldness 1.000000 /Description >>> setdistillerparams> setpagedevice

Documents

Stallworth Williams 2008 - Mission Statement