Desired State of Evolution - An integrating management tool

Desired State of Evolution -

An integrating management tool

Aurel Brudan

Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

Email: [email protected]

Page 1 of 24 ANZAM 2010

1

Desired State of Evolution – An integrating management tool

Abstract: This paper reviews the history of the use in practice of some of the most popular

management tools today: mission and vision statements. It outlines issues that their adopters are

confronted with and some of the recent developments in integrating them with other conceptual

models. Based on this review and on empirical data from practice, a new integrating

management tool is proposed: the Desired State of Evolution (DSOE). It combines elements from

other management concepts such as values, mission, vision and destination statements in an

integrated model that clarifies them and facilitates their alignment and understanding. While

conceptual in nature, DSOE is also supported by logical, yet simple visualization that enhances

its role as an anchoring point for organizational systems.

Keywords: business level strategy, strategy formulation, strategy execution, strategic planning,

change management, evolving.

The pursuit of organizational clarity and alignment towards a strategic direction has preoccupied

researchers and practitioners for many decades. Especially over the last 50 years, a variety of

management concepts have been popularized and adopted by organizations with more or less success.

Some of the early articles on the topic of strategic planning and clarity focused on clarifying how the

concept of planning applies to various settings (Pryor 1964, Smiddy, 1964) or in proposing frameworks

for strategy formulation (Ansoff 1964). Two such management concepts that gained popularity since then

are mission and vision statements. They are considered strategic management tools or instruments, one of

the clearest definitions for both being: “The mission statement is a statement of a company’s purpose,…,

if mission outlines what the company is attempting to achieve at the present time, its vision offers a view

of what the enterprise might become.” (Grant 2002: 60).

A 2008 survey conducted by the management consulting company Bain & Company ranks

Strategic Planning as the second most popular management tool after Benchmarking, while Mission and

Vision Statements are on the third place (Rigby and Bilodeau 2009). Of the nearly 10,000 respondents

67% indicated that Strategic Planning and 65% indicated that Mission and Vision Statements are used by

their organization. In terms of satisfaction, the same report lists Strategic Planning as the tool which users

Page 2 of 24ANZAM 2010

2

are most satisfied with (having a rating of 4.01 out of 5), while Mission and Vision Statements (with a

rating of 3.91 out of 5) are ranked third. A review of the results of this annual survey conducted since

1993 reveals that the use of Missions and Vision Statements declined from 88% in 1993 to 70% in 2000,

followed by an increase to 79% by 2006 and a further decline to 65% in 2008. This variance in the

popularity of these concepts is confirmed by an analysis conducted by Cummings and Daellenbach

(2009), who reviewed the publication history of the Long Range Planning, considered the oldest academic

journal dedicated to strategic management. Their review of 2366 articles published by the journal

between 1964 and 2006 reveals a frenzy of mission/vision dedicated articles starting with 1988, that

peaked in 1992 and was over by 2000 (Figure 1). In terms of the use of these terms in abstracts the span

of coverage is longer, starting with 1972, increasing in the 1980s and continuing at a steady pace since the

1990s (Figure 2). Together, these reports paint a picture of two management concepts that had an

important role in the maturing process of Strategic Management as a discipline and whose popularity in

academic papers was followed by adoption and use in practice. While the satisfaction of users is high, the

overall usage has declined. This raises questions over the future of such tools and their fit in today’s

business environment.

STRATEGIC STATEMENTS HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

Mission Statements through time

Etymologically, both the words “mission” and “vision” have their roots in religion. Most

religions, from Taoism, to Christianity and Islamism have used the term vision in their religious texts for

thousands of years. In these texts, the term depicts a sacred encounter which results in a view of the future

or specific advice on how to approach a situation. Gradually, the term has started to be used initially in

general and subsequently in business literature, to depict mental images related to the future.


3

The term “mission” is reported to have been used first by Jesuit monks, to depict the act of

sending monks on overseas missions, such as the missions in the 16th century in South America,

following the landing of Christopher Columbus (Merino and Newson 1995). Over time, the use of the

term expanded from religion to the military, which used it to reflect a specific assignment allocated as

part of a plan or strategy. The link between military and business vocabulary was facilitated by books

such as “On War” by Carl von Clausewitz (1832), considered one of the most important treaties on the

philosophy of war. An entire section of the book (“Of strategy in general”) was dedicated to strategy and

is considered today an important precursor of strategy management literature.

One of the earliest uses of a mission statement outside of religious and military organizations is

reported to have occurred in 1941, when the American Journal of Economics and Sociology was

established by Adolph Lowe and Franz Oppenheimer. As founding members of the editorial board they

adopted a mission statement for the journal that called for cooperation and constructive synthesis in social

sciences (Forstater 2002).

In business context, the use of the term mission had a different path. As early as 1960, Stoller and

Van Horn wrote about how the military approach to planning can be applied in a business context.

Smalter (1964) published one of the first articles exploring the influence of military literature on

management practice. It explored in detail how the military concept of missions can be applied in

business, however the term was used more in a “program-package” sense and not in the sense it is widely

used today. Tombach (1961:54) had a different approach to using the word “mission” to cross-over from

military to business literature: “the mission of defense […] can be broadly defined as that of preventing

or minimizing damage to a target or target complex […] from hostile action.”

According to David (1989), the link to the business environment was facilitated by Peter Drucker,

who started to write on the topic in mid 1970s. One of Drucker’s recommended questions for any

organization was: “What is our business?”. David (1989:90) considered the answer is reflected in

Drucker’s own words (1973): “A business is not defined by its name, statutes, or articles of


4

incorporation. It is defined by the business mission. Only a clear definition of the mission and purpose of

the organization makes possible clear and realistic business objectives.”

McGinnis (1981), Pearce II (1982), Staples and Black (1984) were among the first to dedicate entire

articles to the discussion of the use of missions statements as strategic management tools. The term

“mission statement” was understood as expressing the fundamental purpose specific to an organisation.

By 1986, two things occurred. On one hand, mission statements became widely used in corporate

environments. Want (1986:48) notes that: “Executives and consultants alike are familiar with mission

statements, and many have participated in the mission-writing exercise.” On the other hand, divergent

views how mission statements should be formulated and used started to emerge. Pearce II and David

(1987) proposed eight key components, among which mentions of target customers and markets,

identification of products and services, geographic domain, core technologies and desired public image.

Want (1986) lists as primary components of corporate mission statements: purpose, principle business

aims, corporate identity, policies of the company and the values.

Regardless of these challenges, by 1990s research on the use of mission statements started to

focus on their use (Ireland and Hitt 1992), their role (Leuthesser and Kohli 1997) and impact on firm

performance (Bart and Baetz 1998). From 2000 onwards, researchers focused increasingly on questioning

the value added by mission statements. Titles such as “Mission Statements: Are They Smoke and

Mirrors?” (Bartkus, Glassman and McAfee 2000) and “Mission Possible: Do School Mission Statements

Work?” (Davis, Ruhe, Lee, Rajadhyaksha 2007) are illustrative. Further research in the impact of mission

statements on the financial performance concluded that they have little or no impact on financial

performance (Bartkus, Glassman and McAfee 2006). One of the most comprehensive reviews of the topic

concluded that despite the challenges in the formulation and use of mission statements, they shouldn’t be

considered fads, as they withstood the test of time and continue to matter (Stallworth Williams 2008).

The fact that mission statements matter to organizations is their popularity among both small and

large organisations. As management tools they withstood the test of time and are still relevant attests their


5

usefulness/success theoretical and practical contexts. Mission statements are relevant to external

audiences as well as to employees. They inspire, provide a sense of identity, give credibility to activities

and represent organisational symbols.

Vision Statements through time

The use of a vision statement in business organizations can be traced far back. As its inherent

meaning refers to what organizations want to achieve in the future, it can be argued that any company

statement that clarifies this aspect can be considered a vision statement, even if not explicitly labeled this

way. In recent history, Sony was one of the first companies reported to have used the vision beyond a

simple declaration, to drive organizational development and strategic decision making (Lyons 1976,

Morita 1987, Nathan 1999). Another famous early adopter in the late 70s-early 80s was Apple Computer

(Swanger and Maidique 1988, Schoemaker 1992). Initial literature on vision statements has associated the

concept with leadership, as imagining the future is considered an attribute of a leader (Mendall &

Gerguoy 1984, Sashkin 1988, Westley & Mintzberg 1989). 1990s represent the heyday of vision

statements as strategic management tools, with a wave of articles promoting them (Filion 1991, Ziegler

1991, Larwood, Falbe, Kriger & Miesing 1995, Collins & Porras 1991, 1996). This wave of articles was

followed by studies analyzing their evolution (O’Brian, Meadows 2001) and impact (Baum JR & Locke

EA 1998, Raynor 1998).

Same as with mission statements, the positive impact of vision statements on organisations is

demonstrated by their wide adoption in practice. Many organisations have both types of statements in use,

other only one. Vision statements complement mission statements as they are forward looking and inspire

staff members. They are catalysts of organisational evolution as they express a future state towards which

the organisation is progressing towards. This is relevant to all stakeholders and although quantifying the

value added is difficult, their contribution to organisational success has been proven empirically.


6

CONCEPTUAL INTEGRATION OF STRATEGIC STATEMENTS

Towards the end of 1990, the interest of both researchers and practitioners focused increasingly

towards exploring the use of integrated approaches that link strategic management concepts related to

corporate identity: mission, vision, values and capabilities or competencies (Raynor 1998, Stuart 1999).

Raynor (1998) proposed such a conceptual framework to address the issue of overlapping between

concepts and to ensure alignment between them (Figure 3). The novelty was the mapping of the

relationships between concepts: core competencies and values influencing the development of the

mission, who along with market forces influence the shaping of the vision. Stuart (1999) approached the

issue from an corporate identity point of view, developing a model that linked corporate personality (that

included values and mission) to corporate strategy (vision, structure) and identity (behaviour, symbolism,

communication), as illustrated in Figure 4.

The trend of integration of mission and vision statements in strategic management models or

frameworks continued with the anchoring in the vision statement of concepts such as the Balanced

Scorecard. Kaplan & Norton (1996) placed vision and strategy at the centre of the development of the

Balanced Scorecard. By 2001, they expanded the “anchoring” to include the mission, core values along

with the vision and strategy, as illustrated in Figure 5 (Kaplan & Norton, 2001). To facilitate the link

between the Balanced Scorecard concept and the mission/vision statements, a “destination statement”

approach emerged from practice (Andersen, Lawrie and Savic 2004, Lawrie, Cobbold and Marshall 2004,

Lawrie, Cobbold and Issa 2004, Lawrie and Cobbold 2004). Lawrie and Cobbold (2004) are part of a

group of consultants that were the first to use “destination statements”, tracing its roots back to late

1990s, when the interest in validating strategic objectives and targets as part of the development of

Balanced Scorecards lead to initial version of such a concept. The “destination statement” represents a

description of how the organisation will probably look like at a particular future date, achieved through a


7

combination of categories that include statements that reflect the impact of implementing the strategy and

the results achieved by the organisation (Lawrie and Cobbold, 2004).

Andersen, Lawrie and Savic (2004) illustrated the use of the destination statement by a

commercial organisation through a case study. The case presents how the organisation used the

destination statement (featured in Figure 6) to describe the long-term strategic goals and align their

strategic priorities to the destination statement through the use of other strategic management tools such

as the Strategy Map.

Lawrie, Cobbold and Issa (2004:629) presented another case study covering the use of strategic

priorities incorporating destination statements in practice: “The destination statement consisted of about

sixty distinct descriptive statements grouped four headings: financial and market characteristics, external

relationships, activities and processes and organisation and culture”.

A third case study where destination statements were used in practice was published by Lawrie,

Cobbold and Marshall (2004). This time the concept was implemented in a governmental organisation

that included in it topics areas that the management considered it could directly influence: “The

destination statement described the future unit around four main topics: environmental outcomes;

external relationships; resources, organisation and culture; and activities and processes.” (Lawrie,

Cobbold and Marshall 2004: 361). The future date used in the destination statements described by these

case studies is five years away from the time of their development (Andersen, Lawrie and Savic 2004,

Lawrie, Cobbold and Issa 2004, Lawrie, Cobbold and Marshall 2004).

ISSUES IN THE USE OF STRATEGIC STATEMENTS IN PRACTICE

Overall, reviewing the last 50 years of use of strategic statements in organisational management

several issues can be identified. One of them is related to the confusion in practice regarding their use.

The evolution in time of the usage of both mission and vision statements was followed by a certain degree


8

of confusion in practice regarding their use. Like many other management concept, the bridge between

theory and practice was not as smooth as planned. Many organisations confused the concepts, using the

terms interchangeably. Many more adopted various standards in developing such statements, ranging

from one liners to multiple pages. By late 1998s, this confusion was evident: “’vision’ and ‘mission’ are

words whose power is overshadowed only by the confusion which surrounds them” (Raynor 1998:368).

What some organisations call a mission statement, others consider to be a vision statement. This is not

related to the definition of terms. The terms have been defined, described and clarified multiple times in

both academic and practitioner literature, albeit sometimes incorrectly. It is related more to the lack of a

simple instrument that links the two, both conceptually and visually.

A second issue is related to the integration between concepts. While several conceptual models

were proposed over time (Raynor 1998, Stuart 1999), they were not followed by visual representation

models that linked the concepts in practice, not only during their formulation, but also after, during their

use. Visual representation tools that link mission, vision, competencies and values are rather exceptions

and not the rule. Even when concepts such as the destination statement were supported by visual

representations of their use in practice, the illustrations were mostly textual and not explained in detail to

facilitate their understanding and future application.

Thirdly the dynamic of the use of missions and visions statements has changed over time and the

current use in practice lacks an instrument that facilitates their linking to other concepts. The Balanced

Scorecard concept is such an example. While the need for translating the vision into objectives and

measures is promoted widely in the literature on the subject, the availability of instruments that facilitate

this process and its understanding is limited. “Destination statements” contribute to the linkage between

strategy and corporate identity, however their scope is limited to a snapshot in time and they are lacking

solid visual and conceptual links to mission and values.


9

THE DESIRED STATE OF EVOLUTION

In addressing the issues identified above, it becomes clear that a possible solution needs to go

beyond a conceptual level to a practical management tool that integrates the main organizational strategic

statements. While many organizations already represent such statements visually one next to the other,

this is not common practice and varies greatly in form. The premise is that by developing a new tool that

represents all these concepts on the same page, benefits will be realized both in terms of conceptual

clarity, understanding and in terms of new insights generated by exploring and refining linkages.

The concepts selected for such a visual representation are a combination of new and old, grouped

in three levels: Purpose and Identity at the bottom, Desired State in the middle and Vision at the top.

Together, they are linked in a sequence that can be described as the “Desired State of Evolution”,

illustrated in Figure 7.

The first level, “Purpose and Identity” is represented by the mission and values of the

organization. The mission statement is essential, as it represents the reason why the organization exists.

Linked to it are organizational values, that, as expressed in frameworks and models such as the ones

proposed by Radnor (1998) and Asan & Soyer (2009) and closely linked in both theory and practice.

Corporate values are used by organizations reflect who they are, what they represent, want to achieve and

how they intend to do this (Grant 2002). Another definition of values is offered by Jones (2010:201):

“Values are general criteria, standards, or guiding principles that people use to determine which types of

behaviours, events, situations and outcomes are desirable or undesirable.” Regardless of interpretations,

many organizations use values to drive behavior, being considered an integral part of organizational

culture. By linking them to the mission, desired state and vision, they become an important component of

the strategy management system and key elements or organizational communication. Using a visual


10

metaphor of the organization as a tree, the mission and values represent the roots of the organization, the

essence of its being.

“Desired State”, the second level of components is represented by three sets of elements. This is

an intermediary level that makes the link between mission and vision. It integrates the “destination

statement” approach (Lawrie and Cobbold, 2004) of representing the desired state of the organisation at a

future point, while adding structure and rigour in documentation. The first set of elements of this desired

state is formed by internal oriented capabilities, competencies, value drivers or key success factors. Many

organizations use at least one of these terms to express elements of organisational design and strategy that

are key to their success. Representing these elements in their desired form, once they are at the level

planned to for a future date is a useful approach to clarifying questions such as: “What is key to our

success?”, “What are we trying to do?”, “Where will all our efforts lead to?”. The brief statements

containing responses to such questions represent the content of this set of elements. Such statements can

be grouped in categories based on various criteria: perspectives of the Balanced Scorecard, strategic

themes, organizational goals or other form of taxonomy. Such examples of categories are: Financial,

Stakeholders, Customers, Services, Processes, Organisational culture, People and capabilities,

Management / Leadership, Efficiency of processes, Information systems and Know-how.

Linking to this set of elements is a second set that represents the projection of the organization in

the external environment. It is not enough to have well developed internal capabilities and be successful

at operational efficiency. The relationship between the organization and the environment is at least

equally important. This second set of elements is formed of external oriented capabilities, competencies,

value drivers or key success factors. Their desired state in the future is represented through similar brief

statements, grouped in categories, as in the case of the internal oriented ones (in the first set). Examples of

possible categories are: Relationships (with customers and other stakeholders), Positioning, Role and

Involvement in the community. Both these sets of elements are descriptive in nature and more qualitative

rather than quantitative.


11

The third set or layer of element is exclusively quantitative and is represented by the major

achievements the organization desires to complete by a specific date in the near future. This date is

generally set in accordance with the strategic plan of the organization, completed for a period of 3-5

years. This layer of organizational targets, results or achievements for the next 3-5 years represents a

useful reminder that the quantitative targets set for the immediate future (current financial year) should

have a correspondent in the near future, to clarify direction and speed of growth. To ensure clarity and

relevance, only a select set of quantitative target achievements should be listed in this layer (up to ten),

covering aspects such as: revenue, profit rate, staff members, customer numbers and satisfaction. In terms

of the use of such targets, their purpose here is informational and for communication purpose only.

Organisations have the option to consider them binding or not. In today’s business environment

characterised by accelerating change, a realistic approach is to consider such targets as guides and to use

them for learning purposes, to navigate towards the desired state. All these three layers of the desired state

(descriptive internally focused, descriptive externally focused and quantitative) should be recalibrated

during strategic management review processes, to ensure they are realistic and aligned with the changing

realities in which organizations operate today. Using the tree metaphor again, these three layers of

elements represent the trunk (internally oriented), leaves (externally oriented) and fruits (as results or

achievements). The projection in the future of the elements of the desired state should ideally cover a two

to five years timeframe. Yearly priorities and objectives are already illustrated in yearly business plans

and other tools such as Strategy Maps, scorecards and dashboards. Using a future projection of the desired

state in at least two years time ensures its contents are complement other annual strategic documents. The

desired state describing the status of the organization in the medium to long term, while annual plans

illustrate where the organization wants to be in a year’s time.

The third level of the “Desired State of Evolution” is represented by the vision statement, as a

representation of the desired state of the organization in a more distant future. The sequence: Values ->


12

Mission -> Desired State -> Vision represents a storyline that illustrates the desired evolution path of the

organization.

Along with the components and their visual representation, the choice of terminology is an

important determinant of clarity and understanding of the concept. The term “Desired State of Evolution”

is preferred as it expresses three different elements of organizational life. “Desire” is a term inherently

related to humans and human behavior. It reflects the fact that the human element is the most important

component and determinant of organizational success. The use of a humanistic management terminology

is not new. Grossman (1964:94) used the term desire to express a managerial action “ [Managers must]

desire to act systematically – with deliberate purpose”. The terms “State” and “Evolution” are interrelated

and reflect the fact that organizations are in a continuous change process, evolving along with the

environment surrounding them. This evolution and change process has been a key theme of

organizational studies research for over 50 years now: “The evolution of commercial organizations from

a functional to a product orientation has been dissected with almost indecent thoroughness” (Pryor

1964:144). However, in an organizational context, the use of the term “evolution” was replaced by the

term “change”. While “change” may have more comforting connotations for some, it lacks the perpetual

nature of the term “evolution”. Thus, the use of the latter is preferred, as it reflects the ever-changing

nature of organizational life. The term “State” represents the “buffer” between the organization today and

in a future characterised by change and uncertainty. Having a clear picture of how in what state will the

organization be at a specific date in the near future, provides a much needed anchoring point for

organizational planning and other systems. At employee level, it clarifies what is the desired operating

state of the organization where the efforts to deploy projects and initiatives, meet targets and achieve

objectives will lead to. From this point of view it can be a powerful communication tool, both internally

and externally.


13

CONTRIBUTION TO THEORY AND PRACTICE

While proposed as a new management tool, the Desired State of Evolution complements the

existing set of similar instruments used by organizations. There are three main ideas expressed its

architecture.

Firstly, it is an integrating management tool that links other similar tools to enable clarity. It

follows the trend in recent years of building on existing concepts and integrating them to form a more

clear and easier to understand structure. Integration is ultimately a key role for managers: “…the principal

constituent subelements of the generic work of a Professional Manager, as such, are to Plan, to Organise,

to Integrate and to Measure in exercising Leadership to achieve chosen results through the work and

initiative of other people…” (Smiddy, 1964:89).

Secondly, it uses rich humanistic management terminology that ensures distinctiveness and

relevance. This terminology is aligned with the usage in practice of the concept, as opposed to other

similar instruments that remain a “statement” in name only, as in practice they are represented by many

paragraphs of text. More importantly, the terminology emphasizes the aspirational nature of

organizational activities, driven by human characteristics and behavior.

Thirdly, it uses logical, yet simple visualization. The reliance on data in today’s organizations

leads to the growth of Business Intelligence, which brought with it the need for relevant infographics and

data visualization solutions. Content is not sufficient anymore, it needs to be supported by visual

representations that facilitate its understanding. The development and representation of the Desired State

of Evolution combines relevant content with smart data vizualisation. This combination is a major

component of the value it ads – its practicality, as it is represented by a theoretical concept supported by a

simple visualisation in practice.


14

It contributes to both management theory and practice, as it links previous concepts in a logical

model that can be easily replicated by organizations. Thus it represents a much needed anchoring point

for various organizational systems, ranging from strategic planning, performance management and

budgeting to communications and human resources management. It addresses some of the alignment and

understanding issues that surround the use of values, mission, vision and destination statements today, as

by listing all of them on the same page it highlights duplications and simplifies communication.

The beauty of the Desired State of Evolution that its novelty is in the integration of already

existing tools, generating value by linking independent components in a structured whole, which tells a

story. Its relevance to theory is that it can be considered a framework for analyzing key strategic

management tools. For practice, it simplifies and clarifies the same page, by bringing figuratively and

literally bringing them on the same page.

An important aspect to note is that the Desired State of Evolution can be customized and used at

all organizational levels. Functional areas and teams may choose to develop their own version, based on

the one adopted by the organization. This way, they may benefit by an additional level of clarity and

detail specific to their own working environment. The question of how much should be customized and

how much should be kept the same as the organizational level remains open. Ultimately preferences will

vary and is not something to be prescribed. It is however a relevant area for future research.

Being a conceptual tool used in practice, the testing of its use and results are highly dependent on

its understanding of its users and its customization in practice. Important to note is that the process of

developing the Desired State of Evolution may be as important as the process of using it. The merits of

defining mission and vision statements and expressing organizational values have been presented in depth

by the existing management literature (Stallworth Williams 2008). They apply in the case of Desired

State of Evolution not only at the level of subcomponents, but also in terms of refining them and linking

them together. Ultimately the thoroughness of the development exercise will vary from an organization to


15

another. The possible differences in approaches can be further explored through structured experimental

research.

The Desired State of Evolution is already used in practice in a number of organisations that were

introduced to this tool during the implementation of organizational performance management systems. In

such implementations, it acts as an anchoring point that reflects the purposeful identity of the organization

and is linked to the corporate plan, business plan, Strategy Map, Performance Scorecard and other

management tools. Empirical observations denote that the value of the tool is expressed not only by the

final outcome, but also by the discussions and conversations needed to reach agreement on its content.

These contribute to organizational alignment, understanding of past and future and make vision, mission

and values meaningful through in-depth understanding. Oftentimes these tools are labeled as “only

words”, part of the corporate discourse. Linking them in a structured approach and examining their

linkages is a change from the analytic, insular approach that dominated their use to date. Another issue

addressed is the visibility of mission, vision and values in organisations. The majority of organisations

use them as part of the corporate literature, while their visibility in day to day work is limited. Due to the

inclusion of the Desired State of Evolution in organizational performance management system

architecture, the profile of this new tool and its subcomponents increases considerably. They have

“graduated” from the level of corporate literature and discourse to being key components of the system

used to monitor the achievement of organizational objectives. The Desired State of Evolution provides

foundations, direction and boundaries to purposeful achievement in an organizational context.

While the structure and the name of the Desired State of Evolution in practice may vary, the key

components and the purpose of the tool generally remain unchanged. Research projects will have to

explore its practical application with an organic performance architecture paradigm. Each organization

will customize the tool to reflect their specific circumstances. Due to this future research should focus

initially on understanding the use of the tool in organisations, as there is a need to test this concept and its

functional use in practice.


16

FUTURE RESEARCH

As a management tool, the exploration of the use and value added by the Desired State of

Evolution should be done in practice. As its formulation was influenced by empirical observation and

experimentation, further research efforts should start with exploring the process of development of the

Desired State of Evolution by organizations. Such research project may explore the relationship between

the organizational Desired State of Evolution and the functional area Desired State of Evolution. Action

research and case studies are ideal for exploring this side of the concept. In terms of its use in practice,

experimental research is ideal, as it provides clear delimitations between the impact of such a tool on

entities that adopted it as opposed to entities that haven’t. A third category of research may be dedicated

to exploring the link between the performance of Desired State of Evolution adopters compared to

organizations that use only elements of it or no elements at all. However, as the preferred approach of

such research projects is qualitative, their reliability and validity should be closely controlled. Due to the

variety of forms such concepts have in practice it is important to consider if results are associated with the

way they are interpreted, customized and used, in addition to a simplistic view of whether they are used or

not.

Ultimately, the real test of the Desired State of Evolution will be its reception by the business

environment. Future research can also explore the path of this management tool from its emergence, to

the first publication on this topic in 2010 and adoption trend in subsequent years.


17

References:

Andersen HV, Lawrie G and Savic N (2004) Effective quality management through third-generation

balanced scorecard, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 53(7):634-645

Ansoff HI (1964) A Quasi-Analytic Approach to the Business Strategy Problem, Management

Technology, 4 (1): 67-77.

Asan U & Soyer A (2009) Identifying strategic management concepts: An analytic network process

approach.

Bart C, Baetz M (1998) The relationship between mission statements and firm performance: An

exploratory study, Journal of Management Studies, 35(6): 823-853.

Bartkus B, Glassman M and McAfee B (2000), Mission Statements: Are They Smoke and Mirrors?

Business Horizons, November-December: 23-28.

Bartkus B, Glassman M and McAfee B (2006), Mission Statement Quality and Financial Performance,

European Management Journal, 24(1): 86–94.

Baum JR & Locke EA (1998) A Longitudinal Study of the Relation of Vision and Vision Communication

to Venture Growth in Entrepreneurial Firms, Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(1):43-54.

Collins JC & Porras JI (1991) Organizational vision and visionary organizations, California Management

Review, 34: 30-52.

Collins JC & Porras JI (1996) Building your Company’s Vision, Harvard Business Review, September-

October: 65-77

David F. (1989) How Companies Define Their Mission, Long Range Planning, 22(1): 90-97.

Davis JH, Ruhe JA, Lee M, Rajadhyaksha U (2007), Mission Possible: Do School Mission Statements

Work?, Journal of Business Ethics, 70:99–110.

Drucker PF (1973) Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, and Practices, Harper & Row, New York.

Filion LJ (1991) Vision and relations: Elements for an entrepreneurial Metamodel, International Small

Business Journal, 9:112-131.

Forstater M (2002) How the AJES Got its Mission Statement in 1941, American Journal of Economics

and Sociology, 61(4):779-786.

Grant RM (2002) Contemporary Strategy Analysis, 4th edition, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, UK.

Grossman AJ (1964) Inner-Directedness in Planning, Management Technology, 4(2): 92-114.

Ireland RD and Hitt MA (1992) Mission Statements: Importance, Challenge, and Recommendations for

Development, Business Horizons, May-June: 34-42.

Jones GR 2010, Organizational Theory, Design and Change, 6th edition, Pearson Education, Uppler

Saddle River, New Jersey


18

Kaplan RS & Norton D (1996) The Balanced Scorecard: Translating strategy into action, Harvard

Business School Press, Boston, Massachusetts.

Kaplan RS & Norton D (2001) The Strategy-Focused Organization: How Balanced Scorecard

Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment, Harvard Business School Press, Boston,

Massachusetts.

Larwood L, Falbe CM, Kriger MP & Miesing P (1995) Structure and meaning of organizational vision.

Academy of Management Journal, 38: 740-769.

Lawrie G & Cobbold I (2004) Third-generation balanced scorecard: evolution of an effective strategic

control tool, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 53(7):611-623.

Lawrie G, Cobbold I and Marshall J (2004) Corporate performance management system in a devolved

UK governmental organisation, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,

53(7):353-370.

Lawrie G, Cobbold I and Issa K (2004) Designing a strategic management system using the third-

generation balanced scorecard, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,

53(7):624-633

Leuthesser L and Kohli C (1997) Corporate Identity: The Role Of Mission Statements, Business

Horizons, May-June: 34-42.

Lyons N (1976) The Sony vision, New York, Crown Publishers.

Mendall JS & Gerguoy HG (1984) Anticipatory management or visionary leadership: A debate,

Management Planning, , November-December: 28-31.

Merino O, Newson LA (1995) ‘Jesuit Missions in Spanish America: The Aftermath of the Expulsion’.

Paper presented at the Conference of Latin Americanist Geographers, accessed at

http://sites.maxwell.syr.edu/CLAG/yearbook1995/newson.pdf on 29 June 2010.

Morita A (1987) Made in Japan: Akio Morita and Sony, London, Fontana Paperbacks.

McGinnis VJ (1981), The mission statement: A key step in strategic planning, Business, November

December: 39-43.

Nathan J (1999) Sony: The private life, London, Haper Collins Business.

O’Brian F & Meadows M (2001) How To Develop Visions: A Literature Review and a Revised

CHOICES Approach for an Uncertain World, Journal of Systemic Practice and Action Research,

14(4):495-515.

Pearce II JA (1982), The Company Mission as a Strategic Goal, Sloan Management Review, Spring: 15-

24.

Pearce II JA, David F (1987) Corporate Mission Statements: The Bottom Line, The Academy of

Management Executive, 1(2):109- 115.

Pryor Jr MH (1964) International Corporate Planning: How is it Different?, Management Technology,

4(2): 139-148.


http://sites.maxwell.syr.edu/CLAG/yearbook1995/newson.pdf

19

Raynor ME (1998) That Vision Thing: Do We Need It?, Long Range Planning, 31(3):368-376

Rigby and Bilodeau 2009, Management Tools and Trends 2009, a Bain and Company, Inc. publication,

accessed at http://www.bain.com/bainweb/PDFs/cms/Public/Management_Tools_2009.pdf on 29 June

2010.

Sashkin M (1988). The visionary leader, Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational

effectiveness, In J. A. Conger & R. N. Kanungo (Eds.), pp. 122-160), Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Schoemaker PJH (1992) How to Link Strategic Vision to Core Capabilities, Sloan Management Review,

Fall: 67-81.

Smalter DJ (1964) The Influence of Department of Defense Practices on Corporate Planning,

Management Technology, 4(2):115-138.

Smiddy HF (1964) Planning, Anticipating and Managing, Management Technology, 4(2): 83-91.

Stallworth Williams L (2008), The Mission Statement – A Corporate Reporting Tool With a Past,

Present, Future, Journal of Business Communication, 45( 2): 94-119.

Staples WA, Black KU (1984) Defining Your Business Mission: A Strategic Perspective, Journal of

Business Strategies, 1:33-39.

Stoller DS, Van Horn RL (1960) Design of a Management Information System, Management

Technology, 1(1):86-91.

Stuart H (1999) A definitive model of the corporate identity management process, Corporate

Communications: An International Journal, 4(4):200-207.

Swanger CC, Maidique MA (1988) Apple Computer: The First Ten Years, Strategic Management of

Technology and Innovation, Homewood, Illinois, Irwin, pp. 288-320.

Tombach H (1961) Critique of Air Defense Measures of Effectiveness, Management Technology,

1(3):52-62.

Von Clausenwitz C (1832) On War, 1st edition in English (1874) translated by Colonel J.J. Graham,

accessed at http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1946 on 28 June 2010.

Want JH (1986) Corporate mission, Management Review, August: 46–50.

Westley R & Mintzberg H (1989) Visionary leadership and strategic management, Strategic Management

Journal, 10:17-32.

Ziegler W (1991) Envisioning the Future, Futures, June: 516-527.


http://www.bain.com/bainweb/PDFs/cms/Public/Management_Tools_2009.pdf

20

Tables and Figures:

Figure 1: “Faddish” keywords in Long Range Planning titles (Cummings and Daellenbach

2009:340)

Figure 2: “Faddish” keywords in Long Range Planning abstracts (Cummings and Daellenbach

2009:340)


21

Figure 3: Raynor’s conceptual framework for developing strategic concepts (Raynor 1998:373)

Figure 4: Stuart’s model of the corporate identify management process (Stuart 1999:206)


22

Figure 5: Translating a Mission into Desired Outcomes (Kaplan and Norton, 2001:73)

Table 6: Extract from Plastics Inc.’ corporate Destination Statement (from Andersen, Lawrie and

Savic 2004:642)


23

Figure 7: The Desired State of Evolution (author, 2010 – completed with random data, for illustration purposes only)


Desired State of Evolution - An integrating management tool

Documents