Museum Practice. Группа авторов

related products and knowledge that fulfil their wants and needs at the right price. Our friendly, knowledgeable and professional staff will help inspire, educate and problem-solve for our customers.

      Aflac (an insurance company)

      To combine aggressive strategic marketing with quality products and services at competitive prices to provide the best insurance value for consumers.

      AGCO Corporation (a manufacturer and distributor of agricultural equipment)

      Profitable growth through superior customer service, innovation, quality and commitment.

      These missions are typical of the American corporate sector. They speak of maximizing sales/profits, and are rather more targeted at internal staff than at the outside world, such as, customers. As a consumer of insurance services, I am not likely to be influenced by Aflac’s claim that they conduct “aggressive marketing,” or that AGCO are pursuing “profitable growth,” though as a member of staff I am being given a clear message about for whom I’m working, and why the company exists. The mission statements contained in Jeffrey Abrahams’ book 101 Mission Statements from Top Companies are littered with references to profit- making (e.g., Denny’s Corporation: “to profitably grow the company”; Chiquita Brands International, Inc.: “consistently delivering sustainable, profitable growth”; Ecolab: “aggressive growth and a fair return for our shareholders”). Abrahams makes the point that the term “mission statement” may include vision and values, but that in broad terms the mission is an assertion of a company’s reason for existence; employees, customers, partners, and the community being among the primary audience (Abrahams 2007, 3). There are, indeed, lots of different ways that companies choose to express their missions – as “aims,” “objectives,” “ philosophies,” “beliefs,” “values,” “visions,” “principles,” “purpose,” “aspirations,” “credo,” or “our way.”

      Here are some examples featuring a group of non-profit organizations that sent participants to attend the Strategic Perspectives on Non-profit Management program at Harvard Business School in July 2008. The program faculty collected together a number of succinct mission statements for study, including these:

      Habitat for Humanity Quad Cities

      Habitat for Humanity Quad Cities works in partnership with God and people from all walks of life to build simple, decent, affordable housing and improve our community so all people can live as God intended. (Habitat for Humanity Quad Cities 2011)

      Unlad Kabayan Migrant Services Foundation

      To promote social entrepreneurship and social enterprises by mobilising migrant workers, the marginalized in the community and their resources to build a sustainable local economy. (Unlad Kabayan Migrant Services Foundation 2011)

      A fuller “statement of purpose” came from the Rainbow Centre in Singapore:

      Vision: Leading in Special Education, Making a Difference

      Mission: We are committed to enhancing the quality of life of children with special needs through education and training to enable them to achieve their fullest potential by:

       providing a holistic developmental educational programme for our children

       collaborating with parents, the public and private sectors

       committing to the professional development and personal fulfilment of our staff

       contributing to the training and development in the field of special education locally and regionally; and

       engendering greater public awareness, understanding and acceptance of children with special needs

      Core Values:

      We serve with DEDICATION, INTEGRITY and COMPASSION, and strive to achieve EXCELLENCE in our services for the betterment of our special children. We believe in TEAMWORK and RESPECT for our clients, their parents and those we work with. (Rainbow Centre 2011)

      In contrast to the company missions quoted above, these non-profit missions send a message to outsiders, at least as much as to staff. This is because in the non-profit sector, a prime function of the mission is to advocate the organization to supporters and potential supporters, including potential donors and partners. The mission statement is an external public relations and advocacy tool as well as an internal, motivational “call to arms” for staff.

      Of course, we must never underestimate the power of the non-profit mission to attract staff. Salaries in the non-profit sector are invariably lower than in the corporate sector, and in order to attract talented people away from the big money non-profits have to emphasize the social value they are capable of creating. Creating social value – doing a job that is socially worthwhile – motivates many people far more than accumulating money ever will.

      V. Kasturi Rangan writes: “Most of the nonprofits operating today make program decisions based on a mission rather than on a strategy” (Rangan 2004, 1). It is worth exploring more carefully the distinction he is making. Rangan writes of the tendency for non-profits to become victims of “stick-and-stretch syndrome” (2004, 2). He describes how a non-profit may fail to respond to changing conditions, such as a changing market, and to fall behind the times, by sticking too rigidly to their original, motivational mission, dubbing this “mission stickiness” (Rangan 2004, 1).

      On the other hand, non-profits are pulled by market forces, and, as Rangan puts it, “[t]he need to attract new donors often compels nonprofits to take on programs that don’t fit their existing capabilities and expertise well.” He calls this tendency “stretchiness to market demands” (Rangan 2004, 2). Combining “mission stickiness” with “stretchiness” can undermine a non-profit’s effectiveness, resulting in either a slow-moving bureaucracy that survives because of mission legitimacy rather than mission performance, or a busy organization that suffers from action paralysis because it never steps back to consider the full implications of its actions.

      The problem, as Rangan points out, is that it is all very well having a mission, but you also need a strategy. As he puts it:

What most nonprofits consider strategy is really just intensive resource allocation and program management activity … Nonprofits don’t have the discipline of the bottom line and of performance-obsessed capital markets, so they can go for years without having to make strategic choices. Moreover, because neither the nonprofits nor their funding sources are especially skilled at measuring results, it’s easy for them to fall into a vicious cycle of ineffectiveness that can take years to become apparent. Only a grave crisis, a visionary leader, or an outsider (such as a board member) would be able to highlight the need for strategic deliberation and redirection. (Rangan 2004, 3)

      This is a salutary warning. Being clear about the mission, values, and vision won’t amount to much unless an organization is capable of turning these notions into appropriate, and preferably measurable, activity that is responsive to changes in the environment in which the organization operates.

Museum missions

      There is a literature on mission in the not-for-profit sector, and a few publications on museum missions (Drucker 1990; Scott, Jaffe, and Tobe 1993; Davies 1999; Lord and Lord 1999; Anderson 2000). In the museum world the importance of mission statements has long been known, though perhaps rather better in US museums than elsewhere. In the United States, the management of “nonprofit organizations” was recognized long ago as requiring specific approaches and skills that are different from those needed in business. “Non-profit institutions exist for the sake of their mission,” wrote Peter Drucker, “They exist to make a difference in society … They exist for the sake of their mission, and this must never be forgotten” (Drucker 1990, 45).

      Gail Anderson stressed the point that museums operate in a fast-changing world, and that they must therefore be “agile” (Anderson 2000, v). I have come to realize that remaining agile, by watching social, economic, political,