Acronym

Strategy is the bridge between mission and action. It's your statement of intent: how you will go about fulfilling your mission for the immediate future.

I think their comments simply come down to being able to clearly, concisely and powerfully communicate why your organizations exits and what you intend to do about it.

I kind of like what I consider the closest thing I think ASAE & The Center has to a mantra, which is the first half of our Value Proposition: We connect great ideas and great people. But that mantra doesn't help me justify decision making. I don't look at that--or any other mantra you or anybody else could come up with for an association of association executives--and see something that will help me justify killing a program or choosing one idea over another.

But it could (and should) lead to questions and discussion around every effort being considered individually and collectively:

--How is this meeting, blog post, web page, etc. connecting great ideas?
--Who are the great people we are trying to connect and how can that best be done?
--What great people or what great ideas do we need to attract and spotlight at the next conference?
--What great ideas are floating around, but need to be connected to specific constituencies?
--When we've been most successful connecting great ideas and great people, how did we do that and how could we do more of the same?
--What new processes or technologies exist for connecting great ideas and great people that should be experimenting with?

A mantra can drive your thinking in simple yet meaningful ways as David G. aptly notes. It's meant to guide and inform better decisions, not outright make them for you in most cases.

Whether we have mission statements or mantras, they aren't going to have any meaning for our efforts if we don't consistently raise them in meaningful ways.

I guess I just think it's a less jazzy idea than most given the buzz that permeated Great Ideas. I think the old stodgy mission statements can be just as effective as discussion pieces -- it's how you have and act on those conversations that matter.

Maybe a shorter length provides clearer focus--something I'm a huge advocate for. But my guess is, all the goals and things that get thrown into the average mission statement could be described as attributes of a shortened mantra. You'll be having conversations around the relative importance of those things, as you should be anyway.

I enjoyed this exchange, and I really liked the framing of the post Scott...

I think it in some way is dependent on the nature of the business or association...if you are the National Institute of Retired Norwegian Acrobatic Clowns (if NIRNAC is actually out there, please don't sue me), it would be hard to get a four line mantra for them...something like...'Norwegian clowns retiring happily' maybe? I think the balance between simplicity and meaning is very tough and wily...but I agree that making it easy to understand is good, but the strategy, passion, and direction of the people engaged will ultimately make the bigger difference...there are many associations with pretty boring mission statements that have had a dramatic impact on their members/industries, etc...

This post is just another great example of why I love the Acronym Blog. Ultimately, each staff member of an association should understand the overall goal for their organization and I think that's why the push for one sentence or even four words... because how else will everyone in your org be able to grasp that mission?

I, too, say "meh" when hearing some sort of business mantra like, "your mission should be four words or less."

After all, who says? Is that the make/break point of my organization -that I have a short mission statement?

But if every person from mailroom to executive suite were able to say in a few short words what they were all driving toward, working for as an association, then I have no doubt there would be some impressive results.

Remember the "Pledge of Allegiance" we used to recite in school? What if our business day was kicked off each morning with a one-sentence reminder of the organization's goal? Just a simple friendly reminder in the background... maybe a short email to everyone... Sure, it sounds silly, but who cares. What would happen? Would it work to move everyone closer to working more coordinated together as a team? Maybe. Maybe not. But it couldn't hurt.

At any rate, all of this is to say that I loved your post, Scott. It got me thinking. Not everyone contemplates their own personal organizational mission like you do, so maybe it isn't such a bad idea to help them along by keeping it simple. Not a profound thought, but perhaps one that warrants being shared with the masses.

To paraphrase what you said, Scott: Good mantras spark shared understanding and help everyone make clear choices. No, three words is not enough to guide an enterprise, and I doubt Kawasaki or Pink would argue that the ONLY thing you need is a mantra or sentence. You need more than that. You need clear strategic principles. You need action plans. You need organizational learning. You need a lot.

But when you start with traditional mission statements (and traditional strategic plans, I would argue), you end up farther away from what I think we really need, which is deep and shared understanding, and clear choices. Can you have a powerful organization with a stodgy and confusing mission statement? Sure. But why would you? Let's stop waiting for someone to deliver us the perfect structure, process, tagline, answer, etc., and let's start creating more powerful organizations. Today.