COMM511 - Critical Reflection (Chapter 1-4)

6/3/22, 11:58 AM What is the difference between mission, vision and values statements?

https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/isthereadifferencebetweenacompany’smission,visionandvaluestatements.aspx 1/2

What is the di�erence between mission, vision and values statements?

Each statement may be part of the strategic planning process but have a di�erent objective. These statements may be written for

organizations or for individual departments.

A mission statement is a concise explanation of the organization's reason for existence. It describes the organization's purpose and its

overall intention. The mission statement supports the vision and serves to communicate purpose and direction to employees, customers,

vendors and other stakeholders. See SHRM's Company Mission Statement Examples (www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-

samples/policies/pages/missionstatementgeneral.aspx) for a variety of samples. Questions to consider when drafting mission statements

could include:

What is our organization's purpose?

Why does our organization exist?

A vision statement looks forward and creates a mental image of the ideal state that the organization wishes to achieve. It is inspirational

and aspirational and should challenge employees. Questions to consider when drafting vision statements might include:

What problem are we seeking to solve?

Where are we headed?

If we achieved all strategic goals, what would we look like 10 years from now?

A values statement lists the core principles that guide and direct the organization and its culture. In a values-led organization, the values

create a moral compass for the organization and its employees. It guides decision-making and establishes a standard against which actions

can be assessed. These core values are an internalized framework that is shared and acted on by leadership. When drafting values

statements, questions to consider might include:

What values are unique to our organization?

What values should guide the operations of our company?

What conduct should our employees uphold?

In conjunction with a values statement, a code of ethics puts those values into practice. It outlines the procedures in place to ensure the

organization's values are upheld. Questions to consider when creating codes of ethics might include:

What are common ethical issues in our industry?

What should someone do if he or she sees a violation of our values?

Management cannot create a new values statement or ethics code and expect immediate change. For an organization to have an e�ective

values statement, it must fully embrace its values and ethics at all levels of the company and use them daily to guide its attitudes, actions

and decision-making. Refer to What does it mean to be a values-based organization? (www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/tools-and-

samples/hr-qa/Pages/whatdoesitmeantobeavalues-basedorganization.aspx) for more information.

Fe ed

ba ck

6/3/22, 11:58 AM What is the difference between mission, vision and values statements?

https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/isthereadifferencebetweenacompany’smission,visionandvaluestatements.aspx 2/2

CONTACT US (WWW.SHRM.ORG/ABOUT-SHRM/PAGES/CONTACT-US.ASPX) | 800.283.SHRM

(7476)

© 2022 SHRM. All Rights Reserved

SHRM provides content as a service to its readers and members. It does not o�er legal advice, and cannot guarantee the accuracy or suitability of its content for a particular

purpose.

Disclaimer (www.shrm.org/about-shrm/Pages/Terms-of-Use.aspx#Disclaimer)

HR DAILY NEWSLETTER

News, trends and analysis, as well as breaking news alerts, to help HR professionals do their jobs better each business day.

Fe ed

ba ck

LEADERSHIP

The Balance Needed to Lead Change by Christina Bielaszka-DuVernay

September 16, 2008

by Kerry A. Bunker and Michael Wakefield

One reason leading change is so difficult is the tension it sets up between managing

business issues (creating a vision, aligning resources, restructuring the

organization) and managing people issues (the legitimate concerns and feelings of

those who must carry out the change and deal with its ramifications day-to-day).

Most managers are adept at the business side of leading change. They are trained to

deal with structural and operational issues, and they are evaluated on and

rewarded for their ability to innovate and to deliver business results.

But the pressures generated by major structural or operational change compel

leaders to pay particular attention to what’s happening on the human side of the

organization. And it is here that many leaders fall short. The result? A destabilized

organizational culture, an erosion of trust, insufficient buy-in, and fear and

skepticism among employees at a time when a loyal, productive, and enthusiastic

workforce is essential for success.

So how do leaders address the people side of change without jeopardizing the

business side? How can they make tough decisions without losing sight of the

emotions and concerns of employees at all levels of the organization? At the Center

for Creative Leadership (CCL), we’ve found that the answer lies in building trust

through authenticity.

When leaders focus on establishing trust, they are better able to deal with both the

business and the human elements of change. They find they can be both tough

decision makers and empathetic people managers–committed to the plan, yet

understanding of the discomfort it might cause. They become agile and resilient,

able to rise to the challenges of innovation and change.

Striking the right balance To create and sustain an environment of trust during change, leaders must strike a

balance between these six pairs of opposites:

Balance #1: Catalyze change/Cope with transition. Catalyzing change involves the ability to manage an initiative, generate buy-in, and

maintain momentum. Coping with transition means recognizing and addressing

people’s feelings and opinions about the change and its possible fallout. Leaders

who are adept at both create a climate in which people can work together, even in

difficult times. They embrace the vision of change and can communicate that vision

with enthusiasm and energy.

At the same time, they give themselves and others permission to express doubt or

anxiety. Trust and commitment reach a higher level, and the change initiative gains

momentum as people work through the process.

Balance #2: Show a sense of urgency/Demonstrate realistic patience. One of the most critical tasks for leaders of change is communicating a sense of

urgency. A sense of urgency keeps positive energy flowing and increases

productivity.

Patience, however, is just as important. Realistic patience involves knowing when

and how to slow the pace so that people can adapt. A lack of patience with people

can undermine their commitment and impede the change process. Balanced

leaders don’t panic, overreact, or make everything equally important. They make a

conscious effort to provide support and guidance when it’s needed. They recognize

that people adapt to change in different ways. Some may require additional

training or time to meet new expectations; others may need a forum to air their

gripes. Realistic patience also means giving consistent, honest feedback. People

need to know what they’re doing well and what they can do differently.

Balance #3: Be tough/Be empathetic. Being tough involves facing challenges head on, being decisive, and taking a firm

stand in the face of resistance. Being empathetic means understanding and being

sensitive to the feelings and experiences of others.

Empathetic leaders are able to put themselves in other people’s shoes, consider

individual limitations, and value people as much as results. They know that a lack

of empathy can corrode morale and motivation.

These two competencies are among the most difficult for leaders to balance. Many

leaders have been taught to shut down their emotional responses in order to make

difficult decisions. They worry that letting their “soft side” show will communicate

weakness or lack of commitment. But connecting emotionally actually creates the

opposite effect in times of significant change or crisis. People want to know that

their leaders can be tough and decisive, but they want them to be human, too.

Balance #4: Show optimism/Be realistic and open. Leaders play a crucial role in maintaining optimism about major change. They need

to see its positive effects and convey that vision to others. When people are

stressed by change, they look to their leaders for energy and confidence. Optimistic

leaders are genuinely committed to the change at hand, and their optimism is

contagious.

But balanced leaders are not blindly optimistic. Their optimism is balanced with

realism and openness. They can clearly read a situation for what it is. They don’t

sugarcoat the facts, and they can admit their mistakes. Balanced leaders ask the

hard questions, deliver the news (both good and bad), and draw attention to

challenges and struggles. A balance of optimism and realism generates trust.

Balance #5: Be self-reliant/Trust others. Leaders who are self-reliant have confidence in their own skills and abilities. They

are accustomed to working independently and often pride themselves on “going it

alone.” Trusting others means allowing them to do their part of a task or project

without interference or overmanagement. In situations of complex change, it is

critical for leaders to trust others to bring their own perspectives and expertise to

the table.

Many leaders find this pair of competencies very hard to balance. The myth of the

heroic leader who remains strong, courageous, and self-reliant in the face of

extraordinary challenges is a deeply ingrained one. In reality, leaders are more

likely to rise to new heights when they confront complexity with a strong team of

allies. Whatever the challenge, a collaborative approach yields insight, innovation,

and action that even the most talented individual cannot generate alone.

Balance #6: Capitalize on strengths/Go against the grain. In times of crisis, leaders have a tendency to draw on the traits and abilities that led

to their success in the past. But overreliance on past behaviors can cement leaders

into strategies that no longer work, and the failure to recognize conditions that

demand a new approach can be disastrous. On an individual level, failure to adapt

is the main reason leaders derail. Leaders must have the ability to leave their

comfort zone and challenge preferred patterns–in essence, to go against the grain.

To balance their innate strengths with new skills, leaders must first assess their

strengths, weaknesses, preferences, and default behaviors. In CCL programs, they

do this through a combination of 360-degree assessments, feedback, and coaching.

Direct and honest feedback from bosses, colleagues, and direct reports can also

provide leaders with a clear picture of their own performance and behavior.

Such awareness allows leaders to identify their strengths, shore up their

weaknesses, and practice different behaviors. Self-awareness also allows leaders to

leverage the diverse talents, experiences, and opinions of others, eliminating tunnel

vision and groupthink.

The paradox of leadership Leading change requires managing the constant tension between business-driven

and people-focused priorities. Circumstances will sometimes demand that leaders

play harder on the business side. But when they have built a strong foundation of

trust, those who follow are more likely to do so in a spirit of cooperation and

teamwork.

It’s not possible to be perfectly in balance all the time. But wise leaders recognize

that it’s an ideal worth striving for.

* * * *

THE SIX TENSIONS OF LEADING CHANGE

I. Catalyze change Champion an initiative or a significant change, consistently promote it, and

encourage others to get on board.

vs.

Cope with transition Recognize and address the personal and emotional aspects of change.

II. Show a sense of urgency Demonstrate the need to take action; accelerate the pace of change.

vs.

Demonstrate realistic patience Know when and how to slow the pace so that people can cope and adapt.

III. Be tough Make difficult decisions without hesitation or second-guessing.

vs.

Be empathetic Take others’ perspectives into account; understand the impact of your actions and

decisions.

IV. Show optimism See the positive side of any challenge; convey that optimism to others.

vs.

Be realistic and open Speak candidly about the situa¬tion, and don’t shy away from dif¬ficulties; admit

personal mistakes.

V. Be self-reliant Be confident in your ability to handle new challenges.

vs.

Trust others Be open to others’ input and sup¬port; allow them to do their part.

VI. Capitalize on strengths Know your personal and organizational strengths; confidently apply them to new

situations and circumstances.

vs.

Go against the grain Show willingness to learn and try new things–even when the process is difficult or

painful.

Kerry A. Bunker is a senior enterprise associate and manager of the Awareness

Program for Executive Excellence (APEX) at the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL),

in Greensboro, N.C. Michael Wakefield is a senior enterprise associate at CCL, where

he designs and trains in a variety of programs. This article is adapted from their book

Leading with Authenticity in Times of Transition, published in 2005 by CCL Press.

Related Topics: Change Management | Managing Uncertainty

This article is about LEADERSHIP

 Follow This Topic

Comments

Leave a Comment

Post Comment

0 COMMENTS

POSTING GUIDELINES We hope the conversations that take place on HBR.org will be energetic, constructive, and thought-provoking. To comment, readers must sign in or register. And to ensure the quality of the discussion, our moderating team will review all comments and may edit them for clarity, length, and relevance. Comments that are overly promotional, mean-spirited, or off-topic may be deleted per the moderators' judgment. All postings become the property of Harvard Business Publishing.

 Join The Conversation