499 Mod. 1 Case for Paula Hog

THE MISSION STATEMENT

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

Linda Stallworth Williams North 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 firms’ mission statements, the components included for these two groups of firms were compared. The higher-performing firms included eight of the nine recommended components more often than did the lower-performing firms, and the differences were significant for three of those components. Also, using textual analysis methods, this study identified strategies employed by these firms to create a strong identity—or internal ethos—and image—or external ethos. The two groups used 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 mission statements swept over corporate America” (Morphew & Hartley, 2006), mission statements still serve as common corporate reporting tools. Their long-term use by corporations has been characterized by significant change, however, especially in the format and delivery of these state- ments. For example, they are often found on corporate Web sites now. The purposes 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 current state of the corporate mission statement by analyzing the content of state- ments gathered from firms included on the 2006 Fortune 1000 list. In addition, the study investigates possible links between mission statements

Linda Stallworth Williams, PhD, is associate professor of English at North Georgia College and State University. 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 94-119 DOI: 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 if there are differences between (a) the content components these firms included and (b) the rhetorical strategies they employed to create a posi- tive corporate ethos—an identity or image.

The findings in this study affirm the continuing importance of mission statements and show that the content components included have not changed dramatically in the past 20 years. When current statements belonging to higher-performing firms were compared with those belong- ing to lower-performing firms, though, differences in content were again found. Higher-performing firms included in this study discussed philoso- phies and targeted markets more often, and they discussed strategies for survival, concern for public image, and concern for employees signifi- cantly more often. Other findings in this study show that firms in both groups used somewhat similar rhetorical strategies for building a strong ethos. For example, most of the firms used a first-person point of view to promote identification with the firms, and most highlighted values to cre- ate desirable corporate characters, although there were some differences in the specific values included. For example, the values of teamwork and safety were mentioned much more often by higher-performing firms than by lower-performing ones. In addition, all 27 of the mission statements analyzed included at least one expression of goodwill. However, the tar- gets of goodwill differed to some extent: Employees, shareholders, and communities 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 lengthy history and the ongoing time and energy devoted to them by corporations and 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 on mission 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 for expecting an effective mission statement to be associated with successful financial performance, and research to determine whether that connection

can be supported by data, (c) scholarship that develops relevant rhetorical theories or discusses applications of those theories to corporate commu- nication, including mission statements, and (d) studies of the mission statement 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 what it 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 corporation refers to this statement as a “mission statement,” a “mission,” a “credo,” “our philosophy,” “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 firm’s management, employees, customers or clients, shareholders, and other 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 things about a company: who it is and what it does” (Falsey, 1989, p. 3).

In addition to conveying a corporation’s nature and reason for being, this statement 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, and McAfee (2000) define a narrower focus for a mission statement: “We view a mission statement solely as a communication tool” (p. 29). They add that

most firms would be better off if they narrowed the purpose of the mission statement to that of realistically communicating product and market objectives to stakeholders. The best mission statements simply define the company’s business and suggest a future goal. (p. 29)

96 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

Their caution about overextending the scope of mission statements is shared 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 and other organizations with drafting the perfect mission statement. Surprisingly, these guides offer somewhat similar advice about suggested content for these statements, even if they do not agree about the labels they assign to content components. For example, in an article often cited in mission statement lit- erature, Pearce and David (1987) identify “eight key components of mission statements,” a list that is modified slightly and expanded to nine components by David (1989, 2007). A corporation is encouraged to provide information about its customers or clients, employees, products or services, markets, technology, self-concept, desired public image, philosophy, and strategies for growth 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- pany’s commitment to QOL (quality of life) goals has been cited as important (Amato & Amato, 2002), a commitment that others might place under the categories of a firm’s general philosophy, its concern for its employees, or its concern for its public image. In addition, organizational purpose and financial goals have been studied as content components (Bart & Baetz, 1998); however, some researchers consider an organization’s pur- pose to be a subset of its philosophy and its financial goals to be a subset of its strategies for growth and survival. Two studies note that anywhere from 10 to 25 different mission statement components have been suggested or used (Bart, 1997; Bart & Baetz, 1998). Although authors usually provide rationales for the components and labels they use, the resulting variations in terminology and definitions limit the comparability of some studies with others and decrease the long-term benefits realized when earlier studies can be conclusively replicated. Therefore, although this serious flaw in the cor- pus of mission statement literature has been identified before (e.g., Bart et 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

Williams / MISSION STATEMENT 97

company’s 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 those without one. In addition to specific benefits that are said to accrue from having such a statement, successfully completing the mission statement process 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, three studies found no significant differences (Bart & Baetz, 1998; David, 1989; Klemm et al., 1991). In contrast, two other studies found that firms with mission 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 statements continue 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 of mission statements and financial performance. In these cases, researchers have analyzed content to determine whether some components lead to greater 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-performing ones, and the researchers found that the high-performing firms included three of the components—corporate philosophy, self-concept, and con- cern for public image—significantly more often (Pearce & David, 1987). However, they did not find significant differences between the two groups’

98 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

Williams / MISSION STATEMENT 99

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 content caused mission statements to be positively associated with financial per- formance. They analyzed the content of mission statements belonging to firms randomly selected from the 1994 Business Week 1000 list and deter- mined that the return on common shareholder equity for firms with “high content” statements was 26.2%, whereas the return for the firms with “low content” 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 differentiation from competition. Using a different sample of industrial firms and a method other than content analysis, somewhat similar results were reported by Bart (1997). He surveyed CEOs and presidents from 44 indus- trial corporations, asking them to identify which of 25 different content components were clearly specified in their firms’ mission statements. After tabulating their responses, Bart compared the “performance of the industrial firms based on each mission component” and found that 13 of the 25 components had a “positive relationship with performance” (p. 377). Four of these components—purpose, values, self-concept, and desired public image—had been identified as significant by Pearce and David (1987) as well, although Bart (1997) used different labels in some cases (e.g., purpose and values rather than philosophy). The other nine components that Bart found to be positively associated with performance were general corporate goals, concern for customers, concern for employees, concern for suppliers, concern for society, concern for shareholders, statement of vision, concern for survival, and competitive strategy.

The purpose and values components were again found to be associated with performance when mission statements from 136 large Canadian firms were collected and analyzed: “Significant positive differences in performance were found to be associated with mission statements which contained no financial goals, identified a firm’s values/beliefs, defined a firm’s purpose, and were relatively short” (Bart & Baetz, 1998, p. 845). Finally, by studying data collected from 83 large Canadian and U.S. firms with mission statements, researchers found that statements with sound content, ones with clearly specified ends and means, “can affect financial performance” (Bart et al., 2001, p. 29). These content components had not been specifically identified or studied before, but some of the previous

100 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

researchers could have categorized ends and means as information belonging to 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 ethos in connection with mission statements. Instead, other terms (e.g., image, pub- lic image, identity) have been used to describe the way that a corporation wants to be perceived by its constituencies. However, increasing numbers of scholars and researchers are choosing to use the term corporate ethos because rhetorical theory provides a sound theoretical basis for understand- ing the concept of ethos and why it matters to communicators who wish to persuade 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 audience and inspire action is, after all, the underlying goal of most corporate corre- spondence, whether it’s trying to create an image, keep goodwill, or collect an 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 appropriately—whether that means faithfully working for the corporation, buying its stock or products, or believ- ing it is a contributing member of a community or society—then the efforts of those communicators have been wasted.

If corporate communicators cannot persuade their constituencies to read their mission statements and respond to them appropriately . . . then the efforts of those communicators have been wasted.

The term ethos originated with Aristotle, one of the earliest authorities on persuasion: “In his Rhetoric, written some 2,000 years ago as a guide to 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 an admirable and appealing character is similar whether the communicator is an individual or a group. In Book I of his Rhetoric, Aristotle discusses ethos as one of three appeals available to a communicator who wishes to persuade. The other two appeals are logos—strategies to reason with people—and pathos—strategies to stir their emotions. Although going to great lengths to explore logos and pathos, Aristotle considered ethos to be the most important of 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 crucial impact on credibility. As a rule, communicators are not taken seriously if an 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 mission statements because this genre rarely provides support or evidence for the general 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 qualifications of its management and employees, or about methods and procedures it uses 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 firm’s 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.” Doing so requires that communicators understand the differences between virtues and vices and that they know the “characteristics and qualities that are val- ued by an audience and community” (Beason, 1991, p. 330). Applying this principle to corporate communicators suggests that including in a mission statement the values considered most important to a corporation and its audiences can strengthen a corporation’s ethos. Collins and Porras (1991) delineate the kinds of information that might be included:

Core values and beliefs are the organization’s basic precepts about what is important in both business and life, how business should be conducted, its view of humanity, its role in society, the way the world works, and what is to be held inviolate. (p. 35)

Williams / MISSION STATEMENT 101

The starting point should be to articulate values and beliefs that the corporation already 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 corporation’s 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 of Aristotelian theory, Stoddard (1985) reminds us that ethos is not situated exclusively in corporate discourse (or discourse from any source) but relies on the audience’s 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 right character,” but these strategies must be carefully chosen based on a clear assessment of all parts of the rhetorical situation, including the character- istics of the audience, the purpose for the communication, the specific context or environment, and so on (Stoddard, 1985). For instance, ethics scandals in recent years have heightened the public’s concerns about cor- porate honesty and ethics. Therefore, a corporation can strengthen its ethos by stating in its mission statement that it values integrity and honors ethical standards on a daily basis. In addition, a manufacturing firm that must dispose of toxic wastes can help to dispel the fears of residents liv- ing near that business by pledging the firm’s commitment to safe practices that protect the people and environments where it does business, thereby portraying 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 similarities between themselves and their audiences,” benefits often result because “almost all people are more likely to accept and trust a communicator who is perceived as being ‘one of them’ since such commonality gives the impression that communicator and audience share backgrounds, goals, and values” (Beason, 1991, p. 331). Using “we” (or other first-person-plural pronouns) is a way to join a communicator and audience, thereby “claiming group membership with that audience” (Beason, 1991, p. 331).

Building on the same theoretical basis that supports the concept of similitude, other scholars focus on the use of first-person-plural pronouns to encourage internal stakeholders—employees—to identify with a cor- poration (Cheney, 1983; Swales & Rogers, 1995). Drawing on Kenneth Burke’s “rhetoric of identification,” Cheney (1983) explains how the iden- tification process works within organizations like corporations:

102 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

Williams / MISSION STATEMENT 103

While an individual has the ability to identify spontaneously with an orga- nizational target, the “move” is often encouraged by the organization in dealing 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 organization “initiates” this inducement process by communicating its values, goals, and information (i.e., the organization’s own stated “identifications” in the form of guidelines for individual and collective action; the member may then “complete” the process by adopting or adapting the organization’s interests, doing “what’s best” for the organization, and perhaps even developing a salient identification with the organization as a target. (pp. 146-147)

The mission statement is a corporate guideline that definitely encourages identification 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 external stakeholders, thereby influencing a corporation’s 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 determine whether they want to get involved with it). . . . Ultimately, if stakeholders are able to align their individual objectives with those of the firm, the result would more likely be an intrinsically motivated shareholder group. (p. 29)

A review of published mission statements shows that the stakeholders considered most important to a firm can differ depending on the nature of its 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 skilled workers make sure that their value is mentioned in the statements. (Klemm et al., 1991, p. 75)

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

As a third aspect of ethos, Aristotle says that speakers should portray themselves as people of goodwill who show good intentions toward their audiences. Because of the effect of a speaker’s demonstrated goodwill on the goodwill reciprocated by the audience, Aristotle discusses this concept in Book II as a part of a lengthy discussion of human emotions. In many

104 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

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

Applying this principle to corporations, Amato and Amato (2002) see goodwill 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 and Kallendorf (1989) relate. In response to the public relations crisis faced by U.S. oil companies during the “oil crisis” in the early 1970s, Shell Oil Company mounted a public relations campaign to provide facts and infor- mation that would demonstrate that they were not “greedy price-gougers who, at best, took unfair advantage of [oil] shortages and, at worst, actually caused 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 aimed at generating goodwill, better results were achieved. A series of advertise- ments, the “Shell Information Series” and informative booklets, “Come to Shell for Answers,” were highly successful because they helped to placate the public’s anger and to repair Shell’s damaged ethos.

Mission Statement Content and Corporate Ethos: Research

In 1985, Stoddard noted that Aristotle’s theory had been confirmed by empirical research to determine the effects of ethos, although most of these studies had been

conducted in the contexts of communication theory and social psychology. . . . In the triangular model of discourse, communication theory substitutes the term “source” for rhetoric’s “speaker” or “writer.” Thus “source credibility” becomes an operational term for the classical concept of ethos. (p. 233)

Since 1985, research that tests the effects of ethos and labels it that way has 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

Williams / MISSION STATEMENT 105

to identify character-building strategies and concluded that they “tend to stress values, positive behavior and guiding principles within the frame- work of the corporation’s 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 and a contextual and intertextual analysis of three mission statements from two different U.S. companies. Their close textual analysis of these three statements enabled them to identify specific linguistic features the corpo- rations used to “foster [employees’] affiliation and identification,” such as the frequent use of first-person-plural pronouns (p. 231).

Other studies have analyzed the ethos-building strategies in mission statements to determine which audiences were targeted and to learn whether 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 important to the firms’ identity (internal ethos) or image (external ethos), and the researchers concluded that “mission statements are seen by managers as more important internally than externally” (Klemm et al., 1991, p. 77), especially when these statements include company values because they enhance management’s leadership within organizations.

Other studies have analyzed the ethos-building strategies in mission statements to determine which audi- ences were targeted and to learn whether the primary audiences were internal 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 which stakeholder groups—customers, employees, suppliers, and shareholders— were targeted and what kinds of information—benefits, values, image, and focus—were conveyed to each group (Leuthesser & Kohli, 1997). They found that customers were addressed often, whereas suppliers were addressed rarely. In addition, these researchers found that “two-thirds of the mission statements included assertions addressing employees—second

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

Identity (internal ethos) and image (external ethos) were also studied in 2002 when the mission statements for firms included in the Forbes Best Small Business and Fortune 200 lists were analyzed to determine whether the inclusion of individual and societal QOL dimensions affected a cor- poration’s ethos (Amato & Amato, 2002). They found that the mission statements belonging to the large firms addressed four of the seven soci- etal dimensions (economic, social, institutional, and ecological) and three of the five individual dimensions (physical, safety, and esteem) signifi- cantly more often than the mission statements belonging to the small firms did. 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 two research 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 1000 firms will include significantly more of the recommended components than the statements of lower-performing firms.

Mission Statement Content and Corporate Ethos: Textual Analysis

For the textual analysis, the following research questions guided my study of strategies used to project a strong ethos: (a) Will the mission statements of higher-performing firms show more evidence than those of lower-performing firms 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 and its values? (b) Will the mission statements of higher-performing Fortune 1000 firms show more evidence than those of lower-performing firms of the use of strategies to demonstrate a firm’s goodwill toward stakeholders?

106 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

Williams / MISSION STATEMENT 107

METHOD

The corporations selected for this study were listed on the 2006 Fortune 1000 list. To increase diversity of size, the firms listed 1 to 25 and 976 to 1000 were initially selected. Then, I visited the Web sites of all 50 corporations to see if a mission statement was found there. If not, I used the Web site’s search engine, when available. In some cases, this led me to the mission statement; in other cases, this led me to a statement or other document that the corporation considered equivalent to a mission statement. If this equivalent statement or document included information similar to that usually included in a mission statement and seemed to serve the same purpose or purposes, I added it to my collection of documents. When neither a mission statement nor an equivalent could be located on a corporation’s Web site, I e-mailed or phoned the corpo- ration. If a representative said the corporation had a mission statement, I asked for it to be sent to me. Sometimes a representative replied that the corporation did not have a mission statement but did have an equivalent, so I asked for this equivalent to be sent to me. In a few cases, I was told that the corporation did not 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 eventually received 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 other had been sold after the Fortune 1000 list had been issued. This reduced the second 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: In all, 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 second group of lower-performing firms.

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

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

108 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

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

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

Revenues Profits Rank Company ($ Millions) ($ Millions)

Higher-performing firms in the 2006 Fortune 1000a

1 Exxon Mobil 339,938.0 36,130.0 2 Wal-Mart Stores 315,654.0 11,231.0 4 Chevron 189,481.0 14,099.0 5 Ford Motor 177,210.0 2,024.0 6 ConocoPhillips 166,683.0 13,529.0 7 General Electric 157,153.0 16,353.0 8 Citigroup 131,045.0 24,587.0

10 International Business Machines 91,134.0 7,934.0 11 Hewlett-Packard 86,696.0 2,398.0 12 Bank of America Corporation 83,980.0 16,465.0 14 Home Depot 81,511.0 5,838.0 15 Valero Energy 81,362.0 3,590.0 17 J P Morgan Chase & Co. 79,902.0 8,483.0 18 Verizon Communications 75,111.9 7,397.0

Lower-performing firms in the 2006 Fortune 1000b

3 General Motors 192,604.0 –10,600.0 16 McKesson 80,514.6 –156.7

977 Stein-Mart 1,481.6 50.9 979 Apria Healthcare Group 1,474.1 66.9 980 PSS World Medical 1,473.8 39.0 982 ScanSource 1,469.1 35.7 984 BMC Software 1,463.0 75.3 985 Bob Evans Farms 1,460.2 37.0 992 PC Connection 1,444.3 4.4 995 Schulman 1,435.6 32.1 996 Russell 1,434.6 34.4 998 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 not generally included in the mission statement genre.

Content Analysis

The content of all 42 of the mission statements collected was analyzed using procedures specified by Pearce and David (1987). Each statement was read 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 statement content 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 was chosen to provide some comparability with the study by Pearce and David. A second reason for choosing this list was to address the concern expressed by 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 by the tendency of most researchers to craft new content components, revising them only slightly in many cases rather than using components already for- mulated and suitable for further use. Provided below are the components and explanations that David (1989, p. 92) provides:

1. Customers—Who are the enterprise’s customers? 2. Products or services—What are the firm’s major products or services? 3. Location—Where does the firm compete? 4. Technology—What is the firm’s basic technology? 5. Concern for survival—What is the firm’s commitment to economic objectives? 6. Philosophy—What are the basic beliefs, values, aspirations, and philosoph-

ical priorities of the firm? 7. Self-concept—What are the firm’s major strengths and competitive advantages? 8. Concern for public image—What are the firm’s public responsibilities, and

what image is desired? 9. Concern for employees—What is the firm’s attitude toward its employees?

Each rater worked independently and used a separate log sheet for each statement. If a mission statement definitely included a component, it was coded with a 1; if not, it was coded with a 0. When both raters had completed their 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 two raters conferred about all discrepancies and worked together to resolve those. Then, the component ratings for all of the higher-performing firms were

Williams / MISSION STATEMENT 109

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

Textual Analysis

To focus on the firms’ use of three specific strategies for projecting a strong ethos, the mission statements from the same two groups of Fortune 1000 firms were converted to text files, and word lists were created by using the Oxford WordSmith 4 Software. Separate word lists were created for each firm’s statement, for all of the statements included in each group, and for all 27 of the firms. These lists include the frequencies for each word, the percentage 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 firm’s attempt to create a mission statement with a 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 were identified, and synonyms for the same general value were located and combined. For example, words such as honesty and trust were combined under the general value of integrity, and words such as collaboration and team were combined under the general value of teamwork. Then, I went to 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 a few cases, a synonym for a specific value was not mentioned, but the value was 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 and for 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 well as communities, countries, the world, and society in general. The word lists pointed to specific mission statements that mentioned one of more of these recipients, but a careful reading of the designated statements was required to determine that the recipient was not just named in the statement but was

110 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

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

RESULTS

General results include the following: First, most of the Fortune 1000 firms included in this study’s initial sample do have a mission statement (42 of 46, 91.3%), but only 16 (38.1%) of those firms use either “mission” or “mission statement” as a heading. The remainder of the firms used headings 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 previously popular 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 all of the mission statements found online were accompanied by colorful and creative 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 of the higher-performing firms included the location and philosophy compo- nents, but the differences were not statistically significant. However, the t test results showed that there were statistically significant differences between the two groups’ inclusion of three of the nine content compo- nents: survival, public image, and employees. Therefore, the directional hypothesis was partially supported. Table 2 presents all of the pertinent statistical data for the content analysis.

Textual Analysis

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

Williams / MISSION STATEMENT 111

112 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

firms included 239 first-person-plural pronouns (5.6% of all words). The 13 mission statements belonging to the lower-performing firms included 78 first-person-plural pronouns (5.4% of all words). Only 2 of the 27 statements used a primarily third-person point of view. Therefore, in regard to the use of first-person pronouns, the two groups of firms were fairly similar.

Specific examples of the use of first-person-plural pronouns by these firms 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 company goals” (Rogers & Swales, 1990, p. 301), and promote identification with the firm (Cheney, 1983; Swales & Rogers, 1995): (a) General Motors— “We will win by thinking and acting together as one General Motors team”; and (b) Verizon—“We work together, support one another and never let the customer—or our coworkers—down.” The excerpt from General Motors’s statement and a third excerpt provide good examples of “double identification of the corporate entity and of the people compris- ing it” (Swales & Rogers, 1995, p. 223): International Business Machines—“At IBM, we strive to lead in the creation, development and manufacture of the industry’s most advanced information technologies.”

Table 2. A Comparison of Mission Statement Components for Fortune 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 25 Products or services 0.71 0.22 0.69 0.23 0.12 25 Location 0.79 0.18 0.62 0.26 0.94 24 Technology 0.21 0.18 0.31 0.23 –0.53 24 Survival 0.78 0.18 0.38 0.26 2.22* 24 Philosophy 0.86 0.13 0.77 0.19 0.56 23 Self-concept 0.64 0.24 0.62 0.26 0.14 25 Public image 0.93 0.07 0.46 0.27 2.91* 18 Employees 0.93 0.07 0.46 0.27 2.91* 18

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

Williams / MISSION STATEMENT 113

Other examples of the use of first-person-plural pronouns in the mis- sion statements analyzed are “decidedly managerial in tone”; that is, they “identify managerial directives as employee responsibilities” (Rogers & Swales, 1990, p. 300): (a) ScanSource—“We protect our company resources to benefit those who depend on us, such as our employees and shareholders”; and (b) Citigroup—“We must put Citigroup’s long-term interests ahead of each unit’s short-term gains, and provide superior results for our shareholders.”

Furthermore, the textual analysis determined that values are often included in mission statements or in a list of values appended or linked to the statements. Ten different values were discussed in 4 or more of the 27 mission statements analyzed. Exactly or nearly the same number of firms in 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 statistical significance were performed. Table 3 lists the values that occurred most frequently for both groups of firms.

Ten different values were discussed in 4 or more of the 27 mission state- ments analyzed. Exactly or nearly the same number of firms in each group mentioned excellence, integrity, and innovation.

Four examples show specific ways in which selected statements aim to cre- ate admirable characters for the firms: (a) ConocoPhillips—“We are a good neighbor and citizen in the communities where we operate”; (b) Verizon— “Integrity is at the heart of everything we do”; (c) ScanSource—“We are com- mitted to an environment that respects and values the diverse backgrounds, interests and talents of our employees”; and (d) Russell—“From its begin- nings in 1902, Russell corporation has prided itself on the quality and value of its products.”

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

114 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

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

In addition to the quantitative data that support the use of goodwill strategies by firms in both groups, several examples show how specific goodwill recipients are targeted (in each case, I have highlighted the good- will recipient or recipients): (a) Wal-Mart—“Our philosophy is to provide everyday low prices with exceptional customer service”; (b) Bank of America—“The promise we make to customers, associates, and share- holders is that we will pursue higher standards of service and performance in all we do, every day”; (c) Chevron—“We have an unwavering commit- ment to being a good partner focused on building productive, collabora- tive, trusting and beneficial relationships with governments, other companies, our customers, our communities, and each other”; and (d) ScanSource—“We 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 Firms Performing Firms Performing Firms Mentioning

Mentioning This Valuea Mentioning This Valueb This Valuec

Value n % n % n %

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

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

Williams / MISSION STATEMENT 115

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 to confirm their value for scholars and practitioners. The most obvious con- clusion is that the mission statement genre is alive and well. By one name or another, it continues to be a standard communication tool for the major- ity of large corporations. Also, the length and sophistication of corporate mission statements has increased in recent years, especially when these statements are presented on corporate Web sites.

Mission Statement and Content Components

The findings of this study’s content analysis suggest that the content components outlined by David in 1989 are still found in current mission statements with enough regularity and consistency to indicate that the kinds of information corporations consider most important for conveying to their internal and external stakeholders have not changed dramatically in the past two decades.

Mission Statement Content and Performance

Differences continue to be found between the content components included 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 96 Employees 11 79 7 54 18 67 Community or 11 79 8 61 19 70

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

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

ones. For one of the components analyzed in this study—concern for public image—the significant difference was similar to that discovered by Pearce and David (1987). Likewise, both studies found that higher-performing firms included the location, customers, and products or services components more often than did lower-performing firms, but the differences were not statisti- cally significant in either case. In contrast, the significant differences found in this study for the survival and employee components were not found in the 1987 study, but these components were found to be positively associated with performance in research conducted by Bart (1997). In addition, Amato and Amato (2002) found that the financial success of firms was correlated with their commitment in mission statements to “the general well being in the work and/or organizational environment” (p. 83), a result that concurs with this study’s 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 a first-person point of view and character-building strategies to create a strong ethos. To be sure, the use of a first-person point of view for firms in this study 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 of firms to the value of integrity is a logical and predictable response to some highly publicized corporate scandals in recent years, and excellence is a buzzword that permeates management literature and has led to extensive efforts aimed at achieving this standard, including innovation, another value both groups of firms included fairly often. Also, integrity and excellence are values that stakeholders, especially employees, are likely to view as ones they 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-performing firms in regard to their inclusion of the values of citizenship and safety are more than likely a result of a key difference in the composition of the two groups 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 health and well-being of their stakeholders and communities) in an attempt to build “social capital” (p. 82).

116 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

Williams / MISSION STATEMENT 117

However, the reasons for the dramatic differences between the two groups’ inclusion of the value of teamwork is less clear. To some extent, the finding that highly successful firms include this value more often does follow from the finding discussed earlier that the employees content com- ponent was included significantly more often by the higher-performing firms. Because concern for employees appeared to be a greater concern for the higher-performing firms, it makes sense that teamwork would also rank higher among their stated values. Also relevant to this finding are the results of a 1995 study by Petty et al. that are recounted by Amato and Amato (2002): “Teamwork and trust were promoted when the corporate leadership [in that study] developed a vision statement that valued trust, integrity, teamwork, and dignity. An enhanced organizational climate was then 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 results lend support to the conclusions of Amato and Amato (2002). This study’s finding that customers were the primary recipients of these expressions of goodwill is not at all surprising because of the crucial role that customers play in a corporation’s success. In addition, this finding compares with the results in a study by Leuthesser and Kohli (1997). Also, employees were named as goodwill recipients by 79% of the higher-performing firms in this study but by only 54% of the lower-performing ones. Of course, attention given to employees is likely to enhance their identification with the firm, an effect discussed above. Therefore, it appears that the lower-performing firms studied here have missed an opportunity to do everything possible to secure the allegiance of their employees. The lower-performing firms were less attentive to communities and society in general, too, missing an opportunity for strengthening their public image.

Finally, although this study and others point to a possible association between a corporation’s 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 adequate justification for carefully considering the content components and rhetor- ical strategies chosen most often by higher-performing firms. Because the consideration of rhetorical strategies has not thus far received nearly as much attention as has the consideration of content components, the results of this study’s textual analysis could prompt drafters of mission statements to add some of these strategies to their repertoire. For scholars and researchers, the body of mission statement research that this study expands provides a rich

field for further exploration, with the hope that sufficient consistency and replication will result. Much work remains before we will understand fully the influence of mission statements on internal and external stake- holders, the effects of mission statements on corporate performance, the contributions of mission statements to corporate planning and governance, the kinds of methods required to create and implement effective mission statements, 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 from America’s top companies. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press.

Amato, C. H., & Amato, L. H. (2002). Corporate commitment to quality of life: Evidence from company 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 Marketing Management, 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.

118 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

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

Hyland, K. (1998). Exploring corporate rhetoric: Metadiscourse in the CEO’s 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: Notes toward 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 corporate values 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 approaches to ExxonMobil’s corporate public discourse. Journal of Business Communication, 39(1), 117-148.

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

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

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

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

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

Rogers, P. S., & Swales, J. M. (1990). We the people? An analysis of the Dana Corporation policies 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.

Williams / MISSION STATEMENT 119