A Comparative Analysis of Mission Statement Content and Readability
James Rajasekar
Sultan Qaboos University, Oman
The mission statement is an important organizational tool that forms the foundation for all other
organizational objectives and strategies. Furthermore, it helps a firm present itself favorably to the
public, as well as identify and respond to various stakeholders. Mission statements vary in length,
content, format, and specificity. Most practitioners and academicians in strategic management suggest
that an effectively written mission statement exhibits nine characteristics or mission statement
components. Since a mission statement is often the most visible and public part of the strategic
management process, it is important that it include most, if not all, of these essential components. The
purpose of this research is to evaluate the mission statements of Omani firms to determine whether the
components identified in the relevant literature are satisfactorily adopted in their mission statements and
to measure the readability levels of these mission statements. The findings indicate that the sample firms
generally did not include the needed components in their mission statements. However, the readability
level of those documents was optimal overall.
INTRODUCTION
To establish a profitable organization in this competitive business world, one needs to start with an
innovative and unique set of ideas. Nevertheless, those ideas should be realistic and economically
feasible. In the management literature, such ideas are referred to as the beliefs of an entrepreneur that are
translated into a running business. According to Pearce (1982), the typical business organization begins
with beliefs, desires, and the aspiration of a single entrepreneur. However, as the firm grows in size and
complexity, there will be a need to establish and put in place a formal mechanism to communicate the
organization’s policies, procedures, plans, and strategies to both internal and external stakeholders.
The mission statement is a crucial element in the strategic planning of any business organization.
Universally, mission and vision statements are accepted as effective strategic management tools by both
academicians and practitioners. Mission and vision statements influence the performance of organizations
in two ways – either positively or negatively (Atrill et al., 2005; Bart & Baetz, 1998; Bart, Bontis &
Tagger, 2001; Vandijck et al., 2007; Piercy & Morgan, 1994). In a landmark study, Mullane (2002)
argued that not only do the statements help organizations develop their long-term plans, but they also help
organizations manage their day-to-day operations.
Creating a mission is a priority, and an organization should prioritize articulating it. The initial
mission can be the building block for an overall strategy and the development of more specific functional
strategies. By defining a mission, an organization makes a statement of organizational purpose. Hence,
most organizations operating in the 20th century adopted a strategic management process as an effective
strategic tool. The strategic management process includes six main building blocks: vision and mission
Journal of Management Policy and Practice vol. 14(6) 2013 131
statements, external analysis, internal analysis, strategy formulation, implementation, and performance
evaluation.
The mission statement has been defined in several ways by many authors (Table 1). However, they
have all emphasized its role as an enduring statement of purpose for organizations that identifies the scope
of operations in product and market terms and reflects the organization’s values and priorities. For
instance, Drucker (1974) argued that a specific business is not defined by its name, statutes, or articles of
incorporation, but by its business mission statement. Only a clear definition of the mission and purpose of
the organization can result in clear and realistic business objectives. Likewise, more recent literature has
revealed the importance of a mission statement by tagging it as a strategic tool and an essential
component in strategic planning (Stone, 1996; Bart, Bontis, & Taggar, 2001).
Many firms have employed a strategic planning process as a mechanism to communicate their
policies, practices, strategies, and goals, and the mission statement plays an integral part in this process as
it facilitates achieving an organization’s objectives and enables it to attain its ultimate vision. As
described earlier, the strategic management process enables organizations to constantly scan their internal
and external environments and take necessary measures to maintain their sustainability. Consequently, it
allows a firm to develop effective strategies in response to changing environmental circumstances, market
conditions, evolving technologies, and emerging opportunities and to evade risk and threats.
A well-established and documented mission statement provides the foundation for outlining and
drafting business objectives that the organization strives to accomplish. In return, those goals become the
barometers against which performance is evaluated (Matejka, Kurke, & Gregory, 1993). Furthermore, the
mission statement facilitates decision making, planning, creating effective strategies, and formulating
policies for the short and long term. Also, the mission statement provides a clear sense of direction that
guides and inspires the organization’s executives, managers, and employees toward mutual goal
attainment. It assists in setting priorities, plans, and allocating resources toward that end (Cochran, David,
& Gibson, 2008).
Establishing a mission statement should not be a one-man show, but a team process involving
executives, top-level management of the organization, employees, and if required a third-party consultant.
Such involvement may mean engaging all stakeholders in brainstorming and discussion sessions in which
each member expresses his or her opinion so that divergent views can be revealed and resolved and
mutual agreement can be reached (David, 2004). Moreover, connecting many personnel from different
organizational levels to this process contributes to creating, learning, documenting, and communicating
an effective mission statement, as well as establishing a stronger commitment by all participant parties to
achieve the underling objectives. The process and stages may differ from one organization to another, but
the concept is relatively the same.
It is worth mentioning at this point that mission statements can easily become obsolete as a company
grows in size and complexity. In addition, as the circumstances surrounding the organization and the
environment in which it operates change over time, periodic revisions, reviews, and re-drafting of mission
statements is necessary (David and David, 2003).
This research evaluates mission statements in a sample of 45 public companies in Oman in terms of
available components and statement readability level. The coming sections are ordered as follows: a
review of extant literature on mission statements appears first; this is followed by a brief description of
the methodology used to collect and categorize data. The findings are then discussed and communicated
in detail, and the study implications and limitations are addressed thereafter. The final section provides a
conclusion and offers recommendations based on the conclusion.
LITERATURE REVIEW
A mission statement acts as an internal communication tool that conveys an organization’s policies,
procedures, plans, and strategies, thereby guiding the behaviors and decisions of management and
subordinates. Simultaneously, the mission statement serves as an external communication tool to convey
the organization’s intentions to the general public (Bartkus & Glassman, 2008). The study of mission
132 Journal of Management Policy and Practice vol. 14(6) 2013
statements started in the early 1970s and has expanded since then to take a key place in both the literature
and the strategic planning processes of organizations. This trend has granted researching mission
statements a focused popularity in academic writings as well as in organizations’ strategic management
process. Table 1 describes various research studies conducted on the mission statement.
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF RESEARCH ON MISSION STATEMENTS
Reconciliation amongst the organization’s
stakeholders divergent views and interests
Drucker, 1974; Steiner, 1979; David, 2005
Identity of Customers of the organization, their
anticipations, needs, and wants
Drucker, 1974; McGinnis, 1981; Rarick & Vitton,
1995; David, 2005
Identity of markets refers to the geographical
markets of the organization where it competes
Pearce & David, 1987; Rarick & Vitton, 1995;
Miller & Dess, 1996; David, 2005
Identity of the products and/or services of the
organization or its utility
Drucker, 1974; Abell, 1980; Rarick & Vitton, 1995;
Miller & Dess, 1996; Thompson & Strickland, 2003
Identity of use of current technology
McGinnis, 1981; Pearce & David 1987; David, 2005
Fiscal responsibility of the organization towards
its stakeholders expressing the concern for
survival, growth, and/or profitability which
include the commitment to long-term profitability
and growth and financial soundness
Pearce & David, 1987; Freeman & Gilbert, 1988;
Rarick & Vitton, 1995; Miller & Dess, 1996; Hills
& Jones, 2002
Social responsibility of the organization towards
social, community, minorities, women and
environmental issues, that reflects concern for
public image
Pearce & David, 1987; Rarick & Vitton, 1995;
Collins & Porras, 1996; Miller & Dess, 1996;
Waddock & Graves, 1997
Statement of the organization philosophy such as
basic beliefs, values, aspirations, and ethical
priorities
Want, 1986; Pearce & David, 1987; Freeman &
Gilbert, 1988; Campbell & Yeung, 1991; Ireland &
Hitt, 1992; Rarick & Vitton, 1995; Miller & Dess,
1996
Concern for the organization’s Employees
Carrol el al., 1987; Miller & Dess, 1996; Waddock
& Graves, 1997
Self-concept that points out the distinctive
competence or major competitive advantage of the
organization in comparison with its rivals
Drucker, 1974; Pearce & David 1987; Campbell &
Yeung, 1991; klemm et al. 1991; Ireland & Hitt,
1992; Rarick & Vitton, 1995; Miller & Dess, 1996;
David, 2005
Clarity of a mission statement in the sense that it
is broad in scope but neither overly general and
detailed nor excessively specific
McGinnis, 1981; Waddock & Graves, 1997
Length of a mission statement should not exceed
two hundreds words
Steiner, 1979; David, 2005
Organizations develop a mission statement for a number of reasons. According to King and Cleland
(1979), the mission statement provides a standard for allocating resources, facilitates the transition of
objectives into a work structure, and specifies unanimous organizational purposes that are translated into
objectives for standard performance. Strategic management literature has emphasized the mission
statement because of its ability to direct organizations to effective organizational performance. Drucker
(1974) and Bart and Baetz (1998) proposed that the development of a mission statement is a big step
Journal of Management Policy and Practice vol. 14(6) 2013 133
toward management effectiveness and that there is a positive relationship between mission statements and
organizational performance. Wilson (1992) found that organizations with mission statements (versus
those without) achieved a 50% increase in organizational effectiveness and doubled the chances that their
employees will follow the direction and priorities established for implementation. Echoing similar results,
a Business Week study in 1994 showed that organizations with mission statements had average return on
shareholder equity of 16.1%, in comparison with 9.7% for organizations without mission statements.
Alternatively, another perspective revealed that firms create and publicize the mission statement just
because they are expected to have one due to its popularity or as a result of institutional pressures
(Peyrefitte & David, 2006). Peyrefitte and David also argued that previous empirical studies on the
contents of mission statements are still inadequate and conflicting despite the compatibility observed in
definitions of the mission statement. However, considering the mission statement as the most publicized
document stating organizational strategic plans has made the process of crafting a sound mission
statement challenging for many organizations (Cochran et al., 2008).
Although many research studies have subscribed to the view that having mission statements is
positively correlated to organizational performance, much of the management literature on this topic has
questioned whether content affects performance. For instance, Bart et al. (2001) maintained that there is
no direct relationship between the content of a mission statement and a company’s financial performance.
Instead, they noted a correlation between mission components and non-financial measures of performance
such as satisfaction, mission-organizational alignment, behavior, and commitment. Commenting on this,
Bartkus and Glassman (2008) pointed out that a common component of mission statements, such as
stakeholder groups, has the least impact on organizations’ action or decisions, whereas social issues like
diversity and environment have the most significant impact on stakeholder management actions. Another
opposing theory offered by Green and Medline (2003) disregards the completeness and quality of mission
statements as the main characteristics that have a positive effect on organizational performance.
Other literature has suggested that the mission statement should be unique to an organization and a
source of competitive advantage to differentiate it from others (David & David, 2003). This is consistent
with Sufi and Lyon’s (2003) findings which assume a total difference between every two organizations in
terms of ownership, resources, and environmental circumstances, making a specific mission statement
personal to each organization. Thus, it is critical for any organization to develop a clear vision for the
creation of an effective mission statement since the success of that statement lies in its creativity and
comprehensiveness (Matejka et al., 1993). Understanding why and for whom an organization is writing
its mission statement is essential in drafting a good document. For example, Gregson (1992) suggested
that basic steps for crafting a productive mission statement are, first, clearly defining the authentic
purpose of the organization and reason for its existence. Second, the organization must establish a
structure that facilitates policy making and goal setting, communicating the organizations’ aim,
philosophy, and values to all stakeholders and influencing and driving organizational culture. Research
conducted by Bailey (1996) also affirmed the need to create a measurable mission statement by focusing
attention on answering two critical questions: What corporate goals need to be achieved and how can the
organization measure their accomplishment? His research suggested that to create measurable objectives,
organizations must first scan their internal environment (competencies, skills, capabilities, competitive
advantages) and external environment (competitors, customers, suppliers, employees, economy,
technology, government regulations, and society) before measuring the comprehension, relevance, and
reliability of their mission and objectives.
Several approaches to crafting and revising mission statements have been developed in the
management literature. For example, Wickham (1997) proposed a framework consisting of five stages in
crafting a sound mission statement. Among them is a stage called operations where the author suggested
involving management in brainstorming sessions about the business, employees, customers, competitors,
and society to arrive at ideas for the mission statement. Furthermore, the organization’s internal and
external stakeholders are roped in at that stage and their concerns are discussed to resolve any potential or
existing conflicts and to better accommodate their interests.
134 Journal of Management Policy and Practice vol. 14(6) 2013
Similarly, Cochran et al. (2008) suggested another framework for developing an effective mission
statement based on four stages of analysis: orientation, components, communication, and applicability
analyses. In their research to examine and identify the nine components of the mission statement,
Peyrefitte and David (2006) concluded that some firms are confronted with institutional forces or
demands which in turn stimulate mission statement content. Thus, they suggested that mission statement
components are similar across industries and within industries. However, Pearce (1982) showed that three
elements of a mission statement are vital for inclusion: product or service, market, and technology. The
study revealed that a firm’s mission statement should indicate its aim toward survival and continuity as a
going concern. Furthermore, according to the author, the company’s philosophy or creed statement is a
significant source for developing the mission statement. On the other hand, Pearce and David (1987)
argued that successfully performing firms have comprehensive mission statements containing nine
essential components, as follows: specification of target customers and markets, identification of principal
products and/or services, identification of geographic domain (i.e., where the company competes),
identification of core technology used, expression of commitment to growth, survival, and profitability,
specification of key elements of the company philosophy (i.e., its basic beliefs, values, aspirations,
philosophical priorities), identification of the company’s self-concept (i.e., the firm’s view of itself and its
competitive strengths), and identification of the firm’s desired public image.
David & David (2003) stated that a mission statement should not be too lengthy or too short, should
not contain numbers or percentages, and should not contain goals or strategies as they will create
distractions for the reader. Furthermore, the study emphasized the importance of amending the mission
statement to allow it to encompass all the essential elements. To keep the mission statement relevant and
realistic, any parts of the statement that conflict with reality should be removed, and the SMART rule
should be applied to keep the mission statement Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, and
Trackable. On the other hand, Stone (1996) specified seven main characteristics for a successful mission
statement: clearly articulated, relevant, current, written in a positive/inspiring tone, unique to the
organization, enduring, and, finally, adapted to the target audience.
Pearce and David (1987) concluded that mission statements of higher performing large companies are
more comprehensive than those of less successful firms. However, commenting on this, O’Gorman and
Doran (1999) found that the mission statements of high-growth companies did not include the eight
desired components suggested by Pearce and David (1987) when compared to low-performing firms.
Hence, the comprehensiveness of the mission statement does not correlate to small and medium-sized
enterprises’ (SMEs’) performance and the contradiction between the two studies may be due to many
underlying reasons, as argued by O’Gorman and Doran (1999).
Green and Medlin’s (2003) study showed no positive relationship between an organization’s
performance and its mission statement, despite the findings that some specific characteristics of a mission
statement may be selectively related to higher levels of performance. On the other hand, Bart et al. (2001)
investigated the relationship between mission rationales and content and argued that the purpose of a
mission statement is driven by its content. The researchers defined two motives leading to the creation of
mission statements. First, there is no reason for mission creation; it simply results from a need. Second,
mission creation is anchored to clear motives. However, the study findings supported the second view and
stated that how clear managers are about their motives in creating a mission statement ultimately
determines the statement’s final composition (i.e., the ends and means specified in the mission).
Bartkus and Glassman (2008) questioned the notion of practicing what is declared in companies’
mission statement regarding various stakeholders. Commenting on this, Verma (2010) revealed the
importance of the theory of reasoned action (TRA). With this theory in mind, he proposed rational
thinking when writing a mission statement because mission statement ingredients are essential in
influencing employee behavior.
Journal of Management Policy and Practice vol. 14(6) 2013 135
METHODOLOGY
The sample was drawn from 45 firms listed in the Muscat Securities Market (MSM) and was
categorized on the basis of industry type. Using publicly quoted corporations facilitated access to detailed
corporate information, which was important for this research.
The model applied in this research tested how mission statements are crafted and communicated. The
contents of such statements were reviewed and ranked using Pearce and David’s (1987) model that
employs nine components in assessing a mission statement. To record the overall score of components in
each group, three scores were independently placed to examine each document and assign values where 0
means the statement does not include the component, 1 means the statement includes the component in
vague terms, and 2 means the component is clearly expressed in the statement text. Weighted average
score was used to compare a company’s mission statement with that of its peers in the same industry.
In contrast, the communication analysis focused on measuring connotative meaning of selected
mission statements as part of the content analysis for developing such statements. Therefore, the Fog
index was used to measure the readability level of each mission statement for companies in each sector
individually; then the average score was taken per group communication analysis with applied denotative
and connotative meanings. The Fog index is commonly used to confirm that text can be read easily by the
intended audience (Liu, 2013; Bargate, 2012; Hatcher & Colter, 2007).
Corporate websites were the core instrument employed for data collection in this study. Selected
companies were categorized into seven groups based on industry type, as described below:
Financial service (including banking and purely finance companies)
Food and beverages
Industrial manufacturing
General investments
Mining, metal, oil and gas (non-renewable natural resources)
Utilities (power, telecom, billing services)
Infrastructure and human services (education, healthcare, transport)
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
Table-2 (Appendix) summarizes the results of all the 45 companies. As indicated by the assigned
three ratings, financial service companies scored higher than the other six industries on four of the nine
recommended components of the mission statement. Financial service firms had a higher overall average
score on coverage of components than the other six industry types, and they were more likely than other
industries to include the four components of customers, philosophy, public image, and employees.
However, note that the average score of the highest rated industry is a mere 0.9841. While a 1 average
would denote minimal (vague) inclusion of the respective component, financial service firms scored less
than 0.5555 on one component only. This suggests that the mission statement of the majority of the firms
operating in the financial service sector includes eight of the nine components. Overall, even though their
statements were the best compared to the other six industry groups, financial service firms have not done
a good job in specifying the geographic boundaries of their operations. They scored the lowest among the
seven groups tested on this particular component and this is consistent with the average score on the
component of customer representing vague terms. Targeting customers without clear, implemented
segmentation strategies results in financial service firms in Oman neglecting the importance of providing
specific descriptions to their target customers and considering geographic factors to segment any niche
customer groups when crafting their mission statements.
Food and beverage firms, with an average of 0.9505, ranked next to financial service firms but had
the highest score for the geographic markets component among the eight industry groups. They also
scored 1.8888 on the philosophy component, which means an extraordinary consideration of their values,
ethics, and beliefs. However, they were not maintaining a good track record on technology and concern
136 Journal of Management Policy and Practice vol. 14(6) 2013
for growth/survival, with scores of 0.3333 and 0.4444, respectively. This finding raises question marks on
research and development (R&D) strategies in this industry that is quite mature.
The general investment industry group maintained a score of 1.4 on four components, of which three
had the highest scores in the seven tested groups. Those three components were product/service,
distinctive competence, and concern for survival/growth. It should not be unusual for the sample
companies in this particular group to achieve a remarkable score on the component concern for
growth/survival as the nature of this industry is based on market expectations and projected return on
invested resources. However, these companies did not include the technology and employees components
in their statements. Note that the average value scores among investment firms were all above 0.5555 in
all but two components, which indicates that mission statements of firms belonging to that group are
satisfactory overall.
With an overall average value score of 0.8666, natural resources firms did slightly worse than general
investment firms. Customers and geographic market components rest at the bottom of the ranked scores
for this group with values of 0.4 and 0.6, respectively. In contrast, the group had the highest score among
all the groups in the technology component. Furthermore, seven of the nine components in their mission
statements scored not less than 0.8, meaning that the sample firms in that group occupy a median position
among the other six groups.
Firms operating in the industrial manufacturing sector scored well in three components:
product/service, philosophy, and public image. In contrast, the other six components received scores less
than 0.716, which is the group’s overall average score value, revealing a relatively poor inclusion of the
nine components in mission statements for the sample firms in that group. Firms grouped in healthcare,
education, and transport industries had a slightly lower overall average score than those in the industrial
manufacturing group. It is important to point out that statements of firms in this sector had the highest
score for the inclusion of employees among the seven groups. On the other hand, firms in the above group
were not doing well at all in considering technology or concern for growth/survival.
Utilities, scoring just 0.5555 overall, had the fewest comprehensive mission statements among the
seven industry groups sampled in this study. They scored less than 0.5555 in five components out of the
nine recommended, suggesting that mission statements of most of the sample utilities firms did not
include the following components: technology, customers, product/service, geographic market, and
distinctive competence. However, the average value scores among all utilities firms ranged from 0.8 to 1.2
on the other four components, which indicates that utilities mission statements are weak overall.
The second part of the analysis discusses the outcome of the Fog index used to measure the
readability level for mission statements of the sample companies in the seven industry groups. Table 4
(Appendix) summarizes the Fog index for sample firms in each industry group and provides the average
value for that index per group.
The Fog index scores for the sample firms in the financial service group lie outside the ideal score of
7 to 8. Four companies scored below 7 while the other two scored above 12, suggesting that the level of
readability for mission statements in this group is either very low or very difficult. However, the overall
average value of the Fog index for financial service firms is 8.435, which represents a good readability
level.
Firms operating in the food and beverage sectors had an ideal score on the Fog index on average and
10.4 as the maximum score recorded for sample firms in this group. This requires an education level of
7.4 years, on average, for a specific reader to fully understand the language used to craft mission
statements for food and beverage companies. The utilities industry group and the metal, mining, and oil
and gas group fell in the same category as the food and beverage group, with average Fog index values of
7.7 and 8.6 each.
Only one firm in the investment industry group scored near the ideal range on the Fog index, while
others deviated up and down that range. However, the overall average value for all firms in that sample fit
slightly above the ideal range, with a score of 8.96, revealing a good readability level on average for the
mission statements. In contrast, the overall average score on the Fog index for companies in both the
industrial manufacturing group and the group containing firms operating in the healthcare, education, and
Journal of Management Policy and Practice vol. 14(6) 2013 137
transport sectors were 10.5 and 11, respectively. This reflects that mission statements for companies in
these two groups are hard for most people to understand, thus implying a need to edit those statements.
CONCLUSION
A properly designed mission statement that comprises all the components discussed in this study has
the potential to become one of the most important strategic tools for a firm in achieving its goals. This
study investigated components of mission statements of 45 companies in Oman and measured their
readability level. The sample firms in our study generally did not include needed components in their
mission statements.
The one component the sample firms most often included was philosophy. This finding is positive as
it suggests that companies use their mission statements to express their values, beliefs, and business ethics
to stakeholders. However, the analysis revealed that the component of product/service is the only other
component included, which means that the companies studied basically did not include the other seven
components: technology, geographic market, employees, distinctive competence, concerns for
growth/survival, public image, and customers. Actually, this is a disturbing finding since constituencies or
stakeholders gain no insight into the firms from reading their mission statements. The study found that the
component of technology received the lowest rating of all components, as indicated by the 0.3888 average
rating. This finding shed light on the importance of assessing levels of technology employment in the
strategic planning of key industries forming the backbone of the Omani private sector.
A medium readability index was recorded for mission statements of companies working in the
financial service, food and beverage, general investment, utilities, and natural resources sectors. Their
average readership ranged from 7.5 to 9, indicating a clear and concise writing style. On the other hand,
mission statements for sample companies in industrial manufacturing, healthcare, education, and transport
had an exceptionally high readability index exceeding 10.5. This high score implies the need to review
and rewrite the mission statements by reducing sentence length and the use of multiple-syllable words.
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
The results discussed in this paper offer practitioners insightful guidance for drafting mission
statements. To begin with, rational mission statements must contain components that address the interests
of both internal and external stakeholders. The overall lack of completeness in mission statements
reported among the sample firms in this research may serve to alert and caution planners in those business
sectors to improve their documents. The modification process implies forming a facilitator team or special
committee that is fully aware of the organization’s business model, strategic objectives, the market
structure, and all other general aspects affecting the business environment. Such a process is expected to
enhance the effectiveness of communication and commitment among employees’ at all organizational
levels. Finally, regarding the readability of the mission statement, which is obtained through the Fog
index, the mission statement committee should involve managers in evaluating mission statements so that
words that describe the feelings of management can be incorporated in the statements.
Sample firms studied in this research were grouped using a broad definition of industries where wide
gray areas may exist between firms gathered in single sectors for the sake of having groups of logical
sizes. It is still not clear-cut that a group of five sample firms from indirectly related industries can
provide consistent indicators applicable to all industries forming a particular business cluster. Therefore,
additional evidence on the industry classification developed in this study is required to further substantiate
these results.
Moreover, mission statements of the sample firms were quoted directly from corporate websites
without being edited; as a result, the study may also include documents such as vision statements.
Additionally, the number of words in the mission statements of the sample companies is far below the
100 words used on average to test the readability level with the Fog index. We encourage further research
138 Journal of Management Policy and Practice vol. 14(6) 2013
that fills identified gaps in this research that will also include new components that may be needed in the
21st century.
REFERENCES
Abell, D. F. (1980). Defining the Business: The Starting Point of Strategic Planning. Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Atril, P., Omran, M., & Pointon, J. (2005). Company mission statements and financial performance,
Corporate Ownership & Control, 2, (3), 28-35.
Bailey, J. A. (1996). Measuring your mission. Management Accounting, 44, (3), 44–47.
Bargate, K. (2012). The readability of Managerial Accounting and Financial Management
textbooks. Meditari Accountancy Research, 20, (1), 4-20.
Bart, C., & Baetz, M. (1998). The Relationship Between Mission Statements and Firm Performance: An
Exploratory Study. Journal of Management Studies, 36, (6), 823–853.
Bart, C., & Bontis, N. (2003). Distinguishing between the board and management in company mission:
Implications for corporate governance. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 4, (3), 361-81.
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. R., & Glassman, M. (2008). Do Firms Practice What They Preach? The Relationship Between
Mission Statements and Stakeholder Management. Journal of Business Ethics, 83, (2), 207-216.
Campbell, A., & Yeung, S. (1991). Creating a Sense of Mission, Long Range Planning, 24, (4), 10-20.
Cochran, D. S., David, F. R., & Gibson, C. K. (2008). A Framework for Developing an Effective Mission
Statement. Journal of Business Strategies, 25, (2), 27-29.
Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. (1996). Building Your Company’s Vision, Harvard Business Review,
September-October, 131-143.
David, F. R. (2005). Strategic Management, 10th edition. USA: Pearson Prentice Hall.
David, F. R., & David, F. R. (2003). It's time to redraft your mission statement. The Journal of Business
Strategy, 24, (1), 11-14.
Drucker, 1974. Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, and Practices, New York: Harper & Row.
Freeman, R. E., & Gilbert, D. (1988). Corporate Strategy and the Search for Ethics, Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey; Prentice-Hall.
Green Jr, K. W., & Medlin, B. (2003). The strategic planning process: the link between mission statement
and organizational performance. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 2, (1), 23-32.
Gregson, K. (1992). Establishing a productivity mission. Work Study, 41, (6), 19-23.
Journal of Management Policy and Practice vol. 14(6) 2013 139
Hatcher, T., & Colton, S. (2007). Using the internet to improve HRD research: The case of the web-
based Delphi research technique to achieve content validity of an HRD-oriented measurement. Journal of
European Industrial Training, 31, (7), 570-587.
Hill, C. W. L., & Jones, G.R. 2002. Strategic Management: AN Integrated Approach, Means Business,
New York.
Ireland, R. D., & Hitt, M. A., (1992). Mission Statements: Importance, challenge and Recommendations
for Development, Business Horizons, 35, (5), 34-42.
King, W. R. & Cleland D. I. 1979. Strategic Planning and Policy, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold
Publishing.
Klemm, M., Sanderson, S., & Luffman, G., (1991). Mission Statements: Selling Corporate Values to
Employees, Long range Planning, 24, (3), 73-78.
Liu, C.Z., & Rowe, B.J. (2013). Effect of Audit Quality on the Readability of Auditor Preferability
Letters: An Empirical Study. International Journal of Management, 30, (1), 160-167.
Matejka, K., Kurke, L. B., & Gregory, B. (1993). Mission impossible? Designing a great mission
statement to ignite your plans. Management Decision, 31, (4), 34-37.
McGinnis, V. (1981). The Mission Statement: A Key Step in Strategic Planning, Business, 31(6), Nov-
Dec, 39-43.
Miller. A., & Dess, G. G., (1996). Strategic Management, 2nd ed., New York: McGraw Hill,.
Mullane, J. V. (2002). The mission statement is a strategic tool: When used properly. Management
Decision, 40, (5), 448-455.
O'Gorman, C., & Doran, R. (1999). Mission statements in small and medium-sized businesses. Journal of
Small Business Management, 37, (4), 59-66.
Pearce II, J. A. (1982). The Company Mission As a Strategic Tool. Sloan Management Review, 23, (3),
15-24.
Pearce, J. A., & David, F. R. (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.
Piercy, N. & Morgon, N. (1994). Mission analysis: An operational approach, Journal of General
Management, 19, (3), 1-19.
Rarick, C.A., & Vitton, J. (1995). Mission Statements Market Cents, Journal of Business Strategy, 16,
(1), 11-12.
Steiner, G. 1979. Strategic Planning: What Every Manager Must Know. New York: The Free Press.
Stone, R. A. (1996). Mission statements revisited. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, 61, (1), 31-38.
140 Journal of Management Policy and Practice vol. 14(6) 2013
Sufi, T., & Lyons, H. (2003). Mission statements exposed. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management , 15, (5), 255-262.
Thompson, A. A., & Strickland, A. J. 2003. Strategic Management: Concepts and Cases, New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Vandijck, D., Desmidt. S., & Buelens M. (2007). Relevance of mission statements in Flemish not-for-
profit healthcare organizations. Journal of Nursing Management, 15, (2), 131-41.
Verma, H. V. (2010). Mission statements-a study of intent and influence. Journal of Services Research, 9,
(2), 153-172.
Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The Corporate Social Performance – Financial Performance
Link, Strategic Management Journal, 18, (4), 303 - 319.
Want, J. H. (1986). Corporate Mission, Management Review, August, 75, (1), 46-50.
Wickham, P. A. (1997). Developing a mission for an entrepreneurial venture. Management Decision , 35,
(5), 373 – 381.
Wilson, I. (1992). Realizing the Power of Strategic Vision, Long Range Planning, 25, (5), 18-28.
APPENDIX
Table-2. Content Analysis of Mission Statements - Sector wise
Financial Services Sector
Nine Components of
Mission Statement
Company Name
Average Score
MUSCAT
OMAN INTL.
BANK
NATIONAL
BANK OF
OMAN
UNITED
FINANCE
NATIONAL
FINANCE
FINANCE
1
Customers
1
1
2
1
1
2 Product/ Services 0 2 1 2 0 2 1.1666
3
Geographic Market
1
0
0
0
0.1666
4
Technology
1
2
0
0
0.8333
5
Philosophy
2
2
2
2
1.6666
6
Public Image
2
2
0
2
1.1666
7
Employees
0
2
2
2
1
8
Distinctive
Competence
2
2
1
1
1
9
Concern for
Growth/ Survival
0
0
2
2
0.8333
Total Score 3 11 12 11 10 6
Journal of Management Policy and Practice vol. 14(6) 2013 141
Food & Beverage Sector
Nine Components of
Mission Statement
Company Name
ASAFFA
FOOD
DHOFAR
BEVERAGE
& FOOD
STUFF
GULF
MUSHROOM
PRODUCTS
DHOFAR
CATTLE
FEED
OMAN
INTL.
FOODS
NATL
BISCUIT
IND.
OMAN
FISHERIES
OMAN
REFRESH
MENT
SALALAH
MILLS
AVERAGE
SCORE
1
Customers
1
2
1
2
0
1
0
1
0
0.8888
2
Product/ Services
1
2
2
2
0
0
1
0
2
1.1111
3
Geographic
Market
2
2
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0.8888
4
Technology
0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0.3333
5
Philosophy
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1.8888
6
Public Image
2
2
1
2
0
0
1
2
0
1.1111
7
Employees
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
2
1
0.7777
8
Distinctive
Competence
1 1 1 2 0 2 1 1 1 1.1111
9
Concern for
Growth/ Survival
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.4444
Total Score
11 13 7 14 1 11 5 9 6
Industrial Manufacturing Sector
Nine Components
of Mission
Statement
Company Name
Average
Score
OMAN
CABLES
IND.
OMAN
FIBER
OPTICS
OMAN
CEMENT
GULF
PLASTIC
IND.
RAYSUT
CEMENT
GULF INT.
CHEMICALS
AL JAZEERA
STEEL
PRODUCT
COMPANY
VOLTAMP
ENERGY
ALHASSAN
ENG.
1
Customers
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0.4444
2
Product/ Services
0
2
0
2
0
2
2
2
2
1.333
3
Geographic
Market
0 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0.5555
4
Technology
1
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0.5555
5
Philosophy
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
0
0
1.3333
6
Public Image
0 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0.8888
7
Employees
0
1
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0.5555
8
Distinctive
Competence
0
0
2
0
1
2
0
0
1
0.6666
9
Concern for
Growth/ Survival
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1111
Total Score
3
9
11
3
7
6
4
6
7
142 Journal of Management Policy and Practice vol. 14(6) 2013
Power & Utilities, Telecom, and Related sectors
Nine Components of Mission
Statement
Company Name
Average Score
ACWA POWER
BARKA
SOHAR
POWER
AL KAMIL
POWER
OIFC
NAWRAS
1
Customers
0
0
0
1
0
0.2000
2 Product/ Services 2 2 0 0 1 1.0000
3
Geographic Market
0
0
2
0
0
0.4000
4
Technology
0
0
0
0
0
0.0000
5
Philosophy
0
2
0
2
2
1.2000
6
Public Image
0
2
2
0
0
0.8000
7
Employees
0
0
0
1
0
0.2000
8
Distinctive Competence
0
0
0
1
0
0.2000
9 Concern for Growth/
Survival
1 0 2 2 0 1.0000
Total Score
3
6
6
7
3
Investment Sector
Metal, Mining, Oil & Gas
Investment Sector
Nine Components of Mission Statement
Company Name
Average Score
NAT.
ALUMINIUM
PRODUCTS
OMAN
CHROMITE
OMAN OIL
MARKETING
NATIONA
L GAS
Al MAHA
PETROLEUM
PRODUCTS
MARKETING
1 Customers 0 0 1 0 1 0.4000
2
Product/ Services
0
2
0
1
2
1.0000
3 Geographic Market 0 1 0 0 2 0.6000
4
Technology
0
0
1
2
2
1.0000
5
Philosophy
0
0
2
2
2
1.2000
6
Public Image
0
0
2
2
2
1.2000
7
Employees
0
0
0
2
2
0.8000
8
Distinctive Competence
1
0
1
1
1
0.8000
9
Concern for Growth/ Survival
2
0
1
0
1
0.8000
Total Score 3 3 8 10 15
Nine Components of
Mission Statement
Company Name
Average Score
AL ANWAR
HOLDING
AL BATINAH DEV.
& INV. HOLDING
AL SHARQIA
INV. HOLDING
OHI
OMINVEST
1
Customers
1
1
0
1
1
0.8000
2
Product/ Services
2
2
1
0
2
1.4000
3
Geographic Market
0
0
2
0
2
0.8000
4 Technology 0 0 0 0 0 0.0000
5
Philosophy
2
2
1
2
0
1.4000
6
Public Image
0
0
2
2
0
0.8000
7 Employees 0 0 0 1 0 0.2000
8
Distinctive
Competence
2
2
0
0
2
1.4000
9
Concern for
Growth/ Survival
2
2
0
0
2
1.4000
Total Score
9
9
6
6
9
Journal of Management Policy and Practice vol. 14(6) 2013 143
Education, Healthcare, and Transport Sectors
Table-3. Mission statement content analysis across seven industries
Component
Financial
services
(n=6)
Food &
Beverages
(n=9)
Industrial
Manufacturing
(n= 9)
General
Investments
(n= 5)
Mining,
Metal, Oil
& Gas
(n= 5)
Utilities
(n= 5)
Healthcare,
Education &
Transport (n=
6)
Average
(n= 45)
Customers
1.0000 0.8888 0.4444 0.8000 0.4000 0.2000 0.6666 0.6190
Product/ Services
1.1666
1.1111
1.3333
1.4000
1.0000
1.0000
1.1666
1.1682
Geographic Market
0.1666
0.8888
0.5555
0.8000
0.6000
0.4000
0.6666
0.5825
Technology
0.8333
0.3333
0.5555
0.0000
1.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.3888
Philosophy 1.6666 1.8888 1.3333 1.4000 1.2000 1.2000 1.3333 1.4317
Public Image
1.1666
1.1111
0.8888
0.8000
1.2000
0.8000
0.6666
0.9475
Employees
1.0000
0.7777
0.5555
0.2000
0.8000
0.2000
1.0000
0.6476
Distinctive Competence 1.0000 1.1111 0.6666 1.4000 0.8000 0.2000 0.6666 0.8349
Concern for Growth/
Survival
0.8333
0.4444
0.1111
1.4000
0.8000
1.0000
0.000
0.6555
AVERAGE
0.9814
0.9505
0.7160
0.9111
0.8666
0.5555
0.6851
Note: Scale is
0 = statement does not include the component
1 = statement include the component in vague terms
2 = statement includes the component in specific terms
The table give average values for each component within each group (industry)
Values in bold are the highest for each component and firm type
Nine Components of Mission
Statement
Company Name
Average Score
DHOFAR
UNIVERSITY
MAJAN
COLLEGE
OMAN
EDUCATION
& TRAINING
INV.
NAT.
PHARMACEUTICAL
IND
PORT
SER.
CORP
SALALAH
PORT
SERVICES
1 Customers 0 2 2 0 0 0 0.6666
2
Product/ Services
2
2
2
1
0
0
1.1666
3
Geographic Market
0
0
2
2
0
0
0.6666
4
Technology
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0000
5
Philosophy
2
2
2
0
0
2
1.3333
6 Public Image 0 2 2 0 2 2 0.6666
7
Employees
0
2
0
0
2
2
1.0000
8
Distinctive Competence
1
1
2
0
0
0
0.6666
9
Concern for Growth/
Survival
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0000
Total Score 5 11 12 3 4 6
144 Journal of Management Policy and Practice vol. 14(6) 2013
Table-4. Determining Mission Statement’s Readability Level
Measuring Fog Index
Financial Services Sector
Readability Level
Muscat
Oman
International
Bank
National
Bank of
Oman
United
Finance
Finance
Muscat
Finance
Number of
Words
13 50 58 35 69 29
Number of
Sentences
1 1 2 5 7 3
Average Number
of Words per
Sentences
50
29
7
9.66
Number of Hard
Words
0
1
1
1
Percent of Hard
Words
0
1.72
2.85
3.44
Sum of Word
Average and
Hard Words
Percent
50
30.72
9.85
13.1
Fog Index
20
12.28
3.94
5.24
Food and Beverage Sector
Readability Level
Asaffa
Foods
Dhofar
Beverage
& Food
Stuff
Gulf
Mushroom
Products
Dhofar
Cattle
Feed
Oman
Intl.
Food
National
Biscuit
Industries
Oman
Fisheries
Oman
Refreshments
Salalah
Mills
Number of
Words
85
106
34
125
10
9
26
44
35
Number of
Sentences
5
4
2
6
1
1
1
2
2
Average
Number of
Words per
Sentences
17
26.5
17
20.83
10
9
26
22
17.5
Number of
Hard
Words
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
Hard
Words
Percent
0
0.94
0
0
0
0
0
2.27
2.85
Sum of
Word
Average
and Hard
Words
Percent
17
24.91
17
20.83
10
9
26
24.27
20.35
Fog Index
6.8
9.96
6.8
8.33
4
3.6
10.4
9.7
8.14
Journal of Management Policy and Practice vol. 14(6) 2013 145
Industrial Manufacturing Sector
Readability Level
Oman
Cables
Industry
Oman
Fiber
Optics
Oman
Cement
Gulf
Plastic
Industries
Raysut
Cement
Gulf Int.
Chemicals
Steel
Product
Company
Voltamp
Energy
Al Hassan
Engineering
Number of
Words
27
22
39
19
92
157
37
48
Number of
Sentences
1
1
8
1
6
8
1
1
Average
Number of
Words per
Sentences
27 22 4.87 19 15.33 19.62 42 37 48
Number of
Hard Words
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
Hard Words
Percent
0
0
0
0
0
3.18
0
0
Sum of
Word
Average
and Hard Words Percent
27
22
4.87
19
15.33
22.80
37
48
Fog Index
10.8
8.8
1.94
7.6
6.13
9.12
14.8
19.2
Utilities & Power, Telecom, and relevant Sector
Readability Level
ACWA Power
Barka
Sohar Power
Al Kamil
Power
OIFC
NAWRAS
Number of Words 19 14 26 30 21
Number of Sentences
1
1
2
1
1
Average Number of Words per
Sentences
19
14
13
30
21
Number of Hard Words
0
1
1
0
0
Hard Word Percent
0
7.14
3.84
0
0
Sum of Word Average and Hard
Words Percent
19
21.14
16.84
30
21
Fog Index
7.6
8.45
6.73
12
8.4
Investment Sector
Readability Level
Al Anwar
Holding
Al Batinah Dev. &
Inv. Holding
Al Sharqia Inv.
Holding
OHI
OMINVEST
Number of Words
42
48
22
18
27
Number of Sentences
4
1
1
4
1
Average Number of Words per
Sentences
10.5
48
22
4.5
27
Number of Hard Words
0
0
0
0
0
Hard Word Percent
0
0
0
0
0
Sum of Word Average and Hard
Words Percent
10.5
48
22
4.5
27
Fog Index
4.2
19.2
8.8
1.8
10.8
146 Journal of Management Policy and Practice vol. 14(6) 2013
Metal, Mining, Oil & Gas Sector
Readability Level
National Aluminum
Products
Oman
Chromite
Oman Oil
Marketing
National
Gas
Al Maha
Petroleum
Products
Marketing
Number of Words
80
7
31
84
114
Number of Sentences
3
1
1
5
8
Average Number of Words
per Sentences
26.66
7
31
16.8
14.25
Number of Hard Words
0
0
1
0
0
Hard Words Percent
0
0
3.22
0
0
Sum of Word Average and
Hard Words Percent
26.66
7
34.22
16.8
12.25
Fog Index
10.66
2.8
13.68
6.72
4.9
Education, Healthcare, & Transport Sectors
Readability Level
Dhofar
University
Majan
College
Oman
Education
&
Training
Inv.
National
Pharmaceutical
Ind.
Port
Services
Co.
Salalah
Port
Services
Number of Words
30
75
49
20
37
56
Number of Sentences
1
6
1
1
1
6
Average Number of Words per
Sentences
30
12.5
49
20
37
9.33
Number of Hard Words
0
0
0
1
1
0
Hard Words Percent
0
0
0
5
2.7
0
Sum of Word Average and Hard
Words Percent
30 12.5 49 25 39.7 9.33
Fog Index
12
5
19.6
10
15.8
3.7
Table-5. Fog Index levels for sample firms in seven industry groups
Industry
Group
Financial
Services
Food &
Beverages
General
Investment
Industrial
Manufacturing
Metal,
Mining, Oil
& Gas
Utilities
Healthcare,
Education, &
Transport
Fog Index
1
3.94
3.6
1.8
1.94
2.8
6.73
3.7
2
3.94
4
4.2
6.13
4.9
7.6
5
3
5.2
6.8
8.8
7.6
6.72
8.4
10
4
5.24
6.8
10.8
8.8
10.66
8.45
12
5
12.28
8.14
19.2
9.12
13.68
12
15.8
6
20
8.33
10.8
19.6
7
9.7
14.8
8
9.96
16.8
9
10.4
19.2
Average Value 8.435 7.5255 8.96 10.5766 7.752 8.636 11.016
Journal of Management Policy and Practice vol. 14(6) 2013 147