Stanford Social Innovation Review

Assuming that the Board made the choice, it doesn’t matter. In the words of John Carver, Boards determine, what good, for what people and at what cost.

»» Posted by: Jim Schultz on April 21, 2004 03:21 PM

Mission statements are part of the “silos” in movement that are killing the sectors ability to optimize.  We are focused on internal organizational management for all the wrong reasons and in all the wrong ways.

»» Posted by: Marty on June 9, 2004 08:04 PM

Missions are the driving force behind a nonprofit organization. It states the reason for existence and its purpose in civil society. Missions can always be revised in order to optimize an organization. For example, look at the March of Dimes that actually achieved their mission to beat Polio. Now, they exist under a different mission statement dedicated to improving infant health. I’m not sure what the definition of optimize insinuates in the previous comment but missions can and should always be revised if there starts to be mission-drift or other opportunities for different programs arise, etc. The sector’s ability to optimize can revolve around a revised mission statement but I still think the mission should exist in every nonprofit as a guideline for its existence. If not, how is the structuring different than a for-profit business that revolves around revenues? The Board of Directors should be constantly reviewing the mission and upholding the values in order to ensure proper governance. If nonprofits did not follow a mission-driven philosophy, which should be clearly communicated to board members, employees, donors, etc. then what is the framework for the nonprofit’s purpose? And how can you consistently communicate it to others?

»» Posted by: Kate Besanceney on July 27, 2005 11:36 PM