Strategy should serve the mission, not determine it
What comes first, the strategy or the mission?
Most non-profit organizations find they have to adapt to remain relevant. Their markets and industries change. The needs of their beneficiaries change. The competencies of their employees and volunteers change. The systems and technologies that support them change. So it makes sense that mission statements might need to change to fit the operating environment. But does that also change an organization’s fundamental purpose, the reason they exist?
Keep thinking on that question.
Years ago I volunteered with my young family at a living history museum. We did this for several summers. I understood our work to be about preserving local history, demonstrating traditional homesteading skills, and teaching visitors about the heritage of the place. Then one spring, as volunteers were being recruited for the upcoming summer, the organization began describing itself as “heritage park” and an arts organization, as opposed to a history museum. Volunteers were instructed to interact with visitors as solely as “historical characters” and strictly follow scripted scenarios like performers on a stage. We were discouraged from engaging in the more spontaneous, improvisational way we had as “interpreters”. Although the content of the demonstrations still focused on local history and traditional homesteading skills, it didn’t feel like the same organization anymore.
It turns out that the organization had in fact morphed from a museum into a state park and then passed into the hands of a private foundation. In the process, its new leaders re-envisioned its activities to align with criteria for a newly created county grant that earmarked funds for zoos, performing arts organizations, and parks, but not museums. I was shocked to discover this. The organization didn’t just change how it would do its work. It changed the name, culture, and identity, as well. I couldn’t tell you whether the changes happened solely to chase funding or if they were necessary to meet the “common good.” I can tell you my children were uninterested in performing as characters on a play.
Reflecting on this experience has led me to clarify terminology I use to discuss mission and strategy. The mission of a non-profit organization is the reason it exists (the why). It defines a community need, how the organization will meet the need, who is served, and a desired outcome. It could just as easily be called the “core purpose” or “fundamental purpose.”
The mission purpose guides strategy and decision-making, which often result in a mission statement that describes how the organization will deploy resources and programs to achieve the purpose. That doesn’t mean strategy determines the mission. The mission comes first. The strategy is built to serve the mission.
Which brings me back to my original question. The present-focused how or mission statement of that living history museum changed. Did its fundamental why or mission purpose change, too? Did a pragmatic strategy to “diversify revenue” become the new why guiding decisions about programming and resource allocation?
I cannot answer that question for the heritage park formerly known as a museum. Too much time has passed, and I don’t know the justifications of the organization’s leaders. But as I have reflected on it, I find myself returning to several questions as a way of testing the dynamics among mission purpose, strategy, and mission statement.
What do leaders understand the organization’s mission to be?
Is the mission purpose or the why still relevant or appropriate? If not, what makes it irrelevant?
Is there still a need?
Have the community, stakeholders, or beneficiaries changed?
Have the desired outcomes changed?
Why is a change proposed for the mission statement or the how?
Are there environmental changes that make it attractive or necessary?
How would a change in the how help the organization achieve its why or mission purpose better?
Would the organization have to modify the mission purpose in order to justify how it wants to offer programming or allocate resources?
How should funding criteria be allowed to define the organization’s identity, programming, and commitment to mission?
How would changes to either the mission purpose (why) or mission statement (how) change the organizational culture?
Who are the stakeholders of the organization? How might changes to mission purpose or mission statement affect their loyalty? How would changes be communicated to them?
If you are involved in non-profit leadership, you are welcome to make use of a tool designed especially for non-profit strategy. Called the SWORM model, it considers mission first as the central force in strategic planning. You can find it here.