Their definition of mission is very close to yours (”the intent of the organization…justifies existence…reason for being…base from which all else is built”) for purpose, and their definition of vision (”aspiration of an organization…what an organization views itself as becoming…should keep the organization stretching and staying current with or ahead of the changing environment…”) mirrors yours for point of view.

Perhaps what you’re getting at is that to truly shift the paradigm we need to readjust our method for determining the central reason for being and for what we intend to become, and that in that process we need to guard against the potential for mediocrity — to fight against the temptation to give in to “committee think” that distills, simplifies, and makes vauge the very things that need to be most meaningful to us in our organizations.

Thanks for the post!

If you’re right and vision and mission have helped to create “sad organizations” without “emotional connection,” I can’t see why we would continue to do the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result. That’s Einstein’s definition of insanity, and it’s not an approach that will help us achieve the results we seek.

What you call semantics, I call language, and I believe in the power of language to inspire and help us imagine what is possible. To defeat a status quo that is determined to perpetuate itself, our community needs every ounce of inspiration and imagination it can find.

Replacing a word is going to magically engender a soul in all those sad organizations that have lost their way?

By calling it purpose, you can create the emotional connection that cause/mission/vision/passion failed to produce?

Jeff, It is all semantics unless we demonstrate otherwise by holding up the associations that got their MOJO back and produced better outcomes.

xxxooo
Ann O.