I agree about things like mission statements being rather silly and tedious, particularly in a corporate context where, as the author notes, the only real missi

I agree about things like mission statements being rather silly and tedious, particularly in a corporate context where, as the author notes, the only real mission is to make money for shareholders. In fact I think a mission statement is marginally less pointless in the context of a public institution because, frankly, it's not always clear what the end goal of a lot of those institutions are. I don't really see the problem with this, however: > What, for instance, was the mysterious "quality" that we discussed at every meeting? What did people mean when they spoke earnestly about "aims and objectives" and "learning outcomes"? If people are discussing "quality" I presume they are referring to quality of output, ie, you want whatever good or service you are delivering to be good, not bad. And knowing the aims, objectives and outcomes of meetings, projects, etc, is absolutely a positive thing. There is no "fake sincerity" as far as I can see. There is politeness - sure, maybe it is fake politeness (discounting the possibility that your server actually wants you to enjoy your meal). But it's still better than rudeness which is quite often the alternative. Frankly it sounds as though the author is simply annoyed at (i) the private sector, for being the private sector, and (ii) the public sector, for looking to introduce the same focus on customer service and accountability that has long been present in the private sector.