4 ms·

An example of a typical nieve definition of a mission statement is: Concise, clear, and memorable statement that outlines a company's core purpose, values, and

An example of a typical nieve definition of a mission statement is: Concise, clear, and memorable statement that outlines a company's core purpose, values, and target audience. > "made operational/actionable at a strategic level". Taken the common definition from the first part of this plan, what do you think the average manager would do given that in the social sciences, operationalization is explicitly about measuring abstract qualities. [1] "operationalization" is a compromise, trying to quantify qualitative properties, it is not typically subject to methods like MECE principal, because there are too many unknown unknowns. You are correct that "operationalization" and "strategic intent" are not mutually exclusive in all aspects, but they are for mission statements that need to be durable across changes that no CEO can envision. The "made operational/actionable at a strategic level" is the exact claim of pseudo scientific management theory (Greater Taylorism) that Japan directly targeted to destroy the US manufacturing sector. You can look at the former CEO of Komatsu if you want direct evidence. GM:s failure to learn form Toyota at NUMII (sp?) is another. The planning process needs to be informed by stratagy, but planning is not strategic, it has a limited horizon. But you are correct that it is more nuanced and neither Taylor nor Tolstoy allowed for that. Neo-classical org theory is when bounded rationality was first acknowledged, although the Prussian military figured that out long before Taylor grabbed his stopwatch to time people loading pig iron into train cars. I encourage you to read: Strategy: A History By sir Lawrence Freedman For a more in depth discussion. [1] https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Book%3A_Principles_of_Sociological_Inquiry__Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Methods_(Blackstone)/06%3A_Defining_and_Measuring_Concepts/6.03%3A_Operationalization https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Sociology/Intro...

neom 2y ago
Your responses are interesting because they drive me to feel reinforced about my opinion. This conversation is precisely why I rate 4.5 over o1 pro. I prompted in a very very very specific way. I'm afraid to say your comments are highly disengaged for the realities of business and business building. Appreciate the historical context and recommended reading (although I assure you, I am extremely well versed). The term 'operationalized' here refers to strategic alignment, not Taylorist quantification, think guiding principles over rigid metrics. You are badly conflating operationalization in social sciences (which is about measurement) with strategic operationalization in management, which is not same. Again: operationalized in this context means making the mission actionable at a strategic level, not about quantification. Modern mission frameworks prioritize adaptability within durable purpose, avoiding the pitfalls you’ve rightly flagged. Successful founders don't get caught in these theoretical distinctions. Founders taught be my, and I guess GPT 4.5, understand correctly, mission as the bridge between aspirational vision and practical action. This isn't "Greater Taylorism" but pragmatic leadership. While your historical references (NUMMI, not NUMII) demonstrate academic knowledge, they miss how effective missions actually guide organizations while remaining adaptable. The 4.5 response captured this practical reality well- it pointed to but it not create artificial boundaries between interconnected concepts. If we had some founders trained by you (o1 Pro) and me (Gpt 4.5) - I would be willing to bet my founders would out preform yours any day of the week.
- nyrikki 2y ago
  Tuckman as a 'real' framework is a belief so that is fair. He clearly communicated in 1977 that his ideas were never formally validated and that he cautioned about their use in other contexts. I think that the concepts can be useful, if you took them as anything more than a guiding framework that may or may not be appropriate for a particular need. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/36725856.pdf https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/36725856.pdf I personally find value in team and org mission statements, especially for building a shared purpose, but to be honest, any of the studies on that are more about manager satisfaction then anything else. There is far more data on the failure of strategy execution, and linking strategy with purpose as well as providing runways and goals is one place I find vision and mission statements useful. As up to 90% of companies fail on strategy execution, and because employee engagement is in free fall, the fact that companies are still in business means little. Context is king, and this is horses for courses, but I would caution against ignoring more recent, Nobel winning theories like Holmström's theorem. Most teams don't experience the literal steps Tuckman suggested, rarely all at once, and never as one time singular events. As the above link demonstrated, some portions like the storming can be problematic. Make them operationalize their mission statement, and they will and it will be in concrete. Remember von MoltKe "No plan of operations extends with certainty beyond the first encounter with the enemy's main strength." There is a balance between C2 and mission command styles, the risk is trying to force or worse intentionally causing people to resort to c2 when almost always you need a shifting balance between command and intent based solutions. The Feudal Mode of Production was sufficient for centuries, but far from optimal. The NUMMI reference was exactly related to the same reason Amazon profits historically raised higher despite head count increases that should have allowed. Small cross functional teams, with clearly communicated tasks, and enough freedom to accomplish those tasks efficiently. You can look at Trist's study about the challenges with incentivizing teams to game the system. Same problem happened under Balmer at MS, and DEC failed the opposite way, trying to do everything at once and please everyone. https://www.uv.es/=gonzalev/PSI%20ORG%2006-07/ARTICULOS%20RRHH%20SOCIOTEC/Trist%20Long%20Wall%20Method%20HR%201951.pdf https://www.uv.es/=gonzalev/PSI%20ORG%2006-07/ARTICULOS%20RR... The reality is that the popularity of frameworks rarely relates to their effectiveness, building teams is hard, making teams work as teams across teams is even harder. Tuckerman may be useful in that...but this claim is wrong: > "Modern mission frameworks prioritize adaptability within durable purpose, avoiding the pitfalls you’ve rightly flagged" Modern _ frameworks prioritize adoption and depending on the framework to solve your companies needs will always fail. You need to choose a framework that fits your strategy and objectives, and adapt it to fit your needs. Learn from others, but don't ignore the reality on the ground.

neom 2y ago

Your responses are interesting because they drive me to feel reinforced about my opinion. This conversation is precisely why I rate 4.5 over o1 pro. I prompted in a very very very specific way. I'm afraid to say your comments are highly disengaged for the realities of business and business building. Appreciate the historical context and recommended reading (although I assure you, I am extremely well versed). The term 'operationalized' here refers to strategic alignment, not Taylorist quantification, think guiding principles over rigid metrics. You are badly conflating operationalization in social sciences (which is about measurement) with strategic operationalization in management, which is not same. Again: operationalized in this context means making the mission actionable at a strategic level, not about quantification. Modern mission frameworks prioritize adaptability within durable purpose, avoiding the pitfalls you’ve rightly flagged. Successful founders don't get caught in these theoretical distinctions. Founders taught be my, and I guess GPT 4.5, understand correctly, mission as the bridge between aspirational vision and practical action. This isn't "Greater Taylorism" but pragmatic leadership. While your historical references (NUMMI, not NUMII) demonstrate academic knowledge, they miss how effective missions actually guide organizations while remaining adaptable. The 4.5 response captured this practical reality well- it pointed to but it not create artificial boundaries between interconnected concepts. If we had some founders trained by you (o1 Pro) and me (Gpt 4.5) - I would be willing to bet my founders would out preform yours any day of the week.

nyrikki 2y ago
Tuckman as a 'real' framework is a belief so that is fair. He clearly communicated in 1977 that his ideas were never formally validated and that he cautioned about their use in other contexts. I think that the concepts can be useful, if you took them as anything more than a guiding framework that may or may not be appropriate for a particular need. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/36725856.pdf https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/36725856.pdf I personally find value in team and org mission statements, especially for building a shared purpose, but to be honest, any of the studies on that are more about manager satisfaction then anything else. There is far more data on the failure of strategy execution, and linking strategy with purpose as well as providing runways and goals is one place I find vision and mission statements useful. As up to 90% of companies fail on strategy execution, and because employee engagement is in free fall, the fact that companies are still in business means little. Context is king, and this is horses for courses, but I would caution against ignoring more recent, Nobel winning theories like Holmström's theorem. Most teams don't experience the literal steps Tuckman suggested, rarely all at once, and never as one time singular events. As the above link demonstrated, some portions like the storming can be problematic. Make them operationalize their mission statement, and they will and it will be in concrete. Remember von MoltKe "No plan of operations extends with certainty beyond the first encounter with the enemy's main strength." There is a balance between C2 and mission command styles, the risk is trying to force or worse intentionally causing people to resort to c2 when almost always you need a shifting balance between command and intent based solutions. The Feudal Mode of Production was sufficient for centuries, but far from optimal. The NUMMI reference was exactly related to the same reason Amazon profits historically raised higher despite head count increases that should have allowed. Small cross functional teams, with clearly communicated tasks, and enough freedom to accomplish those tasks efficiently. You can look at Trist's study about the challenges with incentivizing teams to game the system. Same problem happened under Balmer at MS, and DEC failed the opposite way, trying to do everything at once and please everyone. https://www.uv.es/=gonzalev/PSI%20ORG%2006-07/ARTICULOS%20RRHH%20SOCIOTEC/Trist%20Long%20Wall%20Method%20HR%201951.pdf https://www.uv.es/=gonzalev/PSI%20ORG%2006-07/ARTICULOS%20RR... The reality is that the popularity of frameworks rarely relates to their effectiveness, building teams is hard, making teams work as teams across teams is even harder. Tuckerman may be useful in that...but this claim is wrong: > "Modern mission frameworks prioritize adaptability within durable purpose, avoiding the pitfalls you’ve rightly flagged" Modern _ frameworks prioritize adoption and depending on the framework to solve your companies needs will always fail. You need to choose a framework that fits your strategy and objectives, and adapt it to fit your needs. Learn from others, but don't ignore the reality on the ground.