Exploring the Relationship between Mission ... - SAGE Journals

Exploring the Relationship between Mission Statements and Work–Life Practices in Organizations

Organization Studies 32(3) 427–450 © The Author(s) 2011 Reprints and permission: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0170840610397480 www.egosnet.org/os

Mary Blair-Loy

University of California, USA

Amy S. Wharton

Washington State University, USA

Jerry Goodstein

Washington State University, USA

Abstract Corporate mission statements are ubiquitous, but their relationship to organizational practices, especially those noted for their high quality, remains a subject of debate. We use the case of work–life practices in publicly traded financial services firms to illustrate an innovative method for studying this issue. Overall, we find variation in the mission statements of firms in the same organizational field. We also find relationships between these statements and high-quality investment in work–life practices, as recognized by Working Mother magazine and Kinder, Lydenberg, and Domini. The mission statements of firms recognized for their work–life initiatives were more likely than those of competitors to emphasize the value of employees and less likely to stress shareholder value. We identified four types of mission statements, a pattern which may reflect the dual influences of distinctive organizational commitments and pressure from institutional actors. We discuss the implications of our findings for the literatures on work–life initiatives, strategic implementation, and organizational theory.

Keywords institutionalization, mission statements, work–life practices

Corresponding author: Mary Blair-Loy, Department of Sociology, University of California, San Diego 9500, Gilman Drive, Dept. 0533, La Jolla, CA 92903-0533, USA. Email: [email protected]

428

Organization Studies 32(3)

Introduction Mission statements are pervasive features of American corporate life. Over 80 percent of companies in various surveys report having these statements (American Management Association, 2002; Van Lee, Fabish, & McGaw, 2005). Executives view mission statements as valuable tools in corporate communications, management, and strategic planning (Bart, Bontis, & Taggar, 2001; Hackley, 1998; Pascarella & Frohman, 1989; Weiss & Piderit, 1999; Williams, 2008). Despite their ubiquity and perceived importance, however, the impact of mission statements on organizations remains a subject of debate (e.g. Bart, 1997; Bartkus, Glassman, & McAfee, 2002; Khurana, 2002; Ledford et al., 1995; Sidhu, 2003; Waddock and Smith, 2000). Mission statements have been studied extensively over the past 20 years. Much of this literature examines their contents and/or purposes, often with the aim of linking these elements to firm performance, especially financial performance (Bart et al., 2001; Sufi & Lyons, 2003). Recent years have seen increased attention to the connections between mission statements and organizational practices. One focus has been the degree to which organizations (and their members) adhere to the values or principles expressed in their mission statements, especially those related to social responsibility and commitments to stakeholders, broadly defined (Amato & Amato, 2002; Balazs, 2002; Bartkus & Glassman, 2008; Cheney, Christensen, Conrad, & Lair, 2004; Wright, 2002). This paper contributes to these literatures by examining the relations between mission statements and firms’ commitment to providing high-quality work–life practices. Because employees are key organizational stakeholders, they are often referenced in company mission statements (David, 1989; Williams, 2008). Yet, we know little about how or if such references are associated with organizational practices that directly affect employees, such as those related to work–life balance. In addition, our research expands our understanding of work–life issues in organizations. Many firms have adopted some type of work–life policy or program, and numerous studies have examined the factors associated with this decision (Davis & Kalleberg, 2006; Osterman, 1995). The fate of these policies after adoption is less well understood. While researchers are beginning to explore the implementation of work–life policies (Pitt-Catsouphes & Googins, 2005), significantly less is known about the degree to which these policies have been institutionalized and the factors that might explain a firm’s decision to invest in them in ways that set it apart from its peers (Blair-Loy & Wharton, 2002). According to Harrington and Ladge (2009, p. 148), ‘the topic of work–life has evolved into one of the most significant business issues of the, 21st century’, with organizations now being urged to treat this issue as a corporate social responsibility (Pitt-Catsouphes & Googins, 2005). By examining whether and how the mission statements of firms with significant investments in high-quality work–life programs differ from those with lesser investments, this study may help shed light on the organizational factors that underlie high-quality work–life initiatives. This knowledge may be useful as organizations seek ways to institutionalize their stated work–life commitments, and it may contribute to a better understanding of the relationship between commitments to employees’ work– life needs and other organizational priorities. After developing our theoretical argument about mission statements and their connections to organizational practices, we turn to an empirical analysis of companies within the financial services industry. We describe a methodology for analyzing variations in mission statements across financial services firms and examine whether these variations are linked to differences in organizational practices. Specifically, we examine whether the mission statements of firms recognized for the quality of their work–life practices differ from the statements of firms in the same industry that have not been so recognized. Following this analysis, we discuss the implications of our approach for the work–life practices literature and for organizational theory.

Blair-Loy et al.

429

Mission Statements and Organizational Practices According to Bart (2001, p. 360), a mission statement is ‘a formal written document intended to capture an organization’s unique raison d’etre. It should answer such vital questions as: why do we exist, what is our real purpose and what are we trying to accomplish’ (see also Bart et al., 2001; David, 1993). A mission statement ‘may also outline where a firm is headed; how it plans to get there; what its priorities, values, and beliefs are; and how it is distinctive’ (Swales & Rogers, 1995; Williams, 2008, p. 96). Mission statements typically include references to primary stakeholders and the organization’s commitment to social responsibility (Bartkus & Glassman, 2008). Although the major components of mission statements have remained fairly consistent over the past 20 years, there have been some changes in their format and scope (Williams, 2008). Most important, mission statements today are often publicly disseminated via company web sites (Bart, 2001; Bartkus et al., 2002; Williams, 2008) and have become an important element in companies’ efforts to manage their identity and image (Cheney et al., 2004). Not all firms use the term ‘mission statement’, but may instead refer to their ‘credo’, ‘core values’, ‘corporate philosophy’, ‘vision statement’, or ‘guiding principles. Research on mission statements typically considers all such statements or documents as part of the mission statement genre (Amato & Amato, 2002; Bartkus & Glassman, 2008; Fairhurst, Jordan, & Neuwirth, 1997; Jones & Kahaner, 1995; Williams, 2008). We follow a similar approach, including in our analysis documents specifically identified as mission statements as well those deemed equivalent (e.g. ‘mission and principles’, ‘core values’, and ‘vision and values’). Most research presumes that appropriately constructed mission statements should significantly enhance a firm’s ability to achieve its objectives. Mission statements can play an important role in directing and focusing employees, and inspire and motivate them to perform at high levels. Mission statements may also function to sustain normative control over organizational members (Bart, 1997; Kunda, 1992). In a case study of a natural foods grocer, Carreiro (2006) found that language in the organization’s mission statement regarding the importance of teamwork promoted cohesive, self-directed teams, which in turn increased peer pressure for company loyalty and a union-free workplace. Mission statements are also presumed to guide and direct employers’ decisions and facilitate a shared sense of organizational purpose and values (Bart, 1997; Bartkus et al., 2002; Selznick, 1957; Stone, 1996). Explicitly articulating their mission helps create normative pressure on organizational leaders, who have publicly committed themselves to particular goals and ideals and signaled to others the foundation upon which an organization is establishing its reputation (Basdeo, Smith, Grimm, Rindova, & Derfus, 2006). Organizational declarations of their mission establish internal and external expectations and heighten leaders’ accountability to stakeholders for meeting these expectations (Basdeo et al., 2006; Weiss & Piderit, 1999). As Bartkus and Glassman (2008, p. 208) observe, once viewed as ‘simple statements of purpose’, mission statements have ‘evolved into public disclosures of organizations’ promises to external constituencies regarding firms’ commitments to stakeholders. Two major research streams have evolved from these assumptions about the importance of mission statements to firm success. First, many studies examine the links between mission statement content and firm performance, especially financial performance. Efforts to understand how mission statements affect financial performance typically focus on the relations between performance and the presence or absence of a set of possible mission statement components. These components refer to general categories of information that a mission statement might include, such as its public image, products or services, and values or philosophy (Bart & Baetz, 1998; Bart &

430


Tabone, 1999; Bolon, 2005; David, 1989; Williams, 2008). After identifying these components, studies attempt to determine whether the mission statements of higher-performing firms contain different components than those performing less well. While some research has found significant differences between the mission statements of higher- vs lower-performing firms (Amato & Amato, 2002; Bart, 1997; Bart & Baetz, 1998; Pearce & David, 1987; Williams, 2008), there is little agreement as to what specific components of mission statements are most critical to firm success (Williams, 2008). Other studies report no relationship between mission statement content and firm performance or find that this relationship is dependent on other factors (Bart et al., 2001; Kabanoff, Waldersee, & Cohen, 1995; Sidhu, 2003; Sufi and Lyons, 2003). A second stream of research, more directly relevant to our study, focuses on the degree to which mission statement content is reflected in the actual practices of firms. If firms develop mission statements that reflect their particular goals and strategies, and use these statements to guide decision making, there should be some correspondence between mission statement content and organizational practices. The public nature of mission statements, coupled with increasing pressures on firms to maintain credibility with their multiple audiences, has heightened firms’ motivation to align their practices with their missions (Cheney et al., 2004; Weiss & Piderit, 1999). Institutional theory offers an alternative prediction regarding the relationship between mission statement content and organizational practices. In contrast to those who see mission statements as an attempt to infuse the organization with meaning and purpose, the institutional perspective regards them as symbolic public declarations that are decoupled from a firm’s practices (Podolny, Khurana, & Hill-Popper, 2005). For these theorists, mission statements are a vehicle that firms use to signal their alignment with forces in the external environment. Attentiveness to external stakeholders is important because firms depend on them for resources and legitimacy. This dependence creates conformity pressures, leading firms to model themselves after others perceived as legitimate or successful, or to adopt practices or structures advocated by others in their organizational field (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). As a result of this process, firms with similar stakeholders may develop mission statements that share common elements, but have little direct connection to their practices. Research suggests that both views may be partially correct. Some studies find a connection between mission statement content and organizational practices. For example, Germain and Cooper (1990) found that, regardless of industry, firms with a customer service mission statement were more likely than other firms to survey customers and collect quantitative data on customer service performance. Similarly, Bartkus and Glassman (2008) found that firms whose missions identify social issues like diversity or the environment were more likely than other firms to take stakeholder actions supportive of these of these areas. However, this study did not find consistency between mission statement content and stakeholder actions in other areas. Firms that mentioned employees and/or customers in their missions, for instance, were no more likely than other firms to take stakeholder actions supportive of these groups. In making sense of their finding that some elements of mission statements were linked to organizational actions and some were not, Bartkus and Glassman (2008) argue that mission statements reflect the influence of two sets of factors: some elements, such as references to diversity or environmentalism, may reflect a firm’s particular commitments and priorities; other elements may be the product of institutional pressures arising from a firm’s need for external legitimacy and only ‘loosely coupled’ to its everyday workings and priorities (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). Examining the mission statements of 57 firms across four industries, Peyrefitte and David (2006) concur that mission statements reflect multiple influences and that at least some elements of mission statements are highly institutionalized. In particular, these researchers found ‘welldefined industry profiles of mission statement component usage’ (2006, p. 299).

Blair-Loy et al.

431

Together, these studies concur with Selznick’s (1957, p. 55) classic observations about the significance of an organizational mission: the formation of an organization within an institutional field ‘is marked by the making of value commitments, that is, choices which fix the assumptions of policymakers as to the nature of the enterprise — its distinctive aims, methods, and role in the community. Selznick also recognized that attending to external expectations was necessary for organizational survival (1957, pp. 67–68). By defining and embodying its mission, he suggested that an organization could simultaneously demonstrate its responsiveness to external expectations and maintain the organization’s particular values and commitments over time.

Our Research Our study draws on prior research on the relations between mission statements and organizational practices, but extends it by reframing the independent and dependent variables of interest. Like others, we treat the contents of mission statements as independent variables and examine their connections to firm practices. In contrast to much previous work, our analysis does not solely measure the generic components of mission statements (e.g. customers, products, public image, etc.), but also seeks to capture the particular expressions of these different elements and how they relate to one another. That is, we are not only interested in whether a firm mentions its employees or its products and services in its mission statement, but we are also interested in how each is described. Focusing on these descriptions may enable us to identify more subtle sources of general variation than can be revealed by measuring the presence or absence of a particular component. This detailed analysis of mission statement content is especially useful for understanding the relations between mission statements and high-quality work–life practices, our dependent variable. We aim to understand how or if the mission statements of firms judged to have high-quality work–life practices differ from other firms. Understanding how high-quality work–life practices may be linked to organizational missions is important, especially for firms seeking to institutionalize their work–life commitments and connect them to other goals and priorities (Pitt-Catsouphes & Googins, 2005). No previous research has examined the connections between mission statements and organizational investment in work–life practices. Most research on work–life issues addresses policy adoption. Work–life policies are much more likely to be adopted by large organizations (i.e. 500 or more employees) than smaller firms (Burke, Essen, & Collison, 2003). Drawing on institutional theory, scholars attribute this difference to the greater visibility of large firms and the scrutiny they receive from external constituents, such as the government, the media, professions, and the public (Davis & Kalleberg, 2006; Goodstein, 1994; Guthrie & Roth, 1999; Ingram & Simons, 1995). However, even among organizations in the same field facing similar external pressures, some may embrace work–life practices more fully than others. We examine mission statements to understand why some firms invest in work–life practices in ways that set them apart from their peers and mark them as exemplary in this arena. As noted earlier, although some elements of mission statements may be highly institutionalized, these statements also reflect a firm’s particular priorities and aspirations. We have several research questions. First, do the mission statements of firms with high-quality work–life practices differ from other firms in the same industry? Second, if so, how do their mission statements differ? To the extent that mission statements reflect a firm’s distinctive commitments linked to its practices, we would expect to see differences in the mission statements of firms with high-quality work–life practices compared to others. For example, firms with high-quality work–life practices may be more likely than other firms to reference employees in their mission

432


statements. We are also interested in how employees are described in mission statements and how other aspects of mission statements may differ between firms. Third, are there common patterns or types for how firms combine themes into mission statements, and, fourth, is this typology related to high-quality work–life practices?

Research Design We analyze a sample of 41 publicly traded financial services firms to illustrate a method for identifying and studying mission statements and their connection to work–life practices. Our analysis involves comparing the characteristics of mission statements among two groups of companies: firms that have been publicly acknowledged for the quality of their work–life practices and a group of their business competitors who have not been recognized in this way.

Identifying Firms with High-quality Work–Life Practices Researchers have generally regarded the availability of work–life policies as an indicator of an organization’s responsiveness to employees’ work–life concerns (Davis & Kalleberg, 2006; Glass & Estes, 1997; Glass & Fujimoto, 1995; Goodstein, 1994; Milliken, Dutton, & Beyer, 1990; Osterman, 1995). However, simply having policies on the books is an insufficient indicator of the quality of work–life initiatives (Blair-Loy & Wharton, 2002; Jacobs & Gerson, 2004). For a more comprehensive measure that identifies firms with outstanding work–life practices, we turn to a social marker the corporate world takes seriously: appearance on the Working Mother (WM) magazine list of the 100 best companies for employed mothers. This list has been published annually since 1985. Among the criteria for being included on the list are such factors as women’s advancement rates, the availability and wide usage of generous corporate work–life policies, and worker satisfaction measures. Public or private firms of any size and in any industry (except those providing work–life or child care services) are eligible for consideration for WM’s list of the best companies. Specifically, companies apply to be on the list by submitting a comprehensive application that includes questions about the company’s culture, employee population, women’s advancement, the availability, tracking, and usage rates of work–life programs and policies, and managers’ accountability for overseeing policy availability and use. Firms must also submit supporting documents such as benefit handbooks and employee survey results. The magazine hires a survey firm to verify and cross-check the submitted information and then to award points to firms based on their responses, with a weighted scoring system to help smaller firms compete. Importantly for our analysis, the magazine did not consider the company’s mission statement as a criterion. Thus, our dependent and independent variables are measured independently. We use the WM list published in October, 2005. This roster contains public and private firms in a range of sizes and industries. From this list, we controlled for important characteristics of the organizational field by selecting companies that are all publicly traded and belong to one industry: financial services, broadly defined. Financial services was selected, in part because it was the industry most widely represented on the 2005 list. Work–life issues are highly salient in this industry, noted for its long hours, high levels of dedication expected of its managerial and professional workforce, and the difficulties facing working parents (Blair-Loy & Wharton, 2002; Goldin & Katz, 2008; Hewlett & Luce, 2006). To standardize our definition of the financial services industry, we included companies that have four-digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes between 6000 and 6999. We selected only publicly traded companies because their regulatory environments, stakeholder communities,

433

Blair-Loy et al. Table 1. Sample of Publicly Traded Financial Services Firms Firm (Firm ID) Number of Employeesa On Working Mother 2005 List (N=24)

Firm (Firm ID) Number of Employeesb Competitor Firmsc (N=17)

Lincoln Financial Group (9) Bank of America (2) American Express (1) Prudential Financial (14) Citigroup (3) Allstate (10) MBNA America Bank (5) Northern Trust (6) The Phoenix Companies (7) First Horizon Nat’l Corp. (4) Metlife (19) JPMorgan Chased Deutsche (21) Wachovia (8) Morgan Stanley (22) Republic Bancorp (23) First National Bank (13) PNC Financial Services(15) Zurich N. America (17) UBS Investment Bank (16) Credit Suisse 1st Bostond HSBC North Amer. (20) Lehman Brothers (36) Principal Financial (37)

AIGd AmSouth (30) AXA Financial (31) Bank of New York (32) Bear Stearns (39) Commerce Bancorp (34) Fifth Third Bancorp (38) Flagstar Bancorpd GEICOd Hartford Life (35) Manulife Financial (56) National City (33) Nationwide Financiald Regions Financial (40) State Streetd Sun Trust (41) U.S. Bancorpd

5263 83,632 42,807 22,974 142,680 37,236 21,070 7326 1407 12,568 31,232 35,645 12,433 93,808 44,797 1164 4138 23,097 9180 25,781 9492 45,214 12,149 12,475

92,000 12,000 76,339 23,363 10,961 9800 9659 3376 21,390 30,000 20,000 35,230 5000 26,000 19,668 28,083 48,831

a

Source: Working Mother (October 2005) Sources: Standard & Poor’s Corporate Descriptions Plus News and US Business Directory. c Identified by www.hoovers.com as competitor firms, and they have never appeared on WM list. d No public mission statement available. b

and economic pressures differ substantially from those of privately held companies (Useem, 1996). (This criterion excludes very small firms.) This process yielded a sample of 24 publicly traded financial services firms on the 2005 WM list. Table 1 identifies the sample of firms by list status and employee size. In order to build variation in organizational practices into our sample, we also constructed a comparison group of similar companies who have never been listed by WM. This comparison group is composed of the 17 firms that (1) were among the first three firms cited by the web site www.hoovers.com as business competitors of the 24 sample firms on the 2005 list and that (2) have never appeared on the WM annual list since the list began in 1985 (see Table 1). Our working assumption is that the 17 companies never recognized by WM lack such practices or have implemented them to a much lesser degree than the companies on the WM list. Firms included on the WM list must apply for recognition. This raises the possibility that unlisted firms have excelled in the work–life area but never applied to WM. In order to examine this possibility, we obtained four years of data (2005–2008) on firms’ investment in the work–life arena from Kinder, Lydenberg, and Domini (KLD). KLD rates all companies in the Standard & Poor’s (S & P) 500 on a range of attributes, including whether a company ‘has outstanding programs addressing employee work/life concerns’ (KLD Research & Analytics, 2009, p. 8). The ratings are derived from data they collect from both internal and external sources (KLD Research & Analytics, 2009). KLD data has been widely used by researchers (e.g. Hillman & Keim, 2001; Waddock & Graves, 1997).

434


KLD had data for most of the firms in our sample; data for 2005 were available for 31 firms (76 percent). Appendix B shows KLD’s Work/Life Benefits rating (1 = has outstanding programs, 0 = does not have outstanding programs) for each of the firms in our sample for which they had data. This table shows that of the WM firms for which KLD had data, all but one was rated as having outstanding work–life programs. In contrast, none of the competitor firms rated by KLD received this rating. Firms’ ratings were stable over the four-year period. The KLD ratings increase our confidence that a firm’s presence or absence on the WM list is a meaningful indicator of its commitment to work–life practices.1

Identifying Publicly Available Mission Statements Although all firms may claim to have a mission, organizational leaders who do not explicitly publicize them are less likely to be held accountable to them by internal and external stakeholders. We analyze mission statements published on firms’ web sites and/or in annual reports. We began our analysis in fall 2004 by combing through web sites and annual reports of the sample firms. We searched for each firm’s current mission statement. Consistent with other mission statement research (see Williams, 2008), we found that not all firms used the term ‘mission statement’, but instead used other terminology, such as ‘mission and principles’, ‘core values’, or ‘vision and values’. Because researchers typically treat terms such as values, goals, philosophy, and vision as part of the mission statement genre (Amato & Amato, 2002; Bartkus & Glassman, 2008; Fairhurst et al., 1997), we defined statements containing these elements as equivalent to a mission statement even if it was not labeled as such. Some firms explicitly proclaim a mission or vision and then say that they achieve this mission or vision by fulfilling a set of principles or values. Others implicitly link elements such a mission and principles or a vision and values by listing them in a continuous statement on a web page. Appendix A provides three examples. If a mission statement (or its equivalent) could not be located, we contacted the company to ask if they had a publicly available statement. In some cases, we were directed to an annual report or to a web site. Some firms reported that they did not have a mission statement or its equivalent. We found public mission statements for 81 percent of our sample firms, similar to the proportion of Fortune 500 companies that have published these statements (American Management Association, 2002).2 We recognize that our sample is imperfect; it is possible that some firms may have an explicit mission statement publicized in another format, such as employee manuals, to which we did not have access. However, if we could not find a mission statement on the company web site or annual report, it is likely that external stakeholders lack access to it. We found a publicly available mission statement for 22 of the 24 (92 percent) of the publicly traded financial services companies on the WM list but only 11 of the 17 comparison firms (65 percent) never acknowledged by WM. Further, among the firms with public statements, those on the WM list had, on average, longer and more elaborated mission statements (181 words and 7.3 themes) compared to their competitors (108 words and 4.6 themes, on average). T-tests showed that mean differences between the WM and competitor samples in statement availability and, among available statements, in word count and number of themes are statistically significant (p < .05).

Analyzing Mission Statement Content We use an ‘analytic induction’ (Huberman & Miles, 1994, p. 431) approach to data analysis, related to grounded theorist approaches (Charmaz, 2005). Inductive methods are appropriate for

Blair-Loy et al.

435

discovering patterns and then building models of how mission statements are articulated and linked to work–life practices (Ryan, 2005, p. 29). Consistent with our research questions, our first goal is to discover how, in detailed ways, mission statements describe employees and other topics. We then analyze whether and how these descriptions vary and whether variation is linked to differences in organizational work–life practices (as operationalized by WM list status and verified by KLD data). Finally, we interpret our results in light of previous research on the organizational distinctiveness and institutionalization of corporate mission statements. Our data coding and the generation of conceptual categories were iterative steps in an ongoing, interactive process. Coding began in a detailed manner and became increasingly abstract and analytical, as we sought to discover and account for patterns. Close coding creates an ‘analytical scaffolding’ on which ‘each new piece of data ... can inform the earlier data’ (Charmaz, 2005, p. 517). First, each author separately identified important themes in the content of the mission statements. There were no restrictions placed on the number or type of themes that could be identified. Next, we discussed our coding decisions. We found that we could agree to a set of themes that were often more general or clear instances of each researcher’s particular codes.3 We then reread disputed texts, compared them with related texts and codes, and reconciled discrepancies. We then recoded the mission statements with our revised coding scheme, using the qualitative coding software program QSR NUD*IST 6. We coded each theme just once per company, even if the theme is repeated throughout the statement. The same phrase or sentence could be coded as more than one theme simultaneously.4 This process resulted in 18 different themes. (We entered this information into SPSS for calculating frequencies, means, and the subsequent cluster analysis.) We organized the themes as instances of three conceptual categories: claims or aspirations for employees, for products and services, and for the corporate organization. Over half of the themes (10) referred to espoused or ideal characteristics of workers. A second set of themes refer to espoused or ideal characteristics of the firm’s products or services (six themes) and a third invoke ideals for the corporation itself (two themes). The greater elaboration of employee themes is likely due to two factors. First, employees are key stakeholders in financial services firms. Organizations in which human resources are a competitive advantage might be especially likely to develop organizational identities involving employee characteristics (Baron, 2004). Second, our research questions on work–life issues primed us to pay particular attention to how mission statements refer to employees. Scholars approaching these statements with other research questions — for example, about product innovation — may come up with more elaborated codes about product characteristics. Table 2 lists the themes; Appendix A gives three examples of coded mission statements.

Results Table, 2, column 1, shows the percentage of sample firms whose mission statement contains each theme. Some themes are rarely articulated (e.g. only three statements, or 9 percent, mention employees as partners/owners). Other themes are common (24, or 73 percent, claim organizational integrity, and 29 statements, or 88 percent, praise the quality of firm products or services). The bivariate correlations of two themes appearing in the same mission statement are modest, with most Pearson correlations below .4. The highest correlation, .6, is between innovation and shareholder value. These results suggest that, while the mission statements of firms in our sample contain some of the same general types of information (e.g. references to employees), they express this information in distinctive ways.

436


Table 2. Percentage of Mission Statements Mentioning Each Theme by WM List Statusa Espoused or Ideal Characteristics of:

Code ID

Theme

All Firms (N = 33)

Employees

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

As partners or ownersb Team, teamwork Diversity Meritocracy Entrepreneurship Commitment Ambition or hard work Develop employees Respect for employees Personal well-being Quality service, products Relationship with clients Innovative Competitive Profitability, growth Shareholder value

.09 .42 .33 .18 .12 .21 .21 .39 .30 .18 .88 .33 .36 .18 .45 .52

.14** .50 .45* .23 .18* .32* .27 .50** .36 .23 .95 .41 .36 .27* .41 .41**

.00 .27 .09 .09 .00 .00 .09 .18 .18 .09 .73 .18 .36 .00 .55 .73

17 18

Integrity, accountability Corporate citizenship, community

.73 .45

.77 .50

.64 .36

.70 .97 .76

.82* .95 .82

.45 1.00 .64

Products & Services

Organization

On WM List (N = 22)

Never on WM List (N = 11)

Statement includes at least one: Employee theme Product & Services theme Organization theme 1 2

Table 2 is calculated using the 33 firms for which mission statements are available. Bold themes indicate a statistically significant difference between groups (*p < .05; **p < .10), two-tailed tests.

Next, we consider the cross-sectional relations between the content of firms’ mission statements and presence on the 2005 WM list. T-tests, reported in Table 2, columns 2 and 3, show that firms acknowledged by WM are more likely than their never-listed competitors to articulate themes regarding employees. Despite a small sample size, which limits our statistical power, we find that WM firms are significantly more likely than their competitors to emphasize five of the 10 employeerelated themes: descriptions of employees as partners or owners; employee diversity; employee entrepreneurship; employee commitment; a concern for developing employees. The bottom panel of Table 2 shows how many firms refer to at least one of the 10 employee themes. While 82 percent (18) of the WM firms articulate at least one espoused employee characteristic, only 45 percent (5) of the never-listed companies mention employees, a statistically significant difference. Perhaps the organizations that acknowledge the existence of employees in their mission statements are also more likely to engage in organizational practices to benefit them. Within the product/services category, 27 percent of WM firms explicitly mention competitiveness, but none of the competitor firms do (a statistically significant difference). We found that the

Blair-Loy et al.

437

WM firms that overtly mention winning and competitiveness often do so in conjunction with their emphasis on employee teamwork. For example, American Express proclaims, ‘Teamwork: we work together, across boundaries, to meet the needs of our customers and to help the company win’ (Appendix A). (The competitor firms are only half as likely to mention teamwork.) Some competitor statements implicitly acknowledge competition, but this is in the context of product–service quality. For example, Manulife Financial aims to provide ‘the very best financial protection and investment management services’ (Appendix A), while Fifth Third promises ‘to achieve best-inclass performance’. Competitor firms are significantly more likely (73 percent) than WM firms (41 percent) to invoke shareholder value. Among organization themes, the claim of organizational integrity and accountability is common in both groups. In sum, this analysis reveals patterned variation in the mission statements for the firms in our sample. We also find relationships between mission statements and work–life practices, as acknowledged by WM and validated by KLD data. The mission statements of firms with recognized work–life practices are more likely than those of their competitors to acknowledge employees. Although virtually all the companies we studied mention the ideal traits of their products and services, the mission statements of the firms without recognized work–life practices are more likely than those of firms on the WM list to emphasize the bottom line.

A Typology of Mission Statements The results summarized in Table 2 show whether particular themes are present in mission statements in two subsamples of financial services firms: one subsample is recognized for work–life practices and one is not. Our theme-by-theme analysis of mission statements showed that WM firms, recognized for their high-quality work–life practices, are more likely to include some employee-related themes in their mission statements than their industry competitors. These results are consistent with the view that mission statements, though highly institutionalized in some respects, are also a vehicle through which firms can express their particular priorities and aspirations (e.g. Bartkus & Glassman, 2008; Peyrefitte & David, 2006). We are also interested in whether there are common patterns or typologies in how firms combine themes into statements. This provides a fuller picture of the ways that firms within a single industry may use their mission statements to articulate their distinctive values and priorities, including those relating to employees. In particular, we will examine whether and how the mission statements of work–life leaders, as recognized by WM, may differ from other firms in their industry. We address this issue with a hierarchical cluster analysis. Clustering methods have long been used in social science and other fields to organize and look for structure in data. One of several established sorting rules (algorithms) sorts elements into groups (clusters) in a typology. Variation within clusters is minimized and variation between them is maximized. Cluster analysis may be used in an innovative or exploratory phase of a research endeavor to create a typology, which the analyst then interprets (Aldenderfer & Blashfield, 1984). Clustering Method. The cluster analysis uses the contents of mission statements to group firms with similar constellations of themes. We characterized each company by a string of codes representing all the themes in its statement (see the Code IDs in Table 2). Each code has no inherent quantitative value other than being a dichotomous marker of the theme’s presence in that firm’s mission statement. In the cluster analysis, the firms can be understood as cases, and the theme codes as variables. To reduce the large number of variables, we deleted four codes with little variation.

438


Table 3. Comparison of Theme Codes for American Express and Bank of America Firm

Mission Statement Theme Codes

American Express Bank of America

2 X

X 7

8 X

9 X

12 12

X 13

14 X

X 16

18 18

These were the two most common codes (product/service quality and organizational integrity/ accountability) and the two rarest (employees as partners/owners and entrepreneurship). We then excluded three cases that had fewer than two of the remaining codes (Lincoln Financial, AM South, and Regions), yielding a sample of 30 firms and 14 codes. We used the SPSS DISTANCE program to calculate the squared Euclidean distance as a measure of the dissimilarity between each pair of companies. This measure of dissimilarity is based on the number of themes that one firm has and the other does not. For example, consider the strings of codes characterizing two firms, American Express and Bank of America (see Table 3). These firms have codes 12 (relationship with client) and 18 (corporate citizenship) in common. The remaining codes are present in one firm but not the other. There are seven total mismatches (marked with an X), so the distance between these two firms is 7. The SPSS DISTANCE algorithm yields a 30 × 30 dissimilarity matrix of these distances (not shown). We then classified this matrix with the SPSS cluster analysis program. Different sorting algorithms yield different solutions, and the analyst must choose the most meaningful result (Aldenderfer & Blashfield, 1984). We explored several methods and chose Ward’s, a commonly used algorithm that minimizes the sum of squares in each cluster (Aldenderfer & Blashfield, 1984), because it yielded groupings of a roughly similar size. The analyst makes a heuristic judgment about a reasonable number of clusters (ranging from 30 clusters, each with only one firm, to one very large cluster containing all firms in the sample). For our data, the criterion of meaningfulness plus a jump in the agglomeration coefficient (Aldenderfer & Blashfield, 1984) suggest a four-cluster solution. Thus, the companies with similar content are grouped together into four clusters, labeled A, B, C, and D. (The full cluster solution is available on request.) Cluster Results. Figure 1 portrays the number of appearances of particular codes as a percentage of the total number of codes in all firms appearing in that cluster. In contrast to Table 2’s presentation of the percentage of WM-listed and competitor firms that use each theme, Figure 1 depicts the presence of particular themes in a cluster relative to all other themes invoked in that cluster. Drawing from the same menu of 18 themes, Figure 1 shows that the firms in our sample construct their mission statements in one of four ways. One template emphasizes shareholder value and profitability, while not mentioning employees and other stakeholders (Cluster A). Two clusters provide versions of a hybrid narrative that highlights people alongside profit (B and C). One template focuses almost exclusively on employees and community stakeholders (Cluster D). WM firms are least represented in Cluster A (two out of six firms) and most represented in Cluster D (nine out of nine firms). In contrast, the competitor firms are most represented in Cluster A (four out of six firms), with none in Cluster D. Cluster A contains six companies, four of which were never recognized by WM. None of the 12 codes represented in Cluster A mentions employees or corporate citizenship. Shareholder value and/or profitability/growth are emphasized in all six firms and comprise 67 percent of the 12 codes.

439

Blair-Loy et al. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Intrinsic Value of Employees All Other Employee Characteristics Corporate Citizenship Profitability, Growth, and Shareholder Value Product Innovation

Cluster A

Cluster B

Cluster C

Cluster D

Other Product or Service Characteristics

Figure 1. Cluster Resultsa

Cluster A: Focused on shareholder value and growth/profits; ignores employees and other stakeholders. 6 firms, 20% recognized by WM. (WM firms are Republic Bancorp and Prudential; industry competitors are Bear Stearns, Sun Trust, Hartford Life, and Commerce Bancorp.) Cluster B: ‘Hard business case’ emphasizes employee contribution to profitability and innovation. 10 firms, 60% recognized by WM. (WM firms are Lehman Brothers, The Phoenix Companies, Bank of America, Principle Financial, Zurich North America, and MBNA; industry competitors are AXA, Fifth Third, National City, and Manulife Financial.) Cluster C: ‘Soft business case’ emphasizes intrinsic value of people plus profitability. 5 firms, 80% recognized by WM. (WM firms are PNC, Wachovia, Deutsche, and First Horizon; industry competitor is Bank of New York.) Cluster D: Emphasizes employees and other stakeholders, not shareholders or profitability/growth. 9 firms, 100% recognized by WM. (WM firms are HSBC, Allstate, UBS, American Express, Citigroup, First National Bank, Metlife, Northern Trust, and Morgan Stanley.) a The cluster analysis is calculated using 30 firms (21 firms on WM 2005 list and 9 competitors never recognized by WM) and 14 codes (excluding codes 1, 5, 11, and 17 in Table 2).

(The remaining codes concern other aspects of the companies’ products and services.) Compared to the other three clusters, Cluster A expresses the most reverence toward shareholders, while ignoring employee and community stakeholders. The mission statements contained in this cluster seem to reflect the institutional interests of activist shareholders (Useem, 1996). Clusters B and C emphasize employee characteristics as the key to profitability and include both WM and non-WM firms. Cluster B represents a ‘hard’ business case, in which shareholder value and/or profitability/growth are again pervasive, but with further emphasis on the instrumental contribution of employees to the bottom line. This group contains 10 firms (four have never been recognized by WM) and 52 codes. All firms mention shareholders or profitability/growth (27 percent of B’s codes). Forty-two percent of codes concern employees, but only 8 percent emphasize their intrinsic value (i.e. diversity, respect for employees). Of all the clusters, B places the most emphasis on product innovation (15 percent of codes). It also gives some attention to corporate citizenship (12 percent). Cluster C contains five firms and 38 codes, presenting a ‘softer’ business case than Cluster B. Like B, all Cluster C companies discuss shareholders and/or profitability (representing 21 percent of codes), and all firms praise their employees (58 percent of codes). Yet, in contrast to B, Cluster C puts less emphasis on the instrumental use and more emphasis on the intrinsic value of employees, including respect, diversity, and well-being (29 percent). All but one Cluster C firm has been recognized by WM for its work–life policies. Cluster D emphasizes employee and community stakeholders. All firms in this cluster have been recognized by WM for their implementation of high-quality work–life practices. In addition,

440


while shareholder value and/or profitability are mentioned in every firm in Clusters A, B, and C, these themes are virtually absent in Cluster D: only one firm mentions shareholders, and only one mentions profitability. Cluster D includes nine firms and 47 codes, which are largely focused on employee and community stakeholders. Sixty-four percent of codes laud employees, with, 26 percent stressing their intrinsic value. Seventeen percent of codes emphasize corporate citizenship (in all but one firm). Underlying these differences in mission statements are alternative views of firm priorities and commitments, each of which may be reinforced by a different set of institutional actors. For example, Cluster A themes seem consistent with ‘investor capitalism’ and ‘agency theory’, perspectives that see the firm as a set of short-term contracts designed to reward investors (Khurana, 2002, 2007; Useem, 1996). Managers are shareholders’ agents who should be compensated solely for increasing shareholder wealth. These perspectives are now taken-for-granted wisdom in university MBA programs (Cech & Blair-Loy, 2010; Khurana, 2007). Representing the ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ versions of the ‘business case’ for work–life practices, Clusters B and C reflect the institutional interests of human resource officers (Kelly, 1999). Their professional position is that shareholder value is ultimately increased over the long term when employees are most efficient; employees are more efficient when they are valued and supported by enlightened human resource policies. Cluster D’s emphasis on employees and community stakeholders may reflect an earlier, 20th century vision of the mission of corporations. This vision is one of firms run by professional managers seeking autonomy from owners and promising to utilize their workers’ talents to make useful products and serve their communities (Khurana, 2007). In addition (or alternatively), the missions represented in Cluster D may reflect institutional pressure from employee and community stakeholders. In sum, although institutional constraints may limit the types of mission statement a company is likely to invoke, the four separate templates we have identified are likely to be chosen by different kinds of firms. Cluster A ignores employees, focusing primarily on shareholders; Cluster B acknowledges employees’ instrumental contribution to the bottom line; Cluster C acknowledges employees’ intrinsic value and their instrumental contribution to profitability; and Cluster D expresses the most appreciation toward employees while ignoring shareholders. Regarding firms’ support for high-quality work–life practices, our analysis suggests that there may be multiple ways to pursue this commitment. The mission statements in Clusters B, C, and especially D are consistent with promoting employees’ work–life balance and could help guide organizational action in support of employee stakeholders. A business case ideology is articulated into specific statements in 15 firms in Clusters B and C, and 10 of these firms have embraced better work–life practices. All of the firms in Cluster D have been recognized for their work–life practices; this type of mission may be most consistent with and useful for guiding organizational action in support of employee stakeholders.

Discussion Employees are key organizational stakeholders, and studies show that they are often referenced in company mission statements (Williams, 2008). Less is known about the particular characteristics of employees invoked in mission statements and how or if these references to employees are related to firms’ commitments to practices that affect them. Our study contributes to both areas. Our research questions addressed whether and how the mission statements of firms with highquality work–life practices differ from other firms in the same industry. We find that, even among

Blair-Loy et al.

441

firms in the same industry, mission statements vary in the proportion of thematic content devoted to employees and the content of the employee-related themes. Our results show that firms with mission statements that acknowledge employees, especially employees’ intrinsic value, are significantly more likely to have WM-recognized work–life practices than firms whose statements do not espouse these themes. These results lend empirical support to those who suggest that the public nature of mission statements and pressures for firms to maintain credibility with different audiences has increased firms’ motivation to align their practices with their missions. In addition, we examined whether there are common patterns for how firms combine themes into mission statements and, if so, whether this typology is related to high-quality work–life practices. We found four types of mission statements, each of which may be reinforced by different institutional actors, including activist shareholders, elite business schools, human resource professionals, and employee and community stakeholders.

Mission Statements and Strategy Implementation These four types of missions statements may each represent a different kind of balance between strategic priorities (e.g. product innovation, profitability, valuing employees), underscoring the role that mission statements can play with regard to strategy implementation. Mission statements establish a foundation for developing specific corporate- and firm-level strategies, structures, and practices and may also influence the implementation and institutionalization of specific strategic initiatives (Bart et al., 2001), such as total quality management (TQM) (Alexander, Weiner, & Griffeth, 2006; Klein & Sorra, 1996; Wicks, 2001), corporate social responsibility practices (Waddock, 2002), and sustainability initiatives (Winn & Angell, 2000). Wicks (2001), for example, found that successful institutionalization of TQM practices depends on having supporting core values in place such as trust, cooperation, and empowerment. In their study of corporate greening initiatives in organizations, Winn and Angell (2000, p. 1121) arged that, ‘Top management commitment, reflected in corporate vision and mission, is generally viewed as essential to embarking on and maintaining the process of greening.’ Recognizing that mission statements have an important influence on strategy implementation, there may be equifinality in these statements’ relationship to the implementation of particular organizational practices. In particular, our findings indicate that mission statements most likely to be associated with high-quality investments in work–life practices emphasize employees and corporate citizenship, yet this was not the only type of mission statement compatible with these investments. Understanding how the mission statements of firms recognized for the quality of their work–life practices differ from others, as well as the sources of variation in mission statements among work–life leaders, may be of practical value to organizations and leaders seeking to increase their investments in the work–life area. It is also important to understand more about the relationship between mission statements and the strategic implementation of organizational practices over time. On balance, our findings are consistent with the premise that when organizations explicitly and publicly embrace a particular set of values and goals in their mission statement, accountability for follow-through action is increased. Yet, many different factors shape organizational action, and the causal ordering may be different from what we have argued. For example, research on commitment processes reveals a complex relationship between behavior and beliefs. Publicly articulated mission statements may motivate organizations to behave in ways that are consistent with those ideals. Yet, this process may also operate in the other direction: once an organization has implemented a particular

442


practice — especially when done in a public fashion — it should be more likely to construct a mission statement that corresponds to these actions. Though Bartkus and Glassman (2008, p. 213) found only weak support for the idea that mission statements are written ‘after the fact’, more research is needed to understand the conditions under which mission statements may be a motivator or response to strategic implementation. Regarding work–life programs in particular, longitudinal research could help us disentangle these relations between action and mission, as well as the factors that shape the evolution of these programs over time. Some accounts suggest that during the 2000–2001 recession many employers stopped adding new work–life programs, or retained only those most central to their employees (Kleiman, 2003). We suspect that mission statements, particularly those that are more elaborated and reflect specific themes, may influence sustained commitment to work–life practices, despite external economic pressures that might lead other firms to cut back on these benefits. In our sample of financial institutions, these issues are of particular relevance. Since our data were collected, the financial sector has undergone significant turbulence and change. Of the 24 companies in our 2005 WM sample, two were acquired, merged, or sold by the fall of 2008. Of the remaining 22 companies, 18 (82 percent) continued to be listed by WM between 2006 and, 2008. Of the 17 firms in the competitor sample, five were acquired, merged, or sold by, 2008. None of the remaining 12 competitor organizations still in existence were ever listed by WM in 2006, 2007, or 2008. More systematic attention to these issues is needed if we are to better understand, from a theoretical perspective, the role of mission statements in reinforcing sustained commitment to implementing work–life practices, and, from a practical perspective, how leaders can employ mission statements to maintain important strategic commitments in the face of external pressures.

Implications for Organizational Theory Our findings, revealing a pattern in which mission statements reflect widely shared themes as well as those that are more distinctive, also have implications for organizational theory and research. At the broadest level, our research may help shed light on the processes through which organizations achieve what Deephouse (1999, p. 147) characterizes as a ‘strategic balance’ between legitimacy and distinctiveness, and others frame as a balance between legitimacy and reputation (e.g. Deephouse & Carter, 2005; King & Whetten, 2008). Organizations obtain legitimacy by becoming similar to others, but establish their reputations through differentiation and distinction (Deephouse & Carter, 2005). Mission statements may provide an important vehicle through which organizations balance the forces that lead to legitimation and differentiation. Mission statements can integrate and reflect values with a broad consensus, such as those in our study related to product quality or corporate integrity, while at the same time emphasizing more distinctive values such as employee wellbeing, which in our sample was strongly associated with work–life practices. These findings lend support to recent studies suggesting that the contents of mission statements reflect the dual influences of institutional pressures and a firm’s distinctive commitments and priorities (e.g. Bartkus & Glassman, 2008; Peyrefitte & David, 2006). In our study, distinctive organizational priorities regarding work–life practices are expressed using different types of mission statements, which each may be reinforced by different institutional actors. Our results also have implications for other issues being addressed in institutional theory and research. For example, some institutional theorists are studying how organizations respond strategically to their environments rather than mimicking one another as a way to enhance survival and legitimacy (Goodstein, 1994; Ingram & Simons, 1995; Oliver, 1991). That

Blair-Loy et al.

443

organizations have some flexibility in how they respond to the legitimacy expectations of their environments is an important insight. Yet, the nature and sources of this flexibility remain poorly understood. Greater attention to mission statements may yield information about these processes. For example, future research could explore whether and how organizations rely on their mission statements when responding to external and internal challenges, and the role of these statements in maintaining organizational distinctiveness and viability over time, even when doing so may seem to contradict short-term economic self-interest or conformity to legitimacy pressures within the organizational field (Collins & Porras, 2002). Mission statements may have important practical, as well as theoretical consequences, by helping some organizations ‘immunize’ themselves against other external influences (Pederson & Dobbin, 2006, p. 904). In this way, they may represent a counter-force to regulative, normative, and cognitive elements (Scott, 2002) in the institutional environment. Although the WM-recognized companies in our study have been lauded for the continuity of their work–life practices, there may be tensions associated with the tight coupling of mission statements and organizational practices over time. For example, even when faced with economic or other pressures to do so, firms may encounter resistance when they attempt to change practices that reflect public and explicit commitments made in their mission statements. Recognizing these tensions, organizational ecologists are devoting theoretical and empirical attention to the role played by internalized commitments, e.g. corporate values, in the dynamics of organizational change (Hannan, Polos, & Carroll, 2003; Hsu & Hannan, 2005; Polos, Hannan, & Carroll, 2002). Hannan et al. (2003) use the term ‘asperity’ to refer to the normative restrictiveness that internalized commitments may impose. In their view, a high level of asperity creates a barrier to organizational change and can create a series of ‘cascading effects’ that increase the chance of organizational mortality (Hannan et al., 2003). Their observation that internalized commitments can impede organizational success is an important insight. In contrast to researchers like Collins and Porras (2002), who argued that attentiveness to mission and values can enhance prospects for success as organizations seek to adapt and change, organizational ecologists emphasize possible drawbacks to organizations with deeply held mission and value commitments. Finally, an important empirical contribution of our research is our methodology. Our strategy relies on qualitative and quantitative procedures to code mission statements, cluster firms based on this coding, and examine relationships between clusters and organizational practices. To our knowledge, we are among the first to use cluster analysis techniques to create templates of mission statement content. We hope that, as more organizational scholars pursue this type of research, they will validate our procedures, develop new approaches, and find convergence in various procedures for coding and analyzing mission statements.

Conclusion Mission statements are pervasive today, but their relationship to organizational practices continues to be debated. We find both uniformity and variation in the mission statements of firms in the financial services industry. We also find a relationship between the contents of these statements and high-quality work–life practices, as acknowledged by WM and validated by KLD data. These results may be useful to firms and leaders seeking to institutionalize their work–life commitments and align them with other organizational priorities and aspirations. We hope future research will continue to explore the role of mission statements as a vehicle through which organizations may balance external expectations and internal commitments, and the connections between these statements and organizational practices.

444


APPENDIX A: Three Examples of Mission Statements (Table 2 codes in italics in brackets; first instance in bold, each code just counted once per company statement) American Express: Core Values (Working Mother 2005 List) • • • • • • • •

Customer Commitment: We develop relationships that make a positive difference in our customers’ lives [12 relationship with clients]. Quality: We provide outstanding products and unsurpassed service that, together, deliver premium value to our customers [11 service-products quality]. Integrity: We uphold the highest standards of integrity in all of our actions [17 integrity-accountability]. Teamwork: We work together, across boundaries, to meet the needs of our customers and to help the company win [2 teams-teamwork; 14 competitive]. Respect for People: We value our people, encourage their development and reward their performance [8 employee development, 9 respect for employees]. Good Citizenship: We are good citizens in the communities in which we live and work [18 corporate citizenship – community]. A Will to Win: We exhibit a strong will to win in the marketplace and in every aspect of our business [14 competitive]. Personal Accountability: We are personally accountable for delivering on our commitments [17 integrity-accountability].

Source: American Express Company Annual Report, 2003, p. 23. The Phoenix Companies: Mission and Values (Working Mother 2005 List) Our goal is to create value for our shareholders, satisfaction for our clients [16 shareholder value, 11 service-products quality], and opportunity for our employees [8 employee development]. Our mission is to be the company of choice for products and services that help the affluent and high net worth be financially independent and secure [11 service-products quality]. We fulfill our mission by: • • • • • •

working collaboratively and effectively toward the common purpose of executing our strategy [2 teams-teamwork]; developing innovative, profitable accumulation, preservation and transfer products that our clients – advisors, individuals and institutions – want, need, and trust [13 innovative, 15 profitability-growth]; expanding and using our in-depth knowledge of the affluent and high net worth to provide exceptional support and counsel to advisors so they can become the advisor of choice [11 service-products quality]; inspiring our employees to offer quality service associated with providers of exceptional goods and services [11 service-products quality]; empowering our employees at all levels to be vigilant and disciplined in making factbased, intelligent decisions [11 service-products quality, 8 employee development]; fostering a performance- and merit-based culture in a diverse, inclusive workplace [4 meritocracy, 3 diversity].

Blair-Loy et al.

445

APPENDIX A: (Continued) We value integrity, honesty [17 integrity-accountability], diversity [3 diversity], responsibility, accountability [17 integrity-accountability], hard work [7 ambition-hard work], collaboration [2 teams-teamwork], respect for others, and community involvement [18 corporate citizenship – community]. Source: Retrieved from The Phoenix Companies’ web site, September 2004 (link now inactive).

Manulife Financial:Vision and Values (Competitor Firm) Manulife Financial’s vision is to be the most professional life insurance company in the world: providing the very best financial protection and investment management services tailored to customers in every market where we do business [11 service-product quality]. With vision comes values. These values guide everything we do – from strategic planning to day-today decision-making, to the manner in which we treat our customers and other stakeholders. These values are described by the acronym PRIDE: • •

• • • •

PROFESSIONALISM. We will be recognized as having the highest professional standards. Our employees and agents will possess superior knowledge and skill, for the benefit of our customers [7 ambition-hard work]. REAL VALUE TO CUSTOMERS. We are here to satisfy our customers. By providing the highest-quality products, services, advice, and sustainable value, we will ensure our customers receive excellent solutions to meet their individual needs [11 service-product quality]. INTEGRITY. All of our dealings are characterized by the highest levels of honesty and fairness [17 integrity-accountability]. DEMONSTRATED FINANCIAL STRENGTH. Our customers depend on us to be here in the future to meet our financial promises [11 service-product quality, 17 integrity-accountability]. We earn this faith by maintaining uncompromised claims paying ability, a healthy earnings stream, and superior investment performance results, consistent with a prudent investment management philosophy [11 service-product quality, 15 profitability-growth]. EMPLOYER OF CHOICE. Our employees will determine our future success. In order to attract and retain the best and brightest employees, we will invest in the development of our human resources [8 employee development] and reward superior performance [4 meritocracy].

Source: Retrieved from the Manulife Financial web site, September 2004 (link now inactive).

446


APPENDIX B: KLD Work/Life Benefits Ratings for Companies in Sample, 2005-2008 On WM List (N = 24) Lincoln Financial Group (9) Bank of America (2) American Express (1) Prudential Financial (14) Citigroup (3) Allstate (10) MBNA America Bank (5) Northern Trust (6) The Phoenix Companies (7) First Horizon Nat’l Corp. (4) Metlife (19) JPMorgan Chase Deutsche (21) Wachovia (8) Morgan Stanley (22) Republic Bancorp (23) First National Bank (13) PNC Financial Services(15) Zurich N. America (17) UBS Investment Bank (16) Credit Suisse 1st Boston HSBC North Amer. (20) Lehman Brothers (36) Principal Financial (37) Competitors (N = 17) AIG AmSouth (30) AXA Financial (31) Bank of New York (32) Bear Stearns (39) Commerce Bancorp (34) Fifth Third Bancorp (38) Flagstar Bancorp GEICO Hartford Life (35) Manulife Financial (56) National City (33) Nationwide Financial Regions Financial (40) State Street Sun Trust (41) U.S. Bancorp a

2005

2006

2007

2008

1a

1

1

1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 — 1 1 — 0 1 — — — — 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 —b 1 1 1 1 1 — — 1 — 0 1 — — — — 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 — 1 1 1 1 1 — — 1 — 0 1 — — — — 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 — 1 1 1 1 1 — 1 1 — 0 1 — — — — 1 1

0 0 — 0 0 0 0 0 — — — 0 0 0 1 0 0

0 — — 0 0 0 0 0 — — — 0 0 0 1 0 0

0 — — 0 0 0 0 0 — — — 0 0 0 1 0 0

0 — — 0 — — 0 0 — — — 0 0 0 1 0 0

Rating on KLD Work/Life Benefits Indicator as having ‘outstanding programs addressing employee work/life concerns’ (1 = has outstanding programs). b No data available.

Blair-Loy et al.

447

Notes 1 Besides WM, there are numerous other ‘best companies’ lists. These lists recognize firms for various employee-related practices and policies, using a variety of methods to make their selections. If our non-WM firms’ omission from the WM list stems primarily from something about the WM list itself (e.g. its labor-intensive application process) and not the firms’ particular policies and practices, we might expect to see more non-WM firms on other ‘best companies’ lists. To explore this possibility, we compared our sample to the companies on seven ‘best companies’ lists, including Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work For, NAFE Top 30 Companies for Executive Women, Business Ethics 100 Best Corporate Citizens, HRC Corporate Equality Index, Latina Style 50, Black Enterprise 30 Best Companies for Diversity, and Black Collegian Top Diversity Employers. Seventy-six percent (19) of the companies on the WM list appeared on at least one other ‘best company’ list, with 56 percent appearing on two or more of these lists. By contrast, only three of the 17 non-WM firms appeared on any of the lists and none appeared on more than one. 2 Bartkus and Glassman (2008) relied on a similar strategy for identifying mission statements. They found mission statements for 68 percent of the firms in their sample (top 100 firms in the Fortune 500 for 2001). 3 For example, we combined comments about teamwork and comments on collaboration toward a common purpose into one teams-teamwork code. The code for employee personal well-being includes discussions of personal growth, work–life balance, engagement with families and communities, and the quality of personal life. We combined comments about profitability and growth into one code. Clients and customers were most often mentioned in the context of excellent service and received the ubiquitous product–services quality code. But, if forging a relationship with clients was explicitly extolled, we gave that comment a relationship with client code. We combined proclamations of corporate integrity, accountability, professionalism, and honesty in one integrity–accountability code. 4 For instance, this sentence is coded as both diversity and meritocracy: ‘Fostering a performance- and merit-based culture in a diverse, inclusive workplace’ (The Phoenix Companies, Appendix 2). This example is coded as both diversity and respect for employees: ‘Respect and Value the Individual: We embrace diversity, seeking new ideas and listening and learning from each other. We appreciate the unique capabilities and contributions of each person’ (Wachovia).

References Aldenderfer, Mark S., & Blashfield, R. K. (1984). Cluster analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Alexander, Jeffrey A., Weiner, Bryan J., & Griffith, John (2006). Quality improvement and hospital performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 1003–1029. Amato, Christie H., & Amato, Louis H. (2002). Corporate commitment to quality of life: Evidence from company mission statements. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 10, 69–86. American Management Association (2002). Corporate values survey. www.amanet.org/research/pdfs/2002_ corp_value.pdf Balazs, Katharina (2002) Take one entrepreneur: The recipe for success of France’s great chefs. European Management Review 20: 247–259. Baron, James N. (2004). Employing identities in organizational ecology. Industrial and Corporate Change, 13, 3–32. Bart, Christopher K. (1997). Industrial firms and the power of mission. Industrial Marketing Management, 26, 371–383. Bart, Christopher K. (2001). Exploring the application of mission statements on the world wide web. Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, 11, 360–368. Bart, Christopher K. & Baetz, Mark C. (1998) The relationship between mission statements and firm performance: an exploratory study. The Journal of Management Studies, 36, 823–853. Bart, Christopher K., Bontis, Nick, & Taggar, Simon (2001). A model of the impact of mission statements on firm performance. Management Decision, 39, 9–30. Bart, Christopher K. & Tabone, John (1999) Mission statement content and hospital performance in the Canadian not-for-profit health care sector. Health Care Manager Review 24, 18–29.

448


Bartkus, Barbara, & Glassman, Myron (2008). Do firms practice what they preach? The relationship between mission statements and stakeholder management. Journal of Business Ethics, 83, 207–216. Bartkus, Barbara, Glassman, Myron, & McAfee, R. Bruce (2002). Do large European, US and Japanese firms use their web sites to communicate their mission? European Management Journal, 20, 423–429. Basdeo, Dax, Smith, Ken G., Grimm, Curtis, Rindova,Violina, & Derfus, Pamela (2006). The impact of market action on firm reputation. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 1183–1204. Blair-Loy, Mary, & Wharton, Amy S. (2002). Employees’ use of family-responsive policies and the workplace social context. Social Forces, 80, 813–845. Bolon, Douglas S. (2005). Comparing mission statement content in for-profit and not-for-profit hospitals: Does mission really matter? Hospital Topics, 83, 2–9. Burke, Mary Elizabeth, Essen, E., & Collison, Jessica (2003). 2003 Benefits Survey. Alexandria, VA: Society for Human Resource Management. Carreiro, Joshua L. (2006). Organizational narratives and the construction of resistance: Union organizing at a ‘progressive’ company. Research in the Sociology of Work, 16, 27–55. Cech, Erin, & Blair-Loy, Mary (2010). Perceiving glass ceilings? Meritocratic versus structural explanations of gender inequality among women in science and technology. Social Problems, 57, 371–397. Charmaz, Kathy (2005.). Grounded theory in the 21st century. In N. K. Denzin & S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.; pp. 507–536). Thousand Oaks, CA and London: Sage. Cheney, George, Christensen, Lars Thoger, Conrad, Charles, & Lair, Daniel J. (2004). Corporate rhetoric as organizational discourse. In D. Grant, C. Hardy, C. Oswick & L. Putnam (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational discourse (pp. 79–103). Thousand Oaks, CA/London: Sage. Collins, James C., & Porras, Jerry I. (2002). Built to last: Successful habits of visionary companies. New York: HarperBusiness. (First published 1994.) David, Fred R. (1989.). How companies define their mission. Long Range Planning, 22, 90–92. David, Fred R. (1993). Strategic management (4th ed.). New York: Macmillan. Davis, Amy E., & Kalleberg, Arne L. (2006). Family-friendly organizations? Work and family programs in the 1990s. Work and Occupations, 33, 191–223. Deephouse, David L. (1999). To be different, or to be the same? It’s a question (and theory) of strategic balance. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 147–166. Deephouse, David L., & Carter, Suzanne M. (2005). An examination of differences between organizational legitimacy and organizational reputation. Journal of Management Studies, 42, 329–360. DiMaggio, Paul J., & Powell, Walter W. 1983). The ‘iron cage’ revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–60. Fairhurst, Gail T., Jordan, Jerry Monroe, & Neuwirth, Kurt (1997). Why are we here? Managing the meaning of an organizational mission statement. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 25, 243–263. Germain, R. & Cooper, M.B. (1990) How a customer mission statement affects company performance. Industrial Marketing Management 19, 47–54. Glass, Jennifer L., & Estes, Sarah Beth (1997). The family responsive workplace. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 289–313. Glass, Jennifer, & Fujimoto, Tetsushi (1995). Employer characteristics and the provision of family responsive policies. Work and Occupations, 22, 380–411. Goldin, Claudia, & Katz, Lawrence F. (2008). Transitions: Career and family life cycles of the educational elite. American Economic Review, 98, 363–369. Goll, Irene, & Sambharya, Rakesh B. (1995) Corporate ideology, diversification, and hospital performance. Organization Studies, 16, 823–846. Goodstein, Jerry (1994). Institutional pressures and strategic responsiveness: Employer involvement in work–family issues. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 350–382. Guthrie, Doug, & Roth, Louise Marie (1999). The state, the courts, and equal opportunities for female CEOs in U.S. organizations: Specifying institutional mechanisms. Social Forces, 77, 511–542. Hackley, Christopher (1998). Mission statements as corporate communications: The consequences of social contructionism. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 3 (3), 92–98.

Blair-Loy et al.

449

Hannan, Michael T., Polos, Laszlo, & Carroll, Glenn R. (2003). The fog of change: Opacity and asperity in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 399–432. Harrington, Brad, & Ladge, Jamie J. (2009). Work–life integration: Present dynamics and future directions for organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 38, 148–157. Hewlett, Sylvia Ann, & Luce, Carolyn Buck (2006, December). Extreme jobs: The dangerous allure of the 70-hour workweek. Harvard Business Review, 49–59. Hillman, Amy J., & Keim, Gerald D. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, 22, 125–139. Hsu, Greta, & Hannan, Michael T. (2005 ). Identities, genres, and organizational forms. Organization Science, 16, 474–494. Huberman, A. Michael, & Miles, Matthew B. (1994). Data management and analysis methods. In he Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.; pp. 428–444). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ingram, Paul, & Simons, Tal (1995). Institutional and resource dependence determinants of responsiveness to work–family issues. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1466–1482. Jacobs, Jerry A., & Gerson, Katheleen (2004). The time divide: Work, family, and gender inequality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Jones, Patricia & Kahaner, Larry (1995). Say it and Live it: The Fifty Corporate Mission Statements that Hit the Mark. New York: Currency Doubleday. Kabanoff, Boris, Waldersee, Robert, & Cohen, M. (1995). Espoused values and organizational change themes. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1075–1104. Kelly, Erin (1999 ). Theorizing corporate family policies: How advocates built the ‘business case’ for ‘family-friendly’ programs. Research in the Sociology of Work, 7, 1169–1202. Khurana, Rakesh (2002). Searching for a corporate savior: The Irrational quest for charismatic CEOs. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Khurana, Rakesh (2007). From higher aims to hired hands: The social transformation of American business schools and the unfulfilled promise of management as a profession. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. King, Brayden G., & Whetten, David A. (2008). Rethinking the relationship between reputation and legitimacy: A social actor conception. Corporate Reputation Review 11: 192–207. KLD Research & Analytics, Inc. (2009). Environmental, social and governance ratings criteria. Boston: KLD Research & Analytics, Inc. Kleiman, Carol (2003, June 17). Chicago Tribune. In hard times, benefits show survival instinct. Klein, Katherine J., & Sorra, Joann Speer (1996). The challenge of innovation implementation. Academy of Management Review, 21, 1055–1080. Kunda, Gideon (1992). Engineering culture: Control and commitment in a high tech corporation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Ledford, G., Wendenhof, J. & Strahley, J. (1995). Realizing a corporate philosophy. Organizational Dynamics 23, 4–19. Meyer, John M., & Rowan, Brian (1997). Institutionalized organization: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363. Milliken, Frances J., Dutton, Jane E., & Beyer, Janice M. (1990). Understanding organizational adaptation to change: The case of work–family issues. Human Resource Planning, 13, 91–106. Oliver, Christine (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 17, 333–363. Osterman, Paul (1995). Work/family programs and the employment relationship. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 681–700. Pascarella, Perry, & Frohman, Mark A. (1989). The purpose driven organization: Unleashing the power of direction and commitment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pearce, John A. II, & David, Forest (1987). Corporate mission statements: The bottom line. Academy of Management Executive, 1, 109–115. Pedersen, Jesper S., & Dobbin, Frank (2006.). In search of identity and legitimization: Bridging organizational culture and neoinstitutionalism. American Behavioral Science, 49, 897–907.

450


Peyrefitte, Joseph, & David, Forest R. (2006). A content analysis of the mission statements of United States firms in four industries. International Journal of Management, 23, 296–301. Pitt-Catsouphes, Marcie, & Googins, Bradley (2005). Recasting the work–family agenda as a corporate social responsibility. In E. E. Kossek & S. J. Lambert (Eds.), Work and integration: Organizational, cultural, and individual perspectives (pp. 469–490). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Podolny, Joel, Khurana, Rakesh, & Hill-Popper, M. (2005). Revisiting the meaning of leadership. Research in Organizational Behavior, 26, 1–36. Polos, Lszlo, Hannan, Michael T., & Carroll, Glenn R. (2002). Foundations of a theory of social forms. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11, 85–115. Ryan, Gery W. (2005). What are standards of rigor for qualitative research? Workshop on Interdisciplinary Standards for Systematic Qualitative Research. National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA (pp. 28–35). Retrieved July 1, 2010 from http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/ses/soc/ISSQR_workshop_rpt.pdf Salancik, Gerald R. (1977). Commitment and the control of organizational behavior and belief’. In. B. M. Staw & G. R. Salancik (Eds.), New directions in organizational behavior (pp. 1–21). Chicago: St. Clair Press. Scott, W. Richard (2002). Institutions and organizations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Selznick, Philip (1957) Leadership in administration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Sidhu, Jatinder (2003). Mission statements: Is it time to shelve them? European Management Journal, 21, 439–446. Stone, R.A. (1996). Mission statements revisited. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 61, 31–37. Sufi, T. & Lyons, H. (2003). Mission statements exposed. International Contemporary Hospitality Management, 15, 255–262. Swales, John M., & Rogers, Priscilla S. (1995). Discourse and the projection of corporate culture: The mission statement. Discourse and Society, 6, 223–242. Useem, Michael (1996). Investor capitalism: How money managers are changing the face of corporate America. New York: Basic Books. Van Lee, Reggie, Fabish, Lisa, & McGaw, Nancy (2005, Summer). The value of corporate values. Strategy + Business, 39, 1–14. Waddock, Sandra A. (2002). Leading corporate citizens. Boston: McGraw Hill. Waddock, Sandra A., & Graves, Samuel B. (1997). The corporate social performance–financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 303–319. Waddock, Sandra & Smith, Neil (2000). Corporate responsibility audits: Doing well by doing good. Sloan Management Review, 41, 75–84. Weiss, Janet A., & Piderit, Sandy K. (1999). The value of mission statements in public agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2, 192–223. Wicks, Andrew C. (2001). The value dynamics of total quality management: Ethics and the foundations of TQM. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11, 501–536. Williams, Linda Stallworth (2008). The mission statement: A corporate reporting tool with a past, present, and future. Journal of Business Communication, 45, 94–119. Wright, J.N. (2002). Mission and reality and why not? Journal of Change Management, 3, 30–44.

Author Biographies Mary Blair-Loy is Associate Professor of Sociology at University of California, San Diego and Director of the Center for Research on Gender in the Professions. She received her PhD (Sociology) from the University of Chicago. Amy S. Wharton is Professor of Sociology at Washington State University, Vancouver. She received her PhD (Sociology) from the University of Oregon. Jerry D. Goodstein is Professor of Management at Washington State University, Vancouver. He received his PhD (Management) from the University of California, Berkeley.