In-House Counsel

Mission statements as wastes of time

By Rees Morrison

Someone needs to convince me that a summary of a law department?s aspirations ? aka mission statement ? makes any provable difference to the department?s effectiveness. Common in business they may be (See my posts of May 14, 2005 and June 9, 2007: Bain survey results.), but of unproven value they certainly are (See my posts of April 8, 2005: impossible to work with; Aug. 3, 2005: make them part of daily behavior; Aug. 3, 2005: ?alignment with clients?; Oct. 21, 2005: three tests for their usability; Oct. 31, 2005: a link to corporate strategy; and March 2, 2008: mix targets and behavior change.).

Given the constant change of business, only the highest-level bombast can pretend to serve for long. How many mission statements go on about ?world-class law department? (See my post of Aug. 22, 2006.)?

In the end, after much time and effort (See my posts of Jan. 15, 2006 and Aug. 3, 2005: mistakes made developing mission statements and the knowledge curse.) I fear it is full of sound and fury.

After all, every law department can adopt virtually the same flummery (See my posts of March 17, 2006; virtually identical statements; yet Sept. 4, 2005: all general counsel think their department is unique in the issues it faces.) and solemnly pronounce the same nostrums (See my post of Jan. 18, 2007: fortune cookie recommendations.). Mission statements can be churned out without thought (See my posts of Aug. 26, 2005: an Orwellian satire; and Feb. 24, 2007: a one-size-fits-all statement of values.). Summaries of policies and practices have more traction (See my post of Sept. 5, 2007.).

Full post as published by Law Department Management on March 20, 2008 (boomark / email).