Comments

The placement probably says something about what Jack feels is an important lead-off.

Good leaders don't always make good authors. Jack's style of management may have prevented him from truly hearing constructive comments from his ghostwriter telling him a better way to lay out the book. Either way, ultimately, the publisher let it go out that way - so who's really to blame here?

Posted by Tony May / Mayday Media at April 8, 2005 9:55 AM

Halley,

Couldn't agree more. I also think Tony may be right, but wasn't Suzy Welch, of HBR fame, his ghost writer?

Posted by Michael at April 8, 2005 10:15 AM

Because we have been brainwashed (trained) to think that's the natural order of things. From my earliest days in school, through all of my progressive management jobs, mission statements were always the first thing to develop. So, it makes sense, albeit an oversight, that it shows up in chapter 1.

I agree...boring subject.

Posted by Michael Chaffin at April 8, 2005 11:29 AM

We all know that beginnings are the toughest part in almost everything, so given that you can "eat that frog" or not, it's just a voluntary exercise. Now, if you do it you'll enjoy much more the rest of the chapters, I guess.

On the other hand, who told us that we were supposed to read a book from the first to the last page ?...we can always ignore a whole chapter or change the order we read them, read in diagonal, etc. This is not like when we were in school days(!), we decide our way.

Posted by Omara at April 8, 2005 12:29 PM

I have found the automatic mission statement generator on the Dilbert website more than adequate for all purposes. Saves no end of meeting time

Posted by PaulH at April 8, 2005 1:37 PM

The "deadly start" is this blog by Halley Suitt -anything "values" totally confuses Boston radical liberal losers like Suitt-Kennedy-Kerry-Heinz (just kidding).

Maybe Ms. Welch is to "blame" since she is the lead writer/editor of the best selling "Winning" per her Harvard BR background - she must have selected the 1st chapter placement. The "ghostwriter" is a Tony mistake hullucinagenic flashback perhaps.

"So Much Hot Air About Something So Real" is the 1st chapter subtitle - showing the Jack Welch $400B added value sense of humor. All profits from the book donated to charity per Jack and Suzy.

Posted by Sean at April 8, 2005 6:12 PM

It's probably there since it's the foundation on which all other business activity is based... clarity of mission and purpose, as well as the values that will guide the corporation (it's people) in conducting the day to day affairs of the business.
If any number of business leaders, managers, and business people had paid greater heed over the past X number of years, the Enron's, World Com's, AIG's, Parmalat's, and all of the others, might have been avoided.
Hooray for the Warren Buffett's of the world, who dig deep into their organizations seeking out the problems. They LIVE THEIR VALUES! They teach the members of their organizations through their leadership, not to mention the rest of us.
It's a far cry from leaders who micromanage everything and then use the ignorance defense when called to account in court.
Put it in the front of the book, keep it in the front of the book. Come to think of it, maybe it should be his next book!!!

Posted by lem at April 8, 2005 9:03 PM

Given Welch's orientation and work-life experience, I don't think it's surprising. I think it DOES tell you a lot about running a giant organization (though not much about the kind most people run or work in).

One of the diseconomies of scale of big organizations (governemnt, military, corporate, non-profit, professional practice) is that missions get diffused and then need to be formally communicated, or the org loses its focus. In more appropriate sized orgs, this isn't necessary -- it naturally flows out of the day to day operations and decisions and gets shared effortlessly.

Once an organization gets too big to communicate effortless, it needs to fabricate mission statements and consciously spread them around and keep them in peoples' line of sight.

In that sense, a leader of a Brobdingnagian corporate hulk like G.E. HAS TO consider the mission statement paramount and has to work hard every day to see it hammered into everyone's skulls. So it's understandable he would lead off with this as a subject. Plus lem's very perceptive point...in the classic training, it's the source of everything else.

Posted by jeff angus at April 10, 2005 12:34 AM

I've despised every mission statement I've ever seen.

Posted by Erick Blackwelder at April 10, 2005 1:07 AM

I think Jeff Angus has raised a crucial point about the size of companies. The question is whether a company like GE can actually have one mission (apart from the obvious financial success criteria).

The second point, as Erick has alluded to, is whether a mission statement is a mechanism capable of performing this task. female viagra canadian

My personal perspective is that I would hate to work for a company that was so singleminded - I think that would be very dull and probably only successful in the short term.

I would love to know whether one bit of GE is REALLY like another bit in terms of culture etc.

The other problem with mission statements in large multinationals is regional culture. Most Brits I work with feel the urge to vommit when they see most formal written communication created in the US (That is not to say one is better or right or wrong - just different). Now I might be missing the point of mission statements but I am sure that is not the intended reaction of the author!

Posted by PaulH at April 10, 2005 7:12 AM viagra online in canada