One of the reasons I love to Blog, is because I look for certain themes that are frequent in my life, and writing gives me the chance to consolidate these thoughts. They’re not always original, but occasionally they are. The theme that’s been coming out lately in conversations with PAG board members, Quake Youth Ministry staffers, and of course, SRC is the idea of Mission, Vision, and Core Values.
These statements are integral to successful organizations, and have been promoted to the point of cliché, but for me they have taken on tremendous significance, and I believe that beyond the 7 Habit’s push of the 90’s, there is measurable importance to determining these matters.
I’ve taken to comparing this whole thing to a ball game. I hope that it makes understanding easier. I admit that for years I read books that showed me the corporate model, and I really wanted to understand, but not until recently have I really understood the value of each.
One more disclaimer before I dive in. Differing authors place the role of Vision and Mission interchangeably. My understanding is firmly built on Matthew 28:18-20. This scripture is what the church has historically called “The Great Commission”. My basis for Mission is founded here since mission can be found in Commission (as ridiculous as that sounds).
Here we go: Mission is the name of the game. Mission tells us what game we’ve come to play. For example our mission statement might be, “We exist to play wiffle ball.” When I ring you on the phone and ask you to come play wiffle ball, you show up with just about no equipment, because you know we’re playing wiffle ball. But if everyone runs around chasing a black and white ball and kicking it with their feet, you’d say, “No one told me we were playing soccer.” And you’d become confused and/or disgruntled because the game you were told we were going to play was wrong.
Mission defines the game. For SRC it’s “We exist to become a significant church in the greater Annapolis area: making disciples, baptizing them and teaching them to obey God’s word.” That is the game we play. No soccer, not social club, not secret society. We have defined the game we play.
Vision is what it looks like to win. We know we’re winning when…Let’s go back to our fictional wiffle ball match. A vision statement would say, “The Blue Bombers (that’s my team) will strive to cross home plate more times and more often than the Yellow Jackets (that’s your team). This vision statement says, we don’t care about how many times we get to first or third. It doesn’t say we just want to lay around on the grass and dream of chili dogs. Instead it defines the win. And when understood by everyone on the team, then we know what we’re aiming for.
In the case of SRC it is that we want to be a multiplying church in the Annapolis area and change the spiritual destiny of Maryland. That’s how we’ll know we’re winning. If we don’t help other churches start, if we don’t see the spiritual climate of Maryland change, then we’re not winning.
Core Values are the rules by which we play the game. Imagine how frustrating it would be for you Yellow Jacket blokes if the Blue Bombers decided that, in order to accomplish the Vision, we were just gonna run to third base when we hit, so we’d be in better position to cross home plate more times and more often than you. How would you feel? You’d get mad, and rightly so, because the rules of the game stipulate that you have to run to first, (…erm) first. In fact this is where the emotion is played out. You would start yelling and screaming about how we had broken the rules. The fact as I’ve learned it lately is that Core Values have to be emotional. If they aren’t emotional…they aren’t Core Values. They may be nice ideas or clever slogans, but unless you get emotional about them as being non-negotiable they’re not really Core Values.
One more thing I guess about Core Values. Focusing on any one rule negates the game. A Core Value (rule) in wiffle ball is that a player must run to consecutive bases as they’re laid out on the diamond. But if a player only focused on that rule, we would stand puzzled when Johnny took off running around the bases, but never swung the bat. You see the Core Values aren’t intended to stand on their own, instead they work together to form the matrix through which all game (mission) related decisions and plays are made.
In the case of SRC, to focus on any one of our Core Values and say I don’t want to play that game, would be wrong. The game isn’t the rule, but the mission. You determine whether you’re playing the right game first. Then look at the rules. Some people play wiffle ball with different rules. That doesn’t make the game wrong, so long as everyone agrees to the rules. SRC’s values aren’t better or worse than the Yellow Jacket’s, it’s just the rules we play by. And so long as we’re agreed to the rules, we never have to wonder which way the game is going to be played.
I hope that this primer has been a help to someone. I hope that it hasn’t complicated the issue for any. Please comment; ask questions, I’d like to refine this more if I can.
Thanks,
--Ben
4 comments:
Good analogy Ben. Gloucester A/G has been revisiting the whole mission/vision/values thing lately. I've noticed that it is easy to get hung up on the values before getting the mission and vision defined. Your analogy makes the definitions behind the "buzzwords" more clear. I'll share your post with my pastor.
What you call mission, I would call vision. It's semantic, so I don't think it matters.
For vision, I don't like the sound of "what does it look like to win." It rubs me the wrong way. Why? I'm still analyzing this - I would agree that you need to have some form of evaluating whether you are being effective or not, I just don't like the "winning" analogy. I'm more accustomed to answering the question, "what's working? What's not working?".
Core values: Rule #1 - There are no rules. I don't like the use of "rules of the game" either. I think you are in part referring to methods here, and methods (how) are not nearly as important as where you are going (mission/vision). When you first shared this analogy with me, it was about baseball. I was trying to come up with a continuation of the analogy that had something to do with everyone being asked to lay down a bunt, rather than occassionally "swinging for the fences". Or, putting on the "hit and run" or a steal, or a "suicide bunt".
Sometimes these strategies work, sometimes they blow up in our faces. But the important thing is there is more than one way to get on base [and ultimately score runs]. This doesn't work with wiffle ball, and I immediately think of the "no equipment needed" for wiffle ball vs. a baseball game (take the catcher's protective 'armor').
So I've got to ask you: Have you ever seen the movie, "Bull Durham"? There's a classic line in it..."don't think meat, just pitch".
badguy,
There are many authors who interchange mission and vision, I just think they're wrong. (I agree about semantics)
In either case the first question has to be what game are we playing. Call it whatever you want. Peter Drucker (father of mondern management) asked 2 questions 1. What business are we in? 2. How's business? These are the essential questions in determining mission and vision respectively. Question one obviously defines the game. Question 2 asks exactly what I proposed vision to ask, "are we winning/how do we know/ what does a win look like.
Methods have nothing to do with values.
Rule 1.1 oh yeah we realized that everything is governed by rules at some point. I think some rules are imagined no doubt, some rules unneccesarily limit us, but even getting "out of the box" only pushes the boundaries out a little farther. There are always rules. The point of Core Values is that we control the rules.
Shock of all shocks, I've seen Bull Durham. But at the end of the strike zone, the ball still has to cross between the belt and the knees over the plate. It's simply a core value of the game.
--ed.
This makes the idea of vision and mission accessible. I understand why we are taking the time to determine a mission, a vision, and core values. I think that this kind of explanation is excellent in order to help the general population of the church to understand the purpose of these defining statements.
Nice job, Ben.
Post a Comment