“We’re driving impact by living our purpose. The actions we continue to take today across people, communities and our planet will ensure we’re building a better business and a more trusted brand for generations to come.”

Loading

The answer is McDonald’s. And, despite the fact the organisation you work for is a million miles from fast food, it bears striking similarities to the subcommittee’s draft that you sent me. The words are different, but the tone and the sad abstractness of it all are the same.

As it’s written currently, the mission statement you’re working with sits squarely in the meaningless corporate drivel segment of the spectrum. Any attempt to make it blander would be like trying to further lighten the colour white.

There are many ways to encourage change – from gentle hints in the ear of one influential person to taking a forceful stand in front of everyone. Take the option you feel most comfortable with.

But whatever you say and however you say it, make sure you don’t sidestep the central problem: these words are neither specific to your organisation nor interesting or compelling in any way. Any adjustment from here, as risky or challenging as it might sound to some participants, needs to add specificity or warmth. Ideally both.

Answering your specific question, yes, it really is that bad. So bad that I don’t think this will reflect well on anyone in the committee once it becomes a formal part of your corporate communications.

Some grey executives might consider it a triumph; absolutely nobody else will. If you fail to make it less insipid, my advice would be to remove yourself from the subcommittee. Again, as politely or defiantly as you see fit.

Don’t give anyone the opportunity to associate you with this joyless, turgid word paste.

Send your questions to [email protected]