The role of the mission is to provide strategic guidance for future decision makers.
In the case of Kiva, this guidance is fairly flexible and open ended. The verb/action in their mission statement (“to connect people through lending to alleviate poverty”) is broad. They’re in the business of connecting people. Currently, this connection takes place through Kiva’s micro-lending platform where lenders can read about low-income entrepreneurs and help fund their businesses. It’s not hard to see though how a wide array of other programs would fit within Kiva’s mission framework. For example, if Kiva decided it wanted to take its model offline and connect lenders with entrepreneurs face-to-face, it could do so within the bounds of its mission. In this way, the drafters of Kiva’s mission gave future decision makers broad latitude to shift its direction as long as that direction involving connecting people, lending and poverty alleviation.
In contrast, the Food Bank for NYC mission statement provides much more specific and limiting strategic guidance. The second sentence of its mission (“…the Food Bank tackles the hunger issue on three fronts — food distribution, income support and nutrition education — all strategically guided by its research”) incorporates what V. Kasturi Rangan calls the “operational mission” in that it spells out a set of priority program areas. While this mission statement gives future decision makers a more rigid set of constraints for future direction, it also gives them a clear set of markers by which they can evaluate growth opportunities and the success of the organization. For example, when considering a new program, the board should ask “does it fit within one the three program areas defined in our mission?”
It’s important to note that the mission is not the only tool for guiding non-profit growth and direction. In “Lofty Missions, Down-to-Earth Plans,” V. Kasturi Rangan argues that missions must be supplemented with strategy that guides resource allocation and prioritization. He cites SOS Kinderhof, an Austrian non-profit, as an example of an organization for which its mission alone is not an complete guide. Kinderhof was founded in 1949 with the mission of “[providing] orphaned, abandoned, and destitute children with a new and permanent home, and [laying] a sound foundation for a useful and productive life.” Originally, Kinderhof operated a small network of orphanages. Over time Kinderhof expanded its programs to include education, job training, and health care. These expansions all fit well within the mission of “laying a sound foundation for a useful and productive life.” However, as Rangan points out, there’s little in Kinderhof’s mission that would prevent the organization from expanding its “sound foundation” programs beyond what it could adequately sustain. For this reason, organizations sometimes need additional guidance to determine exactly how they fulfill their missions.