Shawn - I think you underestimate the power of corporate language to sterilize anything it touches.

Unless the organization shows that it values something it can use nouns, verbs, conjunctions, adverbs, the active voice, the passive voice, wacky sans serif font or even Esperanto. It will still have the same impact.

That's my point Matt. Corporate language dictates that we have a mission and we have values. Rarely do you hear a company say they are on a mission or they act as if they really value things. I reckon that companies that are on a mission are the inspiring examples today. Bodyshop is one, Virgin is another and I'm sure you can think of others.

So long as we're using military terminiology (missions, killing, power) and, if nouns are out, can we have a war-on-verbing - but then again, if we can't objectivise how can we seek to cast blame on those unfeeling externalised objects ;)

I like the way the metaphor 'on' tilts the balance towards being/becoming, but without the abstract philosophy. If missions have targets, do we set easy targets, ease up when we reach them, rather than continue the journey?

Candidate for the shortest mission statement? How about Valentino Rossi's "GO!!!!!!"

The other one I like a lot is Otago's "House of Pain" (though maybe that's likely to get me banned on an Ozzie blog?) - sounds more like a nominalisation, even lacking a verb, but it sets up a glorious frame of embodied expectations

The story about creating a mission statement for the kids birthday party speaks volumes too.