pm-mission-vision-tenets

name	pm-mission-vision-tenets
description	Use when auditing, drafting, or refining Mission, Vision, and Tenets/Values statements. Applies Lencioni's four-type framework to classify existing tenets, enforces the label + 1-3 sentence best practice format, tests coherence across Mission→Vision→Tenets, and runs the "would you fire someone for this?" test. Invoke for leadership offsites, values workshops, or any tenet rewrite session.

Mission, Vision & Tenets

Guides auditing and writing Mission, Vision, and Tenets using frameworks from Collins, Lencioni, and validated tech company practice (Amazon, Stripe, Netflix).

Definitions

Artifact	Question it answers	Lifetime
Mission	Why does this org exist?	Timeless — changes only if fundamental purpose changes
Vision (BHAG)	Where are we going?	Finite — you know when you've achieved it
Tenets	How do people behave when mission is at stake?	Semi-stable — can evolve as org learns

Workflow

Step 1: Classify Before You Write (Lencioni)

Run every existing or candidate tenet through the four-type test before touching language:

1. Core — genuinely held, you'd fire someone for violating this, you were already living it before writing it down
2. Aspirational — what you wish you were; belongs in strategy/OKRs, not on a values list
3. Permission-to-Play — ethical minimum any decent company has (honesty, respect); don't list as distinctive
4. Accidental — emerged from founding team personality; may or may not be worth keeping

Fire test: "Would you fire someone for violating this, even if their results were excellent?" If no → not core. Symmetry test: "Would any legitimate company choose the opposite?" If no → baseline decency, not a distinctive value.

Only Core values belong on the final list.

Step 2: Draft to Format

Best practice format (Amazon/Stripe validated):

1. Label: 3-5 words — must work as conversational shorthand in meetings
2. Behavior sentence: what someone who holds this value does, active voice
3. Tradeoff sentence: the uncomfortable implication, or what violation looks like
4. Optional: negative framing ("they never say X") — specificity of discomfort signals real conviction

Rule: 1-3 sentences. If you can't write it in 3 sentences, the team hasn't resolved it. Compression is a diagnostic.

Tone:

• Active voice ("Leaders do X" not "We believe in X")
• Specific over general ("aspire to be the world's fastest" not "we value speed")
• Include the tradeoff — good tenets make a real choice visible

Step 3: Test Coherence

For each tenet: "Is this derivable from our Mission?"

If you removed all tenets and tried to reconstruct them from the Mission alone, would you get something close? If not — either generic (any company could claim it) or misplaced (belongs in process/strategy).

Read the full sequence aloud: Mission → Vision → Tenet 1 → Tenet 2 → ... Does it tell a coherent story?

Collins test: "Could a visitor drop in from another planet and infer the vision just by observing how people behave?"

Step 4: Check Count

• Sweet spot: 5-8 tenets
• High-credibility zone: 3-6
• Each label must be recallable in a decision moment without looking it up
• If the full text must be read to apply the value, it hasn't been internalized

Common Failure Modes

• ❌ One-word platitudes: "Integrity." "Innovation." "Excellence." — Lencioni explicitly names these
• ❌ Symmetric values: opposite would be repugnant = baseline decency, not distinctive value
• ❌ Lists where every item is positive and non-excludable
• ❌ Aspirational values listed as core (you aspire to be innovative but aren't yet)
• ❌ Too many: 10+ not recallable without prompting
• ❌ Too long: beyond 3 sentences loses the snap that makes tenets invokable in real decisions

Offsite Process

Before drafting:

• Each leader writes independently: "3-5 things I'd never compromise on, even at competitive cost" — compare lists; convergence without coordination = discovered core value
• Collins Mars Group: "If we were rebuilding the best of this org with 5-7 seats, who goes? What do they do?"

Time allocation (Collins):

• 70-80% identifying misalignments — policies/behaviors that contradict claimed values
• 10-20% language drafting
• Most offsites get this backwards

Full Framework Reference

For detailed company examples (Amazon LP format, Stripe principles, Netflix culture memo) and extended Collins/Lencioni source material, see: reference.md