IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2104.07438.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Mission Statements in Universities: Readability and performance

Author

Listed:
  • Julian D. Cortes
  • Liliana Rivera
  • Katerina Bohle Carbonell

Abstract

The mission statement(s) (MS) is one of the most-used tools for planning and management. Universities worldwide have implemented MS in their knowledge planning and management processes since the 1980s. Research studies have extensively explored the content and readability of MS and its effect on performance in firms, but their effect on public or nonprofit institutions such as universities has not been scrutinized with the same intensity. This study used Gunning's Fog Index score to determine the readability of a sample of worldwide universities' MS and two rankings, i.e., Quacquarelli Symonds World University Ranking and SCImago Institutions Rankings, to determine their effect on performance. No significant readability differences were identified in regions, size, focus, research type, age band, or status. Logistic regression (cumulative link model) results showed that variables, such as universities' age, focus, and size, have more-significant explanatory power on performance than MS readability.

Suggested Citation

  • Julian D. Cortes & Liliana Rivera & Katerina Bohle Carbonell, 2021. "Mission Statements in Universities: Readability and performance," Papers 2104.07438, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2104.07438
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2104.07438
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ibrahim Shehatta & Khalid Mahmood, 2016. "Correlation among top 100 universities in the major six global rankings: policy implications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 1231-1254, November.
    2. Dermol Valerij, 2012. "Relationship Between Mission Statement and Company Performance," Scientific Annals of Economics and Business, Sciendo, vol. 59(1), pages 321-336, July.
    3. Kristina Rennekamp, 2012. "Processing Fluency and Investors’ Reactions to Disclosure Readability," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(5), pages 1319-1354, December.
    4. Christopher Kenneth, Mark C. Bart Baetz, 1998. "The Relationship Between Mission Statements and Firm Performance: An Exploratory Study," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(6), pages 823-853, November.
    5. Sebastian Desmidt, 2016. "The Relevance of Mission Statements: Analysing the antecedents of perceived message quality and its relationship to employee mission engagement," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(6), pages 894-917, July.
    6. Pieter A. VanderWerf & John F. Mahon, 1997. "Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Research Methods on Findings of First-Mover Advantage," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(11), pages 1510-1519, November.
    7. Mu-Hsuan Huang, 2012. "Opening the black box of QS World University Rankings," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(1), pages 71-78, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jongdo Jeon & Keun Tae Cho, 2021. "Differences in Readability, Keywords, and Orientation of Mission Statements of the Top 100 Korean and Top 100 US Traditional and Innovative Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-24, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sheikh Shamim Hasnain, 2020. "A Critical Comparison between Manufacturing and Service Firms’ Mission Statements: Manage Your Firms’ Mission Statements with Care Using Readability and Lexical Techniques," Business Management and Strategy, Macrothink Institute, vol. 11(1), pages 216-231, June.
    2. Julian D. Cortes & Diego Tellez & Jesus Godoy, 2021. "Mission Statement Effect on Research and Innovation Performance," Papers 2104.07476, arXiv.org.
    3. Umar, Tarik, 2022. "Complexity aversion when SeekingAlpha," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(2).
    4. Drago, Carlo & Ginesti, Gianluca & Pongelli, Claudia & Sciascia, Salvatore, 2018. "Reporting strategies: What makes family firms beat around the bush? Family-related antecedents of annual report readability," Journal of Family Business Strategy, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 142-150.
    5. Samuel B. Bonsall & Brian P. Miller, 2017. "The impact of narrative disclosure readability on bond ratings and the cost of debt," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 608-643, June.
    6. Gao, Lei & Calderon, Thomas G. & Tang, Fengchun, 2020. "Public companies' cybersecurity risk disclosures," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 38(C).
    7. Michael, Steven C., 2003. "First mover advantage through franchising," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 61-80, January.
    8. Kiril Dimitrov & Ivaylo Ivanov, 2020. "The Professed Culture of the Business Organizations in the Defense Industry in Bulgaria. What Does it Look Like? And do they Need it?," Economic Alternatives, University of National and World Economy, Sofia, Bulgaria, issue 3, pages 433-470, September.
    9. Han, Jun, 2013. "A literature synthesis of experimental studies on management earnings guidance," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 49-70.
    10. Arora, Jagriti & Chakraborty, Madhumita, 2021. "Does the ease of reading of financial disclosures influence investment decision?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    11. Quan Lin & Yingchang Huang & Ruojin Zhu & Yue Zhang, 2019. "Comparative Analysis of Mission Statements of Chinese and American Fortune 500 Companies: A Study from the Perspective of Linguistics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-18, September.
    12. Lo, Kin & Ramos, Felipe & Rogo, Rafael, 2017. "Earnings management and annual report readability," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 1-25.
    13. Cory A. Cassell & Lauren M. Cunningham & Ling Lei Lisic, 2019. "The readability of company responses to SEC comment letters and SEC 10-K filing review outcomes," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 1252-1276, December.
    14. Shannon Orr & Rebecca Humphreys, 2012. "Mission Rivalry: Use and Preservation Conflicts in National Parks Policy," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 85-98, March.
    15. Feiran Dong & Yongzhen Xie & Linjun Cao, 2019. "Board Power Hierarchy, Corporate Mission, and Green Performance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-27, September.
    16. Cruciani, Caterina & Santagiustina, Carlo R.M.A., 2023. "The present and future of sustainability disclosure in equity investment funds’ pre-contractual documents: Mapping ESG discourse through STM," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 58(PA).
    17. Insu Cho & Heejun Park & Joseph Kim, 2012. "The moderating effect of innovation protection mechanisms on the competitiveness of service firms," Service Business, Springer;Pan-Pacific Business Association, vol. 6(3), pages 369-386, September.
    18. Chen, Chen & Hanlon, Dean & Khedmati, Mehdi & Wake, James, 2023. "Annual report readability and equity mispricing," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3).
    19. Libby, Robert & Rennekamp, Kristina M. & Seybert, Nicholas, 2015. "Regulation and the interdependent roles of managers, auditors, and directors in earnings management and accounting choice," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 25-42.
    20. Emett, Scott A. & Nelson, Mark W., 2017. "Reporting accounting changes and their multi-period effects," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 52-72.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2104.07438. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.