#55: Mission drift
Some thoughts from me and ChatGPT
Hello!
I’ve decided to do something a bit different today. I'm going to take a controversial topic from the non-profit sector and use a controversial technology to explore it.
Let's see what happens.
What is mission drift?
Mission drift is the consequence of a charity pursuing activities outside its stated purpose. In most cases, it's an unintended consequence. And it happens slowly. Common reasons for mission drift include:
Personnel changes - new leadership wanting to steer the charity in a new direction
Beneficiary changes - the charity needs to serve a new audience
Financial pressures - the charity accepts funding in exchange for running programs outside of their core domain
Is mission drift unique to charities?
Let's ask ChatGPT:
"Mission drift refers to the gradual change or deviation of an organization's focus or objectives from its original mission or goals over time. It occurs when an organization begins to prioritize other goals, such as financial gain, over its original purpose, causing it to lose sight of its original mission."
This definition is broader than mine. Until writing this issue, I'd only ever heard of mission drift in the context of non-profits. But now that I think about it, there are plenty of examples from the for-profit world.
One such example is Everlane. Everlane is an American online retailer founded in 2010 with the mission of 'radical transparency'. Their goal was to work with ethical factories and be transparent with their customers about the true costs behind all their products. It was a wildly successful proposition, with the company bringing in $50m in revenue after only five years. But in 2020, Everlane's promise began to unravel. There were reports of anti-Black behavior, union busting, and favouritism, which were largely validated through an internal investigation. 14 former employees published an anonymous open document that made for disappointing and uncomfortable reading:
"What does "radical transparency" truly mean? We understand for Everlane it means a transparent supply chain and cost structure. But capitalism and the means of production are inherently connected to systemic racism—aka racialized capitalism. We consider that Everlane has benefited from this not only across the supply chain but within the corporate structure as well."
Big public apologies and corporate soul-searching followed.
On top of the internal controversies were other commercial changes. Like discounting. In the early years, Everlane didn't do sales. In fact, they publicly countered Black Friday with their annual Black Friday Fund to raise money for their factory workers and other sustainable projects. (They still run it.) But in recent years, Everlane's started running seasonal sales, including on Cyber Monday.
I loved Everlane. When I worked on agency side, I highlighted them in countless presentations to clients about living brand values. I bought numerous products. But after I learnt about their internal culture shambles, I stopped buying. Maybe they've learned from their mistakes, but trust is fragile.
What are the consequences of mission drift for charities?
Over to ChatGPT again:
"Mission drift can have several negative consequences for charities:
Loss of credibility: Mission drift can erode public trust in the charity, as stakeholders may perceive the organization as pursuing its own interests rather than those of the beneficiaries it serves.
Decreased effectiveness: Charities that experience mission drift may be less effective in achieving their goals and helping the people they serve, as they are not focusing on the issues that originally motivated them.
Funding issues: Charities that experience mission drift may also experience difficulties in attracting and retaining donors, as donors may question the organization's commitment to its mission and choose to support other organizations instead.
Decreased morale: Mission drift can also lead to decreased morale among employees, volunteers, and other stakeholders, who may feel that the organization is not fulfilling its purpose or working towards its original goals.
Therefore, it is important for charities to regularly evaluate their mission and strategies to ensure that they are staying true to their original goals and objectives, and to address any signs of mission drift before it becomes a major issue."
This answer is telling. I didn't ask ChatGPT for negative consequences, just consequences. Yet it only told me the downsides—referring, at the end, to mission drift as a "major issue."
In this respect, ChatGPT's answers reflect what I discovered when googling for resources on mission drift. Mission drift is a pejorative term. Everywhere I clicked, there were fatalistic and/or militaristic metaphors: 'being led astray', 'going off course', 'the unspoken crisis' and 'combatting mission drift.' Would we use these terms to describe my earlier example, Everlane? Probably. I think it's safe to argue that Everlane wasn't living true to its purpose. But is mission drift an inherently evil outcome for all organisations? I'm not so sure.
Is mission drift a bad thing?
Let's consider one of the previous causes of mission drift: beneficiary changes. And take the example of sight-loss charity Blind Veterans UK.
In 1915, Sir Arthur Pearson founded the charity (then called the Blinded Soldiers and Sailors Care Committee) to help the substantial numbers of veterans losing their sight during the First World War. Fast-forward to the early 2000s, and the charity had to face a brutal reality. There were no longer so many visually-impaired British war veterans to serve, and the existing veterans were not getting any younger. This challenged the charity's entire existence.
So what did they do? They changed their articles of association and expanded their beneficiaries—from visually-impaired military veterans to all vision-impaired ex-Servicepeople, regardless of how or when they lost their sight. Blind Veterans UK might have drifted away from the charity's original purpose, but it did so to remain relevant and continue delivering a public benefit.
Let's take another, more recent case: The Church of England. For the past 40 years, the non-profit religious organisation has been divided over same-sex marriage. To oversimplify the debate: those against argue biblical teaching on Holy Matrimony must be upheld; those for argue the Church is out of step with public opinion and the law. From the conservative perspective, same-sex marriage is about the most extreme form of mission drift you could imagine. And yet, as LGBTQ+ campaigners have argued, if biblical teaching on slavery, adultery, apartheid and divorce had evolved, why not marriage? On what basis do we decide that some forms of mission drift are acceptable and others not?
There's a lot to think about there. And I've barely scratched the surface. But I believe there's a connection between those who resist mission drift and those who resist change. It reminds me of something one of my favourite newsletter writers, Kai Brach, said in a 2020 issue titled 'The time to imagine better':
“'How to rethink the world for a better tomorrow.' The pandemic has led to a ground swell of dreamy articles that want us to re-imagine everything. I quite enjoy reading them because... well it's a hell of a lot more fun than reading the actual news.
Talking about some of those bold ideas with friends and family usually evokes pretty strong opinions. Dismissive reactions to, say, defunding the police or ridding cities of cars are mostly based on a lack of information (what new research tells us) but also a lack of imagination. Even when people admit that current 'solutions' aren't working, a different approach often remains unimaginable.”
Perhaps this is another way of looking at negative attitudes towards mission drift—as a lack of imagination.
Is resistance to mission drift a failure of imagination?
Here’s what ChatGPT had to say:
"No, resistance to mission drift is not necessarily a lack of imagination. Resistance to mission drift can come from a desire to maintain the integrity of the original mission and goals of the organization, which can be seen as a key part of the organization's identity and purpose.
In some cases, resistance to mission drift may stem from concerns about the potential consequences of straying from the original mission, such as decreased effectiveness, loss of credibility, and decreased support from stakeholders. Maintaining a clear and focused mission can also help an organization to achieve its goals more efficiently and effectively.
On the other hand, embracing change and being open to new ideas and approaches can be important for organizations to remain relevant and make a positive impact in a changing world. In these cases, resistance to mission drift may stem from a fear of change or a reluctance to embrace new ideas."
Not bad, GPT. Not bad.
Where do you stand? On mission drift, ChatGPT, or both? I’d love to know:
You can also contact me privately by answering this email. I read every one that comes through.
Thanks as always for reading,
Lauren
The way I see it, mission drift is good if it's planned and right for your audience. All organisations need to stay relevant. Your audience, and their needs, will change over time, so your organisation has to too. But if you start doing things 'just because it feels right' without any insight to back that up, or without a structured plan, that's where things go off brand and fall apart.
I've seen several charities, co-ops, and building societies start off as all-volunteer, unpaid groups, who grow and take on staff.
And as those founding volunteers age, the original democratic processes and local branch structure come into conflict with the paid employees. The result is 'demutualisation': the charity becomes a for-profit by stealth. A couple of good examples are the Automobile Association and BUPA (British United Provident Association - a health plan).
Its hard to say whether this is a disaster or not: the organisation itself survives as a sort of parasite that devours its host. Would it have survived otherwise? Well, the Nationwide Building society remains a mutual, and has grown just as fast, so its hard to say.