I often think of Facebook/Zuckerberg as the perfect example of why having a mission statement (something something connecting all the people) that seems perfectly non-controversial in a vacuum, often leads to a willing delusion that this must mean it's always a good thing and justifies any means.
They reach a point where they're fundamentally unable to honestly ask themselves whether their "good thing" is actually good. I have a fairly respectable social graph on Facebook and Twitter, but far fewer actual friends than I did in the pre-social network days. A row in a database isn't connection, and it isn't good.
It's the investor-profit-driven corporation which is dangerous. There isn't a powerful mission statement that will change the fact that corporations serve their investors above all else and the mission statement is almost entirely meaningless.
That is not entirely true. Amazon was founded on a mission of serving its customers, and the belief that serving customers well is the best way to maximize long-term shareholder value (among other values).
> We believe that a fundamental measure of our success will be the shareholder value we create over the long term. This value will be a direct result of our ability to extend and solidify our current market leadership position.
> The stronger our market leadership, the more powerful our economic model. Market leadership can translate directly to higher revenue, higher profitability, greater capital velocity, and correspondingly stronger returns on invested capital.
> Our decisions have consistently reflected this focus. We first measure ourselves in terms of the metrics most indicative of our market leadership: customer and revenue growth, the degree to which our customers continue to purchase from us on a repeat basis, and the strength of our brand. We have invested and will continue to invest
aggressively to expand and leverage our customer base, brand, and infrastructure as we move to establish an enduring franchise.
> Because of our emphasis on the long term, we may make decisions and weigh tradeoffs differently than some companies. Accordingly, we want to share with you our fundamental management and decision-making
approach so that you, our shareholders, may confirm that it is consistent with your investment philosophy: (...)
You don't have to operate your company in a way that makes your shareholders maximum profit from quarter to quarter. You do have a responsibility to them, but that responsibility can be met by following your mission statement. If you believe your company should only (e.g.) use sustainable energy sources because it's important for the planet, or that you're going to invest for long term growth, not short term profit, you can disclose that to your shareholders and meet your obligations. Company directors have considerable leeway in the way in which they meet their fiduciary responsibilities, and the idea people have that companies "must maximize profit at all cost" is incorrect.
Now, if your company is failing, the stock is falling, products failing in the market, then your shareholders may pressure for a variety of things: a change in mission, direction, the resignation of leaders; or they may buy enough of the company to own enough board seats to take control and out and replace current leadership. But if you're successful at executing on your mission and have investors who are onboard with it, and you're also making money (or growing, which is just as good or better), then you don't need to worry about that.
If your goal does not include making money for shareholders at any point, then you probably shouldn't organize as a for-profit corporation, though.
IMHO, there's nothing inherently wrong with having a mission statement.
The fix here is that you must balance that mission statement with a well-defined set of Values as well. The mission is what you want to accomplish in the world, and the Values are the principles you plan to adhere to while doing so. The values can't just be some afterthought "check the box" exercise - they have to have significant decision-making weight in practice.
A set of (imperfect, I'm sure!) examples from the Wikimedia Foundation:
A mission statement doesn't encode all of human ethics in it, it's just a single sentence. Any mission statement could be bad if taken to the extreme. A super-Facebook that told you the thoughts of every person in real time, a super-Google that could fetch any knowledge, including credit card numbers, etc etc. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/4ARaTpNX62uaL86j6/the-hidden...
Have a mission statement, just don't go crazy with it.
Michael Hyatt in his "Vision driven leader" book makes a good distinction between vision an mission, which I think is helpful to you. I recommend you read the book, it is right on your avenue.
