Rely on AI at your own peril!

The answer was appalling wrong, but I could see how many unlearned people might say to themselves, “That sounds sensible to me”.

So, I tested ChatGPT to give a better answer…

The ChatGPT answer was one that lay people might accept – that business leaders could try and apply ,,, BUT THEY WOULD FAIL. It was a weak, naive and ineffective answer…

ChatGPT said… “A company’s mission statement is a formal summary of the purpose, values and goals of a business. Its purpose is to provide a clear direction for the company, define its objectives, and serve as a guiding principle for decision-making, to align employees, stakeholders, and customers with its vision. The mission statement helps to shape the company’s culture, identity, and strategy and communicates its purpose to the external world.

This vague and misleading waffle is exactly how to undermine and ruin the power and advantage of setting a mission statement!

Trying to create a statement from ChatGPT ‘s definition will only create a verbose, confusing and vague aspirational statement, thwarted by trying to be all things to all people… a boring PR gesture at best.

The RIGHT definition of a mission statement is, “What your organisation wants to do, for who, where and to what extent.”

It should be accompanied by:

• a Vision statement, “Where the organisation sees itself in the future
• an Ethos statement, “A statement about the character of the business”
• a Purpose statement “Why the business exists” (beyond “to make money”)
• an Intent statement, “How the organisation was to be identified”, and…
• a Value statement, “The way people are expected to conduct business”

Limitations of AI

To put it in academic terms, Chat GPT will deliver a 50% right answer – a “Pass mark”. It will always be limited by the quality of the information it relies upon. And if you need 100% it won’t come from AI!

You get an answer that is only as good as the information you collect.

Remember… GIGO: the quality of information coming out cannot be better than the quality of information that went in.