I've always been taught that Mission statements are key. I think the process of figuring out where you're going is great, and I see some of the value in them, but in and of themselves they never motivated me in leading or following. Sure, I've used "Misison, Vision and Value" statements, but I couldn't tell you which is which. The people I lead in Fusion know why we do what we do, but they'll tell you that mission statements aren't my gig. When I look at my leadership style in Fusion, it's always been about the relationships that the leaders and I have with each other and the fact that we all like kids. It's relationships with a purpose, but the relationships are always more important than the purpose. There was a part of me that figured I relied too heavily on relationships and should step back and lead with more "mission, vision and values" stuff. I read this in Stories of Emergence: Moving from Absolute to Authentic :

The Boomers didn't have a mission as noble as their parents. Their parents had defeated Nazism and Communism. So the Boomer mission became advancing the quality of life. The Boomer leaders had a different style. People like Steve Jobs, Michael Eisner, and Bill Gates led by mission. Mission is king The leader is the mission keeper. Many contemporary churches and para-church organizations have adopted this leadership model in which personal relationships are often sacrificed for the sake of the mission.
Many postmodern people realize how arbitrary mission statements are and fail to see the benefit of making the mission king. The challenge before us is to develop a new leadership model that is effective in building permanent relationships, where relationships are king. My observation of voluntary relational organizations (Churches) is that leadership is simply a compelling relationship.

Maybe that's swinging too far in the other direction, but I think it points to the value of relationships with leadership - being a strong leader is not enough. Community is key.