"The problem was that Start With Why relied almost exclusively on anecdotes, with 235 mentions of Apple as the primary success template, while providing no scientific backing—no surveys, no control groups, and no longitudinal studies. Sinek provided zero evidence that Apple’s success at the time stemmed from a shared purpose rather than product quality, impeccable timing, or brilliant marketing."
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I recently left a company that used Sinek's "Start With the Why?" as the foundation of their "value statement" or whatever nonsense they called it. EVERYTHING in this company was anecdotal. Nothing was REAL. It was a house of cards. It has almost completely crumbled.
Simon Sinek meant well, of course. But it's just too easy for a company to "start with why" and then end up purpose-washing a dysfunctional organization.
I love your ending paragraph: "Purpose is best understood as a hypothesis you may state early, but then keep crafting and validating through actual collaboration." I am engaged in some non-profit work, and I am coming around to this same conclusion. Stating my goals and cause early is valuable, but actual collaboration and discernment in my heart as well as my mind is essential to developing and maintaining the direction.
There are no easy answers! Thanks, Jurgen, for these insights.
Am curious how HMW (How Might We...?) fits with WIIFM and WSIC according to the research. Especially as it seems that would be an important way to encourage the very collaboration that is needed to frame, explore, and find shared purpose? Happy to research myself and report back, but I imagine HMW came up somewhere in the works you cite, Jurgen?
I half-jokingly tell my clients that I don't much care how that question ends, as what matters is the invitation to collaborate to explore solution possibilities on any shared objective. I use it all the time given how powerful I've seen it in practice, especially as a complement or counter-balance to WIIFM and WSIC. Your post cast it in an interesting context for me, especially as I hadn't really researched whether it might be well grounded in management science or social psychology.
Yes and no. The comparator is the judgment where System 3 and System 4 bring their proposals together so System 5 can choose between present optimization and future adaptation.
But this is not the same as System 5 checking *all* other subsystems (1 to 4) to learn which purpose is emerging in their collaboration *and* to reconcile any differences between enacted and espoused purpose.
This is one aspect where I believe the standard VSM is incomplete. There are no balancing loops between Identity (system 5) and Agency and Harmony (systems 1 and 2).
To clarify my earlier point about the "Why Paradox": drop S2, it has no purpose function. VSM's purpose comparator balances S5's declared intent against S1's enacted reality ("Diagnosing the System" by Beer). Hence, there's no start or end to why, just a continuous balancing loop
Two different loops, both valid: one is S3/S4 and the second is S1/S5.
The latter, Beer describes on p.100 as a convergence between S1's enacted purpose and S5's intended purpose that "must continually act". Since S1 is autonomous and has its own recursive S5, there's genuinely something to reconcile.
"The problem was that Start With Why relied almost exclusively on anecdotes, with 235 mentions of Apple as the primary success template, while providing no scientific backing—no surveys, no control groups, and no longitudinal studies. Sinek provided zero evidence that Apple’s success at the time stemmed from a shared purpose rather than product quality, impeccable timing, or brilliant marketing."
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I recently left a company that used Sinek's "Start With the Why?" as the foundation of their "value statement" or whatever nonsense they called it. EVERYTHING in this company was anecdotal. Nothing was REAL. It was a house of cards. It has almost completely crumbled.
Simon Sinek meant well, of course. But it's just too easy for a company to "start with why" and then end up purpose-washing a dysfunctional organization.
I love your ending paragraph: "Purpose is best understood as a hypothesis you may state early, but then keep crafting and validating through actual collaboration." I am engaged in some non-profit work, and I am coming around to this same conclusion. Stating my goals and cause early is valuable, but actual collaboration and discernment in my heart as well as my mind is essential to developing and maintaining the direction.
There are no easy answers! Thanks, Jurgen, for these insights.
Great to hear!
Am curious how HMW (How Might We...?) fits with WIIFM and WSIC according to the research. Especially as it seems that would be an important way to encourage the very collaboration that is needed to frame, explore, and find shared purpose? Happy to research myself and report back, but I imagine HMW came up somewhere in the works you cite, Jurgen?
Sorry, I don't know what "How Might We..." is. It is an incomplete question. How might we do what?
I half-jokingly tell my clients that I don't much care how that question ends, as what matters is the invitation to collaborate to explore solution possibilities on any shared objective. I use it all the time given how powerful I've seen it in practice, especially as a complement or counter-balance to WIIFM and WSIC. Your post cast it in an interesting context for me, especially as I hadn't really researched whether it might be well grounded in management science or social psychology.
I will research and get back to you!
Agreed, there is no start or end to why, it's a balancing loop between intent and reality. This is actually what the comparator does in the VSM
Yes and no. The comparator is the judgment where System 3 and System 4 bring their proposals together so System 5 can choose between present optimization and future adaptation.
But this is not the same as System 5 checking *all* other subsystems (1 to 4) to learn which purpose is emerging in their collaboration *and* to reconcile any differences between enacted and espoused purpose.
This is one aspect where I believe the standard VSM is incomplete. There are no balancing loops between Identity (system 5) and Agency and Harmony (systems 1 and 2).
To clarify my earlier point about the "Why Paradox": drop S2, it has no purpose function. VSM's purpose comparator balances S5's declared intent against S1's enacted reality ("Diagnosing the System" by Beer). Hence, there's no start or end to why, just a continuous balancing loop
No, not according to my sources. The comparator evaluates S5 against S3/4. It does *not* evaluate S1. As I said, this is missing from the visuals.
And yes, none of the systems S1..S4 have a "purpose function." Nevertheless, identity is emergent across S1..S4 and thus needs reconciliation with S5.
My next article will be about this topic.
Two different loops, both valid: one is S3/S4 and the second is S1/S5.
The latter, Beer describes on p.100 as a convergence between S1's enacted purpose and S5's intended purpose that "must continually act". Since S1 is autonomous and has its own recursive S5, there's genuinely something to reconcile.
I'm looking forward to your article!