I came across a LinkedIn ‘research’ report that had been shared on a social media platform the other day. It had a grand title:
The 2016 Workforce Purpose Index: ‘Purpose at work – the largest global study on the Role of Purpose in the Workforce.’
Mmmm, sounds interesting. And, wow, ‘largest global study’ – must be important – I’d better have a read…and so I did…and then I found myself doing a bit of frothing at the mouth. I do that when stuff winds me up…I’m okay, honest 🙂
Now I am absolutely NOT getting at the person who shared the ‘report’, or any persons liking or positively commenting on it. Just to clear up any potential confusion at the start: I totally agree that the premise of ‘purpose at work’ is to be ‘liked’….and in fact passionately argued for. An earlier post uses an Ackoff essay to explain why this so.
But here’s some other stuff that I thought as I read through the ‘report’:
The introductory pages deliver the usual ‘listen up people – purpose matters’ message. This is, for me, like the ‘Buy low, sell high’ advice – blindingly obvious…but not particularly useful.
And so to the page on “Purpose brings profit”: Yes, I agree with this…but, at the risk of repeating my ‘blindingly obvious’ mantra, this shouldn’t really be surprising i.e. if you passionately understand and serve your customers with what they actually need (this is fundamentally different to ‘selling to them’), then you have a high chance of success. Simples.
What the report fails to tackle, let alone drive home, is that many organisations get their logic ‘in a twist’ i.e. their (subconscious?) thinking is that ‘If we craft, and then regularly, state a cool-sounding purpose, then we can focus on our real purpose of profit.’ This is NOT what ‘purpose brings profit’ means!
A focus on growth and profitability doesn’t unlock purpose – indeed it will likely do the exact opposite. This isn’t to say that you can’t grow and be profitable. Of course you can. It is to correctly state the cause-effect relationship between a fanatical focus on a meaningful purpose (cause) delivering sustainable and healthy growth and profitability (effect).
Again, I’ve written about the ‘what and why’ of this previously in a post titled ‘Oxygen isn’t what life is about’.
To quote from the report:
“Key Finding: Given the right role and environment, [people] are ready to tap into their purpose and reach a higher potential at work”.
Now, I absolutely agree with this statement but I get sick of, what I consider to be, the spectacularly obvious being dressed up as a ‘finding’. This is ‘McGregor 101’: How you treat me will determine a massive amount of how I behave.
And so to the next quote:
“this correlation of satisfaction at work and purpose orientation was consistent in virtually every country and industry studied.”
This is where I write “No sh1t Sherlock!” That would be because we are all humans – which is a nice segue to Dilbert, and the Theory of Evolution.
It’s a bit like all those scientific research projects spending scarce grant money to confirm that ‘water quenches our thirst’ or ‘alcohol gets us drunk’ or [insert one from today’s supposed news].
The trouble, for me, with stating the obvious but missing out the important contextual piece is that organisations then run away shouting “oooh, quick, quick…we’ve got to find our purpose! Let’s gather round and play with some words.”
And they spectacularly miss the point.
So let’s get to the nub of my critique: The report implies that there are three different types of people*, these being those who are primarily:
- Purpose-driven; or
- Status-driven; or
They then follow this line of reasoning with….have you guessed it?…the recommendation to search for and select purpose-oriented ‘talent’. It even suggests adding the ‘what is your primary drive?’ dimension to an organisation’s talent selection criteria 😦
The hilarity of this is that they may recruit lots of (currently) purpose-driven people…and then kill it. It’s the same old talent message – don’t endlessly seek talent, recognise and tirelessly work to unleash the talent from within.
So, back to the ‘research report’: sure you can ask someone to respond to survey questions as to which category they currently associate themselves most with (i.e. purpose, status, money)…but where is the consideration as to WHY someone might answer as they did.
* are they ‘types’ of people….or are they outcomes that people have arrived at or been driven to?
- how many of you started a new job with passion and purpose, but within 6 months – 1 year, had been beaten back to surviving on merely the money and seeking some status to get noticed?
- how many of you started your ‘careers’ focused on getting on the ladder and earning enough money to gain a roof over your heads and have a family….and how many of you have reached a certain level of wealth and/or experience where your priorities have changed?1
Yep, purpose is important.
Yep, I can’t really disagree with the blindingly obvious littered throughout the ‘report’.
…but if the report were a sandwich, it is bland, limp and empty – where’s the important and insightful stuff that needed to be said?
In short, where’s the meat in the sandwich?!
Does this matter? Well, yes, it does. The problem with such reports is that they allow the top management of traditional (‘command and control’) organisations to gleefully wave them about, shouting “nothing to see here – we know all of this and, even better, we’ve got it totally covered!”
Total codswallop. As I wrote in an earlier ‘Blackadder’ post, a report is only valuable if it covers what needs to be said, not what they want to hear.
The report spectacularly misses the huge point that:
“People’s behaviour is a product of their system. It is only by changing [the system] that we can expect a change in behaviour.” (John Seddon)
What sort of system environmental things am I talking about? If you read Deming’s 14 points for management you will get a good idea. At a high level, let’s compare two environments and then you tell me which would enable you to focus on your purpose and which would see you struggling to survive through status and money:
|Traditional||A better way!|
|Hierarchical (authority…superiority)||‘Social’ (responsibility, equality)|
|Fear/ blame||Trust/ ‘safe to fail’|
|Rules and consequences||Guidance and support|
|Growth and Profitability||Customer, customer, customer|
|Budgets, financial measures, cost cutting||‘Purpose’ operational measures, variation|
|Implement ‘best practise’ on the people (plans)||Problem solving by the people (experiments)|
|Cascaded personal (or team) targets||Value stream capability measures|
|Judgement, through rating and ranking||Coaching, through non-judgemental feedback|
|Carrot and stick compliance||Intrinsically motivated|
|Competitions, and hero (people) awards||Collaboration, and achievement focus|
Whether a person can (will) be purpose-oriented is hugely down to the environment in which they work. Simples.
1. This is rather obvious: take your pick from ‘Herzberg’s Motivators & Hygiene factors’ or ‘Maslow’s hierarchy of needs’.
2. I ‘get’ that LinkedIn are merely trying to drum up business by suggesting we all need to find ‘talent’ but….grrrrrr.