"Good for the World"? If not, why not?

There’s a fascinating article on Facebook in today’s Guardian, one which any Purpose-led organization (or organization that wants to harness the power of Purpose) would be well-advised to read. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/dec/05/facebook-emails-analysis-user-data-parliament

PRPSFL define Purpose as being “An aspirational call-to-action for an organization and all of its partners and stakeholders that provides benefit to global or local society”.

Facebook’s Purpose is clear: to give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together. It also qualifies as a Purpose according to PRPSFL’s criteria. It’s aspirational, big and open-ended. It contains a call-to-action and all stakeholders - from customers to developers to consultants - can coalesce around it: jointly building community. And it provides a benefit to society.

But the article shows how complex it is to follow a Purpose.

Firstly, Purpose can become corrupted by the profit motive. Mark Zuckerberg: “The answer I came to is that we’re trying to enable people to share everything they want, and to do it on Facebook”. Sheryl Sandberg: “I think the observation that we are trying to maximize sharing on facebook [sic], not just sharing in the world, is a critical one.” This is a sensible distinction for a profit-led organization but, as this was mooted in 2012, Facebook’s Purpose became a mission like anyone else’s. Perhaps traditional models of ownership and, especially, going public may not be the best way to ensure an organization remains Purpose-led.

Secondly, Purpose has to be lived. Actions and words of leaders undermine and kill true Purpose. Mark Zuckerberg: “I think we leak info to developers, but I just can’t think of any instances where that data has leaked from developer to developer and caused a real issue for us.” Caused a real issue “for us”. This may be true but what about bringing the world closer together? Where is the Purpose in this glib assessment of “data leak strategic risk”?

Thirdly, Purpose needs to be protected. Who is holding Mark to account to consider Facebook’s Purpose in the above case? Perhaps traditional, top-down management may not be the best way to remain Purpose-led. If traditional business structures are used, new models of governance may be needed to hold executives to account. Would Zuckerberg have averred in this way in an environment of “radical transparency”?

This is not an attack on Facebook, it’s just a useful example. Being truly Purpose-led is not easy and the implications can be scary. But they are manageable and the long-term benefits outweigh the costs.

We'd be interested in your comments, particularly examples of how you run your businesses to remain Purpose-led. Share your thoughts here or at [email protected].

#workwithpurpose #purpose