Simon Sinek and 'Why'. The right answer to the wrong question?

I recently heard the chief marketing officer of a large organisation talk about the relevance of Simon Sinek’s ‘why’ hypothesis, which he summarises as: ‘people don’t buy what you do; they buy why do it’. (You can see Sinek doing more justice to his thinking in his TED talk.) The marketer's presentation was at least the third time I’ve heard Sinek referenced in a similar context. If you watch the TED talk, you’ll see him present his thinking in a way which is clear, compelling, even inspirational. And fundamentally flawed. In my (occasionally) humble opinion. The emperor is wearing no clothes!!

The problem was illustrated in the presentation I referenced above. The CMO gave examples of Apple, Disney and Nike as enormously successful brands with a clear and inspiring purpose. No-one dissented. However, I asked around the room afterwards. Not one person claimed that they would have known the purpose of those brands (as they would wish themselves) before the presentation; it was a small survey but 100% consistent. 

Who seriously believes Facebook’s strategy is influenced by some greater good which inspires us to engage with it? It simply has a dominant presence with a service which is great for keeping up with people and liberates our inner narcissist. 

Do I use Google because of its values or because it offers the best search service? Show me a parent who can tell you the brand purpose of Entertainment One. Or even what it does (it owns the Peppa Pig franchise)? 

Those people grappling with the first world dilemmas of whether to choose Waitrose or Wholefoods don’t seem to be overly concerned that Wholefoods is owned by Amazon. Or that Coca Cola owns Innocent. Both are global listed businesses primarily accountable to shareholders and stock markets for delivering returns. Sexism and behaviour at Uber cost the CEO his job but has been largely ignored by customers. Apple and Amazon routinely have to defend themselves against evidence of employee exploitation. And recently became the world’s first $1tn companies.

Does anyone care what the higher-level purposes of a business is? It would appear not their customers. Their employees, that’s who. The most engaged workforce I have ever encountered worked at Comic Relief. SouthWest Airlines is renowned for employee engagement. 

The London 2012 Olympics provided volunteers with an innate sense of being part of something bigger than themselves. Most of us like the idea of doing great work for a great boss in a great organisation. Daniel Pink made a compelling case that one significant factor in our personal motivation and engagement is a sense of purpose. Work that means something. And it seems obvious that motivated, engaged people working on something worthwhile stack the odds of organisational success in your favour.

Of course, I believe that purpose is important, just not for the reason Sinek claims. A sense of purpose can be a source of unlimited internal drive for both individuals and organisations – liberating that sounds enormously powerful. Plus, customers would probably prefer to support organisations they believe in. But let’s not make the mistake of extrapolating those assertions to some completely unjustifiable general conclusion. We buy products from vendors when we perceive a value-add, even if our thinking is not always wholly rational. The vendor’s internal purpose probably only becomes a factor when it resonates either very positively or very negatively. My simple informal testing indicated that despite what marketers, or even consumers themselves, might claim, buying decisions based on ‘why’ are the exception. 

Sinek makes a valid case for purpose as a highly valuable leadership attribute. But then, without differentiating the completely different dynamics, and ignoring a raft of hidden assumptions, seamlessly reverse engineers that argument to explain consumer buying decisions. Purpose is (hugely) important, just not for that reason. Sinek's thesis reminds me of the conversation between 2 colonels at the end of the Vietnam War:

US Colonel: You know, you never defeated us in a major battle.

Vietnamese Colonel: That may be true, but it is also irrelevant.

What do you think? What is there to learn? I’d be interested in any feedback in the comments below.

Thank you for reading. I post most often on issues relating, at least tenuously, to high-performance cultures. I’d be delighted if you followed or connected either here, or via @JustinMissionEx on Twitter. 

My book, The Business of Excellence, draws on both my time as a fighter pilot and subsequent consulting experience to lay out a roadmap for building high-performance cultures. You can see details on Amazon.