Finding a purpose
Organisations should have a clear purpose, with teams and individuals also having a purpose of their own. A purpose for an organisation is the underlying reason the organisation exists, the ‘why?’ behind everything they do.
I’ve heard it said that the core purpose for any business should be to make money. In some cases people don’t even say this from self-interest, but in the interests of people they know nothing about. ‘To make money for shareholders’ is used to defend many business practices - from tax avoidance to paying low wages. A colleague (not in my current employment) once tried to explain to me that every business avoids tax, and that was their obligation to shareholders. But that makes no sense - making money has no meaning as an end goal. It is necessary to achieve other things, to pay good wages, and to remain viable, but not a purpose.
About 20 years ago, I took a course on the ethical philosophy of Immanuel Kant. It was interesting (though very dense!), and the course became a useful forum to discuss modern day ethics for business situations. Some of the students were there because they were business leaders but struggled to define practices with a clear ethical foundation.
Having a purpose is a useful guide to assess business practices. ‘Does this align with our purpose?’ should be asked frequently when making decisions. We bang on about ‘data-driven’ decisions but purpose-driven decisions are more important.
Looking at purposes
The completion of the course was to produce an essay. Mine was titled ‘What does the Harmony Constraint tell us about how businesses should treat their employees?’
I’m not going to reproduce it online, because it’s not good. And I don’t remember what the Harmony Constraint is - some adaptation of Kant’s philosophy on freedom. But a couple of sections still resonate with me:
“it is possible to conclude that to act in harmony with others is to share goals with them, and that a reasonable ultimate goal is that of working towards mankind’s perpetual progress, survival and flourishing.”
That sounds good - I can subscribe to working towards progress, survival, and flourishing. It even sounds like it could be a decent organisation purpose. ‘Mankind’ is a dated term, but this was the noughties.
About business practices, my essay concluded:
For a business to follow the harmony constraint it needs to follow four principles:
- To ensure its employees wellbeing (primarily through pay but this applies to all benefits),
- to provide employment for as many people as is reasonably possible,
- to treat all employees in a fair manner with regards to pay and benefits.
- these three rules are then tempered by the constraint that a business must act in a way that ensures it remains competitive and that the livelihoods of its employees are protected and secure.
I can get behind all that as well. A key purpose of any businesses should be the wellbeing and fair payment to all employees. And to as many as possible, if we reason that fair employment is a good thing for humankind.
This is useful to inform basic employment practices, but doesn’t cover how we assess what organisations actually do. If we’re acting towards a flourishing humankind, that should lead to worthwhile activities, shouldn’t it? Not necessarily. It’s possible that Arms Manufacturers have a well-defined purpose that they can easily reconcile with their day-to-day activity of making bombs and missiles that kill lots of people. That’s a trouble with purposes that make big statements - it’s easy to fit any activity into them.
A good purpose doesn’t constrain an organisation from doing terrible things, but it must be useful so long as you’re acting in good faith.
A purpose of my own
Looking back on all this to define my own purpose, it all seems relevant. But I’ve been dwelling on how purposes can seem limited. It’s too obvious to focus on tackling problems. As worthwhile as it can be, it also feels negative. To fix what is wrong is good, but it needs to look beyond that. Would working towards World Peace be a worthwhile purpose? Very - but what then? Peace can be defined as simply the absence of conflict. A nothing situation.
I’m a fan of public service broadcasting. The BBC can be frequently irritating (Mr Tumble), but also inspiring (Bluey). Lord Reith defined the BBC principles in 1923 - to Inform, Educate, and Entertain.
It’s easy to understand the benefit of informing and educating people. Education raises life chances, job opportunities, reduces crime, etc. An informed society can tackle disinformation, corruption, and fascism.
So, to inform and educate are great and important things. But entertain? It can seem like the poorer relation - a bit frivolous. Even talk of entertaining is dangerously close to David Brent or Alan Partridge territory.
“I suppose I’ve created an atmosphere where I’m a friend first and a boss second. Probably an entertainer third”
“When people say to me, ‘Oh, would you rather be thought of as a funny man or a great boss?’ My answer’s always the same: to me, they’re not mutually exclusive.”
David Brent, The Office
But though ridiculous and clownish, Brent is possibly onto something (albeit fictionally).
I think it’s generally accepted that it’s good to bring an element of fun and recreation into ‘serious’ business, but as a means to a wider goal. A ‘what’ we do rather than a ‘why’. Maybe you’re giving a talk and you tell some jokes and fill it with entertaining and engaging content. Great. It keeps people listening and gets your point across, so it’s effective. But even if you haven’t got your point across and people learn nothing is that still a success if people are entertained? I think probably, yes.
Anyway, I considered adopting Inform, Educate and Entertain as a decent purpose (the Reithian principles). Great artists steal and all that. But it turns out Lord Reith was a Nazi sympathiser, adored Hitler, and hated Jazz music. So he didn’t have a great concept of worthwhile purpose.