Much of the volume of paper dedicated to pontificating about strategy these days seems to focus on ‘Purpose’. Sadly, we do not have a workable and agreed definition. What we do have is confusion about the meaning, particularly when you consider the other strategic pontification generators ‘Mission’ ‘Vision’ and ‘Values’
What are the differences, and how do they improve enterprise performance?
In my view, spending time worrying about the differences, and similarities is time wasted. All are words that should lead to four outcomes that will improve performance.
Strategy.
They all provide a framework against which strategic decision can be measured. ‘Does this decision enhance our performance in a way that assists to deliver whichever of the labels you choose to use.
Differentiation.
A well articulated statement of strategic intent, called by whatever labels you choose, supported by overt action can, and does offer the opportunity for a differentiated product offering that will be hard for competitors to copy. This generates incremental revenue, at enhanced margins when done well.
Human resources.
Most people would prefer to work for a company that makes a positive contribution to their community as well as offering competitive pay and opportunity. I have an acquaintance who used to recruit for a tobacco company. His experience was that they had to pay well over the odds, and accept a modest performer in order to keep bums in the seats to get the job done. BTW, I dislike the term ‘human resources’ but have yet to come up with a better one that does not sound confected.
Culture.
This often misused word gives a sense of direction, focus, behavioural norms, common ideals and risk management that enables the building of momentum. ‘Culture’ is the essential glue that holds enterprises together.
You do not need a strong purpose, or either of the other two to have a successful enterprise. Most have survived and prospered to date without one, but there is no doubt in my mind that it helps enormously, however you define it.
Header cartoon credit: Courtesy Scott Adams and Dilbert.
Cliches are often sprouted as the substitute for decisions and action, particlularly by weak leaders, or those who just ‘manage’ while believing they are ‘leading’
Allan
Like most things these days ‘purpose’ is little more than a ‘story’ to get engagement and buy-in.
The problem is that most purpose statements will say something like – we are customer focussed – when the internal systems are all – producer focussed.
Hence the great discord between the fake words on a plaque on the wall of the foyer – and what the actual systems of the organisation actually deliver to a customer.
Therefore, the ‘purpose’ statement is little more than a lowering of the standard of performance of an organisation by a low competency low-performance leader who has no idea what high competency high-performance leadership looks like – and even less idea of how they might go about it.
Hence the cliches on the wall that everyone understands bears little resemblance to reality.
Cliches or ‘stories’ have never ever fixed any problem in the history of humanity – only effective ACTION ever fixes problems.
So if you can’t fix problems – then cliches and stories are the only weapons in the armory – to deflect criticism of incompetent leadership.