4 ms·

To summarise the author's point, he thinks that 'why' is the wrong place to start and that 'who' is the correct place to start. Sinek argues that most companie

by Zhyl 6y ago

To summarise the author's point, he thinks that 'why' is the wrong place to start and that 'who' is the correct place to start. Sinek argues that most companies lose their purpose and deviate from their core business (and potentially into unprofitability/inability to launch new products and services successfully) because they focus too much on 'what' they are selling or 'how' they deliver to their customers. The solution to this is to start with 'why' - having a core purpose that will drive all other aspects of your product/service and delivery. The author of this article asserts that this leaves out a 'who' - the customers that you are selling to. He says that one needs to begin by choosing your target market and aiming all efforts tailoring the experience to them. I think this is a bit backwards - especially when he is trying to suggest that Sinek is "fundamentally wrong". To me, it would seem that if you start off with a higher level purpose, then the 'who' will fall out of that. I want to manufacture and sell a completely open source mobile phone because I believe that all humans should have access to commodity communications devices that aren't tied to a proprietary OEM or service carrier. The 'who' from this will come out as either 'people who have an interest in open source and freedom' or 'people who want a cheap commodity device'. How do I pick between these groups to focus? I go back to my 'why' and elaborate it. I don't pick one arbitrarily (i.e. start with 'who') and then pick a raison d'etre based on that choice. I think it's also fair to point out that Sinek seems to have a weird fascination with trying to back up his points with Bullshit science (the TED talk mentioned in the article tries to assert that his methods are correct 'because of biology' which is tenuous at best. He makes many similar claims), but overall I think the 'golden circle' of starting with a purpose is fundamentally sound and absolutely not disproved or even really contested by this article.

davidivadavid 6y ago
I think your analysis is mostly correct. I get pretty annoyed by Sinek's schtick because the terms he picked are so ambiguous (unsurprising for people into bullshit science) that it's hard to know if there's more to his theory than obvious business bromides. If by starting with the why, you mean starting with the purpose, I think it mostly makes sense. You have an end in mind, a vision, and from there derives a set of products (means to that end), and the target customers are going to be the people who subscribe to that vision. Couple problems with that: a) "Why" is also often mistakenly understood to have a causal or motivational sense: why did people start that company? Why are you doing that? Those things might have nothing to do with the purpose of the company itself, if it has any. It could just be that the founders felt like doing something. b) The vision of the company, and what it delivers, could just as well be described as a "what" than as a "why". The functional benefits of the product are what people are buying. The products (means to the benefit) are the "how". Basically, every term he uses can be reinterpreted differently and still make sense, which causes more confusion than clarification every time this topic is brought on the table.
- Zhyl 6y ago
  I think that's fair. As a shorthand 'why' is very succinct, but is definitely ambiguous. Even expanding to 'core purpose' I feel that many companies or movements mistake having one to having a catchy mission statement or a set of 'values' which could have been procured from a PR agency but ultimately don't trace fully to product offering or even justify the ongoing existence of the entity.
  - richardbrevig 6y ago
    Why is very popular in the design community, like the five whys [0]. But now I'm always at odds when I speak about it after listening to Richard Dawkins and other scientists say "why is a stupid question." They advise to ask, "what led to this?" And doing that has helped me reframe situations and make discoveries. Even still, why is a great shorthand in many contexts. :) 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_whys https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_whys

by Zhyl 6y ago

davidivadavid 6y ago

I think your analysis is mostly correct. I get pretty annoyed by Sinek's schtick because the terms he picked are so ambiguous (unsurprising for people into bullshit science) that it's hard to know if there's more to his theory than obvious business bromides. If by starting with the why, you mean starting with the purpose, I think it mostly makes sense. You have an end in mind, a vision, and from there derives a set of products (means to that end), and the target customers are going to be the people who subscribe to that vision. Couple problems with that: a) "Why" is also often mistakenly understood to have a causal or motivational sense: why did people start that company? Why are you doing that? Those things might have nothing to do with the purpose of the company itself, if it has any. It could just be that the founders felt like doing something. b) The vision of the company, and what it delivers, could just as well be described as a "what" than as a "why". The functional benefits of the product are what people are buying. The products (means to the benefit) are the "how". Basically, every term he uses can be reinterpreted differently and still make sense, which causes more confusion than clarification every time this topic is brought on the table.

Zhyl 6y ago
I think that's fair. As a shorthand 'why' is very succinct, but is definitely ambiguous. Even expanding to 'core purpose' I feel that many companies or movements mistake having one to having a catchy mission statement or a set of 'values' which could have been procured from a PR agency but ultimately don't trace fully to product offering or even justify the ongoing existence of the entity.
- richardbrevig 6y ago
  Why is very popular in the design community, like the five whys [0]. But now I'm always at odds when I speak about it after listening to Richard Dawkins and other scientists say "why is a stupid question." They advise to ask, "what led to this?" And doing that has helped me reframe situations and make discoveries. Even still, why is a great shorthand in many contexts. :) 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_whys https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_whys