People are claimed to be persuaded by an organisation's purpose rather than by what it produces, so communication should begin with the purpose.
Sinek's argument is illustrated with successful firms selected because they succeeded, which cannot distinguish a cause from a characteristic. The neurological explanation, that the why appeals to a limbic system without language capacity, misdescribes the anatomy. The advice may still be useful, and the case made for it is not evidence.
In practice
- A pitch that opens with the problem being solved holds attention better than one opening with specifications.
- A firm with a compelling purpose and a poor product is studied only if it also had a good product.
- Possible explanations
- One explanation offered is that purpose is easier to remember and to repeat than product features. Another is selection: firms are chosen for the argument because they succeeded, which cannot separate a cause from a characteristic.
- In its favour
- Purpose-led communication does affect employee commitment in organisational research, and the advice to lead with the reason rather than the specification is reasonable as rhetoric.
- Against it
- The evidence is testimonial and selected on success, and neuroscientists have pointed out that the supporting claim about the limbic system is inaccurate.
- Standing
- Testimonial evidence selected on success, with no comparison group. Neuroscientists have pointed out that the supporting claim about the limbic system is inaccurate. Purpose-led framing has some support in the branding literature; the mechanism offered for it does not.
- Subject
- Organizations & Bureaucracy
- Essay
- Why organisations learn, harden and decline