What is a "Why" in Corporate Strategy?
While oceans of ink has flowed through the millennials in the pursuit of answering the “why” question in all its permutations, the "why" question in corporate strategy is often overlooked in favour of the "what" and "how".
Yet this question, far from being a mere "good-to-have" philosophical exercise, is the linchpin of strategic thinking — a compass that guides organisations through uncharted ever-shifting terrains of competition and change.
Strategy gurus from Henry Mintzberg to Roger Martin to Simon Sinek had long advocated the criticality of asking the "why" question. Why then does the "why" question remain, once too often, unasked at the most critical junctures of strategy?
I do not believe it is because it is difficult. On the contrary, I believe it is the simplest of all questions to ask (perhaps not to answer). Simple, but not easy. The simplicity of the “why” question is precisely why the question is eternally fascinating. That which is eternal is timeless.
The timelessness of the “why” question intimates, paradoxically, at the fact that the question cannot be contained with any one simplistic answer. In other words, the timelessness of the “why” question is precisely why the question needs to be answered time-and-time again.
If you accept the above premise, then it logically follows that in the context of organisational strategy, it is possible that each generation, each market, each business unit has their own unique expression of the overarching “why”.
When the “why” is clear, decisions get simple.
But where things get hairy is when there is no clarity about how to think about answering the question. To illustrate this point, I am going to propose to substitute the word “why” with “the reason”, e.g., instead of asking:
Let me now propose that the reason anyone, any organisation, does anything is to satisfy some unfulfilled needs. So, getting clear what those needs are simplifies the “why” question. It is important to point out that this is a motivational approach to answering the question, i.e., it’s not an existential approach.
This approach is also honest because every organisation, with no exception, began when one individual sees an unmet need, and decided to do something to monetise the solution which fulfilled that need. Hence the proposal is to institutionalise how to remain true to the founding motivation of any organisation. Ikea's founder Ingvar Kamprad's <The Testament of a Furniture Dealer> is a stunning example of an organisation's distilled essence thoughtfully and precisely articulated, and remains to this day the living foundation of Ikea's identity.
Another example is Patagonia that have held true to its founding mission ("we’re in business to save our home planet") even as how they embody the mission changes: "A company doesn’t last 100 years by chasing endless growth. There’s an ideal size for every business and, when companies outgrow that, they die. We [are] focused on longevity, not expansion" (Yvon Chouinard, Founder). At the end of McKinsey interview, to the question "What would you advise every business leader to ask themselves every day?", Chouinard responded, "Ask yourself why you went into business in the first place. What are you there for?"
Now, is it “desirable” to drift away from an organisation’s founding motivation/credo? That, I would propose, is the wrong question to ask because why would you do that if the organisation can continue to be profitable? In my experience, that question gets asked when an organisation is not doing well, when paradoxically, more often than not, organisational decline is a result of drifting away from the founding credo. Founded in 1886, J&J's founding credo is testament of a credo's evergreen nature when an organisation aspires to integrity.
To be clear, staying true to your organisation’s founding credo is not an excuse for not keeping up with the times to remain competitive and relevant. It is, in fact, an imperative for an organisation to evolve. Otherwise, why exist?
PS. Growth is an indicator that someone finds you "valuable" (i.e., validation of your "why" to some degree), and profit is what sustains growth (not the other way round - read more here). Check out companies that have continued to be "valuable" since 587 onwards here..
To find out how I can help you and your organisation co-create a Me-Only corporate strategy, click on the button below to connect with me.
Yet this question, far from being a mere "good-to-have" philosophical exercise, is the linchpin of strategic thinking — a compass that guides organisations through uncharted ever-shifting terrains of competition and change.
Strategy gurus from Henry Mintzberg to Roger Martin to Simon Sinek had long advocated the criticality of asking the "why" question. Why then does the "why" question remain, once too often, unasked at the most critical junctures of strategy?
I do not believe it is because it is difficult. On the contrary, I believe it is the simplest of all questions to ask (perhaps not to answer). Simple, but not easy. The simplicity of the “why” question is precisely why the question is eternally fascinating. That which is eternal is timeless.
The timelessness of the “why” question intimates, paradoxically, at the fact that the question cannot be contained with any one simplistic answer. In other words, the timelessness of the “why” question is precisely why the question needs to be answered time-and-time again.
If you accept the above premise, then it logically follows that in the context of organisational strategy, it is possible that each generation, each market, each business unit has their own unique expression of the overarching “why”.
When the “why” is clear, decisions get simple.
But where things get hairy is when there is no clarity about how to think about answering the question. To illustrate this point, I am going to propose to substitute the word “why” with “the reason”, e.g., instead of asking:
- “Why do you exist?”, ask “The reason you exist is because …?”
- “Why is this important?”, ask “The reason this is important is because …?”
- “Why do you want to do (x)?”, ask “The reason you want to do (x) is because …?”
Let me now propose that the reason anyone, any organisation, does anything is to satisfy some unfulfilled needs. So, getting clear what those needs are simplifies the “why” question. It is important to point out that this is a motivational approach to answering the question, i.e., it’s not an existential approach.
This approach is also honest because every organisation, with no exception, began when one individual sees an unmet need, and decided to do something to monetise the solution which fulfilled that need. Hence the proposal is to institutionalise how to remain true to the founding motivation of any organisation. Ikea's founder Ingvar Kamprad's <The Testament of a Furniture Dealer> is a stunning example of an organisation's distilled essence thoughtfully and precisely articulated, and remains to this day the living foundation of Ikea's identity.
Another example is Patagonia that have held true to its founding mission ("we’re in business to save our home planet") even as how they embody the mission changes: "A company doesn’t last 100 years by chasing endless growth. There’s an ideal size for every business and, when companies outgrow that, they die. We [are] focused on longevity, not expansion" (Yvon Chouinard, Founder). At the end of McKinsey interview, to the question "What would you advise every business leader to ask themselves every day?", Chouinard responded, "Ask yourself why you went into business in the first place. What are you there for?"
Now, is it “desirable” to drift away from an organisation’s founding motivation/credo? That, I would propose, is the wrong question to ask because why would you do that if the organisation can continue to be profitable? In my experience, that question gets asked when an organisation is not doing well, when paradoxically, more often than not, organisational decline is a result of drifting away from the founding credo. Founded in 1886, J&J's founding credo is testament of a credo's evergreen nature when an organisation aspires to integrity.
To be clear, staying true to your organisation’s founding credo is not an excuse for not keeping up with the times to remain competitive and relevant. It is, in fact, an imperative for an organisation to evolve. Otherwise, why exist?
PS. Growth is an indicator that someone finds you "valuable" (i.e., validation of your "why" to some degree), and profit is what sustains growth (not the other way round - read more here). Check out companies that have continued to be "valuable" since 587 onwards here..
To find out how I can help you and your organisation co-create a Me-Only corporate strategy, click on the button below to connect with me.