Business Organisations
This assessment provides you with the foundations you need to complete Assessments 2 and 3. By completing this assessment you will learn how to critically analyse and deconstruct people's perspectives on organisations and management.
This is important, because it enables you to:
- see behind people's arguments and claims about organisations and how they should be managed
- understand the assumptions and values that drive people's points of view on management and organisations
- understand the strengths and limitations of people's points of view on management and organisations
- understand the blind spots within people's arguments and claims about organisations and how they should be managed.
This assessment is authentic in that it develops and emulates the kind of critical thinking you will need to employ when working in organisations where you are required to weigh information or views that are put before you, as part of your decision-making and solution-development processes.
Assessment details
To complete this assessment you must analyse and deconstruct one of three articles / media clips (details provided below), decide which paradigm discussed in the lectures the article/media clip best embodies, and explain why this is so. To "deconstruct" something is to look beyond the surface of what is being said or written; it is to pull an argument apart and look for the assumptions and agenda that informs a person's viewpoint and argumentation.
Each article/media clip more or less clearly embodies a particular paradigm, although they are not perfect or "ideal" fits with the paradigms. The challenge with this assessment is to demonstrate your knowledge and skills by explaining why your chosen article/media clip exemplifies a particular paradigm. Note that there is no functionalist article/media clip available to deconstruct for your assignment. Instead, we will workshop a functionalist article in class, to demonstrate how you might approach the assignment and analyse your chosen article/clip. Rest assured we will workshop ALL the articles/readings in class.
The three articles/media clips for you to choose for your deconstruction are:
- Interpretivist/social relativist exemplar: Gast, A., Probst, N., & Simpson, B. 2020. Purpose not platitudes: A personal challenge for top executives. McKinsey Quarterly, December 3, 2020. For access, see the Reading List, Assignment 1 readings: Reading List, Assignment 1 (Links to an external site.)
- Radical structuralist exemplar: McManus, S. 2019. On fairness. Melbourne Press Club event, posted on Facebook on 8th February, 2019. For access, see the Reading List, Assignment 1 readings. Note that McManus's full text is also provided in the Reading List, under Assignment 1 Readings. You might find this useful to supplement the video.
- Radical humanist/neo-humanist exemplar: Crenshaw, K. The urgency of intersectionality. Ted Talk, Dec 8, 2016. For access, see the Reading List, Assignment 1 readings.
How to approach the assessment
1. Listen to Lectures 1 – 5 closely, taking notes as you go on the characteristics of each paradigm.
2. Attend your tutorials, where the paradigms will be discussed.
3. Read/listen to the three articles/media clips, and choose one that you wish to deconstruct.
We provide worksheets for each paradigm to help you identify the relevant characteristics of the paradigm that the article / media clip exemplifies. We will be workshopping each article in class. The relevant worksheets are provided in the tutorial activities (e.g. Module 3 tutorial activities contains a worksheet for the interpretivist / social relativist reading). Do NOT submit the worksheet as your assignment.
4. Review the following text, focusing particularly on your chosen paradigm: Burrell, G. & Morgan, G. 1979, Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis, Routledge, USA. (Part 1, Chapters 1–3, pp. 1–37). For access, see the Reading List (essential reading).
- Highlight passages that distil the characteristics of your chosen paradigm. See the worksheet as an example.
- Highlight passages in your article / media clip (type out the relevant quote/feature of the clip) where you see these characteristics in operation. See the worksheet for an example.
5. In 1,000 words (+/- 10%, excluding references) build your case as to why your chosen article/media clip exemplifies its given paradigm. Below are guiding questions to consider and respond to:
- What features of the paradigm can you see in operation in the article/media clip? What paradigm do these features best reflect and why?
- What is the topic of interest to the authors? Are they challenging the way the existing political and economic system operates, or are they seeking to improve the performance of organisations within the existing system? What paradigm do these interests best reflect and why? (Consider the order & regulation/radical change & conflict axis of the typology of the four paradigms).
- Who has written the article/who is constructing the argument in the media clip? Who are they affiliated with, and what are their interests/agenda? What paradigm do these interests best reflect and why?
- What are the aims of the article/media clip? (Note: these may be undeclared) What does the author/speaker wish to achieve? What paradigm do these aims best reflect and why?
- What issues or aspects of organisations and management does the article/media clip ignore, or not engage with? What are the implications of these blind spots, and why are these blind spots characteristic of the paradigm this article/media clip exemplifies?
Essential elements
- Use connected prose (no bullet points) to deconstruct your chosen article/clip. You may use subheadings if you wish, based on the questions listed above.
- You must draw on the Burrell and Morgan text to help you construct your reasoning and argue your case.
- You must also draw on at least two other scholarly sources (excluding the Burrell and Morgan text, this means you will be drawing on three scholarly sources at a minimum) to help construct your case. See the Reading List (Week 1: Organisational analysis – Introduction and framing) for a range of suggested resources.
- We expect your in text citations to be perfect. This is a second year course and you must now demonstrate a solid understanding of how to acknowledge other people's ideas. This means citing the surnames of the authors whose work you are drawing on, the year of the publication, and, if you are using direct quotations, you must also wrap the words that are not yours in "quotation marks" and provide the page number from where you have drawn the quotation. It is advisable to be sparing with direct quotations, and instead paraphrase the scholarly texts where possible.
- Do not cite the lectures. TIP: for scholarly resources, see the references at the end of the lecture slide-decks, or the reading list, especially Week 1.
- Do not submit the worksheet from the tutorials as your assessment.
Assessment criteria
Course learning outcomes
This assessment is relevant to the following course learning outcomes:
CLO1
Identify different analytical perspectives employed to understand organisations at the individual, social, and structural levels.
CLO2
Interpret and apply these multiple perspectives to empirically analyse organisations and the contexts in which they operate.
CLO3
Draw on different analytical perspectives as the basis for a socially responsible, ideologically aware approach towards organisational problem-solving.
CLO4
Evaluate knowledge assumptions, including one’s own, and come to recognise their management implications and practical consequences.
Referencing guidelines
Use RMIT Harvard (Links to an external site.) (Links to an external site.) referencing style for this assessment.
You must acknowledge all the courses of information you have used in your assessments.
Refer to the RMIT Easy Cite (Links to an external site.) (Links to an external site.) referencing tool to see examples and tips on how to reference in the appropriated style. You can also refer to the library referencing page for more tools such as EndNote, referencing tutorials and referencing guides for printing.
Purpose, not platitudes: A personal challenge for top executives Gast, Arne; Probst, Nina; Simpson, Bruce . The McKinsey Quarterly ; New York (Dec 3, 2020).

Having Trouble Meeting Your Deadline?
Get your assignment on Business Organisations completed on time. avoid delay and – ORDER NOW
ProQuest document link
ABSTRACT (ENGLISH) […]imagine you are a senior executive in a company that has successfully challenged—and raised—its purpose
ambitions. […]some 44 percent of respondents said that the company’s purpose is not aligned with their own
sense of individual purpose—meaning, for example, that they don’t find the company’s purpose to be highly aligned
with their own personal values, they don’t see how they contribute to it, or they don’t feel accountable to act in line
with it. Everyone’s too busy with this quarter’s business, or thinks the mission statement is fine already, or thinks
it’s unimportant in the first place since business should focus on shareholder value only. Yet as important as this
goal was, the team was chagrined to learn that the company’s program of giving employees paid time off to
encourage volunteerism was nowhere near as “industry beating” as leaders presumed. FULL TEXT To harness the power of corporate purpose, CEOs and other senior executives must pressure-test that purpose
with their teams, employees—and themselves.
Enlarge this image.
Imagine you are a CEO making the difficult decision to furlough frontline workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.
While the decision weighs heavily on you, you know that furloughs are preferable to layoffs. Yet when you make
the announcement, you face a withering, deeply personal Twitterstorm: customers and even employees ridicule
you with your own interview quotes about the “importance of community,” and how “our people are our purpose.”
Under pressure, you reverse the decision, but the damage to your reputation proves irreparable.
Or let’s say you are a new regional division head, an “outsider” who’s trying to decide how to approach an
important meeting with your key reports. Do you choose the status quo (taking time to establish yourself) or do
you take a risk and describe the outlines of a bold vision that you have to redefine a key product offering around
the company’s purpose? You take a deep breath and choose risk—and quickly find that your team is far more
enthusiastic to the idea than you had anticipated.
Finally, imagine you are a senior executive in a company that has successfully challenged—and raised—its purpose
ambitions. Now, just as the enthusiasm is peaking, a member of your team spots a profitable business
opportunity—but it goes against the company’s newly galvanizing purpose. Do you seize the opportunity or do you
say no? And what do you tell your teammate, not to mention the CEO?
These examples—composites drawn from real cases—highlight the unique, intensely personal nature of
organizational purpose for top executives. As a CEO in particular, your company’s ambitions around purpose
should start with your unique aspiration for what you expect for the organization—beginning with what it stands
for. You will also take the heat for any stumbles, should either you or the company fail to live up to your purposeful
aspirations.
And yet even though you’re best placed to be the catalyst in the kind of energizing organizational chain reaction
that happens when purpose takes hold and is activated in a company, you’re still one person in a large company
and your time and priorities are spread thin. No one, not even the CEO, can make purpose happen by
themselves—or make it happen for other people. And yet when it does happen—when companies find the sweet
spot where the “we” overlaps with the “me” (see sidebar, “Find your purpose sweet spot”)—the benefits to
employees, the company, and even society are powerful (Exhibit 1).
Exhibit
Enlarge this image.
Many CEOs we’ve talked with are both excited and apprehensive about how to lead their organizations into a new
era of postpandemic uncertainty. Many leaders want to take with them the energy, camaraderie, commitment, and
resilience their people felt during the crisis—but without burning out their people. Our analysis suggests that
purpose can help strike the balance and benefit the organization as well.
As part of our ongoing research into corporate purpose, we surveyed 855 people at a range of US-based
companies and across a range of tenures and roles. Our findings highlight a sweet spot in the combination of an
organization’s ability to live up to its purpose, on the one hand, and the degree to which employees feel aligned
with that purpose, on the other. Companies that get this right appear to enjoy a host of benefits, among them a
nearly fourfold bump in employee-engagement scores and a twofold increase in employee retention. Both
outcomes benefit the organization in their own right; moreover, each metric positively correlates with financial
performance.
Yet getting purpose right requires deep and sustained commitment. The survey found that 44 percent of
respondents indicated that they work at companies that haven’t activated their purpose—meaning, for example,
that leaders’ decisions are inconsistent with the company’s purpose, or that the company otherwise isn’t living up
to its words.
Meanwhile, some 44 percent of respondents said that the company’s purpose is not aligned with their own sense
of individual purpose—meaning, for example, that they don’t find the company’s purpose to be highly aligned with
their own personal values, they don’t see how they contribute to it, or they don’t feel accountable to act in line with
it.
This article describes how CEOs and other top executives can better live up to their special role in a purpose
journey, not by going it alone or by making pronouncements but by enlisting the organization’s help to challenge
the purpose, test it, and improve it so that everyone can shape it and own it together. We suggest you think of the
task not as a process of ticking off items on a list, but as a series of ongoing, overlapping dialogues. These
conversations about purpose must happen again and again with the people who matter: the top team, your
employees, and even yourself. These dialogues should also look ahead—both to the ways your company can
increase impact by bringing its purpose to the outside world, and to the “predictable dilemmas” that your pursuit of
purpose will inevitably raise. The promise of purpose will always be accompanied by some element of peril.
Start a dialogue in the top team
“We really need to talk about our purpose.”
These eight words can unlock an organization-changing chain of events when they’re voiced in a meeting with your
top team. And yet when we talk to CEOs and other C-suite leaders about purpose, many admit that the
conversation simply never happens. Everyone’s too busy with this quarter’s business, or thinks the mission
statement is fine already, or thinks it’s unimportant in the first place since business should focus on shareholder
value only. Many more executives, however, tell us privately that they want to engage on purpose but hold back
because they don’t want to be viewed as “the soft one.”
The result of this hesitancy is a workplace manifestation of social scientist Jerry Harvey’s famous Abilene
Paradox, where the failure of individuals to discuss a decision is interpreted as agreement by the group. (In
Harvey’s case, this resulted in a sweaty, 100-mile car trip in the Texas summer heat to Abilene for a family
dinner—a drive no one wanted to make.)
The upshot for CEOs and other top executives? Stop the car. Don’t assume a lack of discussion equals agreement.
Don’t assume that your organization’s purpose is good enough, goes far enough, or that your colleagues even see
eye to eye about it. Have the courage to participate in tough discussions and learn where things stand. Our
experience, supported by our research, suggests that many leaders aspire to greater social impact and more
purpose but don’t know where to start. A full 39 percent of company leaders we surveyed said they want to change
the purpose of their company, compared with 24 percent of all other employees.
The genesis of former Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini’s tough discussions about purpose was both unusual and
inadvisable: a serious skiing accident that almost killed him. During his recovery, Bertolini turned to yoga and
meditation; when he wanted to introduce these to the company more broadly as a wellness benefit for employees,
his CFO pushed back, saying, “We’re a profit-making entity. This isn’t about compassion and collaboration.”
Bertolini’s response? “Well, I actually think it is. And I’m in charge, so we’re going to do it.” Bertolini’s drive to
improve the lives of his employees led him to work with his top team to learn more about the financial hardships
some of his employees faced, which in turn led to raising the company’s minimum wage.
As Bertolini’s example suggests, hard-nosed dialogue may be required. But how should you frame the
conversation, and where should you start? Consider, as a team, the disruptions, pressures, and challenges that
exist at that edge where your business system meets the pain in the world, and see what you might do about it.
One way to start this dialogue is through an “ESG teardown.” The concept of a competitive teardown—dismantling
a product or service to learn from it by comparing it to the offerings of rivals—has long been used in manufacturing
settings. We suggest ESG (environmental, social, and governance) as the focus because purpose usually anchors
a company’s ESG priorities (and if it doesn’t, it should), and the tangibility of a company’s ESG offerings typically
allows for apples-to-apples benchmarking and a more objective view of how the company is perceived from the
outside in.
ESG teardowns start with discussions about which issues matter most to the leadership team and why, and then
move to comparisons of the company’s performance with that of its peers. This helps spot pain points. For
example, leaders of a large financial-services group were insistent on the need to give back to the communities in
which the company operated. Yet as important as this goal was, the team was chagrined to learn that the
company’s program of giving employees paid time off to encourage volunteerism was nowhere near as “industry
beating” as leaders presumed. Another relevant and pressing area of concern was the fact that the company
lagged behind its competitors on employee training, as well as pay and benefits.
Similarly, the top team of a consumer services company maintained that it was a high performer on the “S” of ESG
because of its “investments in employees.” Yet an ESG teardown showed that it paid only average compensation
and benefits, relative to peers, and underinvested in training and development. This sobering realization led the
team to rethink its approach.
Start a dialogue with your employees
Once you achieve a new level of top-team candor and have the direction and boundaries for a way forward, you will
face another challenge: what is meaningful for you might not be meaningful for your employees. Companies can’t
get the most from purpose if their employees are not aligned with it. By finding out employees’ sources of meaning
and acting on what you hear, you can help make purpose real for them.
Consider how the leaders of a European bank approached a seemingly straightforward task: the introduction of a
new dress code for tellers. The move, part of a broader purpose initiative, was meant to encourage customers and
staff to form stronger personal and emotional connections. Encouraging employees to show up as individuals
would help with this.
The easiest approach would have been to delegate the new dress code to HR, as other companies might have
done. But the bank’s leaders never even considered that. How, they argued, are employees meant to empower
customers if they’re not empowered to have a say in picking their own clothes? The resulting dress code took
slightly longer to develop, but it offered the employees much more of what they wanted, including a range of
choices and personalization options. Most importantly, it confirmed for employees that they were integral to
creating—and living—the company’s purpose, which helped motivate them to embrace it themselves in their work.
While including employees in purpose discussions seems obvious, it doesn’t happen nearly as often as it should.
In our survey, for instance, 72 percent of top leaders said they involved employees in the process of developing the
organization’s purpose, yet only 56 percent of frontline employees agreed (and 29 percent disagreed). It’s
unsurprising, then, that we also found that frontline employees were less likely than company leaders to say that
the company’s purpose matters to them personally (72 percent versus 89 percent, respectively) or to say that they
understand how their role contributes to purpose.
Differences in viewpoint don’t mean that frontline employees aren’t interested in purpose. On the contrary, our
research found that nonmanagement employees were just as likely as top leaders to say that purpose should be
more of a priority, even as they differed with leaders in terms of what that purpose should focus on (Exhibit 2).
Exhibit
Enlarge this image.
Learning from these differences and bridging the gaps takes time, commitment, and listening. The best leaders
use empathy to connect with employees and seek to learn where and how the personal sense of meaning that
employees bring to work overlaps with the company’s purpose. It also may take persistence to convince people
that “this time is different.” As a senior executive at a global insurance company put it to us recently, “At the start .
. . a lot of people did not get it. Many people were cynical and thought [purpose] would just be more stuff to do. It
only started to resonate . . . when we connected it to what we are actually doing.”
To help connect its purpose to tangible activities, a large hospital network surveyed employees to learn what they
valued and where they sought more meaning in their work. Then, using principles of human-centered design, the
hospital elicited hundreds of personal stories from employees to create a “story bank” of moments when
employees felt the hospital was at its best. The hospital used the stories in its communications to powerful effect:
for example, reminding employees of times when they had come together during a natural disaster to help
patients, or stories of quick collaboration making a difference, or personal anecdotes of nurses fulfilling a patient’s
dying wish. The stories helped make the purpose real for employees, and the new purpose that emerged from the
hospital’s efforts was embraced by employees in large part because it distilled moments that were most
meaningful to them.
Underlying the hospital’s success was the leaders’ recognition that what they found meaningful might not be as
meaningful for employees. “It was critical for us,” said one hospital leader, “to hear our nurses [and] doctors and
their individual stories of their proudest moments [in order] to help shape our purpose and values. [That] gave us
solid material on what they’d like us to start doing, stop doing, and continue doing. And it provided us a thousand
‘mini stories’ to use in the activation of our purpose.” The hospital’s executives recognized the power of
storytelling as it relates to the leader’s job as “meaning maker” to the organization. Too often, leaders simply
communicate plans. By contrast, author and storytelling expert David Pearl argues that leaders need to know the
difference between a plan and a story. As Pearl puts it: “Plans inform people; stories inspire people.”
Learning to listen to the organization is not only about getting input but also about letting employees make
decisions. At one European bank, for example, a team of “purpose ambassadors” had worked for months, leading
and coordinating an effort that had involved conversations with thousands of employees to gather input and
shape, test, and ultimately codify the company’s purpose.
When the day arrived to formally present the proposal to the 25 members of the bank’s executive committee, the
ambassadors were thrilled to see that the pre-meeting enthusiasm the committee had expressed for the work
remained strong. So strong, in fact, that during the meeting several executive committee members began
discussing—and then refining—the proposal with gusto. In what one of the ambassadors later described to us as
“a beautiful moment,” a top-team member put a stop to the editing by announcing to the group: “What are we doing
here, guys? We are trying to improve something that’s perfect. It came from the organization. Can’t we just approve
it?” The committee stopped, listened, and went on to approve the proposal without changes. “That was a very
powerful moment,” one of the ambassadors later told us. “It honored the thousands of people who had worked on
[codifying the purpose].”
Start a dialogue with yourself
If you’re like most senior executives we know, after discovering (or refining) your company’s purpose with your
employees, you’re now ready to get into action mode. Our experience suggests that this is a good time to take a
pause instead. If you’re a top executive—and particularly if you’re CEO—this dialogue challenges you to avoid your
bias for action and instead make sure you’ve taken the time for a gut check before scaling up a purpose effort. You
surely have strong views on the company’s purpose already, and even your own individual purpose, but have you
taken the time to test them against one another with an eye toward your own day-to-day behavior?
Or put another way: How does the company’s purpose implicate you? What do you need to start doing—and stop
doing—to live your purpose?
Your goal in this dialogue should be introspection, reflection, and humility. You want the self-awareness that helps
you understand how your own individual purpose dovetails;with that of the organization. By viewing this dialogue
as about growth—not sacrifice—you’ll increase the odds of mastering it.
Finding the intersection of individual and company purpose can be powerful. As Paul Bulkeley, the founder of Snug
Architects, described it to us: “Our purpose is ‘to design better places and prosper people.’ When we reconnected
our personal purpose with the Snug purpose, there was an almost unlimited supply of energy available to us.
Where purpose kicks in is in the moment when you own it personally.”
For his part, Connor Diemand-Yauman, co-CEO of Merit America, described how finding the overlap between
individual and company purpose can be a springboard for personal growth. “At Merit America,” he told us recently,
“we prepare low-wage workers for skilled careers at scale, driving for $1 billion in [collective] wage gains in the next
five years. When striving for this purpose, I don’t feel like I’m doing anybody any favors—I love it; I find my best self;
I am excited; I am happier when I . . . use purpose as a vehicle to become a better version—a continually evolving
version—of myself.”
The key quality here is to embrace your vulnerability. When you are closely examining your own purpose, you may
find areas of dissonance, places where uncomfortable changes are required if you are to be true to yourself and to
the purpose of the company. If you’re stepping into your own personal “learning zone,” you’re getting close; if
you’re uncomfortable, you’re closer still. One executive we know memorably describes the sweet spot as “Beyond
comfort, and before terror.”
As you examine your own ability to be vulnerable, take stock of this sobering finding from our survey. A full 44
percent of respondents said that their companies’ purpose isn’t activated—meaning, for example, that leaders’
decisions seem inconsistent with the company’s purpose or that the company otherwise isn’t living up to its
words. Moreover, 15 percent of respondents said that company leaders would pursue a business opportunity that
wasn’t in line with the organization’s purpose.
To help avoid this outcome—and to keep this dialogue from becoming a purely intellectual exercise—you can seek
out candid views from others about your own behaviors. At an aerospace company, for example, the top team
conducted a company-wide peer-feedback exercise to help everyone see more clearly the behaviors they needed to
change as part of a purpose initiative. The goal of the effort was to shift the focus of the company’s purpose from
“we fly planes” to a more customer-service-oriented mission of “we fly people.” The feedback offered lessons for
employees at all levels. Engineers, for instance, saw more clearly how their biases had led them to focus on
technical considerations in their designs at the expense of passenger comfort. Top-team leaders, meanwhile, saw
how they would need to engage with their teams and reports differently, shifting from a top-down, hierarchical
style to one based on listening and empathy. The leaders also saw how they needed to spend more time on people
development, a subject they had largely ignored or taken for granted before.
As this example suggests, such realizations are far more common when leaders learn to embrace the sense of
vulnerability that this dialogue requires.
Start a dialogue with the future
Any incongruencies between what your organization says, on the one hand, and what it does, on the other, will
damage its efforts to benefit from purpose. And yet some incongruencies represent implicit tensions between
purpose and profit. These can be hard to spot, hard to admit, or they may develop over time. They can also be very
difficult for individual employees to avoid. We call these “predictable dilemmas,” and learning to see and address
and “prototype” them early in the activation of your purpose is the goal of this dialogue.
For example, partners at a large tax accounting firm recognized how changing societal views were amplifying the
dissonance between two of the firm’s biggest goals: the desire to help clients (which often meant helping reduce
that client’s tax burden) and the firm’s purposeful desire to be a force for good and a benefit to communities
(which rely on tax revenues for funding). The dilemma had no easy answer, but through discussion and debate, the
leadership team landed on tangible actions. First, a small amount of work that was deemed most incongruent with
the firm’s purpose was declared out-of-bounds. Second, the team created a stakeholder impact assessment for its
advisers to use in framing discussions with clients about the social impact of their decisions. The result has
helped deepen the firm’s client relationships in some cases, in part by helping its partners provide more
challenging and thought-provoking counsel. And it gave the employees a valuable proof point that the purpose was
real—not just a poster—and that the leaders were living it.
The way the tax accounting firm handled this dilemma is instructive. The leaders’ discussions helped open the lid
on an underlying challenge that was growing in importance (but wasn’t being discussed), helped assure employees
that the company would continue to take its aspirations seriously over time, and, importantly, provided people with
proof points and tools to grapple with the dilemma in their day-to-day work. One reason we suspect nonmanagers
in our survey were more likely than leaders to see purpose and profit as being in opposition is because employees
are the ones who face the dilemmas most directly, often without support.
If you’re embarking on a purpose initiative, a useful way to spot predictable dilemmas is through prototyping and
by treating purpose as a product. Consider the example of Zalando SE, a European fashion company. Former
senior vice president of People &Organization Frauke von Polier recounted to us how the company took several
months to road test its new purpose with 30 teams across the company. The goal was to have the teams apply the
purpose to their work and see if it was productive, practical, and would resonate in ways that influenced decisions.
Ultimately, by prototyping its purpose, the company improved its purpose statement and created both a tool kit
and manifesto for employees to use in their day-to-day work. Finally, the prototyping effort provided “on the
ground” stories of how the purpose could make a difference.
Start a dialogue with the world
The final dialogue calls on C-suite leaders to extend and amplify the organization’s purpose by championing it in
the world. This dialogue is a stern challenge. If you truly believe in your purpose and are prepared to live it, you
should be willing to take it to the world, commit to it publicly, get measured and show results transparently, and be
judged on the success of your efforts.
In the case of Aetna’s Mark Bertolini, for example, the same revelations about his employees that prompted him to
raise the company’s minimum wage also drove him to begin speaking out more publicly on issues such as income
inequality and to encourage other leaders to join him. “We need to establish our credibility as leaders,” he said in a
2017 interview. “I see my job as establishing that credibility. We need to make that pitch.”
Of course, once you’ve opened the door to broader dialogue and debate and have championed a cause, you’re
obliged to listen to what you hear in return. Recognize that when you step into the spotlight you will invariably
receive heightened scrutiny, including from inside the company. Such attention can be uncomfortable, but you
should embrace it as part of the ongoing dialogue you have created with your employees.
The best leaders use the scrutiny to challenge themselves and the company’s purpose with an aim of improving
both. For example, when Microsoft faced internal criticism for its work with US defense contractors, CEO Satya
Nadella took a thoughtful (though, to detractors, unpopular) stand, saying: “We made a principled decision that
we’re not going to withhold technology from institutions that we have elected in democracies to protect the
freedoms we enjoy.” Yet the company also took pains to communicate that it would help employees who didn’t
want to work on specific projects to switch to another part of the business. As this example suggests, the need for
maintaining a strong dialogue with employees is an ongoing—and vital—task.
————
As a senior executive, you have a special role in helping to make your organization a more purposeful one.
Embrace it by working to create an environment where purpose is continually tested, discussed, improved—and
ultimately lived.
About the authors
Arne Gast is a partner in McKinsey’s Kuala Lumpur office, Nina Probst is a partner in the Geneva office, and Bruce
Simpson is a senior partner in the Toronto office.
The authors wish to thank Bill Schaninger, Philippine Risch, Ela Chodyniecka, Roger Swaving, Sebastian Leape,
Andreas Frohlich, Andrew Chua, and Edoardo Frangi for their valuable contributions to this article.
————
This article was edited by Tom Fleming, deputy editor in chief in the Chicago office. DETAILS
LINKS Linking Service
Subject: Polls &surveys; Leadership; Employees; COVID-19
Business indexing term: Subject: Leadership Employees
URL: https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/purpose-
not-platitudes-a-personal-challenge-for-top-executives
Publication title: The McKinsey Quarterly; New York
Publication year: 2020
Publication date: Dec 3, 2020
Section: Insights on Organization
Publisher: McKinsey &Company, Inc.
Place of publication: New York
Country of publication: United States, New York
Publication subject: Business And Economics–Management
ISSN: 00475394
Source type: Scholarly Journal
Language of publication: English
Document type: Journal Article
ProQuest document ID: 2466463724
Document URL: https://login.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-
journals/purpose-not-platitudes-personal-challenge-top/docview/2466463724/se-
2?accountid=13552
Copyright: Copyright McKinsey &Company, Inc. Dec 3, 2020
Last updated: 2021-12-08
Database: ProQuest One Academic
Database copyright 2022 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. Terms and Conditions Contact ProQuest
- Purpose, not platitudes: A personal challenge for top executives

