This conceptual commentary explores how leaders can develop a purposeful organization by examining methods applied in work. Drawing on the authors’ professional insights, including knowledge from literature and practice, the commentary considers how to unpick organizational culture through systems thinking.

Plenty has been written about how leaders define, organize and shape priorities in their organizations, with a repeating theme concerning alignment of organizational aims with actual activity, deliverables and results ([26]; [11]; [23]; [2]). Contemporary literature often presents statements of Mission, Vision and Values as components of organizational design for aligning outcomes to leaders’ aspirations, with vision-building and visionary leadership emphasized as key areas of competence ([32]; [23]; [2]; [9]; [24]; [6]). However, ostensibly common terms like Mission, Purpose and Vision are used differently even by commentators as well-known as [15], [32] and [23]. Since several of these concepts are discussed hereafter, they are defined for consistency as follows: “Purpose” is considered an enduring reason for the organization’s existence, essentially what it is here to do ([30]), “Mission” is a similar notion but carries a shorter-term current focus ([15]); “Vision” is the intended, inspiring future-state of the organization ([32]); “Objectives” are specific, measurable, and time-bound milestones required to achieve a defined need or aspiration ([14]); “Method” is the approach taken (the process of work) which achieves outcomes (relating to purpose) and thereby how an instruction is carried out in practice ([12]; [30]).

Unsurprisingly, the context of any organization shapes its focus and characterizes how people are engaged, all of which are embodied in working practices. For example, a commercial organization which offers products or services to defined markets, should be customer-focused ([27]). Public service institutions (including health, education and social services) will focus on the needs of various segments of user communities relative to societal challenges, such as employment, demographics, economics, and engagement of public policy ([30]). In contrast, wildlife conservation organizations often operate in ambiguous conditions ([16]; [8]) so must remain grounded in their priorities whilst taking adaptive action (e.g. accommodating unknown risks despite meagre evidence). Faith organizations have a quite different focus, as in Baptist churches ([7]) where people’s interests centre on living, demonstrating, and communicating the Christian gospel. Despite varied contexts of each organisation, its “reason for existence” (raison d’ être) is a primary concern, and contemporary management literature labels this as organizational “Purpose”.

Discussions and research on purpose remain less common than those concerning vision ([32]: pp. 205-232, 274-276; [11]; [30]; [8]; [20]). The most high-profile advocate of purposeful organizations was W Edwards Deming who included “constancy of purpose” as the first of his 14 points for management ([12]). This review briefly revisits Deming’s value for organizational purpose, but more importantly reflects on a forgotten leadership question which tests whether purpose is accurately reflected in the realities of organizational practice.

Typically, leaders establish organizational focus through a combination of aims, objectives and strategies, often augmented by “critical success factors”, “key performance indicators” and other measures and metrics ([26]; [11]). Such hierarchical approaches echo the assumptions found in early 20^th century “scientific management” formalized by Frederick Taylor (similar ideas were made famous by Henry Ford and Alfred Sloan), which still perpetuate modern organizations and ideas promoted by some management consultants and business schools ([30]; [22]). The same rationale suggests that organizational mechanisms (i.e. management actions) ensure smooth delivery of aims into operational work and therefore results, however research demonstrates that organizational culture also has an impact ([28]). Furthermore, mechanistic thinking is flawed in assuming that intervening decisions about focus, time, priorities, effort and standards are linear and based on intention, when real organizations are complex ([10]; [13]; [31]) and their context is often messy, or complicated by “wicked” problems ([17]).

A further difficulty is the variability of intentions of everyone in an organization (which are usually unknown or unknowable; [12]). Psychological theory also indicates that people’s individual intentions have marginal influence on actual behavior (e.g. theory of planned behavior; [1]). Overall, unpredictability in people’s motivation relates to interactions with others, and these dynamics are one complicating element of organizational culture.

Systems Theory provides better explanations of how numerous interdependencies, interactions, consequences and dynamics arise within organizations, and how these factors influence people’s interpretation of aims and outcomes, often in unintended or unexpected ways ([3]; [25]; [13]; [17]).

Systems Theory also shows that there are no cultural (i.e. behavioral or motivational) or mechanistic (i.e. technical or organizational) ways to ensure that leaders’ aspirations can be progressed through management communication into operational outcomes. Instead, in order to improve work outputs, leaders should (alongside people doing the work) explore improvement of the capability of the system to improve work outputs ([12]; [30]; [31]). This seems somewhat obvious but systemic improvement of work design often appears to be forgotten by modern leaders as a lever for change.

To better understand systemic issues, Deming offers two crucial questions, which establish the most important identifiers of any organization. The first question concerning purpose is familiar, although often hard to meaningfully answer. The second question is rarely asked, but operationally even more fundamental.

A fundamental skill-set for effective leaders is the ability to understand their organization as a system ([10]; [3]; [12]; [13]; [25]; [30]). Purposeful leaders are less prone to ego-driven or other value-laden perspectives which subvert more helpful commitments ([8]; [33]). Purposeful leaders also avoid expending effort and resources on activities misaligned with the principle focus of the organization. Leaders set the tone through their own behaviors and priorities ([23]). Deming’s questions offer clarity of examination, and simplicity in logic and explanation, to enable suitable leadership focus on systemic improvements to pursue desired results. If leaders align methods, with purpose, and enable people to do the right things more effectively, then the organization will benefit through improved performance, while a favourable culture change will also be enabled as a welcome bi-product.

The authors acknowledge shared insights from leaders in hundreds of organizations across manufacturing, commercial, healthcare, education, faith and wildlife sectors, with particular thanks to: J Barratt, J Copsey, J Hunt, C Jones, D Middleton, J Oakland, L Porter, N Webb, P Whitfield and D Williams.

Simon A. Black provided the conceptual review of literature and collaborated on practical framing of the definitions of Dr. Deming’s concepts, in particular with industrial, commercial, wildlife conservation, education and faith organizations.

Rachel J. Black reviewed literature relating to charitable (3rd sector), healthcare, education and public services, and provided illustrations and examples from those sectors, and practical framing of Dr. Deming’s concepts.