I've had it all wrong.
I've been talking about purpose in business, but I’m not sure it’s working.
When I talk about purpose, it often gets misinterpreted. People tend to associate it with vision statements, mission declarations, or something aspirational. But that’s not what I mean.
It’s not just a nice-sounding label pasted onto a business.
Simply put, purpose is what the owners want the business to produce. In systems thinking, purpose is the core reason the business exists. In some sense, it’s the “why” of the organization—though "why" can be a risky term, as it easily leans toward idealism. But now I see that these are complex ideas.
When I build a business operation, I want to know, in the simplest terms, what the owners want from the business.
And I think the word “purpose” can lead people down the wrong path. To be clear, I’m not saying purpose can’t be something bigger and idealistic. Some entrepreneurs are driven by goals beyond money, and that truly shapes their organizations. But here’s the problem: it has to be the real purpose, not just something superficial or tacked on.
Purpose ≠ Aspirational Mission. But sometimes, Aspirational Mission = Purpose.
So I've been wondering—should I keep using “purpose”? Or would terms like “core,” “owner’s intent,” or something else make it clearer?
Now that I write about it, things are becoming clearer. Maybe “owner’s intent” is the plainest way to say it. Or even just “intent,” since the CompanyOS framework can apply across many levels of business.
Let’s make the switch and see what results I get.