Main Entry: 1pur·pose
Pronunciation: 'p&r-p&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English purpos, from Old French, from purposer to purpose, from Latin proponere (perfect indicative proposui) to propose
1 a: something set up as an object or end to be attained : INTENTION b : RESOLUTION, DETERMINATION
Surprisingly, this epiphany hit me while dreaming (@home, not at work!) : People need purpose to persevere and thrive; at home or work, although I’m thinking about work in this context. The intensity of Purpose an individual feels is inversely related to the number of people involved in the enterprise related to the defined purpose (Sigh, even when writing you can spot the engineer by his literary devices). I’ll explain more presently, but this is hugely important to how people execute on critical projects: the sense of mission has be well honed to produce the highest quality work. I think this is important for all leaders at Microsoft (PMs of all stripes, leads, managers) and elsewhere. I worry about it on my team and in the larger Windows organization.
If there are too many people joined in the same purpose, eventually they will cease to do their most inspirational work as a matter of course. The reason is that individuals will begin to feel replaceable and thus their sense of purpose will decline to the point where they're in the game to draw remuneration and personal advancement alone. People will do their most inspirational work when they're not trying to be selfish about what they do, when they're inspired. The most precious thing you can do as a leader is to lend purpose to the lives that are being led. Thus energized, they will walk through fire and brimstone to achieve that purpose, often without any intervention on your part.
From that perspective, too large organizations and teams are evil. Or to be more precise, too large organizations and teams working towards the same old purpose are evil. Many people carve out small teams for management purposes - the mantra is more effective management!, smaller teams! These teams usually share the same purpose with an adjacent team; all part of one big machine. This is good management thinking, but what is required AS WELL is circles of Purpose for large teams. As the teams get subdivided and smaller, their purpose has to be more crisply defined and personal to that team. This ‘micro Purpose’ may feed into the larger goals, but it has to be terse, passionate and inspire intense loyalty from the team. In fact it should be used as a hiring device for the team: “who responds viscerally to this purpose?”, should be a passing requirement to get on the team.
And just to clarify, purpose does not always equate to a product vision. A product's vision is not necessarily the purpose of the team that builds it. Purpose has to give meaning to the TEAM and the people not just the product.
All organizations face a threshold where there is diminishing capacity to optimally give purpose and motivate the individuals that work in it. The tell tale signs are that the boldest and bravest begin to leave (not to be confused with when founding members start to leave, that's another theory); careerism creeps in; people are satisfied with their salaries; you know that more can be done by workers but somehow, it doesn't get completely done. Mistakes are excused and there is lack of responsibility (any failure by someone who has a sharply defined purpose results in remorse and a readiness to admit culpability) replaced by a feel-good, blame free culture (something good in this, but also something bad).
Individuals need to feel that the sound of their own peculiar noise is crucial to the symphony. I refer to it as needing to know that the clang of One makes a difference.
Go ahead, spread the gospel.
Refined and cross posted from my personal blog.
