Why the organisation's guiding star matters more than ever

The Road to Hell — that is the title of British brand strategist Nick Asbury's recently published book, now also available in German — perhaps the sharpest reckoning with the concept of purpose to date. His charge: purpose leads to worse advertising and worse societal outcomes. Supported by prominent voices like Mark Ritson and the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute around Byron Sharp, the concept is in some cases being radically questioned: too vague, too preachy, too far removed from selling.

What is striking, however, is this: Asbury does not dispute that people need meaning. His attack targets the use of purpose in marketing — campaigns, taglines and advertising surfaces loaded with sweeping moral claims. And that criticism is even justified — but it does not go nearly far enough. It hits not the concept itself, but one of its most systematic misapplications.

A concept that lost itself on the way to finding itself

Let us look back briefly. It was not Simon Sinek who invented purpose — even though his Start with Why gave the concept enormous visibility in the 2010s. The deeper origin can be found, for instance, with David Packard, co-founder of Hewlett-Packard, who as early as the 1960s articulated what many business leaders should still be asking themselves today: Why does this company actually exist? What is its contribution — beyond making money?

Packard had a clear answer: a company that exists solely for its shareholders is, in the long run, neither convincing for its employees nor for its customers. It needs a higher purpose — a guiding star on the horizon that you follow without ever fully reaching it. An orientation that does not lose its validity with the next quarterly report. What is remarkable: for Packard, this was never about saving the world or ideological grandstanding. Purpose was an effective leadership instrument — a motivating compass pointing inward.

Other business legends thought similarly, long before the purpose wave set in motion by Sinek. Van France, who founded the Disneyland University in 1955, articulated the park's purpose as "to create happiness for others" — and saw his greatest leadership challenge as giving every employee, whether in housekeeping or management, the feeling of contributing to an "intangible dream" rather than "just working for a paycheck." Academically, the concept had long been accepted: Jim Collins and Jerry Porras documented in their landmark study Built to Last (1994) that enduring companies are distinguished by a "core ideology" — including a "sense of purpose beyond just making money." None of this had anything to do with purpose marketing. And none of it made for a good advertising slogan.

This idea is as relevant today as it was then. Perhaps even more so.

What went wrong – and why that is no argument against purpose

The marketing moral cudgel

Yes, purpose was too often used in recent years as a façade — a kind of moral indulgence that changes nothing internally but sounds good externally. Particularly problematic is moral inflation. Because a handful of brands with a strongly values-driven purpose achieved genuine impact — Patagonia being the prototypical example — a general pattern was derived from it. Suddenly every purpose was supposed to be a promise to save the world. For most companies, however, this was not authentic conviction but an opportunistic marketing manoeuvre. And such manoeuvres inevitably come undone.

It is entirely legitimate — often even wiser — to pursue a less ideological purpose. At Hewlett-Packard, at Disney, in the studies of Collins & Porras — in all of these, purpose functions as a motivating compass pointing inward, not as a sweeping moral promise to the outside world.

The wrong level

There is also a second, frequently overlooked misunderstanding: purpose was often demanded where it does not belong. It is primarily a corporate brand topic — the overarching company level where culture, strategy and organisation are anchored. At the product level, where differentiation, functional benefit and direct influence on purchase decisions are what matter, purpose quickly feels forced. The inflationary extension of the concept to every detergent and snack bar has not damaged purpose itself — but it has damaged the understanding of where purpose actually works.

To conclude from all of this that companies do not need purpose is simply wrong. The weakness lies not in the concept but in the quality of execution and its deployment in the wrong place. A poorly formulated mission statement is not an argument against mission statements. A poorly managed company is not an argument against good management.

The blind spot

A widely cited study by the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute makes this misunderstanding particularly clear: only about one in five consumers can name the purpose of their preferred brands. From a marketing perspective, that sounds like a damning verdict. From the perspective of a correctly understood purpose concept, it is neither surprising nor problematic — because purpose is not an advertising message. It does not need to be remembered by customers to work.

Purpose rarely sells directly. It does not need to. Its impact unfolds not at the point of sale but at the heart of the organisation: in culture, strategy and leadership. When it consistently guides decisions there, customers naturally notice — but indirectly. In clarity of positioning, in reliable quality, in a coherent experience across every touchpoint.

Here lies a blind spot shared by both camps in what has become a genuinely heated debate — the purpose-marketing apologists as much as those in Asbury's camp: both measure purpose exclusively by what it delivers or fails to deliver in marketing. It is as if you accused a penguin of being unable to fly and concluded the species was dispensable. Meanwhile, the other camp insists it can fly perfectly well. Both are obviously wrong. That the same penguin performs with remarkable elegance in the water — the moment it is in its proper element and context — tends to go unnoticed on both sides.

What purpose really is – and what it is not

Purpose is not a tagline. Not a campaign theme. Not a response to ESG reporting requirements. Nor does it need to be an ideologically inflated promise to save the world — a German Mittelstand engineering firm does not need to rescue humanity to have a compelling purpose.

Purpose is the deeply anchored meaning and reason for entrepreneurial action. It answers not what a company does or how it does it — but why. This question remains astonishingly often unanswered in daily business. And yet it is so crucial for cohesion, direction and the quality of decisions.

It is important to clearly distinguish purpose from brand promise — as the two are frequently confused. Purpose is primarily directed inward: it motivates, creates meaning, fosters cohesion and provides orientation — especially in phases of change. The brand promise translates this inner aspiration outward: it positions the brand competitively, generates desirability and speaks directly to customers. Both are connected — but they are two sides of a coin with different functions and different audiences.

Discovering purpose, not inventing it

Here lies the decisive methodological point that is underestimated in many purpose projects: a genuine purpose cannot be developed on a drawing board. It is not invented. It is discovered.

Purpose development is not a creative process where a team builds nice-sounding sentences in a workshop. It is a strategic reflection process — a search within and with the organisation. What truly drives us? What are we particularly good at? Where do we make a contribution that goes beyond the operational?

These three questions — about competence, culture and societal contribution — draw on the "Three Senses of Purpose" identified by Knowles et al. (HBR, 2022). Every organisation should be able to discover its purpose within them. A good purpose may lie in one of these dimensions, at the intersection of two — or ideally in the sweet spot of all three. What matters is not the number of dimensions covered, but that the result is not merely well-sounding but also true. Then purpose is credible externally because it comes from within — and effective in the organisation because it was not artificially constructed but authentically derived.

How to recognise a good purpose

An effective purpose has two properties that are worth distinguishing: a clear character — the way it is formulated — and a clear direction of impact — what it aims at.

Character: Four attributes

A good purpose is ambitious — it points in a direction that extends beyond daily business. It is authentic — it grows from what the company actually is and can do. It is aligning — it creates a common language across the organisation. And it is activating — it motivates and guides concrete decisions and actions.

Impact: Four directions

Building on the "Key Purpose Dimensions" identified by Mirzaei, Webster and Siuki (2021), four recurring directions of impact can be distinguished, along which strong purpose formulations gain contour:

CHANGEInnovation

Tesla

“To accelerate the world's transition to sustainable energy.”

What can and do we want to change — for the better — in our market or in the world?

SUPPORTBenefit

Philips

“Improving people's health and well-being through meaningful innovation.”

How can we concretely and meaningfully support our target audiences or society?

EMPOWERMindset

Red Bull

“Giving wings to people and ideas.”

How and to what end can we enable people to take action or realise their potential?

FIGHTActivism

Patagonia

“We're in business to save our home planet.”

Which societal goals do we stand for — or which wrongs do we want to stand against?

These four directions are not mutually exclusive categories — strong purpose statements often sit at the intersection of two of them. But they help sharpen your thinking: are we aiming to change the rules of the game, to provide concrete support, to enable others, or to drive societal engagement? Whoever cannot answer that question has not yet clearly defined their purpose.

The hardest test

Regardless of character and direction of impact, every purpose must ultimately pass a test that no mission statement can replace: how does the company behave in a genuine conflict of objectives? When budgets are tight, when a decision hurts, when a short-term advantage contradicts the long-term aspiration — does the purpose hold up? Or does it remain a poster on the wall?

Why purpose should not be up for debate right now

We live in a time that demands orientation. Companies face transformational pressure that is historically unprecedented in its simultaneity and force: digitalisation, artificial intelligence, demographic change, geopolitical uncertainty, the restructuring of entire industries. Employees seek meaning in their work. Customers expect conviction. Investors ask about sustainable relevance.

And the evidence that purpose is business-relevant in this environment is robust. Both the Kienbaum Purpose Study 2020 with over 1,300 managers and executives, and the current Lynxeye Purpose Index 2026 — which measures over 700 companies based on approximately 15,000 respondents across seven markets — show consistent effects across multiple dimensions:

In short: in these times, a clear purpose is not a luxury but a highly effective leadership instrument. It gives an organisation stability when external reference points disappear. It helps set priorities when everything seems urgent at once. It connects people in a shared direction when change creates uncertainty.

Foundation, not cure-all

One thing must be said clearly: purpose alone is not a cure-all. It is the foundation of a corporate and brand identity — but only the foundation. Without clear values, without a sound brand promise, without an identity system that operates effectively both internally and externally, even the best purpose remains ineffective. How these elements interact to create genuine competitive advantage is the subject of a follow-up piece.

Not a farewell – a return to the core

What we need in the current purpose debate is not a departure from the concept. But a return to its core — and with it, its true purpose and value.

David Packard was right. A company that exists solely for short-term profit has no lasting, convincing answer to the question of why people should work for it, buy from it or collaborate with it. A clear, credible purpose is the answer to that question — not as a promise to the outside world, but as a conviction within.

Purpose is not a trend. Not an end in itself. And not a tagline.

It is a guiding star. And guiding stars are followed — not marketed.

Learn more about our work with Brand Purpose: Brand Purpose & Brand Identity