When Your Purpose Becomes a Problem

In our latest episode of Designing Tomorrow, Jonathan and Eric tackle a provocative question: When does your purpose become a problem?

We explore the hidden mistakes that can trap even the most well-intentioned social impact organizations, including:

• Relying on wishful thinking instead of hard facts

• Letting processes become more important than outcomes 

• Falling into dogmatic, crusade-like thinking

• Overvaluing passion at the expense of skills when hiring

These traps can slowly erode your effectiveness and relevance without you even realizing it. Left unchecked, they may even lead to your organization becoming obsolete.

But there's hope. We discuss practical ways to recognize the warning signs and realign your purpose for maximum impact.

This episode is a must-listen for any social impact leader who wants to ensure their organization's purpose remains a powerful force for good, not an anchor holding them back.

Episode Highlights:

• [00:05] Concept of "purpose becoming a problem" in social impact work
• [01:23] Wishful thinking, often driven by a single donor, can mislead organizations
• [02:10] Donor diversification can help with a social impact organization’s resilience
• [03:59] Your historic purpose may lose relevance over time
• [06:10] Sticking to outdated processes can stifle organizational growth
• [08:33] "Crusading" and dogmatic approaches 
• [11:24] Exploration of how passion-driven hiring can sometimes overshadow skill-based hiring
• [13:12] Hiring practices, the balance between passion and necessary skills in building effective teams

Quotes:

• "I think there are four ways that your purpose can become a problem." - Jonathan Hicken [01:02]
• "[Some] organizations are driven by wishful thinking and not brutal facts." -  Jonathan Hicken [01:23]
• "We really want to see social impact organizations develop resiliency in their fundraising." - Eric Ressler [02:34]
• "Some organizations are built on a house of cards, with one donor propping the whole thing up." - Eric Ressler [03:26]
• "This dogma surrounding your purpose can become a real problem." - Jonathan Hicken [09:05]
• "I think we should always be looking at our cause and asking, 'Is this actually urgent?'" - Eric Ressler [10:14]
• "I think in most cases an 'us vs. them' mentality is lazy marketing." - Jonathan Hicken [10:46]
• "You don't want to over-index on passion to the point that you're not hiring the right skills." - Eric Ressler [17:59]

Resources:

• Nina Simon
• Santa Cruz Museum of Art & History 
• How We Define Social Purpose Brands
• Social Enterprises: Own Your Purpose-Driven Differentiator
• How Your Purpose, Vision, and Mission Can Guide Better Brand Storytelling
• Defeat Mission Creep and Master Your Nonprofit's Messaging to Maximize Impact

Transcript:

Jonathan Hicken [00:00]:

Eric, I've been doing a lot of thinking about the temperature of politics in America and thinking a lot about this trap that we can fall into, in politics in particular, around dogmatic thinking and falling into this reactionary mindset. And I started asking myself, does that happen in social impact work too?

Eric Ressler [00:21]:

No,

Jonathan Hicken [00:23]:

I got a surprise for you. I think the answer is yes. And so today I want to dissect when our purpose can become a problem and how leaders might pay attention to that. How does that sound?

Eric Ressler [00:35]:

That sounds super interesting. Let's do it. 

Jonathan Hicken [01:02]:

I think there are four ways that your purpose can become a problem, and there are four ways to notice when that's happening. So I'll be curious to hear if you encounter this with the work you do with strategic rebranding for your clients and the other work that Cosmic does. I mean, if you think that there's anything else that's missing from this list of four. So the first is you as an organization are driven by wishful thinking and not brutal facts. I think that there's probably two cases where you might get stuck in this trap of relying on wishful thinking, and I think that's one you are buoyed by one donor or a few donors or one big foundation that believes in a problem or believes in your mission that may not exist any longer. They're funding a problem that used to exist and doesn't to the same degree today. Do you find that in the work that you do with your clients

Eric Ressler [02:10]:

Sometimes yes, and we think about it from a different perspective, which is we really want to see social impact organizations develop resiliency in their fundraising in the broader sense of the word. And one way to ensure that you have resiliency in your fundraising is by not over relying on any one donor or potentially even any one donation pathway or funding pathway. Because if you over rely on any one channel of funding to come through and then all of a sudden donor priorities change, then you're stuck with a huge revenue hole, which usually means you have to spin programs down, you have to lay staff off, you have to kind of reduce your impact, and it really just disrupts the entire flow. I have seen examples where there are organizations that are basically built on a house of cards where there is a single donor or a single foundation that is propping the entire organization up because that donor personally believes so much in the mission or personally supports so much the executive director of that organization or the board chair of that organization, which is even more dangerous and that there's not actual broader market support, so to speak for that cause or that problem or that organization.

[03:25]:

And as soon as that house of cards starts to tumble, the whole thing falls down. So I have definitely seen that

Jonathan Hicken [03:30]:

And I think I have noticed that happen in social impact brands, especially nonprofit ones because that one donor can in some cases carry an entire organization and that donor may care about an issue that has changed or no longer exists in the same way. And in that sense, I think your purpose, or at least your historical purpose is becoming a problem because now you exist for a reason that may not be valid in the same way it used to. This also happens, I'd say, when you become driven by this wishful thinking. I think that that happens also sometimes in executive teams and certainly within volunteer led boards. And the same dynamic can occur. And I've seen this, I've served on nonprofit boards myself and people come to join boards for a bunch of reasons. There are so many reasons why someone might want to get involved.

[04:22]:

And sometimes in that room, the same pattern might occur that I described at the donor where there is one or a few voices that are very loud and very powerful that may believe in a problem or a purpose that is no longer quite valid in the same way. So you grasp onto this pattern of wishful thinking or a few loud voices instead of stopping and evaluating are we solving the right problem and are we solving it for the right people? And going through that exercise regularly. When you are guiding your clients through their work, is this something that you have to navigate?

Eric Ressler [04:57]:

It's something that we come up against when we're doing discovery work for bringing a new client on and we hear how they're describing the problem or the issue area, and then we do our own independent analysis of the space and the ecosystem and we have to really look at essentially a gap analysis of what are they saying and what are we seeing or what are they saying they are and what are we hearing from their community and looking for gaps there. Because I do think that the beauty of looking at things more broadly and seeing how a broader set of organizations and individuals and the public at large is responding is that you have less reliance on any one individual perspective. And I think that's also a way to approach your work in a more inclusive way, in a more equitable way, which is not something to discount either, of course. So I think that this is a really important thing to consider as a social impact leader is my own personal passion or my board's passion or an individual donor's passion overriding what we're the larger market signals telling us.

Jonathan Hicken [06:08]:

The second way that your purpose may become a problem is when your process becomes your purpose.

[06:17]:

So this is something that I think I notice happening in social impact brands that have existed for some time, let's say 10 years or more, that may have started for a really good reason and have started solving a problem in a very particular way, and that was their unique solution that existed at a particular time and made a big impact. Problems change, the world changes, the solutions themselves need improvement, and sometimes our organizations can get so stuck in a process that we begin to believe that that process is the purpose and we are not willing to adjust the process itself. How much of a problem do you consider that to be in the organizations that you work with?

Eric Ressler [06:58]:

I mean, it can be a small problem that becomes a larger problem or it can be literally a deal ending problem if the organization becomes so stubborn that they are unwilling to change in the face of new evidence or new facts or a changing world, and then they essentially become irrelevant and then other organizations in the ecosystem are kind of forced to serve that particular part of the problem or new organizations come in. So I think that it's a very valid point. I've definitely seen it happen. Is it a process thing? I think it can be a process thing, but I think more often what I see is that it's a dogmatic thing from the board or from leadership or from the staff of like, well, this is how things have always been done and this is how our organization shows up and they get their identity even maybe gets tied into that and they're unwilling to change because change is frankly hard and some people are more open to change and excited by change and some people are very uncomfortable with change and they don't want to change. They just want to do what they're comfortable doing and do it well and continue to do that and they know what that looks like. And so there's a comfort factor to this too. I think

Jonathan Hicken [08:07]:

You used the word dogmatic, which brings me to the point number three is that your organization has become dogmatic and you begin to crusade. And so that I think is a real problem in the social impact space. We've on other episodes have talked about false urgency and transactional marketing and the language that we use and what it means for our brand. And I think that it's the signal for a crusading social impact organization. The signals are pretty clear, and if you look at your messaging and you look at your marketing and you look at your team and you realize that we care so deeply about our purpose that we've made this into, you're either with us or you're against us kind of mentality, an us versus them kind of thing where you're causing guilt to your audience for not participating or not believing with the same that you believe in this issue, that dogma surrounding your purpose can become a real problem and it stems from genuine passion.

Eric Ressler [09:03]:

Yeah, I mean I think we see this most commonly in political campaigns and political movements of course, but I do think this is starting to bleed into the broader social impact space because it can work. I think we should acknowledge that this kind of language, this sense of urgency, this kind of crusade can activate and motivate people. But I do think we need to be careful about what is the long-term implication of that kind of strategy when it comes to your brand values and your communications and your content strategy. Because you might also be repelling other people by the language choice and the way that you're showing up. Maybe that's okay, especially for advocacy brands, especially for political brands and movement-based brands. Sometimes you need to rally your troops and repel people who are not aligned with your philosophy and your vision, and that's the best strategy.

[09:54]:

And you don't worry about people who don't believe in your mission and you don't try to convert them to believe, but instead you focus on rallying people who already believe and getting them activated. I don't think it's always a problem, but I do think we need to be intentional and considerate around. To me really just comes back to authenticity. Is this actually urgent? Is this actually an us versus them type of issue? And there are those issues. I mean, let's be real. If we talk about especially some of the cultural divisive issues that are so prevalent right now, there are some very polarizing issues politically in this country, but even outside of politics in this country. And I think that's somewhat inevitable, but I think we should always be looking at our cause and saying, is our cause like that? Or does our cause need to be like that? Does it serve us strategically to approach our work that way?

Jonathan Hicken [10:44]:

I think in most cases, an us versus them mentality is lazy. I think it's lazy marketing. I think it's lazy messaging. And sometimes I think it comes from this place, and I've seen this myself and in fact I've probably been guilty of this myself sitting in a room or sitting in front of my computer and pulling my hair and just being like, why don't people believe in this thing as much as I do? Or why aren't they investing and dedicating their life to this in the same way I have? And that impulse is natural, right? Because you care about something so deeply. It's this wonder that more people don't care in the same way you do, but if that's where it ends, that's just lazy social impact work in my opinion. You have to go introspective and you have to ask yourself, what am I doing? What are we doing that is not serving our brand or serving our messaging and how can we improve it?

Eric Ressler [11:32]:

Yeah, I mean I think this is, again, something we talk about a lot, but you have to make a case for why your work matters. And I think that this kind of case for support is something that often happens through the lens of a big fundraising campaign or something where you're writing a two page letter and you're dropping off a packet to a major donor. But this case for support should be a core of your marketing and communications because as you do your work day to day in your organization that you serve as a leader or as a staffer or as a board member or even as a donor, you have lived experience around how this work matters and why it matters and the impact it has. But you can't then just assume that everyone has that intuitively at the same level that you have. And I think that's largely where the disconnect happens is that you have this intuitive understanding of why this work matters and you assume everyone should care about this issue because clearly it's so important because you have passion for it, but you have to make a case and invite people to experience the importance of your issue.

Jonathan Hicken [12:29]:

There's another danger of this dogmatic thinking or this dogmatic messaging that stems again from the sense of like, gosh, why don't more people care about this? Which is, I think that is in many cases, it's a precursor to your audience becoming less focused, right? Because once you get into this space where it's like, why don't they the proverbial, why don't they care? And that can be a slippery slope too. I'm just trying to get everybody to believe in it the same way I do. And if we could just get everybody to believe in this, imagine the impact that we could have. And I think that that's an intoxicating thought. I think it's also a really dangerous thought, and it can start with that dogmatic thinking.

Eric Ressler [13:10]:

Yeah, I mean I can count exactly zero times. There's been a conspiracy to not support a social impact organization.

Jonathan Hicken [13:28]:

There's another signal that your purpose is becoming a problem. And I think in social impact organizations when we're hiring, we want to surround ourselves with people who believe, right? In the sense that that's going to add energy to the cause and that theoretically, especially in a marketing or fundraising or sales position, that's going to energize the audience too. I think sometimes we can over-index on belief in our purpose when we're hiring and under-index on the skill set that this candidate has to actually deliver on the job that's written in the job description. Is this something that you deal with in your work at cosmic?

Eric Ressler [14:12]:

Yes, and I think this is a super tough one, and the reason I say that is because I think belief and passion and energy is helpful and it can be intoxicating and it can spread positive energy throughout the organization to have people who are showing up energized and passionately. But I think if they don't have the skills needed for the job that they're doing, that's also not helpful. I think about team building, putting a sports team together. A lot of people describe their companies or their organizations as a family. I think that's a horrible way to think about building a company. Personally, I think the idea of building a high performance sports team is the metaphor that feels a little bit more appropriate for me. And if you think about building a sports team, yes, of course you want to bring on athletes who are passionate and motivated and care, but they have to have the raw talent too.

[15:09]:

Now, here's where I think that maybe, starts to fall apart a little bit. I think there are organizations and opportunities where people need on the job training, they have the passion, they have the potential, but they just lack the experience. And you have to look at as a leader, is this role that I'm hiring for a junior or entry level role where that lack of experience is okay and expected, and we have a plan to nurture and support and train that person to grow within our organization or potentially even to leave our organization and grow personally, which is also okay, or are we expecting this person to be self-managed and to come in with a certain amount of capacity, expertise, experience? And we are ignoring that. They don't have quite as much of that as we need because they are passionate and we like them because of their passion.

Jonathan Hicken [16:01]:

When I think about constructing a team and bringing in all these passionate people, I think it's sort of a natural outcome of having a bunch of people in a room on a team that all believe to the same degree. And a purpose is that that can breed a little bit of an us versus them sort of mentality. On accident, one of the most brilliant hiring criteria that I came across was actually a criteria used to hire me at the Santa Cruz Museum of Art and History. So the executive director, Nina Simon, was specifically looking for people who did not feel welcome in museums. That was what she was looking for because the energy that these kinds of people brought to the table was how do I make a museum more welcoming for people like me?

[16:49]:

So it was almost bringing in a group of skeptics or a group of people who've historically been excluded from these spaces. And that combination of people in a team really made for something magical. And I think about that a lot when hiring at the organization I run today. Do I hire people who are passionate about science and education and youth empowerments and development? Do I hire people that maybe felt excluded from that when they were growing up? These are questions that I think about a lot, but I do think that there are some dangers to hiring a homogenous group of people who care so passionately that it has the risk of becoming dogmatic

Eric Ressler [17:27]:

Or even cultish at times. I think about this a lot in hiring decisions we make at Cosmic, we do our best to bring folks on who have a background and an inherent passion for social impact. But I will say we've brought team members on who are highly skilled at the positions that we need, and over time through our work have developed that passion that didn't come as strongly as maybe we wanted at first, but as they got more exposure and they were learning more about this field, that was something we were able to essentially kind of train them on. And so this is as most things kind of an art and a science, but I would agree that you don't want to over index on passion to the point that you are essentially kind of just putting aside some really important critical role and skill sets that are needed for the role.

Jonathan Hicken [18:22]:

I'm going to throw one more bonus example of your purpose becoming a problem, and that is that you say one thing out loud and you execute on something differently to the extent that you are not delivering on the promise you're making in your brand statement, in your brand messaging. I think that that's probably a problem that's increasing in the field as even for-profit large for-profit corporations are seeking some sort of social impact. But I think that your purpose can become a problem if you break your audience's trust with your promises and what you're actually

Eric Ressler [18:56]:

Delivering. The most egregious example of this is like cos marketing or corporate social responsibility campaigns that are not rooted in true authentic action where it's essentially just virtue signaling. At the end of the day, you're trying to appeal to conscious consumers or you're trying to appeal to a certain segment of the population and tie into their identity in order to increase your profits, not because you actually care about what you're doing. So that's an obvious egregious version of that. But I do think there's more insidious subtle versions of that too, where you're on your impact, you're on the importance of your mission to try and garner and drive support, but that's not actually showing up in your actions or in a measurable way. You might be putting out a good message around this is the work that we're doing and we're trying, and you may authentically be trying to do good work, but for one reason or another, your impact is not coming through at the level that it needs to. And that can be an equally difficult problem and one that I think we need to spend more time really looking at and evaluating and figuring out.

Jonathan Hicken [19:58]:

So as an executive director, I'm constantly asking myself, is our purpose becoming a problem? And I'm constantly asking myself a set of questions to make sure that the answer to that question is no. And so for example, I'm constantly asking myself, are we solving a real problem? Are we solving that problem for the right people? Does solving this problem matter for this community? And as long as the answers to those questions are clear and that I can back it up with the work that my organization is doing, that to me is the antidote to making sure that my purpose is not getting in the way, it's not a problem, and it's fueling the impact that we're doing. Anything missing or anything that stands out to you from this conversation so far,

Eric Ressler [20:41]:

I think that this is really a valuable conversation to have. I'm glad you brought this topic up. On a more positive note, if you are being intentional around purpose, it can be such a superpower too, right? Because this can motivate people in ways that non-social impact work just never will be able to. So I think the idea of calibrating how you're using your purpose skillfully and authentically, and using that as a superpower to motivate your team, to motivate your supporters to actually drive impact, it can be so amazing. But if you take it the wrong way or you're doing it inauthentically, then it can absolutely also become a problem.

Jonathan Hicken [21:18]:

Like so many things in life, there are two sides to this coin, but by all means, that's why we're in this work, right? Is to have that impact and the best version of it. Well, I think that'll do it for today. Eric, thanks so much. Thanks, Jonathan.