“People don’t buy what you do but why you do it.” _Simon Sinek_TED 2009
According to Simon Sinek when consider the bell curve of innovation related to mass market appeal that changes the status quo; it seems the formula is based on time and stating why you are doing something, not what you are trying to do. His codified concept of the “Golden Circle” explains technology, innovators, early adaptors, established branding, and political action. He explains how to negotiate with the individual, to accept and change the status-quo in relationship to branding and political action.
Remember about three classes ago when we were studying branding and we had to do a discussion post on Guy Kawsaki and his take on Mantra versus Mission Statement. Interestingly Simon Sinek cites Apple in his presentation because Guy Kawasaki who worked for apple during the time Sinek is referring too said that branding is more about making meaning not about making money. However, Sinek furthers this concept by introducing the "Golden Circle". This Circle adds two categories related to meaning. If meaning is represented by “why” in the Golden Circle, then how represents the product that is used by the people who identify with the meaning of the company that gives them the product. Thus, the “what” circle being the further from the “Why” circle is the most superficial and the most visible aspects of the entire process of making meaning for a consumer or more so a human being. Moreover, Sinek brings a valid hypothesis that the common statement “a gut feeling” is related to a biological reaction and not a rationalization. This concept is based on the current biological understanding of the human brain and the belief that reason is separate (i.e. the why) from the “what”. In this model, feelings (i.e. the why) are in the limbic system that does not control language. Language is in another part of the brain. Thus a “Gut Feeling” is a common expression because it is a common failing of human beings to connect the why with the what.
"The Goal is to sell to people who beleive what you believe."_Simon Sinek_TED 2009
Sinek analysis Dr Martin Luther King’s Speech and argues “I have a dream” biologically creates and inspires a movement that is more effective then “I have a plan” is an interesting point. The focusing on the why and the right time sold the ideas that Martin Luther King wanted to push. In this, Dr. Martin Luther king states a dream that set up objective criteria that man can follow because the criteria aligns with what people want as opposed to things happening at the time that they did not want. In this sense as it has been concluded by many; the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King is not his dream alone, but the true American dream without the fancy white picket fence, house, car and TV. I do agree that Martin Luther King is negotiating, but I think Sinek’s argument is not to negotiate with some other party. I think Sinek’s idea is to negotiate with the self; the interior of what makes humans human (i.e. the limbic, the why), then we are not selling simply a product but propitiating a concept as real and worthwhile. In this sense, people didn’t believe in Dr. Martin Luther King nor showed up to hear him because they saw themselves in the message of Dr. Martin Luther King had that there are two laws the law of men and the law of God and only when the two are united we will live in a just world.
"The goal is to work with people who believe what you believe" _Simon Sinek_TED 2009
It seems the formula is based on time and stating why you are doing something, not what you are trying to do. Thus, Sinek is saying that effective leaders focus on “why” something is what it is, and this is why people will follow someone. Not because they believe, but because the why is driving them to follow someone with an answer. This idea becomes very powerful when we consider things like Twitter and the recent events in the Middle-East because Twitter has a button labeled “follow” and leaders are losing their “followers”.
The Obama Conundrum: A Warning of Using the “Why?” in a World that Reacts with the “What!!!”
@ Jeff
Hey, this is going on my blog so if you want it removed just email me.
“Opportunity criteria and mutual benefits are definitely a part of King’s speech, but with a subject so volatile and full of emotion, separating the people from the problem is almost impossible. Dr. King was able to convey the voice of the people in the best possible way, keeping it positive and uplifting.” _Jeff
I agree Jeff. The objective criteria was poetically portrayed in the reason why Dr. King was speaking. On the other the hand, the 2008 “Change” campaign Obama ran also used the same strategy; however, after people wanted more facts about what Obama was doing a year after he was elected, the tone of the Whitehouse became about plans. In this sense, it seems the political climate had changed from the “why” to the “what”. Simon Sinek talks about politicians with their “12 point plans”. True, but the backlash of Obama who used similar auditory tactics should be noted. In business “Apple” seems to use this tactic very well, but I couldn’t see Steve Jobs wining any political elections or able to keep people happy if he did.
LOL, I still believe in the current President to be part of positive change.
No comments:
Post a Comment