Systems of shared purpose
Designing for meaning in a fragmented world
As we’ve been exploring, systems are everywhere. Yet despite the prevalence of the many systems we inhabit, we rarely pause to examine a fundamental question: What are these systems for? Who do they serve? And what happens when we intentionally design systems around collective purpose rather than inherited power structures or unexamined defaults?
This question of purpose isn't abstract; it shapes everything from our daily experience to our collective futures. When systems operate with a clear, shared purpose, they create coherence, meaning, and possibility. However, when purpose becomes disconnected from practice, these same systems can create profound alienation.
When purpose goes missing
We’ve all felt that soul-draining sensation of participating in a system that has lost its reason for being. The workplace, where everyone is too busy measuring things to remember what they're measuring for. For example, a community organization, so fixated on tradition that it has forgotten why the traditions began. Or a healthcare system where administrative efficiency has eclipsed patient care.
These systems share a common pattern: their stated purpose has become disconnected from their lived reality. They speak the language of mission and values while embodying something entirely different. This misalignment doesn't just frustrate, it demoralizes. It highlights a ‘connection deficit,’ the idea that systems may accelerate but fail to provide meaningful connection, leaving us feeling alienated despite constant activity[i].
This misalignment represents one of contemporary life's most significant sources of suffering. When we cannot locate ourselves within the why of the systems we inhabit, we begin to disengage emotionally at first, then physically.
The symptoms appear everywhere: burnout, cynicism, resignation, and ‘quiet quitting.’ These aren't individual failings but systemic outcomes, demonstrating the predictable result of purposeless systems. Research consistently shows that people thrive in environments where purpose isn't just articulated but authentically lived[ii]. Without meaning, we wither.
Purpose as a design principle
What would it look like to design systems explicitly around shared purpose? Not purpose as marketing tagline or aspirational statement, but purpose as foundational design principle, or rather the orienting force that shapes every aspect of how a system operates?
I'm not suggesting utopian fantasies. I'm interested in practical reimagining built from an intentional cultivation of systems where purpose isn't an afterthought but the central organizing principle. This approach means beginning with fundamental questions: What is this system for? Who does it serve? What values does it embody? And how might every element, from structures to processes to metrics, align with these answers?
This isn't abstract theory. Organizations like Buurtzorg, the self-managing Dutch healthcare provider, demonstrate how purpose-centered design transforms outcomes. By organizing around the simple purpose of helping patients live autonomous, meaningful lives, Buurtzorg created a radically different healthcare model with nurse-led teams, minimal hierarchy, and dramatically better results for both patients and caregivers[iii]. Their approach wasn't about incremental improvement, but fundamental reimagining based on a clear, shared purpose.
Purpose is one of the highest leverage points for changing any system. A small shift in a system's purpose can completely transform its behavior, even when other elements remain the same[iv]. Yet changing purpose requires more than new mission statements; it demands reconsidering the entire architecture of how a system operates.
The elements of purpose-driven systems
Through studying systems designed around shared purpose, I've identified several recurring patterns where design elements appear across contexts from workplaces to communities, from healthcare to education. These aren't formulas but principles and seemingly recurring patterns that may help systems remain coherent while staying true to their purpose.
1. Purpose as North Star
In purpose-driven systems, purpose functions not as a slogan but as a decision-making framework. When facing complex choices, members ask: "Which option best serves our purpose?" This creates coherence even amid uncertainty.
At Patagonia, the purpose of environmental stewardship provides clear direction for decisions from supply chain management to political advocacy. The purpose isn't merely what they say; it's what they do. Their mission statement, ‘We're in business to save our home planet’, serves as actual decision-making criteria rather than aspirational window dressing.
Purpose serves as a reference point for decision-making under conditions of change and uncertainty[v]. The clarity of purpose helps organizations navigate complex environments by providing a consistent framework for evaluating options.
2. Distributed sensing and responding
Purpose-driven systems recognize that intelligence lives throughout the system, not just at the top. They create structures that enable anyone who senses a gap between purpose and practice to respond.
Morning Star, the world's largest tomato processor, operates without traditional managers. Instead, colleagues make commitments to each other about how they'll contribute to the company's purpose. This distributed authority creates remarkable adaptability while maintaining alignment with core purpose.
The principle appears across domains. Sociocracy and Holacracy, governance systems built around distributed authority, create structures where decisions are made by those closest to their impact, guided by shared purpose rather than hierarchical control. Buurtzorg's nurse-led teams make patient care decisions without managerial approval, trusting practitioners' professional judgment in service of their purpose.
Studies of high-reliability organizations demonstrate that this distributed intelligence significantly enhances adaptability and resilience in complex environments[vi]. When everyone in the system understands and is aligned with its purpose, they can make local decisions that support rather than undermine that purpose.
3. Meaningful metrics
What we measure shapes what we value. Purpose-driven systems develop metrics that reflect their deeper purpose, not just what's easily quantifiable.
When healthcare provider Virginia Mason realized traditional efficiency metrics were undermining patient care, they radically shifted their approach. They made the idea that people should be respected a core metric and measured success through patient experiences rather than just financial outcomes. Their metrics began to embody their purpose rather than distort it.
This principle extends beyond formal organizations. Indigenous economic systems often measure wealth through relationship quality and ecosystem health rather than merely material accumulation. Community land trusts measure success through housing stability and economic diversity, not just financial returns. By aligning metrics with deeper purpose, these systems avoid the trap where what's measured eclipses what matters.
Research in healthcare shows that patient-centered metrics lead to better clinical outcomes than efficiency-focused measures alone[vii]. The challenge lies in developing metrics that genuinely reflect purpose rather than distorting it. Some call this, Goodhart's Law, which suggests that "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure" [viii]. I’ve seen this to be true in my work across multiple industries.
Changing our relationship to systems
When systems are designed around shared purpose, our relationship to them fundamentally changes. Rather than feeling like cogs in machines designed by others for ends we may not share, we become participants in living networks oriented toward something we collectively value.
This shift has profound implications for identity and agency. In purpose-driven systems, the question changes from "How do I fit into this system?" to "How does my unique contribution advance our shared purpose?" This creates space for both individual expression and collective coherence, which is what organizational theorist Mary Parker Follett called ‘unity without uniformity’[xiii].
The experience is one of alignment rather than compliance. When we participate in systems whose purpose we genuinely share, our actions flow from intrinsic motivation rather than external control. Research on self-determination theory shows that this sense of shared purpose satisfies core psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness[ix].
This alignment doesn't mean eliminating disagreement or conflict. In fact, purpose-driven systems often generate more vigorous debate precisely because participants care deeply about how the purpose is interpreted and embodied. But these conflicts focus on how best to achieve shared aims rather than competing over fundamentally different priorities. The energy flows toward creative solutions rather than entrenched positions.
Systems of shared purpose also change our relationship to leadership. Rather than seeing leaders primarily as authority figures who control others' behavior, we recognize leadership as the practice of continually clarifying, deepening, and embodying shared purpose. Anyone in the system can exercise this form of leadership, regardless of formal position or title. The key skill becomes listening for what wants to emerge rather than imposing one's own vision.
Who gets to define purpose?
Any conversation about shared purpose must confront the question: shared by whom? Too often, systems declare purpose from the top down, reinforcing existing power dynamics while marginalizing those most impacted by the system's operation. This approach produces purposes that are narrow, fragile, and ultimately unsustainable.
Systems designed around authentic shared purpose engage in a ‘critical yeast’ rather than a ‘critical mass’ approach[x] because they bring together diverse stakeholders, especially those typically excluded from power, in generative conversation about what the system is for and whom it should serve. This isn't about achieving perfect consensus but about creating something more robust than top-down imposition.
We see this principle embodied in approaches like participatory budgeting, where communities collectively determine spending priorities, or in worker cooperatives, where those doing the work shape the organization's direction. These aren't perfect systems, but they demonstrate alternatives to purpose defined exclusively by those with existing power.
The question of who defines purpose isn't merely about fairness, though I believe it matters. It's about effectiveness. Systems whose purpose emerges from genuine engagement with diverse perspectives prove more adaptable, more innovative, and more resilient than those whose purpose is narrowly defined. This isn't idealism; it's practical design wisdom. Complex adaptive systems thrive on diversity, not uniformity.
Some suggest that cognitively diverse groups consistently outperform homogeneous groups in solving complex problems, even when the homogeneous group consists of ‘experts’ [xi]. This suggests that diversity creates better systems of engagement, be they groups, organizations, and schools, or societies[xii]. This suggests that purposes defined through inclusive processes will be more robust and adaptive than those imposed by those with existing authority.
This brings us full circle to our opening question: What are systems for? The answer cannot be dictated from above but must emerge through genuine dialogue among all who participate in and are affected by the system. When purpose is truly shared, not merely declared but discovered together. It creates the foundation for systems that serve both individual flourishing and collective wellbeing. In our increasingly complex and interconnected world, these systems of shared purpose offer not just greater effectiveness but deeper meaning, thereby transforming our experience from fragmentation to coherence, from alienation to belonging, from compliance to commitment.
The journey toward systems of shared purpose isn't only organizational; I believe it's profoundly personal. It asks each of us to clarify what matters most, seek others who share similar values, and engage in the patient, courageous work of bringing our shared purpose to life. This work has never been more necessary or more possible than it is today.
Reflections on the Journey
Writing about systems this year, particularly this article, has further challenged me to ask more than "How do I feel in this system?" and "What is this system for?" That shift from personal reaction to systemic inquiry has been unsettling but necessary.
While identity is shaped by internal reflection, it's also shaped by external design. We live in systems that often ask us to perform for worth, produce for belonging, or assimilate for acceptance. And while those systems may offer stability, they rarely offer wholeness.
Seeing the system doesn't guarantee transformation. But not seeing it guarantees repetition.
So, I keep returning to this truth: Systems don't have to stay the way they are. But change starts with the courage to notice and then act.
Because the systems we accept today are the conditions others will inherit tomorrow.
And we are always, always, shaping what comes next.
[i] Hartmut Rosa, Resonance: A Sociology of Our Relationship to the World, trans. James C. Wagner, 1st edition (Cambridge, UK ; Medford, MA: Polity, 2021).
[ii] Bryan J. Dik, Zinta S. Byrne, and Michael F. Steger, eds., Purpose and Meaning in the Workplace, 1st edition (Washington, D.C: American Psychological Association, 2013).
[iii] Bradford Gray, Dana O. Sarnak, and Jako Burgers, “Home Care by Self-Governing Nursing Teams: The Netherlands’ Buurtzorg Model,” Case Study (Commonwealth Fund, May 29, 2015), https://doi.org/10.26099/6CES-Q139.
[iv] Donella H. Meadows, Thinking in Systems: A Primer (Chelsea Green Publishing, 2008).
[v] Rebecca Henderson and Eric Van den Steen, “Why Do Firms Have ‘Purpose’? The Firm’s Role as a Carrier of Identity and Reputation,” The American Economic Review 105, no. 5 (2015): 326–30, https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20151072.
[vi] Karl E. Weick and Kathleen M. Sutcliffe, Managing the Unexpected: Resilient Performance in an Age of Uncertainty, 2nd edition (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2007).
[vii] Cheryl Rathert, Mary D. Wyrwich, and Suzanne Austin Boren, “Patient-Centered Care and Outcomes: A Systematic Review of the Literature,” Medical Care Research and Review: MCRR 70, no. 4 (August 2013): 351–79, https://doi.org/10.1177/1077558712465774.
[viii] Marilyn Strathern, “‘Improving Ratings’: Audit in the British University System,” European Review 5, no. 3 (July 1997): 308, https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1234-981X(199707)5:3<305::AID-EURO184>3.0.CO;2-4.
[ix] R. M. Ryan and E. L. Deci, “Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being,” The American Psychologist 55, no. 1 (January 2000): 68–78, https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.68.
[x] John Paul Lederach, The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace, Reprint edition (Oxford University Press, 2010).
[xi] Scott Page, The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies, New edition (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008).
[xiii] Mary Parker Follett. The new state: Group organization The Solution of Popular Government. Reprinted. Mansfield Centre: Martino Publising, 2016.