I'm a certified WHY Institute (https://whyinstitute.com) coach. From the very start, I've felt that "Who" comes first. It's my biggest disagreement with the WHY Institute coaches who claim that when you know your WHY, everything else falls into place. In my experience, that simply is not true because it does not go deep enough. Knowing Who You Are is primary. And Who You Are is defined neither by Why you do what you do, nor by What you do. It's much deeper than that. As one of my favorite mystics, Antony De Mello, noted (check out his book, "Awareness"), THE most important question in life is who - or what - is this thing we call "I." Unless I'm mistaken, I believe that is the entity that you are referring to as "Who," and I agree it's first.
Where I (respectfully) disagree is in your next step. I believe the sequence for living is: Who is I, then Why Am I Here, and finally, What Am I Called to Do to bring those first two to life? I agree that the How is part of the What (it's my unique expression of Who I Am, Why I'm Here, and What Am I Called to Do).
Equally important is understanding the flip side of each of those 3 "WWW" questions, which is really about "unlearning" all the things we were taught (and continue to be told about who we should be (a success within the norms of our society), why we are here (to acquire things and stuff), and what we should do (conform, climb to the top of the corporate ladder, get married and have 2.5 kids, a golden retriever, and a house with a white picket fence, etc., etc.).
Finally, while I agree that one's Why is not fixed, there's a lot of evidence to suggest that it's pretty hard-wired at an early age. This is because Sinek's understanding of a Why comes from the most significant experiences we have at a young age, before our prefrontal cortex is fully developed and therefore before we've developed the ability to process those experiences and understand precisely what they mean (or don't mean) relative to our ability to survive and thrive.
Can later experiences reframe those early ones? Absolutely. But our brains are built first and foremost to keep us alive. We learn very early on what situations are threatening, and which ones lead to feelings of "success" for us. It's those early experiences that drive where we feel most successful, and those early experiences are the ones Sinek argued were the basis for one's Why. So "fixed" - no; but pretty hard-wired early on? Very likely, yes.
Chris, this is exactly the kind of engagement I hoped the article would invite. Thank you.
Your confirmation that WHO comes first, from your experience/reading within the WHY Institute itself, carries weight mine alone couldn’t.
The De Mello reference deepens the lineage too (I’m a huge fan of his, BTW). Awareness belongs in this conversation.
You’ve also helped me see two things worth naming.
First, our Monday on Purpose call surfaced a W I left out: WHEN. The pursuit of purpose can begin at any age, in any season, and is never finished. That omission matters, and I’m grateful for the chance to name it now.
Second, I framed the sequence more rigidly than I should have. The stages relate to each other, but the entry point depends on where life has actually placed the person. Some enter at WHY. Some enter at WHO.
Your WHO → WHY → WHAT and my WHO → WHAT+HOW → WHERE → WHY may be less competing prescriptions than two honest traversals of the same terrain.
On the hard-wiring point, I’d add this. Early experience shapes patterns of what feels safe and rewarding. That’s well-established.
Whether those patterns constitute purpose or the conditioning purpose work eventually examines is, I think, where the real conversation lives.
Your “unlearning” framing actually points toward that distinction beautifully.
The article was a strong assertion put out knowing the field would refine it. You’ve done exactly that.
Thank you for engaging seriously enough to make the thinking better.
Hi Scott. Having missed the Monday call, I hope I didn't inadvertently take this in the wrong direction. This kind of conversation can be very pragmatic, or it can move to the existential. There's neither "right" nor "wrong" with either approach, they just get at different things, I suppose. Often times I find that books and podcasts that talk about "purpose" are really talking about "What am I supposed to do with my life?" That certainly can be a moving target, and one that evolves and/or develops over time, as one tries various jobs/careers/interests.
In the end, however, I'm in total agreement with you that seeking an understanding of "Who I Is," is the essential inquiry. Knowing one's "Why" (in The WHY Institute/Simon Sinek connotation of that term) can be a great first step. It can point one toward a better understanding of who "I" is, but The Institute's/Sinek's version of one's Why is really geared more toward describing where one feels successful, based largely on one's extremely limited experiences in life. Knowing this can be really useful, particularly when it comes to identifying a job, career, or volunteer activity that is likely to give one a sense of satisfaction and purpose. Certainly, The WHY Institute has created an algorithm that is exceptionally helpful at helping one discover one's Why quickly and accurately (as a WHY Institute coach, I fully claim my bias here!). And as a coach, I use The WHY Institutes Why-How-What discovery algorithm to help clients move closer toward a meaningful career purpose. But this is not the "Why" of one's existence., and it does not come close to giving one an understanding of who "I" is. That's a whole different level of inquiry. Indeed, it may take a lifetime to discern the Who and the Why of one's existence fully.
Please don't read any of this to mean that working on one's purpose, in the more traditional sense, is unimportant; it definitely IS important! It's just that the "Who" question - as you've outlined it - is essential, and it's one that many forego (perhaps because it's so challenging) in favor of the more tangible, "How should I earn a living and/or spend my time?"
I look forward to "Start with Who." Thanks for letting me be a part of this conversation!
Chris, you took this exactly where it needed to go. Nothing to worry about on direction. Your engagement sharpened the thinking, and missing the Monday call didn’t change that.
The distinction you’ve just drawn is genuinely useful. Vocational purpose (where the WHY Institute’s algorithm does real work) versus the existential inquiry into who “I” is. Holding both as valid at different levels is more honest than collapsing them, and it’s a generous read of your own framework alongside mine.
Grateful for your presence in this conversation. Looking forward to continuing it as Start with Who takes shape.
And as we discovered in our Creative on Purpose community gathering today, each of the who, what, how, why, and where questions can be combined for even deeper reflection. For instance, in the movement of life, a where (location) can be initiated by a who (say, a person) who offers access to the space. There could even be a what (a work of art that has been patiently waiting for years) that can be offered in the space. All facets of the gem of reflection and meaning-making.
Such a great insight, Paul. It's so important to remember that the who, what, how, where, and why all happen in the when and that the when is always now!
I'm a certified WHY Institute (https://whyinstitute.com) coach. From the very start, I've felt that "Who" comes first. It's my biggest disagreement with the WHY Institute coaches who claim that when you know your WHY, everything else falls into place. In my experience, that simply is not true because it does not go deep enough. Knowing Who You Are is primary. And Who You Are is defined neither by Why you do what you do, nor by What you do. It's much deeper than that. As one of my favorite mystics, Antony De Mello, noted (check out his book, "Awareness"), THE most important question in life is who - or what - is this thing we call "I." Unless I'm mistaken, I believe that is the entity that you are referring to as "Who," and I agree it's first.
Where I (respectfully) disagree is in your next step. I believe the sequence for living is: Who is I, then Why Am I Here, and finally, What Am I Called to Do to bring those first two to life? I agree that the How is part of the What (it's my unique expression of Who I Am, Why I'm Here, and What Am I Called to Do).
Equally important is understanding the flip side of each of those 3 "WWW" questions, which is really about "unlearning" all the things we were taught (and continue to be told about who we should be (a success within the norms of our society), why we are here (to acquire things and stuff), and what we should do (conform, climb to the top of the corporate ladder, get married and have 2.5 kids, a golden retriever, and a house with a white picket fence, etc., etc.).
Finally, while I agree that one's Why is not fixed, there's a lot of evidence to suggest that it's pretty hard-wired at an early age. This is because Sinek's understanding of a Why comes from the most significant experiences we have at a young age, before our prefrontal cortex is fully developed and therefore before we've developed the ability to process those experiences and understand precisely what they mean (or don't mean) relative to our ability to survive and thrive.
Can later experiences reframe those early ones? Absolutely. But our brains are built first and foremost to keep us alive. We learn very early on what situations are threatening, and which ones lead to feelings of "success" for us. It's those early experiences that drive where we feel most successful, and those early experiences are the ones Sinek argued were the basis for one's Why. So "fixed" - no; but pretty hard-wired early on? Very likely, yes.
Chris, this is exactly the kind of engagement I hoped the article would invite. Thank you.
Your confirmation that WHO comes first, from your experience/reading within the WHY Institute itself, carries weight mine alone couldn’t.
The De Mello reference deepens the lineage too (I’m a huge fan of his, BTW). Awareness belongs in this conversation.
You’ve also helped me see two things worth naming.
First, our Monday on Purpose call surfaced a W I left out: WHEN. The pursuit of purpose can begin at any age, in any season, and is never finished. That omission matters, and I’m grateful for the chance to name it now.
Second, I framed the sequence more rigidly than I should have. The stages relate to each other, but the entry point depends on where life has actually placed the person. Some enter at WHY. Some enter at WHO.
Your WHO → WHY → WHAT and my WHO → WHAT+HOW → WHERE → WHY may be less competing prescriptions than two honest traversals of the same terrain.
On the hard-wiring point, I’d add this. Early experience shapes patterns of what feels safe and rewarding. That’s well-established.
Whether those patterns constitute purpose or the conditioning purpose work eventually examines is, I think, where the real conversation lives.
Your “unlearning” framing actually points toward that distinction beautifully.
The article was a strong assertion put out knowing the field would refine it. You’ve done exactly that.
Thank you for engaging seriously enough to make the thinking better.
Hi Scott. Having missed the Monday call, I hope I didn't inadvertently take this in the wrong direction. This kind of conversation can be very pragmatic, or it can move to the existential. There's neither "right" nor "wrong" with either approach, they just get at different things, I suppose. Often times I find that books and podcasts that talk about "purpose" are really talking about "What am I supposed to do with my life?" That certainly can be a moving target, and one that evolves and/or develops over time, as one tries various jobs/careers/interests.
In the end, however, I'm in total agreement with you that seeking an understanding of "Who I Is," is the essential inquiry. Knowing one's "Why" (in The WHY Institute/Simon Sinek connotation of that term) can be a great first step. It can point one toward a better understanding of who "I" is, but The Institute's/Sinek's version of one's Why is really geared more toward describing where one feels successful, based largely on one's extremely limited experiences in life. Knowing this can be really useful, particularly when it comes to identifying a job, career, or volunteer activity that is likely to give one a sense of satisfaction and purpose. Certainly, The WHY Institute has created an algorithm that is exceptionally helpful at helping one discover one's Why quickly and accurately (as a WHY Institute coach, I fully claim my bias here!). And as a coach, I use The WHY Institutes Why-How-What discovery algorithm to help clients move closer toward a meaningful career purpose. But this is not the "Why" of one's existence., and it does not come close to giving one an understanding of who "I" is. That's a whole different level of inquiry. Indeed, it may take a lifetime to discern the Who and the Why of one's existence fully.
Please don't read any of this to mean that working on one's purpose, in the more traditional sense, is unimportant; it definitely IS important! It's just that the "Who" question - as you've outlined it - is essential, and it's one that many forego (perhaps because it's so challenging) in favor of the more tangible, "How should I earn a living and/or spend my time?"
I look forward to "Start with Who." Thanks for letting me be a part of this conversation!
Chris, you took this exactly where it needed to go. Nothing to worry about on direction. Your engagement sharpened the thinking, and missing the Monday call didn’t change that.
The distinction you’ve just drawn is genuinely useful. Vocational purpose (where the WHY Institute’s algorithm does real work) versus the existential inquiry into who “I” is. Holding both as valid at different levels is more honest than collapsing them, and it’s a generous read of your own framework alongside mine.
Grateful for your presence in this conversation. Looking forward to continuing it as Start with Who takes shape.
And as we discovered in our Creative on Purpose community gathering today, each of the who, what, how, why, and where questions can be combined for even deeper reflection. For instance, in the movement of life, a where (location) can be initiated by a who (say, a person) who offers access to the space. There could even be a what (a work of art that has been patiently waiting for years) that can be offered in the space. All facets of the gem of reflection and meaning-making.
Such a great insight, Paul. It's so important to remember that the who, what, how, where, and why all happen in the when and that the when is always now!