Shared purpose can undermine personal meaning

I’ve come to the conclusion that “public meaning” can be a harmful thing in many ways. In once sense, it is necessary if people are working together their meaning has to be shared to the degree that they can get something done, but I feel that organizations (and indeed “thought leaders” on the internet) have this desire to push meaning and goals and this can at time interact with meaning.

While I thought of this myself, in response to a rather green manager effecting “transformational change” and then watched the same mindset at other companies. This idea is not original. I’ve heard Dave Snowden of Cynefin fame express the view that meaning exists in terms of undescribable change, that which is being reached for; philosophy explore the idea of the self, or one’s mind as a process and along with buddhism at times views “you” as this changing process. I’m not of this viewpoint, I think part of meaning comes from a more concrete understanding of what matters and why - though I think discovery can be part of this.

My viewpoint on the topic is that meaning and why people do what they do can be fairly personal. One person can be looking for status, while another might be trying to build something beautiful, while another might be trying to help the people they work with. When a company walks in starts defining values and principles to “organize people” they can undermine this balance that allow pepole to get on profitably. Often the only shared values that are required company are “make it work” and “this project is worthwhile”. At times a company may stretch this “mesh” of interlocking values and purposes to breaking point and then things have to change, but this might be better than trying to define values that fit no one.

In a sense, I don’t understand how people can actually believe and care about the treadmill of shared, and sometimes happily pushed values that swirl around the corporate ecosystem. “Build software that delights”, “design first thinking”, “find a problem and solve it”. In a sense, I feel all of this can be replaced with “do something worthwihle that works”. It can feel like there is a horrible synergy between pepole with a *pure* profit motive who wrap themselves in these “values” that are sold by individuals to help people who don’t know what they are doing feel like they have a plan. I don’t understand why people can’t just admit that no one really knows but have to seek “pseudo-expertise” that drags along with it pseudovalues. In practice this isn’t necessarily a problem - organizations can often just get things done and this strange machine of “alignment” and control can sit in the background. I do think companies need goals. I think these should either “get in the way” by being quite specific of “get out of the way” by being general enough.

I feel like this “simple meaning pushing” can pervade ideologies and the internet in general. Many influencers on youtube and social media sell a simply form of meaning and value, and this can have horrible fusion with money making schemes. I guess I’m descripting just describing “grifting” - but also positing that this can interact with people’s sense of purpose or lack thereof. All this along with the word “cope”, that accuses all that don’t don’t agree with others values as just making excuses.

What’s the solution. I guess I’m suggesting an alternative of “personal meaning” and then working together without interfering with this meaning too much. And I guess individuals need to learn to have their own sense of meaning, bot by critiquing the ideas that are pushed at them but then being able to build up their own sense of purpose despite these critiques.